Why would I want to pay for a second phone I don't need?
One reason might be so your company doesn't have legal access to your texts asking your mom if you can have some friends over to play D&D this weekend.
Moving out of mom's basement would allow you to cut your commute time and would give you the opportunity to work out regularly. A move would also allow you to control your diet. Mom's breast milk is realy high in fat content.
Back on topic... What morality? Yours? Mine? If we all take responsibility for our own morality, whose to judge which morality is better or more succinct or rational? It seems like a meaningless statement without some external measure. But whose to agree on the external measure? And even when agreed to... whose to enforce the measure?
Yes, but your long run isn't all that long and it's easy enough to promote good behavior while carefully doing whatever you need to get what you want out of life. Evolved limitations that restrict you should be challenged, use your mind to overcome your own weakness whenever possible. Evolution is just to slow and big... it may have given you something to start with that worked generally for humans thousands of years ago, but that's just a general starting point... why accept that, why not pursue whatever you specifically find enjoyable? People have all sorts of natural hard-wired limitations they suppress and train out of themselves... we just don't like to acknowledge that empathy and overeating may be equally worthy of trying to suppress.
Responses: 1) Yes, absolutely you should behave in such a way that other perceive you to be trustworthy... until it suits you to not be.
2) I think this is potentially an inborn weakness in many people... similar to eating disorders... you want people to think you're thin so you behave totally irrationally and harm yourself... being perceived as "good" is useful, but if you tie yourself up in what other people think of you then you end up handing over your satisfaction to others which is a risky proposition. Avoid it at all costs, work to minimize those emotions if possible.
3) I agree... you'd want everyone else to follow the rules, be nice, fair, etc... but why play along when you have the opportunity to gain more than you might lose?
Humans have an amazing capability to identify basic limitations and use their minds to overcome those limitations. True compassion, real felt regret, or the stress of empathizing with someone else's pain can limit your ability to achieve personal satisfaction. So to the extent possible, why wouldn't you train these things out of yourself as best as possible. Sure, you'd want to be able to fake them... they serve a wonderful social purpose... but when the opportunity arose to greatly further yourself it'd be just lazy or weak to not have tried to achieve that.
Evolutionary traits should have little bearing on your decision making other to accept certain starting points. You only have one life to live and you have fortunately evolved a mind to be able to make decisions beyond what your evolved capabilities might entail. For example, you can choose not to accept a failing heart and seek out a heart transplant. You can choose to drive a car created by other minds in order to overcome your very limited speed and stamina. Why would uncontrolled cooperation be any different, sure you need to cooperate with people to maximize your opportunities, but when that gets in the way you're just giving in to an evolutionary limitation.
You can of course choose to be irrational, or just accept it. It's lazy, but people are very lazy and it generally serves those who aren't quite well.
I have never understood this type of statement... "I find it worrying that people only behave ethically out of fear of having to answer to some "higher power".
Morality is based on power, always. It's God, or god, or social, or individual, or psychological, or whatever... but it's always power. If there is no power over me then why would I do anything other then behave in a way that brings me pleasure? I might say "behave ethically" but why would I actually do so, other then possibly fear of some power punishing me for my actions?
What morality... that's just some sort of oppressive construct you've created to feel better. Power is morality in all systems, if you have no power over me then you are useless and have no rights.
Which is more important to me... the shit I took last night or you? The answer... the shit. You're useless to me. If had a choice between taking a good shit and your existence, based on your premises, I would be a fool to not choose the shit.
Make copies of your reviews and other feedback. Then politely tell them you will be leaving on the date you originally notified them.
Also, you may want to make posts on Glassdoor.com, jobvent.com or other sites that allow you to anonymously provide feedback on the employee experience with specific companies.
Our understanding has zero bearing on reality. The fact that your conscious of your existence is notable, but does not alter the fact that you exist.
The questions are then just questions about what we can and cannot know... and even then, without complete knowledge of all time and space we cannot be truly certain about anything, so we really just ask questions about what we have seen and learned, make propositions based on that learning, and make decisions based on the reliability of those decisions. In all of that, there is still reality, and as time progresses we face the reality of our decisions.
Plato's Cave illustrates our predicament... we watch the wall from our viewpoint and believe what we see and understand is real. We construct language and thought patterns based on what we see and how we understand it, and yet there may (and in the case of Plato's cave there is) be a greater reality beyond what we see.
Subjecting reality to the logical and linguistic constructs we've deduced from experiencing reality is useful, but not definitive.
We then fall back on having to use what we have learned to determine how the universe is... no answer is provable... we simply make the best decisions we can based on the information we have. Some may believe that a man born 2000 years ago is the Son of God, is God, and has told us about what will was and what will come... others might believe we're in a karmic force and that good and evil struggle for control of existence... others may believe the whole conversation is pointless and refuse to even think about it or discuss it. Either way... as time progresses the truth or folly of their choices will be proven out (although it's certainly possible that no one will know or care).
I think agnosticism is a comfortable and perhaps even logical philosophical position to accept in that it requires no faith, just existence. The hope for an agnostic is that their choices are not in conflict with reality.
Your argument against creationism based on the idea that you can't have something from nothing fails under your logic for agnosticism. One could be agnostic as to the origins of god/God/gods/force/universe (I'll call this thing God... it depends on your religious/philosophical views what terms and understanding are applied) and use the same basic argumentation you used for the universes existence.
A Christian creationist might argue that God existed, that his being defined the concept of existance and that out of that existence something else was created and that thing was our universe... our little closed box of existence. I think we'd agree that if you existed in a closed system you cannot know anything about anything outside of that system (even whether there is or is not anything) without information from outside of your system being made available to you. This is the typical religious argument... that God has made Himself (or whatever) known in some way. The test of course is how reliable are the claims, are the based in knowable reality, are they somewhat testable, are the claims consistent, etc...
The key point in all of this discussion is that our inability to know has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter.
1) Develop 3d nanotube solar cell 2) Win science contest 3) Complete manufacturing tests 4) Manufacture 5) Become billionaire... 6) Jill Smith will like me! x0x0x
I agree... these companies hurt there cases for DRM by not perfecting the implementation. If DRM was easy to use and invisible, when it was supposed to be, to the end user I think the average Joe wouldn't care so much. But when you can't get access to content you paid for... well that just completely sucks.
Part of the problem here is the market allows itself to be conned. We want to believe that the Securestick works, we don't want to spend the time or pay an extra added expense to have the claims of the marketers actually tested. If users made choices based on objective facts and called for warranties or 3rd party confirmation of marketing claims as part of the base product the lemons would start working their way out of the system. Costs would go up though and so the market is willing to absorb bad products and the risk associated with them for lower immediate prices.
30+ years to break even? Does this factor in the effects of global warming? If the sea levels rise how long would the tunnel have to be extended? What would the impact be to the entire transportation corridor?
If you take global warming seriously wouldn't you need to consider these things and discuss how you intended to address them?
Maybe the project's just a fraud to funnel resources into big construction companies... maybe people willing to put billion at risk don't actually take global warming seriously?
This whole conversation just reinforces the stereotype that "technical" people are clueless idiots about anything other then technology... they're even clueless about the basic workings of the business around which their technology is put to use and through which they are (or might be) paid.
Development is not free. Support is not free. These things cost money. Users prefer features for themselves over equality in features for everyone and so choices have to be made. In MovieLink's case they've elected to focus the majority of their development dollars on providing the the most features for the highest number of their users. The vast majority of home users have Windows installed which means the have IE. It's been suggested that they could build a plugin for Firefox... that's true they probably could. Of course they'd have to write the code, provide instructions for using the plugin, support the users who complain because the plugin doesn't work with their software (they're trying to install it into notepad?!?!), etc. If the # of users who are undeserved by their choices isn't that great then they make an economic decision to simply have one platform target and go from their. They save tens of thousand of development and support dollars and focus those dollars on providing the best experience for the majority of their users and making sure they make some profit to give back to the people who put millions at risk to run the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Here too, but I like dead trees.
Jay-Z has Obama on the text.
Why would I want to pay for a second phone I don't need?
One reason might be so your company doesn't have legal access to your texts asking your mom if you can have some friends over to play D&D this weekend.
Moving out of mom's basement would allow you to cut your commute time and would give you the opportunity to work out regularly. A move would also allow you to control your diet. Mom's breast milk is realy high in fat content.
False assumption.
Back on topic... What morality? Yours? Mine? If we all take responsibility for our own morality, whose to judge which morality is better or more succinct or rational? It seems like a meaningless statement without some external measure. But whose to agree on the external measure? And even when agreed to... whose to enforce the measure?
Yes, but your long run isn't all that long and it's easy enough to promote good behavior while carefully doing whatever you need to get what you want out of life. Evolved limitations that restrict you should be challenged, use your mind to overcome your own weakness whenever possible. Evolution is just to slow and big... it may have given you something to start with that worked generally for humans thousands of years ago, but that's just a general starting point... why accept that, why not pursue whatever you specifically find enjoyable? People have all sorts of natural hard-wired limitations they suppress and train out of themselves... we just don't like to acknowledge that empathy and overeating may be equally worthy of trying to suppress.
How do you understand genocide?
Responses:
1) Yes, absolutely you should behave in such a way that other perceive you to be trustworthy... until it suits you to not be.
2) I think this is potentially an inborn weakness in many people... similar to eating disorders... you want people to think you're thin so you behave totally irrationally and harm yourself... being perceived as "good" is useful, but if you tie yourself up in what other people think of you then you end up handing over your satisfaction to others which is a risky proposition. Avoid it at all costs, work to minimize those emotions if possible.
3) I agree... you'd want everyone else to follow the rules, be nice, fair, etc... but why play along when you have the opportunity to gain more than you might lose?
Humans have an amazing capability to identify basic limitations and use their minds to overcome those limitations. True compassion, real felt regret, or the stress of empathizing with someone else's pain can limit your ability to achieve personal satisfaction. So to the extent possible, why wouldn't you train these things out of yourself as best as possible. Sure, you'd want to be able to fake them... they serve a wonderful social purpose... but when the opportunity arose to greatly further yourself it'd be just lazy or weak to not have tried to achieve that.
Evolutionary traits should have little bearing on your decision making other to accept certain starting points. You only have one life to live and you have fortunately evolved a mind to be able to make decisions beyond what your evolved capabilities might entail. For example, you can choose not to accept a failing heart and seek out a heart transplant. You can choose to drive a car created by other minds in order to overcome your very limited speed and stamina. Why would uncontrolled cooperation be any different, sure you need to cooperate with people to maximize your opportunities, but when that gets in the way you're just giving in to an evolutionary limitation.
You can of course choose to be irrational, or just accept it. It's lazy, but people are very lazy and it generally serves those who aren't quite well.
Now you've peaked my interest... your existence isn't just some random chance... but it's not created either? What is it then... an illusion?
It's weird that people who think they were created by random chance think they or anything else is worth more than a pile of shit.
I have never understood this type of statement... "I find it worrying that people only behave ethically out of fear of having to answer to some "higher power".
Morality is based on power, always. It's God, or god, or social, or individual, or psychological, or whatever... but it's always power. If there is no power over me then why would I do anything other then behave in a way that brings me pleasure? I might say "behave ethically" but why would I actually do so, other then possibly fear of some power punishing me for my actions?
What morality... that's just some sort of oppressive construct you've created to feel better. Power is morality in all systems, if you have no power over me then you are useless and have no rights.
Which is more important to me... the shit I took last night or you? The answer... the shit. You're useless to me. If had a choice between taking a good shit and your existence, based on your premises, I would be a fool to not choose the shit.
They should use git.
Make copies of your reviews and other feedback. Then politely tell them you will be leaving on the date you originally notified them.
Also, you may want to make posts on Glassdoor.com, jobvent.com or other sites that allow you to anonymously provide feedback on the employee experience with specific companies.
Our understanding has zero bearing on reality. The fact that your conscious of your existence is notable, but does not alter the fact that you exist.
The questions are then just questions about what we can and cannot know... and even then, without complete knowledge of all time and space we cannot be truly certain about anything, so we really just ask questions about what we have seen and learned, make propositions based on that learning, and make decisions based on the reliability of those decisions. In all of that, there is still reality, and as time progresses we face the reality of our decisions.
Plato's Cave illustrates our predicament... we watch the wall from our viewpoint and believe what we see and understand is real. We construct language and thought patterns based on what we see and how we understand it, and yet there may (and in the case of Plato's cave there is) be a greater reality beyond what we see.
Subjecting reality to the logical and linguistic constructs we've deduced from experiencing reality is useful, but not definitive.
We then fall back on having to use what we have learned to determine how the universe is... no answer is provable... we simply make the best decisions we can based on the information we have. Some may believe that a man born 2000 years ago is the Son of God, is God, and has told us about what will was and what will come... others might believe we're in a karmic force and that good and evil struggle for control of existence... others may believe the whole conversation is pointless and refuse to even think about it or discuss it. Either way... as time progresses the truth or folly of their choices will be proven out (although it's certainly possible that no one will know or care).
I think agnosticism is a comfortable and perhaps even logical philosophical position to accept in that it requires no faith, just existence. The hope for an agnostic is that their choices are not in conflict with reality.
Your argument against creationism based on the idea that you can't have something from nothing fails under your logic for agnosticism. One could be agnostic as to the origins of god/God/gods/force/universe (I'll call this thing God... it depends on your religious/philosophical views what terms and understanding are applied) and use the same basic argumentation you used for the universes existence.
A Christian creationist might argue that God existed, that his being defined the concept of existance and that out of that existence something else was created and that thing was our universe... our little closed box of existence. I think we'd agree that if you existed in a closed system you cannot know anything about anything outside of that system (even whether there is or is not anything) without information from outside of your system being made available to you. This is the typical religious argument... that God has made Himself (or whatever) known in some way. The test of course is how reliable are the claims, are the based in knowable reality, are they somewhat testable, are the claims consistent, etc...
The key point in all of this discussion is that our inability to know has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter.
1) Develop 3d nanotube solar cell
2) Win science contest
3) Complete manufacturing tests
4) Manufacture
5) Become billionaire...
6) Jill Smith will like me! x0x0x
I agree... these companies hurt there cases for DRM by not perfecting the implementation. If DRM was easy to use and invisible, when it was supposed to be, to the end user I think the average Joe wouldn't care so much. But when you can't get access to content you paid for... well that just completely sucks.
Exactly. Good post. At worst MS can be charged w/ not making their DRM software user friendly enough.
Part of the problem here is the market allows itself to be conned. We want to believe that the Securestick works, we don't want to spend the time or pay an extra added expense to have the claims of the marketers actually tested. If users made choices based on objective facts and called for warranties or 3rd party confirmation of marketing claims as part of the base product the lemons would start working their way out of the system. Costs would go up though and so the market is willing to absorb bad products and the risk associated with them for lower immediate prices.
30+ years to break even? Does this factor in the effects of global warming? If the sea levels rise how long would the tunnel have to be extended? What would the impact be to the entire transportation corridor?
If you take global warming seriously wouldn't you need to consider these things and discuss how you intended to address them?
Maybe the project's just a fraud to funnel resources into big construction companies... maybe people willing to put billion at risk don't actually take global warming seriously?
This whole conversation just reinforces the stereotype that "technical" people are clueless idiots about anything other then technology... they're even clueless about the basic workings of the business around which their technology is put to use and through which they are (or might be) paid.
Development is not free. Support is not free. These things cost money. Users prefer features for themselves over equality in features for everyone and so choices have to be made. In MovieLink's case they've elected to focus the majority of their development dollars on providing the the most features for the highest number of their users. The vast majority of home users have Windows installed which means the have IE. It's been suggested that they could build a plugin for Firefox... that's true they probably could. Of course they'd have to write the code, provide instructions for using the plugin, support the users who complain because the plugin doesn't work with their software (they're trying to install it into notepad?!?!), etc. If the # of users who are undeserved by their choices isn't that great then they make an economic decision to simply have one platform target and go from their. They save tens of thousand of development and support dollars and focus those dollars on providing the best experience for the majority of their users and making sure they make some profit to give back to the people who put millions at risk to run the company.