The Dems who do nothing to stop the millions of illegal immigrants from coming here to cut local costs (violent crime, ID theft, social program costs) - possibly because they see a giant block of future, loyal Dem voters - all in the name of "stopping racism", of course - GUILTY
You said some stuff I agree with, and some stuff I don't. This one, though, annoys me.
What the hell have the Republicans done? Building a very expensive, and completely ineffective, wall doesn't count. The Republicans even adopted a very nonsensical policy of "We must keep them all out, before we can do anything about the ones that are here".
Both sides LOVE illegal immigrants. Democrats love the idea of the eternally-forthcoming, yet never coming, wave of Latino liberal voters. Republicans love them because they are an infinite font of cheap labor, which can suppress wages and break unions. No one wants to kill illegal immigration.
our American empire
For some reason this phrase doesn't fill me with the glee I suppose it should.
They can shuttle people back and forth, it is a rather common thing. Making DLC for Skyrim isn't a very labor intensive process, so much of the staff (barring other unannounced projects) is idle, and has been since the major work on Skyrim was completed (a couple months or more before release).
I'm not saying this is true, or agreeing with anyone, I just feel that a lot of people here have been confused about Bethesda's and Zenimax' relationship. For all I know Bethesda is busy at work on TES VI (please remake/update Daggerfall, thank you), and they're using new people to hack out TES Online.
But, my open wifi, which someone could theoretically use to pirate media, isn't broken. It isn't erroneously sending packets to the Pirate Bay. Nor does leaving it open somehow promote said activity.
I suppose a better analogy (no cars, though), would be using an open private space (like a mall, or plaza) for illicit activities. If I use a mall food court for all my drug deals, then the mall isn't responsible, despite allowing public access. I suppose, to assuage the gods of/., crimes on a bus would be a better analogy.
Can someone please actually look up the relationship between Zenimax and Bethesda?
ZeniMax Media was founded in 1999 by Bethesda Softworks founder Christopher Weaver and Robert A. Altman. Weaver's vision was to use Bethesda Softworks as a hybrid-media company which would create cross-media properties for a diverse range of different platforms. Weaver brought Altman on board as CEO, contributing his stock in Bethesda Softworks so that the new shell company, named ZeniMax Media, would be able to obtain funding. Weaver moved to a non-operational role in 2002.
As I stated here earlier (sans an added bit of flamebait), Zenimax is not to Bethesda what Vivendi is to Blizzard. Zenimax and Bethesda are pretty close to being the same thing. Bethesda is Zenimax' development arm, or Zenimax is Bethesda's publishing arm.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who make TES games for Bethesda were transferred over to the new MMO arm.
For those who are wondering, the difference is that between Fallout 3 (Bethesda) and Fallout: New Vegas (Obsidian, and an extremely buggy, sometimes even unplayably so, mess). Different studios naturally produce different end results.
But Fallout: New Vegas was a better game (i.e. it felt like Fallout), and Fallout 3 was also a horribly buggy mess on release (i.e. it was made by Bethesda).
Also, are people forgetting that Zenimax was founded by the same guy who founded Bethesda, that they are pretty much the same damn thing when it comes to Bethesda titles. Zenimax is Bethesda's publishing arm, or Bethesda is Zenimax' development arm, they aren't 100% separate. This isn't like Vivendi owning Blizzard.
Back to New Vegas, it helped that Obisidian has a lot of people who were with Black Isle, and thus shares a lot of the talent who actually originally made Fallout. New Vegas is Fallout 3, just like how Torchlight 2 is Diablo 3 (Runic is mostly comprised of ex-Blizzard North people, the people who made Diablo 1-2).
Diablo and Starcraft are different franchises than Warcraft, thus your point is a bit off. A TES MMO would share the same world as any past or future TES single player game, which is a whole different story.
TES games are known for having a decent developed history within the game, MMOs aren't good at working within an established time line, since they work best giving the illusion of fluidity.
Actually this news makes me sad. TES games were really the last batch of decent PC RPGs, that were fully open. Everything else is getting more and more shallow and scripted, and slowly losing all RPG aspects, becomes straight action games (I'm looking at you Mass Effect). I actually can't think of the last decent open RPG that wasn't at least published by Bethesda. I also am a rarity, and don't like multiplayer. I play games to escape from having to deal with the frustration of dealing with the unwashed masses, so why would I want to continue that experience in my leisure time?
So if I leave my car unlocked (hell, lets even say running as well) for a couple seconds, it is no longer a crime for you to take it without my permission, and I'm guilty of killing the proverbial bus full of nuns?
My front door was unlocked for several hours today, so now you stealing my TV is no longer a criminal act?
How is an open wifi access point any different than my unlocked car or home?
That would be nice. But then again, wasn't the internet supposed to kill them off eventually, or at least that was the meme of the moment in the late 90's.
Either that or some of us feel that whatever happens after the revolution will be worse than what we have now. Whose idea of "right" will be inflicted on who afterwards? I doubt that we're at all capable of the grand compromises that happened after our original revolution. Look at the typical discussion on issues about rights, responsibilities, and ethics, and governance in general, now tell me if you would really trust any of those people (of whatever view) to set the future of this country?
Some of us also feel murder is something that should be taken VERY seriously, and generally avoided at all costs (even if that person doesn't agree with me). Further, some of us might also feel that we haven't exhausted our options yet, being that we generally ignore the biggest option, VOTING, and the second two biggest options; education, and protest.
yet we still hold on to the archaic idea that knowledge must be hoarded and given only to people that sit in certain classrooms...
Er... don't you have libraries where you live? Or the internet? Somehow I've managed to learn vast quanitities of things outside of classrooms, and I have two whole rooms full of this "forbidden" knowledge.
I feel the same way about LoL, I really enjoyed it, but it is impossible to actually learn not to such without being screamed at during every match. Also the learning curve is artificially obscene, thanks to 600000 fan made terms that I'm supposed to somehow has an a priori grasp on before even playing it. I quit LoL after a week, even if I really enjoyed it, and thus the devs lost whatever money I'd have thrown at them (and Tribes Ascend's devs are that much richer...).
I'm in my 30s, I don't have time for morons, and I have no desire to be in a 1337 in-group anymore.
Huh? The default weapons are very viable in TF2, I've been playing for years and I still generally stick with the defaults (except for the Medic). TF2 is probably the best example of F2P not being pay-to-win. Yes, there are a couple unbalanced weapons out there, but they aren't really game breaking, especially against a skilled player (TF2 is around 90% skill, if you do badly odds are you're just not playing well enough).
Maybe things have changed in the last couple months (haven't really touched it since it when F2P, too many kids now, and hats... damn hats), but last time I played for any length it seemed as balanced as ever.
One issue... Why do we only think of 9/11 and shoe bombers when we think of terrorists?
Does anyone remember Aum Shirikyo and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo? Just because most modern terrorists aren't sophisticated, doesn't mean that ALL of them aren't or won't be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against your basic point; I feel not releasing this information would be more irresponsible than releasing it. To be free and open we must take risks. To have science and progress we must be free and open. Science and progress are generally good for us in the long run.
WTF?! reductio ad absurdum: Hitler did not agree that killing Jews was evil, and thus, to him, the claim that killing Jews is evil is completely invalid
This is true, for Hitler. Obviously he didn't think killing Jews was evil, being that he decided to try to kill them all. He actually thought it was morally good. Most of us, obviously don't agree with him, but the point remains that "killing x = bad" is not an a priori truth. There is no universal system of morality, and if we just say it is consensus driven, we are pretty much saying it isn't objective.
Further, morals are pretty much subjective by nature, ethics, on the other hand, might have a bit of hope for objectivity. Morals are more related to values, and values are pretty much completely arbitrary. For example, the Bible says that usury is bad, but a lot of people today think it is a very moral principle (micro loans, and such), here something switched from good, to bad, for arbitrary reasons.
Ethics, at least, should have the backing of some logical system, and in some cases actually empirical data. But even then I doubt there will ever be discovered a universal, existent, system of ethics. They too are forced to only be descriptive or normative (i.e. wishful thinking).
For example: stealing is bad, child abuse is bad, killing defenseless people is bad, rape is bad, etc./quote?
Child abuse being immoral is a rather modern thing. My father, and most of the kids in his community (Irish Catholics in rural Minnesota during the 50s) were abused regularly. Spare the rod... all that. Rape is also a rather new moral issue, raping your enemies was considered one of the great perks of conquest. Further, killing children was also pretty acceptable. Stealing, too, is fine in various contexts, and these contexts were more permissive in the past.
That said, I don't completely disagree with you. I believe that there is probably a universal ethical template which we evolved with (in the form of something like the golden rule: empathy), but it is only that, a lose template. And its applicability is wholly dependent on who we consider to be like us. Thus most of the "immoral" acts you listed were perfectly moral 200 years ago, but only against black people, or Jews, or Indians. Hitler, and his ilk, decided that the Jews weren't human, and this all ethical judgments were pretty much moot in regards to them.
If you want to make identical copies, with no loss to me, of all my stuff... Go ahead, you don't even need to break it, I'll let you copy to your heart's content. Doesn't hurt or bother me in the slightest.
Damn you, you made me undo mod points with that phrase. How is morality objective? There are TONS of variants of what is moral out there, so how can you claim it is objective. Morality is an opinion, yes, and some opinions are more commonly held than others, but it is still an opinion. Opinions aren't objective. You BELIEVE your morality, but that still doesn't make it objective, it is still an opinion.
It's not up to me to determine how much you help but doesn't invalidate my opinion on the matter.
But it does, for him. He doesn't agree with your opinion, thus for him your opinion is invalid. I don't agree with your morality here, and thus, to me, it is completely invalid. You can live with it, your can think it is valid as the day is long, but that doesn't make it universal. It doesn't make it magically objective.
Further, I'm sick of people saying that "appeal to authority is a fallacy, this your argument is automatically invalid", that too is a fallacy. If the soul basis of argument is "authority", then it is a fallacy, but claiming authority in itself isn't. I'm sorry, this guy is a parent, thus he is an authority, and thus he probably DOES know more about child rearing (at least the nuts and bolts of it) than I, a non-parent, does. I'm going to weigh his opinions more than yours on that topic. Just like I'm going to weigh a cosmologists opinions on the functioning of the universe over that of a television personality, or the Time Cube guy. Yes, if your follow up was true, you might be correct on your appeal to Wikipedia, but I didn't see what you saw.
Further, my parents were awesome, and yet I got in a shit-ton of trouble as a kid. Hell, I dropped out of high school, got hooked on drugs, and made more than my share of terrible decisions. I only managed to pull through thanks to the background my parents gave me, and their forgiveness and patience. I'm sick of this "blame the parents" bullshit, kids have free will, circumstances have pull, and peer groups are a bitch, these are just as important as parents once kids enter the real world. "Blame the parents" is overly simplistic, there are huge webs of causes and effects out there. Yes, there are bad parents, but there also are good parents with wild children. This has always been true, and always will be true.
I think it's selfish that anyone could love one human more than another because they share the same genes.
Sadly the low-mid end Alpha DLSRs feel like crap. I picked one up at Fry's and could actually feel the whole frame bending with just grip pressure. I haven't been terribly impressed with the build of their lenses either (the high end might be better, no experience with them).
But they do make a damn fine sensor. The Pentax K-5 uses a Sony sensor (same as in the NEX, I think), and it managed to have the highest scoring APS-C sensor for years, right up to this newest crop of Nikons.
They also make good flat-screens.
Sony generally makes good components, but terrible consumer hardware. Which is sad, since their hardware was awesome in the 80s. And also sadly, their corporate culture has become generally consumer hostile, which is enough to drive me away.
Actually this is an interesting point. I'm not sure how weighty it is, but it is interesting. I'd like to see how many climate scientists who have been in the field from before (or at least since the early days) of this kerfuffle agree with AGW, as compared to younger climate scientists. I have no idea what it would point to, if it would be valid, or if there would be any difference at all, but it would be interesting.
I'm not entirely sure how valid this would be. I went to school for philosophy, our department was probably more atheistic than most. Yet, there was a good handful of highly devout Catholic kids sharing the department with us, hoping to get into seminary. There was some VERY heated arguments, especially in the areas I was into (philosophy of science and epistemology), but at the end of the day there was no bad blood since we all had common goals and interests. Most of the hostility was good natured. I'm aware of other universities where the philosophy departments are rather dogmatic towards certain ideas, though. Conversely, when I was working on my other major, psychology, rebelling against group think was frowned upon by the student body (most proffesors were okay with it, or even loved it), in that program it got so bad that I quit for a decent period of time. The sociology classes I had the misfortune of taking were the worst ("I am a white middle class male, and I sure as hell aren't oppressing you, a not-white middle class college student").
I probably depends on the general intellectual ethos of various departments, and this probably varies from university to university. It still would be an interesting thing to see statistics on, though.
Politically, specifically in America, there's a reason progressives embrace GW and conservatives do not. It provides a cover for some of their longest desired goals. Further centralization of government, extreme enviromentalism, and anti-capitalism.
Shallow partisan stereotype much?
I am a progressive. I'm very, very left of center. I voted for Kucinich in the last primary, and Nader before him. I am not against capitalism. I'm not for a centralized government, for its own sake. I'm not an extreme environmentalist. Poof, your argument is invalid, that was easy.
Further, I could reverse this and state that conservatives are against AGW because they care more about money, and religion than future consequences. Notice that this argument is just as empty as the one you put forth.
Both are completely meaningless. Though as a progressive, I REALLY want to say that mine is truer than yours, sadly the rationalist in me says that both of them are meaningless bullshit. Sadly government have to be involved (especially if it is true), so we have to deal with moronic political opinions and petty dogmas. Enhanced by the fact that all Americans have decided that calling each other names, and being 100% convinced that their pet dogma is correct is all there is to politics now. No one is wrong, no one is ignorant, all of our positions are privileged, and everyone who disagrees is a moron.
I don't know if you can still get incancesdents or not, but that is beside the point.
That is the point. If you can get them, they aren't banned. It isn't semantics, it is the point.
Incidentally, have you tried putting a halogen, or a green-house spot in your well-house? They are still legal, and they are much warmer than CFLs, and halogen is a bit more energy efficient. I heat my computer room in the winter with 3 halogen spots.
They have their own agenda, and are pushing it. Once a scientist has an agenda and starts pushing it, he/she tends to overlook problems with their theory. See also Linus Pauling and his weird vitamin C fixation. Brilliant scientist, but.......
Don't trust anyone, EVERYONE has an agenda. You posted that to further your's, and I'm replying to further mine. People working to discredit climatologists have an agenda too. As do the politicians and corporate sponsors who try to discredit and bury it. The guy('s) who leaked the "climategate" stuff had one too, and selectively leaked files to further their own. Etc...
In the end its the data. I don't care if a scientist is sleezy, or has an agenda, all that matters is the science. No one (in the field) has found any evidence of fraud or wrongdoing, so... Who cares? You're verging on ad hominem, which doesn't really say or prove anything at all.
Scientific opposition from fellow scientists is very different than profit driven opposition from interested petroleum companies. 90% of the opposition I've seen to AGW is from people who have nothing to do with climatology, nor any discernible academic training in it. I'll take Mr. Hanson's view over some random schmuck's blog any day.
Disclaimer: I'm not 100% convinced of AGW, and am far from qualified to even judge the evidence. But, I think "climategate" was a farce, and pretty much the whole of the scientific community backs that up. I also think we should do something, even without 100% perfect knowledge, since acting is better than not if the theory is correct. If it isn't, we're still better off since I have a hard time buying that inefficiency within the status quo is a good thing, nor can I actually buy that spewing tons of nasty chemicals in the air is a net positive to anyone. I also have no loyalty to corporate America, they can cope, it isn't my problem.
The "empire" of the United States is in the process of collapsing from internal corruption, entirely its own fault. How's that "hope and change" working out for you?
If the American "empire" is falling, the causes stretch back long before Obama. I'd say that these problems were endemic when Obama hit office, and he is but a further symptom of them.
I'd like to say Reagan was the start, but I'd be wrong, I'd say these things stretch back to, at least, Truman. Some of the seeds were probably existent since almost back to our founding.
I'm not an Obama fan or apologist. I don't think we'd be any better off with any of the people who were running against him (even Ron Paul), and I don't think we'll be any better off with any of the people running against him now (even Ron Paul). The problems run deeper than just the president, or petty partisanship, or any single body of the government.
Slashdot Mirror
The Dems who do nothing to stop the millions of illegal immigrants from coming here to cut local costs (violent crime, ID theft, social program costs) - possibly because they see a giant block of future, loyal Dem voters - all in the name of "stopping racism", of course - GUILTY
You said some stuff I agree with, and some stuff I don't. This one, though, annoys me.
What the hell have the Republicans done? Building a very expensive, and completely ineffective, wall doesn't count. The Republicans even adopted a very nonsensical policy of "We must keep them all out, before we can do anything about the ones that are here".
Both sides LOVE illegal immigrants. Democrats love the idea of the eternally-forthcoming, yet never coming, wave of Latino liberal voters. Republicans love them because they are an infinite font of cheap labor, which can suppress wages and break unions. No one wants to kill illegal immigration.
our American empire
For some reason this phrase doesn't fill me with the glee I suppose it should.
They can shuttle people back and forth, it is a rather common thing. Making DLC for Skyrim isn't a very labor intensive process, so much of the staff (barring other unannounced projects) is idle, and has been since the major work on Skyrim was completed (a couple months or more before release).
I'm not saying this is true, or agreeing with anyone, I just feel that a lot of people here have been confused about Bethesda's and Zenimax' relationship. For all I know Bethesda is busy at work on TES VI (please remake/update Daggerfall, thank you), and they're using new people to hack out TES Online.
But, my open wifi, which someone could theoretically use to pirate media, isn't broken. It isn't erroneously sending packets to the Pirate Bay. Nor does leaving it open somehow promote said activity.
I suppose a better analogy (no cars, though), would be using an open private space (like a mall, or plaza) for illicit activities. If I use a mall food court for all my drug deals, then the mall isn't responsible, despite allowing public access. I suppose, to assuage the gods of /., crimes on a bus would be a better analogy.
Can someone please actually look up the relationship between Zenimax and Bethesda?
ZeniMax Media was founded in 1999 by Bethesda Softworks founder Christopher Weaver and Robert A. Altman. Weaver's vision was to use Bethesda Softworks as a hybrid-media company which would create cross-media properties for a diverse range of different platforms. Weaver brought Altman on board as CEO, contributing his stock in Bethesda Softworks so that the new shell company, named ZeniMax Media, would be able to obtain funding. Weaver moved to a non-operational role in 2002.
As I stated here earlier (sans an added bit of flamebait), Zenimax is not to Bethesda what Vivendi is to Blizzard. Zenimax and Bethesda are pretty close to being the same thing. Bethesda is Zenimax' development arm, or Zenimax is Bethesda's publishing arm.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who make TES games for Bethesda were transferred over to the new MMO arm.
For those who are wondering, the difference is that between Fallout 3 (Bethesda) and Fallout: New Vegas (Obsidian, and an extremely buggy, sometimes even unplayably so, mess). Different studios naturally produce different end results.
But Fallout: New Vegas was a better game (i.e. it felt like Fallout), and Fallout 3 was also a horribly buggy mess on release (i.e. it was made by Bethesda).
Also, are people forgetting that Zenimax was founded by the same guy who founded Bethesda, that they are pretty much the same damn thing when it comes to Bethesda titles. Zenimax is Bethesda's publishing arm, or Bethesda is Zenimax' development arm, they aren't 100% separate. This isn't like Vivendi owning Blizzard.
Back to New Vegas, it helped that Obisidian has a lot of people who were with Black Isle, and thus shares a lot of the talent who actually originally made Fallout. New Vegas is Fallout 3, just like how Torchlight 2 is Diablo 3 (Runic is mostly comprised of ex-Blizzard North people, the people who made Diablo 1-2).
Diablo and Starcraft are different franchises than Warcraft, thus your point is a bit off. A TES MMO would share the same world as any past or future TES single player game, which is a whole different story.
TES games are known for having a decent developed history within the game, MMOs aren't good at working within an established time line, since they work best giving the illusion of fluidity.
Actually this news makes me sad. TES games were really the last batch of decent PC RPGs, that were fully open. Everything else is getting more and more shallow and scripted, and slowly losing all RPG aspects, becomes straight action games (I'm looking at you Mass Effect). I actually can't think of the last decent open RPG that wasn't at least published by Bethesda. I also am a rarity, and don't like multiplayer. I play games to escape from having to deal with the frustration of dealing with the unwashed masses, so why would I want to continue that experience in my leisure time?
So if I leave my car unlocked (hell, lets even say running as well) for a couple seconds, it is no longer a crime for you to take it without my permission, and I'm guilty of killing the proverbial bus full of nuns?
My front door was unlocked for several hours today, so now you stealing my TV is no longer a criminal act?
How is an open wifi access point any different than my unlocked car or home?
The asian government...
I didn't realize that Asia was a country. I must be out of the loop lately.
That would be nice. But then again, wasn't the internet supposed to kill them off eventually, or at least that was the meme of the moment in the late 90's.
Either that or some of us feel that whatever happens after the revolution will be worse than what we have now. Whose idea of "right" will be inflicted on who afterwards? I doubt that we're at all capable of the grand compromises that happened after our original revolution. Look at the typical discussion on issues about rights, responsibilities, and ethics, and governance in general, now tell me if you would really trust any of those people (of whatever view) to set the future of this country?
Some of us also feel murder is something that should be taken VERY seriously, and generally avoided at all costs (even if that person doesn't agree with me). Further, some of us might also feel that we haven't exhausted our options yet, being that we generally ignore the biggest option, VOTING, and the second two biggest options; education, and protest.
yet we still hold on to the archaic idea that knowledge must be hoarded and given only to people that sit in certain classrooms...
Er... don't you have libraries where you live? Or the internet? Somehow I've managed to learn vast quanitities of things outside of classrooms, and I have two whole rooms full of this "forbidden" knowledge.
I feel the same way about LoL, I really enjoyed it, but it is impossible to actually learn not to such without being screamed at during every match. Also the learning curve is artificially obscene, thanks to 600000 fan made terms that I'm supposed to somehow has an a priori grasp on before even playing it. I quit LoL after a week, even if I really enjoyed it, and thus the devs lost whatever money I'd have thrown at them (and Tribes Ascend's devs are that much richer...).
I'm in my 30s, I don't have time for morons, and I have no desire to be in a 1337 in-group anymore.
Huh? The default weapons are very viable in TF2, I've been playing for years and I still generally stick with the defaults (except for the Medic). TF2 is probably the best example of F2P not being pay-to-win. Yes, there are a couple unbalanced weapons out there, but they aren't really game breaking, especially against a skilled player (TF2 is around 90% skill, if you do badly odds are you're just not playing well enough).
Maybe things have changed in the last couple months (haven't really touched it since it when F2P, too many kids now, and hats... damn hats), but last time I played for any length it seemed as balanced as ever.
One issue... Why do we only think of 9/11 and shoe bombers when we think of terrorists?
Does anyone remember Aum Shirikyo and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo? Just because most modern terrorists aren't sophisticated, doesn't mean that ALL of them aren't or won't be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against your basic point; I feel not releasing this information would be more irresponsible than releasing it. To be free and open we must take risks. To have science and progress we must be free and open. Science and progress are generally good for us in the long run.
My aunt fell to her death....
DAMN YOOOUUUU NEWTON! /shakes fist.
WTF?! reductio ad absurdum: Hitler did not agree that killing Jews was evil, and thus, to him, the claim that killing Jews is evil is completely invalid
This is true, for Hitler. Obviously he didn't think killing Jews was evil, being that he decided to try to kill them all. He actually thought it was morally good. Most of us, obviously don't agree with him, but the point remains that "killing x = bad" is not an a priori truth. There is no universal system of morality, and if we just say it is consensus driven, we are pretty much saying it isn't objective.
Further, morals are pretty much subjective by nature, ethics, on the other hand, might have a bit of hope for objectivity. Morals are more related to values, and values are pretty much completely arbitrary. For example, the Bible says that usury is bad, but a lot of people today think it is a very moral principle (micro loans, and such), here something switched from good, to bad, for arbitrary reasons.
Ethics, at least, should have the backing of some logical system, and in some cases actually empirical data. But even then I doubt there will ever be discovered a universal, existent, system of ethics. They too are forced to only be descriptive or normative (i.e. wishful thinking).
For example: stealing is bad, child abuse is bad, killing defenseless people is bad, rape is bad, etc./quote?
Child abuse being immoral is a rather modern thing. My father, and most of the kids in his community (Irish Catholics in rural Minnesota during the 50s) were abused regularly. Spare the rod... all that. Rape is also a rather new moral issue, raping your enemies was considered one of the great perks of conquest. Further, killing children was also pretty acceptable. Stealing, too, is fine in various contexts, and these contexts were more permissive in the past.
That said, I don't completely disagree with you. I believe that there is probably a universal ethical template which we evolved with (in the form of something like the golden rule: empathy), but it is only that, a lose template. And its applicability is wholly dependent on who we consider to be like us. Thus most of the "immoral" acts you listed were perfectly moral 200 years ago, but only against black people, or Jews, or Indians. Hitler, and his ilk, decided that the Jews weren't human, and this all ethical judgments were pretty much moot in regards to them.
If you want to make identical copies, with no loss to me, of all my stuff... Go ahead, you don't even need to break it, I'll let you copy to your heart's content. Doesn't hurt or bother me in the slightest.
Morality is objective.
Damn you, you made me undo mod points with that phrase. How is morality objective? There are TONS of variants of what is moral out there, so how can you claim it is objective. Morality is an opinion, yes, and some opinions are more commonly held than others, but it is still an opinion. Opinions aren't objective. You BELIEVE your morality, but that still doesn't make it objective, it is still an opinion.
It's not up to me to determine how much you help but doesn't invalidate my opinion on the matter.
But it does, for him. He doesn't agree with your opinion, thus for him your opinion is invalid. I don't agree with your morality here, and thus, to me, it is completely invalid. You can live with it, your can think it is valid as the day is long, but that doesn't make it universal. It doesn't make it magically objective.
Further, I'm sick of people saying that "appeal to authority is a fallacy, this your argument is automatically invalid", that too is a fallacy. If the soul basis of argument is "authority", then it is a fallacy, but claiming authority in itself isn't. I'm sorry, this guy is a parent, thus he is an authority, and thus he probably DOES know more about child rearing (at least the nuts and bolts of it) than I, a non-parent, does. I'm going to weigh his opinions more than yours on that topic. Just like I'm going to weigh a cosmologists opinions on the functioning of the universe over that of a television personality, or the Time Cube guy. Yes, if your follow up was true, you might be correct on your appeal to Wikipedia, but I didn't see what you saw.
Further, my parents were awesome, and yet I got in a shit-ton of trouble as a kid. Hell, I dropped out of high school, got hooked on drugs, and made more than my share of terrible decisions. I only managed to pull through thanks to the background my parents gave me, and their forgiveness and patience. I'm sick of this "blame the parents" bullshit, kids have free will, circumstances have pull, and peer groups are a bitch, these are just as important as parents once kids enter the real world. "Blame the parents" is overly simplistic, there are huge webs of causes and effects out there. Yes, there are bad parents, but there also are good parents with wild children. This has always been true, and always will be true.
I think it's selfish that anyone could love one human more than another because they share the same genes.
If only someone would write a book about that!
Sadly the low-mid end Alpha DLSRs feel like crap. I picked one up at Fry's and could actually feel the whole frame bending with just grip pressure. I haven't been terribly impressed with the build of their lenses either (the high end might be better, no experience with them).
But they do make a damn fine sensor. The Pentax K-5 uses a Sony sensor (same as in the NEX, I think), and it managed to have the highest scoring APS-C sensor for years, right up to this newest crop of Nikons.
They also make good flat-screens.
Sony generally makes good components, but terrible consumer hardware. Which is sad, since their hardware was awesome in the 80s. And also sadly, their corporate culture has become generally consumer hostile, which is enough to drive me away.
Actually this is an interesting point. I'm not sure how weighty it is, but it is interesting. I'd like to see how many climate scientists who have been in the field from before (or at least since the early days) of this kerfuffle agree with AGW, as compared to younger climate scientists. I have no idea what it would point to, if it would be valid, or if there would be any difference at all, but it would be interesting.
I'm not entirely sure how valid this would be. I went to school for philosophy, our department was probably more atheistic than most. Yet, there was a good handful of highly devout Catholic kids sharing the department with us, hoping to get into seminary. There was some VERY heated arguments, especially in the areas I was into (philosophy of science and epistemology), but at the end of the day there was no bad blood since we all had common goals and interests. Most of the hostility was good natured. I'm aware of other universities where the philosophy departments are rather dogmatic towards certain ideas, though. Conversely, when I was working on my other major, psychology, rebelling against group think was frowned upon by the student body (most proffesors were okay with it, or even loved it), in that program it got so bad that I quit for a decent period of time. The sociology classes I had the misfortune of taking were the worst ("I am a white middle class male, and I sure as hell aren't oppressing you, a not-white middle class college student").
I probably depends on the general intellectual ethos of various departments, and this probably varies from university to university. It still would be an interesting thing to see statistics on, though.
Politically, specifically in America, there's a reason progressives embrace GW and conservatives do not. It provides a cover for some of their longest desired goals. Further centralization of government, extreme enviromentalism, and anti-capitalism.
Shallow partisan stereotype much?
I am a progressive. I'm very, very left of center. I voted for Kucinich in the last primary, and Nader before him. I am not against capitalism. I'm not for a centralized government, for its own sake. I'm not an extreme environmentalist. Poof, your argument is invalid, that was easy.
Further, I could reverse this and state that conservatives are against AGW because they care more about money, and religion than future consequences. Notice that this argument is just as empty as the one you put forth.
Both are completely meaningless. Though as a progressive, I REALLY want to say that mine is truer than yours, sadly the rationalist in me says that both of them are meaningless bullshit. Sadly government have to be involved (especially if it is true), so we have to deal with moronic political opinions and petty dogmas. Enhanced by the fact that all Americans have decided that calling each other names, and being 100% convinced that their pet dogma is correct is all there is to politics now. No one is wrong, no one is ignorant, all of our positions are privileged, and everyone who disagrees is a moron.
In the end we get what we deserve.
I don't know if you can still get incancesdents or not, but that is beside the point.
That is the point. If you can get them, they aren't banned. It isn't semantics, it is the point.
Incidentally, have you tried putting a halogen, or a green-house spot in your well-house? They are still legal, and they are much warmer than CFLs, and halogen is a bit more energy efficient. I heat my computer room in the winter with 3 halogen spots.
They have their own agenda, and are pushing it. Once a scientist has an agenda and starts pushing it, he/she tends to overlook problems with their theory. See also Linus Pauling and his weird vitamin C fixation. Brilliant scientist, but.......
Don't trust anyone, EVERYONE has an agenda. You posted that to further your's, and I'm replying to further mine. People working to discredit climatologists have an agenda too. As do the politicians and corporate sponsors who try to discredit and bury it. The guy('s) who leaked the "climategate" stuff had one too, and selectively leaked files to further their own. Etc...
In the end its the data. I don't care if a scientist is sleezy, or has an agenda, all that matters is the science. No one (in the field) has found any evidence of fraud or wrongdoing, so... Who cares? You're verging on ad hominem, which doesn't really say or prove anything at all.
Scientific opposition from fellow scientists is very different than profit driven opposition from interested petroleum companies. 90% of the opposition I've seen to AGW is from people who have nothing to do with climatology, nor any discernible academic training in it. I'll take Mr. Hanson's view over some random schmuck's blog any day.
Disclaimer: I'm not 100% convinced of AGW, and am far from qualified to even judge the evidence. But, I think "climategate" was a farce, and pretty much the whole of the scientific community backs that up. I also think we should do something, even without 100% perfect knowledge, since acting is better than not if the theory is correct. If it isn't, we're still better off since I have a hard time buying that inefficiency within the status quo is a good thing, nor can I actually buy that spewing tons of nasty chemicals in the air is a net positive to anyone. I also have no loyalty to corporate America, they can cope, it isn't my problem.
The "empire" of the United States is in the process of collapsing from internal corruption, entirely its own fault. How's that "hope and change" working out for you?
If the American "empire" is falling, the causes stretch back long before Obama. I'd say that these problems were endemic when Obama hit office, and he is but a further symptom of them.
I'd like to say Reagan was the start, but I'd be wrong, I'd say these things stretch back to, at least, Truman. Some of the seeds were probably existent since almost back to our founding.
I'm not an Obama fan or apologist. I don't think we'd be any better off with any of the people who were running against him (even Ron Paul), and I don't think we'll be any better off with any of the people running against him now (even Ron Paul). The problems run deeper than just the president, or petty partisanship, or any single body of the government.