Most of the official Iraqi opposition surrendered as soon as they realized that they were being confronted by overwhelmingly superior firepower. Most of what remained to be conquered dispersed into what is now a viral enemy that hides in a body (and government) that we do not want to kill -- just the virus. The nature of modern warfare has evolved as it's participants have become smarter. So we can officially claim victory over an enemy that can be seen, but...
Combatants no longer wear bright coats, stand at 20 paces, and exchange fire until the last man drops because they're motivated by a CO that would kill them if they didn't.
...but you neglected to explain why you think that animals and children have the same moral status.
Not the same moral status, but moral status according to what they are, keeping in mind that most creatures tend to live up or down to their potential according to what freedoms and discipline are afforded them. Take for example dogs, many of which have qualities that are human like as they have evolved through a long history of domestication. For the most part however, mankind and it's environment have evolved out of a human perspective in which animals exist solely for the benefit of mankind.
As far as I know, native americans are a rare dot in human environmental responsibilty, having managed in small ways to incorporate a general respect for animals into their culture and thus live with some degree of harmony with their living environment. But we tend to establish low expectations for ourselves which evolve, and have usually evolved, from a selfish perspective. So people find it hard to see outside of the box, or to understand the posibilities imagined by those who do. Therefore it should be no surprize that people consistently live down to the expectations they have established for themselves.
I don't think people realize the full implications of 'With God all things are possible.', or maybe they do but they just don't want to put forth the effort necessary to do/make things better.
The History Channel just ran a very interesting special on the Hebrew Exodus. They developed a scenario explaining the 'miracles' of the Egyptian plagues as being the result of natural phenomena. However, they never offered an explanation of how Moses could have known that these plagues would happen as far ahead of time as he did, or how it could have been that they could have been affected by the rising and relenting of his staff. Of course, there are other questions that beg to be answered as well, but it's worth watching if you get the chance.
The video makes the autopsy results irrelevent, rather it supports the position reported by the priest and the other medical experts -- that we don't completely understand how the brain works. Moreover, we don't know wether or not it might have been possible for the body to stimulate or regenerate any missing function, especially if good medical care had been afforded to her (which appearently was not the case). You rejected the video evidence; that is within your personal perogative. However, the evidence indicates to me that even if Terri was long gone, *someone* was in that body...
The courts not only saw the video you cite - but the courts ALSO got to see the UNEDITED video.
The courts or the judge? The Gov also got to review the evidence and evidently came to a different conclusion. Again, there were medical experts on both sides of this issue. And believe it or not, you aren't adding anything to this. You're just regurgitating the opinion of some guy and his crew of doctors and lawyers who had financial (and possibly other) incentives to see her die. Would you rather take the word of someone who started dating other women while his wife was still alive? Would you date other women if you cared to see your own wife live? You need to seriously contrast that with the evidence presented by Terri's family and friends, people who's motives for Terri I find much more credible (who according to your testimony were lying).
As for the video, I assume that all that thorough research you did made you aware that access to Terri (even for her own family) was strictly limited by her husband. Yet you seem to think that Terri's family and friends shot hours upon hours of video of her (presumably without her extremely attentive care takers taking notice) in the hopes that they might get one shot that would trick people into believing she was responsive.
Then again maybe you are right, and Terri's family, friends, doctors and lawyers and most importantly, God and the church, were all conspiring against Terri's husband (and Terri as well if you believe her husband).
Reserve your personal attacks for yourself, it might do you some good.
I'm sorry to beat this horse to death, but the only organ that mattered, the thinking brain, was completely gone. Period. End of story. Gone. It is unbeleivable how many people are in such denial about that fact. No thinking brain tissue means no mind and no person and no possibility there was any concious response to anything.
Indeed I have looked in the facts of the case, moreso appearently than most people. The real shame is that not even one video (and I've seen video on EWTN), which would have been enough to destroy the claims of the husband's medical experts, got the same air time by the press. Quite honestly, considering the maltreatment Terri recieved from the medical community (being familiar with the facts of the case I'm sure you are aware of the malpractice claims suscessfully brought against her caretakers), it's amazing she was responsive at all. You should read the opposition before regurgitating such completely inaccurate information. You can start by visiting the site hosted by the priest who was with Terri and her family through to the end: http://www.priestsforlife.org/terri/index.htm
The family and thier representatives probably presented thier arguements emotionally because they felt that would be the most effective means of convincing people to intervene on thier behalf. The problem is that popular media largely ignored them and the family's reps didn't have the capability to subvert them to reach the public. Do yourself a favor (and others) and visit the web site hosted by the priest who I was quoting: http://www.priestsforlife.org/terri/index.htm.
As for watching videos, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that someone who responds to you is not braindead. The evidence suggests to me that the medical experts supporting the family are right and that the populace in general has bought into a position developed and presented by the medical experts hired by Terri's husband. I've seen vidoes of her myself that confirm what the priest said. Hired 'experts' appear to be using the brain scan as evidence that Terri was PVS and purely reflexive whereas any random person off the street could look at the videos (do you think the governor would intervene without strong evidence?) and realize that she clearly was responsive, not PVS.
Indeed you should have modded down, but slashbot moderators are just as immature it seems. I don't mind critisism levied IAW reasoned debate, but you simply shot out an insult without any support.
FYI, both sides had medical experts on thier side. Its a shame Shiavo's family claims didn't get the same attention from the media that her husband did. In fact, a priest who was present with Terri during her last days had this to say about her:
"I will never forget my hours with Terri, both before and after her feeding tube was removed. She responded to me, and she responded to others who visited her. She laughed, she tried to speak, she returned her parents' kisses, she followed us with her eyes, she closed her eyes when I prayed with her and opened them when we were finished. Medical examiners can offer their conclusions because of what they saw, but none of that changes what we saw. But both we and the medical examiners were looking in from the outside. Any honest medical expert will admit that there is so much about the human brain we still don't know."
Now that hardly sounds like PVS to me. So who am I supposed to believe? The guy who's paying out settlement money to continue her medical care, or the medical staff who probably wanted her organs, or the priest and family who supposedly have Terri's best interests at heart?
...so if we'd like to have personal jet packs (sorry to keep harping on about those - but really, they are a bit overdue), we'd better put God theories to one side while we're designing them.
Don't worry, they are being developed right now under the Icarus project. Better sign up quickly if you want to join the omega, err, I mean alpha, yes that's it, the alpha test team!
Without science how could one accurately define what a cats is? Science is simply mans attempt to quantize reality in ways that are understandable to a limited human intellect.
Scientific laws are often evolve from theoretical research. The difference between law and theory being that laws apply universally within srtrictly defined boundaries whereas theories are open ended (unproven, but obviously still usefull) by definition.
I have had several friends that have become married and have either adopted, or had children themselves. Some of them went into thir relationships also not wanting children, but later changed thier minds. Some people are ready for the responsibility and some aren't. For those who are ready, children are an eternal investment -- they return spice to life; and all of my friends who have children are happy they have them. Of course, their children are all still in single digits;) In my opinion it is more selfish to have children just because you want them, than to abstain realizing you're not ready.
A hack: 2 bit, second rate, a cheap immitation.
The guy started his post with profanities, then critisized George Carlin, not for being an emotionally immature liberal, but for being a hack at it. Usually when people start using profane language I read what they have to say and promptly ignore them. It's usually good that I ignore them because that kind of behavior signifies that a persons intellect is being stunted by anger issues. However, it struck me as ironic that slashbot moderators thought his post was insightful when in fact he was exemplifying precisely the type of immature behavior they condemned adults for. That's a very effective 'anti-moderation' system me thinks.
So the telcos take our money, give us lousy service, and complain long and hard about how they're not making enough money, though last I checked they all seemed to be financially solvent.
No kidding, if they were hurting for revenue so badly, why would they be offering 768kbps/128kbps DSL for $14.95/mo on a 12 month contract? That's cheaper than AOL dial-up IIRC.
The telcos, like an industry, are afraid of change. But they are going to have to change -- or the Internet will pass them by. Forget DSL; they need to start laying fiber as fast as it can be made. Because if they don't, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN will, and pretty soon people will wonder "what ever happened to the phone company?"
Bingo. What I think telcos really want to be able to do is expand their service areas and move into the content provider business. They would need to generate a large amount of revenue to do it, but I don't think they can compete with the Google. So the telco's (and other broadband providers) are seeking legislation that will allow them to retard the growth of their competition and expand their own presence, but ultimately it's the consumer (and the internet as a whole) that gets stuck. A free market certainly wouldn't have gotten the internet to where it is today without regulation. If net discrimination is allowed, the net will obviously not be what it is now. I'm not sure if any of the content providers are strong enough to survive a telco union in an unregulated free market, but I don't think congress is going to extend net discrimination privledges to broadband providers, so I think content providers will grow.
If I had money to invest, I'd be putting it all into Google right now 'cause I think you are right. Just wait 'till Google gets into the provider business; with the kind of infrastructure they will have, they will be serious competition for telco's, cable providers, and probably wireless providers too eventually. With their support base of advertisers and consumers, they will STILL be pushing for net neutrality. Yay for Google, yay for a well regulated free market. I just wish the government would impose net neutrality for low bandwidth providers too.
I can't decide if you purposely choose to argue a position that I am not making because you are troll, or if you seriously do not understand the argument I'm making.
You have a penchant for falsely accusing others of the very things you yourself are guilty of. Don't assume that I haven't recognized this when I offer nothing in return. Really satan, you should let other people speak for themselves.
Let me boil it down for you. My argument is this: doing bad things because it's difficult to do the right thing is lazy. That's it.
No need need to boil anything for me; instead, let me save you some time. First, this statement of yours is also presumptuous. While I can understand why you would think that doing bad things is easy relative to doing the right thing, this is not always the case (in fact it is often considerably more difficult). Your generalization here is similar to the presumtuous generalization you made when you said "Only lazy and intellectually dishonest people do things that are morally/ethically/idealistically wrong and blame it on "the real world".".
I'm not sure what you think you are arguing against.
I'm not convinced, despite your persistent failure the acknowledge me. However on the off chance that you still really don't get it, I'll repeat it yet again...
I am arguing against the idea that just because somebody does something you believe is bad (wether it actually is or not) means that person (or group of people) is lazy or intellectually dishonest. That is presumptuous because it ignores the fact that the other party may have tried long and hard to achieve thier goals according to all methods that they were aware of, but were prevented them from doing so by factors outside of thier control.
You seem to be forwarding the position that there is some amount of oppression or depravation that one can suffer that make it okay to fly airplanes in to buildings.
Note that I have repeatedly acknowledged the fact that what they are doing is wrong:
"...it is precisely devotion to moral ideals that allows me to conclude that evil is an absolute, and is therefore to be absolutely avoided by everyone."
"...I still believe that the things terrorists do are morally wrong..."
"But note that I'm saying they are wrong based strictly on Christian ideals..."
I'm sure you recognize these statements of mine, so please, do us both a favor and stop with the accusations.
And if they stoop to doing something they know is morally wrong, then they are intellectually dishonest.
And who are you to make that judgement? If you do not even know the people who you are so quick to condemn, how can you say they know that what they are doing is wrong? Do you think they are Christians? Can you really assume they know anything about Christ? So then if they in turn condemn you based on thier own religious beliefs, why should God treat you any better than they, especially since you knew better, and lifted not a finger to help them?
Your personal ideals, even if they are completely moral/right/justified, do not automatically put you in the right.
I never would make that argument (except in the case of moral absolutes, like killing people).
Being clueless, you can't even level accusations about moral absolutes.
I'm arguing because they didn't act in accordance with THEIR ideals. Because killing people is universally morally wrong.
You would have been less foolish if you had stopped your arguements at this:
My argument is this: doing bad things because it's difficult to do the right thing is lazy. That's it.
Your accusation that they are acting contrary to their own beliefs is largely false since most terrorists are Islamic, and Islam
I said I could understand what drives people to commit acts of terrorism
Evidently you still don't understand, or you would not persist in making broad accusations of laziness and intellectual dishonesty.
I still think violence is the lazy way to achieve the goals they want to achieve. I can understand why they do it and still believe that it's the wrong thing.
Maybe violence is the only option they see for keeping abortion, pornography, genetically engineered foods, environmentally damaging low wage industries, etc, etc, etc out of thier countries. Did you read the book I referred you to? Really, you have no idea what they think, right or wrong, so you have no place judging against them as you have. Laziness is recognizing ones own righteousness while ignoring others. Keep on that road, and you will be led astray.
You apparently think it's okay to do bad things if it's too hard to do the right thing.
Wow. You are really scraping. In view of the fact that I already acknowledged the fact that what terrorists are doing is wrong, I would be more justified in calling you a son of satan (false accuser), then you would be justified in calling someone you've never met before lazy and intellectually dishonest. But note that I'm saying they are wrong based strictly on Christian ideals, not that what they are doing is wrong in comparison to something else. In order to make that determination, I would need to know both what America is doing in thier country, and what the terrorist thinks is wrong about it. But at least I recognize that I'm not exactly in a position to make that judgement for any particular conflict. I trust that God will act according to what is right or wrong in each case and so I don't presume do pass judgement on anything or anyone that I do not know. You would be wise to do the same. Otherwise, I suggest you take your intellectual courage to Iraq and tell those terrorists that they are lazy and intellectually dishonest, and see how many converts you make.
Furthermore, I think anyone that holds your position is an intellectual coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
Excuse me? Are you now saying I am an intellectual coward?!? On what basis did you form that accusation? On the contrary, I'm saying that *you have to walk in the other person's shoes* before you can even begin to understand their position on any particular issue, let alone accuse them of laziness or intellectual dishonesty. Your personal ideals, even if they are completely moral/right/justified, do not automatically put you in the right. You still have an obligation to understand others wether you want to or not for the purpose of salvation -- that is a Christian commandment. So you can say things like "I'm too idealistic to see the "truth", but I don't think that's the case. Or if it is, I just don't care." all you want, but I guarantee you that in 'passing on the other side', you will be held accountable by God for your own laziness and intellectual dishonesty.
The "gods will" and "playing god" memes have been around for centuries; whose to say that if such a being exists, that scientific progress isn't part of a master plan?
Then again, logic doesn't apply in matters of faith.
In the past, when humanity had asked the question "What is a human being?", the answer was always subjective. Subjectivity in this area has always been the basis for assigning error to the answer. If however, your world had recognized that there is in fact an objective reality that needs to be recognized in order to correctly answer the question, then you would not be paying for slavery well into your future.
Current technology gives mankind the ability to blur the distinction of humanity beyond natural means: beyond skin color, beyond wisdom, beyond intellectal considerations. In otherwords, man is on the verge of being able to do what he has never been able to do before, that is, to change his very makeup. The same question needs to be asked, but realize that the cost of coming up with the wrong answer (which humanity, indeed nations and societies, eternally have done) will be far greater than what we are seeing even now in 'black' America.
As a nation, America (as well as your world) is STILL failing to regulate science with morality; they do it by failing to adress the questions. Science is amoral by definition, and you can trust that its practioners will be be as well.
We only have to agree to disagree if you continue to hold to the hypocritical position that people can be drug into terrorist activity through no fault of thier own and still be called lazy and intellectually dishonest. Not everyone knows Jesus, or can benefit from Christian ideals; who's fault do you suppose that is? If you don't care to acknowledge truth, then you tell me who it is that is being lazy and intellectually dishonest...
I am absolutely serious. Twenty years ago as a miltary recruit I was standing firmly in your shoes, but time has a way of exposing people to different perspectives. Oh sure, I still believe that the things terrorists do are morally wrong, but God help me if I find myself having to pass judgement against them. Hatred and evil are usually based on lies and deception, but once you consume these things, you find that they tend to be self perpetuating. Most Americans are probably perplexed at how people like Hugo Chavez become leaders of democratic nations, until they read about the things their own governments do. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins if you haven't already, and you'll understand how easy it becomes (rightly or wrongly, it dosn't matter) to make the US into a great satan to the people of third world nations.
In short, I utterly reject the idea that one has to compromise ethics, morality, or idealistic goals to accomplish anything in this world. Sure, maybe it's a tougher slog, but it's possible, honorable, and the right thing to do.
Ironically, it is precisely devotion to moral ideals that allows me to conclude that evil is an absolute, and is therefore to be absolutely avoided by everyone. How many Americans do you know who would do the same thing Jesus did if they found themselves on the cross?
I wonder if this applies even to cases where the company or govt organization has in some sense admitted past wrongdoing regarding the subject discussed. This could be counter productive both within the organization (wasting the organizations time & money arguing against the employer) and outside of the organization (damaging customer relationships). This could be an issue in cases where the organization has taken corrective action to address previous wrongdoings and ends up being unfairly characterized.
Speech will still be protected if it is truly whistleblowing, and not just bitching.
I agree. I see this as extending individually guaranteed rights to organizations.
Only lazy and intellectually dishonest people do things that are morally/ethically/idealistically wrong and blame it on "the real world".
If you had given any serious consideration to why and how it is that people become terrorists, I don't think you would have reached this erroneous conclusion. The terrorists certainly are not lazy, and being lied to does not imply intellectual dishonesty.
The proposed solution is not intended to become a replacement for the social secrurity number, merely a verification tool for prospective employers. Nor can I see this becoming a replacement for the SSN, the SSN by design being somewhat open and convenient. Surely something better could be developed as a SSN replacement if there were sufficient motivation for doing so; but for many applications SSN insecurity can be worked around (something the proposal would do).
If the US government dropped a bomb on one of its citizens, it would be game over for the US government. Oh, and BTW, terrorists use a combination of guns and bombs (and other things), whatever they think is most effective towards their cause. The most effective weapon that can be brought against any force is truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the official Iraqi opposition surrendered as soon as they realized that they were being confronted by overwhelmingly superior firepower. Most of what remained to be conquered dispersed into what is now a viral enemy that hides in a body (and government) that we do not want to kill -- just the virus. The nature of modern warfare has evolved as it's participants have become smarter. So we can officially claim victory over an enemy that can be seen, but... Combatants no longer wear bright coats, stand at 20 paces, and exchange fire until the last man drops because they're motivated by a CO that would kill them if they didn't.
As far as I know, native americans are a rare dot in human environmental responsibilty, having managed in small ways to incorporate a general respect for animals into their culture and thus live with some degree of harmony with their living environment. But we tend to establish low expectations for ourselves which evolve, and have usually evolved, from a selfish perspective. So people find it hard to see outside of the box, or to understand the posibilities imagined by those who do. Therefore it should be no surprize that people consistently live down to the expectations they have established for themselves.
I don't think people realize the full implications of 'With God all things are possible.', or maybe they do but they just don't want to put forth the effort necessary to do/make things better.
This is becoming more and more common lately.. but guess what, it aint gonna fly.
...in lights...hanging underneath...mmm...underneath a giant pig or something...
Sure it will. "Slick George of the Tax 'n Spend Party!"
Truth is, the religious far right and the anti-religious far left are both members of the same party, wether they realize it or not.
The History Channel just ran a very interesting special on the Hebrew Exodus. They developed a scenario explaining the 'miracles' of the Egyptian plagues as being the result of natural phenomena. However, they never offered an explanation of how Moses could have known that these plagues would happen as far ahead of time as he did, or how it could have been that they could have been affected by the rising and relenting of his staff. Of course, there are other questions that beg to be answered as well, but it's worth watching if you get the chance.
The video makes the autopsy results irrelevent, rather it supports the position reported by the priest and the other medical experts -- that we don't completely understand how the brain works. Moreover, we don't know wether or not it might have been possible for the body to stimulate or regenerate any missing function, especially if good medical care had been afforded to her (which appearently was not the case). You rejected the video evidence; that is within your personal perogative. However, the evidence indicates to me that even if Terri was long gone, *someone* was in that body...
The courts not only saw the video you cite - but the courts ALSO got to see the UNEDITED video.
The courts or the judge? The Gov also got to review the evidence and evidently came to a different conclusion. Again, there were medical experts on both sides of this issue. And believe it or not, you aren't adding anything to this. You're just regurgitating the opinion of some guy and his crew of doctors and lawyers who had financial (and possibly other) incentives to see her die. Would you rather take the word of someone who started dating other women while his wife was still alive? Would you date other women if you cared to see your own wife live? You need to seriously contrast that with the evidence presented by Terri's family and friends, people who's motives for Terri I find much more credible (who according to your testimony were lying).
As for the video, I assume that all that thorough research you did made you aware that access to Terri (even for her own family) was strictly limited by her husband. Yet you seem to think that Terri's family and friends shot hours upon hours of video of her (presumably without her extremely attentive care takers taking notice) in the hopes that they might get one shot that would trick people into believing she was responsive.
Then again maybe you are right, and Terri's family, friends, doctors and lawyers and most importantly, God and the church, were all conspiring against Terri's husband (and Terri as well if you believe her husband).
Reserve your personal attacks for yourself, it might do you some good.
I'm sorry to beat this horse to death, but the only organ that mattered, the thinking brain, was completely gone. Period. End of story. Gone. It is unbeleivable how many people are in such denial about that fact. No thinking brain tissue means no mind and no person and no possibility there was any concious response to anything.
Indeed I have looked in the facts of the case, moreso appearently than most people. The real shame is that not even one video (and I've seen video on EWTN), which would have been enough to destroy the claims of the husband's medical experts, got the same air time by the press. Quite honestly, considering the maltreatment Terri recieved from the medical community (being familiar with the facts of the case I'm sure you are aware of the malpractice claims suscessfully brought against her caretakers), it's amazing she was responsive at all. You should read the opposition before regurgitating such completely inaccurate information. You can start by visiting the site hosted by the priest who was with Terri and her family through to the end: http://www.priestsforlife.org/terri/index.htm
The family and thier representatives probably presented thier arguements emotionally because they felt that would be the most effective means of convincing people to intervene on thier behalf. The problem is that popular media largely ignored them and the family's reps didn't have the capability to subvert them to reach the public. Do yourself a favor (and others) and visit the web site hosted by the priest who I was quoting: http://www.priestsforlife.org/terri/index.htm. As for watching videos, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that someone who responds to you is not braindead. The evidence suggests to me that the medical experts supporting the family are right and that the populace in general has bought into a position developed and presented by the medical experts hired by Terri's husband. I've seen vidoes of her myself that confirm what the priest said. Hired 'experts' appear to be using the brain scan as evidence that Terri was PVS and purely reflexive whereas any random person off the street could look at the videos (do you think the governor would intervene without strong evidence?) and realize that she clearly was responsive, not PVS.
Indeed you should have modded down, but slashbot moderators are just as immature it seems. I don't mind critisism levied IAW reasoned debate, but you simply shot out an insult without any support. FYI, both sides had medical experts on thier side. Its a shame Shiavo's family claims didn't get the same attention from the media that her husband did. In fact, a priest who was present with Terri during her last days had this to say about her: "I will never forget my hours with Terri, both before and after her feeding tube was removed. She responded to me, and she responded to others who visited her. She laughed, she tried to speak, she returned her parents' kisses, she followed us with her eyes, she closed her eyes when I prayed with her and opened them when we were finished. Medical examiners can offer their conclusions because of what they saw, but none of that changes what we saw. But both we and the medical examiners were looking in from the outside. Any honest medical expert will admit that there is so much about the human brain we still don't know." Now that hardly sounds like PVS to me. So who am I supposed to believe? The guy who's paying out settlement money to continue her medical care, or the medical staff who probably wanted her organs, or the priest and family who supposedly have Terri's best interests at heart?
...so if we'd like to have personal jet packs (sorry to keep harping on about those - but really, they are a bit overdue), we'd better put God theories to one side while we're designing them.
Don't worry, they are being developed right now under the Icarus project. Better sign up quickly if you want to join the omega, err, I mean alpha, yes that's it, the alpha test team!
Without science how could one accurately define what a cats is? Science is simply mans attempt to quantize reality in ways that are understandable to a limited human intellect. Scientific laws are often evolve from theoretical research. The difference between law and theory being that laws apply universally within srtrictly defined boundaries whereas theories are open ended (unproven, but obviously still usefull) by definition.
Just couldn't bear to see the count stuck at 666 :P
I have had several friends that have become married and have either adopted, or had children themselves. Some of them went into thir relationships also not wanting children, but later changed thier minds. Some people are ready for the responsibility and some aren't. For those who are ready, children are an eternal investment -- they return spice to life; and all of my friends who have children are happy they have them. Of course, their children are all still in single digits ;) In my opinion it is more selfish to have children just because you want them, than to abstain realizing you're not ready.
A hack: 2 bit, second rate, a cheap immitation. The guy started his post with profanities, then critisized George Carlin, not for being an emotionally immature liberal, but for being a hack at it. Usually when people start using profane language I read what they have to say and promptly ignore them. It's usually good that I ignore them because that kind of behavior signifies that a persons intellect is being stunted by anger issues. However, it struck me as ironic that slashbot moderators thought his post was insightful when in fact he was exemplifying precisely the type of immature behavior they condemned adults for. That's a very effective 'anti-moderation' system me thinks.
So the telcos take our money, give us lousy service, and complain long and hard about how they're not making enough money, though last I checked they all seemed to be financially solvent.
No kidding, if they were hurting for revenue so badly, why would they be offering 768kbps/128kbps DSL for $14.95/mo on a 12 month contract? That's cheaper than AOL dial-up IIRC.
The telcos, like an industry, are afraid of change. But they are going to have to change -- or the Internet will pass them by. Forget DSL; they need to start laying fiber as fast as it can be made. Because if they don't, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN will, and pretty soon people will wonder "what ever happened to the phone company?"
Bingo. What I think telcos really want to be able to do is expand their service areas and move into the content provider business. They would need to generate a large amount of revenue to do it, but I don't think they can compete with the Google. So the telco's (and other broadband providers) are seeking legislation that will allow them to retard the growth of their competition and expand their own presence, but ultimately it's the consumer (and the internet as a whole) that gets stuck. A free market certainly wouldn't have gotten the internet to where it is today without regulation. If net discrimination is allowed, the net will obviously not be what it is now. I'm not sure if any of the content providers are strong enough to survive a telco union in an unregulated free market, but I don't think congress is going to extend net discrimination privledges to broadband providers, so I think content providers will grow.
If I had money to invest, I'd be putting it all into Google right now 'cause I think you are right. Just wait 'till Google gets into the provider business; with the kind of infrastructure they will have, they will be serious competition for telco's, cable providers, and probably wireless providers too eventually. With their support base of advertisers and consumers, they will STILL be pushing for net neutrality. Yay for Google, yay for a well regulated free market. I just wish the government would impose net neutrality for low bandwidth providers too.
You have a penchant for falsely accusing others of the very things you yourself are guilty of. Don't assume that I haven't recognized this when I offer nothing in return. Really satan, you should let other people speak for themselves.
Let me boil it down for you. My argument is this: doing bad things because it's difficult to do the right thing is lazy. That's it.
No need need to boil anything for me; instead, let me save you some time. First, this statement of yours is also presumptuous. While I can understand why you would think that doing bad things is easy relative to doing the right thing, this is not always the case (in fact it is often considerably more difficult). Your generalization here is similar to the presumtuous generalization you made when you said "Only lazy and intellectually dishonest people do things that are morally/ethically/idealistically wrong and blame it on "the real world".".
I'm not sure what you think you are arguing against.
I'm not convinced, despite your persistent failure the acknowledge me. However on the off chance that you still really don't get it, I'll repeat it yet again...
I am arguing against the idea that just because somebody does something you believe is bad (wether it actually is or not) means that person (or group of people) is lazy or intellectually dishonest. That is presumptuous because it ignores the fact that the other party may have tried long and hard to achieve thier goals according to all methods that they were aware of, but were prevented them from doing so by factors outside of thier control.
You seem to be forwarding the position that there is some amount of oppression or depravation that one can suffer that make it okay to fly airplanes in to buildings.
Note that I have repeatedly acknowledged the fact that what they are doing is wrong:
I'm sure you recognize these statements of mine, so please, do us both a favor and stop with the accusations.
And if they stoop to doing something they know is morally wrong, then they are intellectually dishonest.
And who are you to make that judgement? If you do not even know the people who you are so quick to condemn, how can you say they know that what they are doing is wrong? Do you think they are Christians? Can you really assume they know anything about Christ? So then if they in turn condemn you based on thier own religious beliefs, why should God treat you any better than they, especially since you knew better, and lifted not a finger to help them?
I never would make that argument (except in the case of moral absolutes, like killing people).
Being clueless, you can't even level accusations about moral absolutes.
I'm arguing because they didn't act in accordance with THEIR ideals. Because killing people is universally morally wrong.
You would have been less foolish if you had stopped your arguements at this:
Your accusation that they are acting contrary to their own beliefs is largely false since most terrorists are Islamic, and Islam
I said I could understand what drives people to commit acts of terrorism
Evidently you still don't understand, or you would not persist in making broad accusations of laziness and intellectual dishonesty.
I still think violence is the lazy way to achieve the goals they want to achieve. I can understand why they do it and still believe that it's the wrong thing.
Maybe violence is the only option they see for keeping abortion, pornography, genetically engineered foods, environmentally damaging low wage industries, etc, etc, etc out of thier countries. Did you read the book I referred you to? Really, you have no idea what they think, right or wrong, so you have no place judging against them as you have. Laziness is recognizing ones own righteousness while ignoring others. Keep on that road, and you will be led astray.
You apparently think it's okay to do bad things if it's too hard to do the right thing.
Wow. You are really scraping. In view of the fact that I already acknowledged the fact that what terrorists are doing is wrong, I would be more justified in calling you a son of satan (false accuser), then you would be justified in calling someone you've never met before lazy and intellectually dishonest. But note that I'm saying they are wrong based strictly on Christian ideals, not that what they are doing is wrong in comparison to something else. In order to make that determination, I would need to know both what America is doing in thier country, and what the terrorist thinks is wrong about it. But at least I recognize that I'm not exactly in a position to make that judgement for any particular conflict. I trust that God will act according to what is right or wrong in each case and so I don't presume do pass judgement on anything or anyone that I do not know. You would be wise to do the same. Otherwise, I suggest you take your intellectual courage to Iraq and tell those terrorists that they are lazy and intellectually dishonest, and see how many converts you make.
Furthermore, I think anyone that holds your position is an intellectual coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
Excuse me? Are you now saying I am an intellectual coward?!? On what basis did you form that accusation? On the contrary, I'm saying that *you have to walk in the other person's shoes* before you can even begin to understand their position on any particular issue, let alone accuse them of laziness or intellectual dishonesty. Your personal ideals, even if they are completely moral/right/justified, do not automatically put you in the right. You still have an obligation to understand others wether you want to or not for the purpose of salvation -- that is a Christian commandment. So you can say things like "I'm too idealistic to see the "truth", but I don't think that's the case. Or if it is, I just don't care." all you want, but I guarantee you that in 'passing on the other side', you will be held accountable by God for your own laziness and intellectual dishonesty.
Cheers.
Wake up.
The "gods will" and "playing god" memes have been around for centuries; whose to say that if such a being exists, that scientific progress isn't part of a master plan? Then again, logic doesn't apply in matters of faith.
In the past, when humanity had asked the question "What is a human being?", the answer was always subjective. Subjectivity in this area has always been the basis for assigning error to the answer. If however, your world had recognized that there is in fact an objective reality that needs to be recognized in order to correctly answer the question, then you would not be paying for slavery well into your future. Current technology gives mankind the ability to blur the distinction of humanity beyond natural means: beyond skin color, beyond wisdom, beyond intellectal considerations. In otherwords, man is on the verge of being able to do what he has never been able to do before, that is, to change his very makeup. The same question needs to be asked, but realize that the cost of coming up with the wrong answer (which humanity, indeed nations and societies, eternally have done) will be far greater than what we are seeing even now in 'black' America. As a nation, America (as well as your world) is STILL failing to regulate science with morality; they do it by failing to adress the questions. Science is amoral by definition, and you can trust that its practioners will be be as well.
We only have to agree to disagree if you continue to hold to the hypocritical position that people can be drug into terrorist activity through no fault of thier own and still be called lazy and intellectually dishonest. Not everyone knows Jesus, or can benefit from Christian ideals; who's fault do you suppose that is? If you don't care to acknowledge truth, then you tell me who it is that is being lazy and intellectually dishonest...
I am absolutely serious. Twenty years ago as a miltary recruit I was standing firmly in your shoes, but time has a way of exposing people to different perspectives. Oh sure, I still believe that the things terrorists do are morally wrong, but God help me if I find myself having to pass judgement against them. Hatred and evil are usually based on lies and deception, but once you consume these things, you find that they tend to be self perpetuating. Most Americans are probably perplexed at how people like Hugo Chavez become leaders of democratic nations, until they read about the things their own governments do. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins if you haven't already, and you'll understand how easy it becomes (rightly or wrongly, it dosn't matter) to make the US into a great satan to the people of third world nations.
In short, I utterly reject the idea that one has to compromise ethics, morality, or idealistic goals to accomplish anything in this world. Sure, maybe it's a tougher slog, but it's possible, honorable, and the right thing to do.
Ironically, it is precisely devotion to moral ideals that allows me to conclude that evil is an absolute, and is therefore to be absolutely avoided by everyone. How many Americans do you know who would do the same thing Jesus did if they found themselves on the cross?
I wonder if this applies even to cases where the company or govt organization has in some sense admitted past wrongdoing regarding the subject discussed. This could be counter productive both within the organization (wasting the organizations time & money arguing against the employer) and outside of the organization (damaging customer relationships). This could be an issue in cases where the organization has taken corrective action to address previous wrongdoings and ends up being unfairly characterized.
Speech will still be protected if it is truly whistleblowing, and not just bitching.
I agree. I see this as extending individually guaranteed rights to organizations.
Go away satan.
Only lazy and intellectually dishonest people do things that are morally/ethically/idealistically wrong and blame it on "the real world".
If you had given any serious consideration to why and how it is that people become terrorists, I don't think you would have reached this erroneous conclusion. The terrorists certainly are not lazy, and being lied to does not imply intellectual dishonesty.
The proposed solution is not intended to become a replacement for the social secrurity number, merely a verification tool for prospective employers. Nor can I see this becoming a replacement for the SSN, the SSN by design being somewhat open and convenient. Surely something better could be developed as a SSN replacement if there were sufficient motivation for doing so; but for many applications SSN insecurity can be worked around (something the proposal would do).
If the US government dropped a bomb on one of its citizens, it would be game over for the US government. Oh, and BTW, terrorists use a combination of guns and bombs (and other things), whatever they think is most effective towards their cause. The most effective weapon that can be brought against any force is truth.