Only for very forgiving definitions of "people." I rank them up there with Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Bernie Madoff in the "waste of perfectly good oxygen" category.
Maybe not. Many "private sector" jobs are of the non-corporate (e.g. not desk-and-cubicle/office) variety, especially if you run a small business or work in fields like electrical or construction work.
CIO: In order to support [business_plan], we need the following infrastructure: [list of modern hardware]
CEO: But think of the bottom line! Make it work with what we've got now.
CIO: It won't work with what we have now. What we have now is insufficiently powerful, further it's out of warranty and we run increased risk of catastrophic hardware failures the longer we fail to replace it with up to date infrastructure that can handle the current bandwidth, storage and processing requirements.
CEO: But maintenance costs money. Just make it work with what we have. My management for dummies courses at MBA Mill University said all we have to do is tell people what to do and make sure they know their job is on the line and they'll find a way, so tell your people their jobs are on the line unless they make it work with what we already have. Do more with less. Leverage that diversity and synergize to create a new paradigm by thinking outside the box so we can make a sea change to increase company wellness. At the end of the day the new alignment will have the rank and file thanking you for all the empowerment and mean more organic growth for the company.
CIO: Fine. Go back to playing with your etch-a-sketch.
CEOs don't care about "cutting corners dangerously", causing potential problems in some nebulous "future", they only care about this quarters stock price. By the time problems develop from their shortsightedness, it will be Someone Else's Problem...because they will have long ago jumped out the window on a golden parachute and now be running for president while claiming they "created jobs" as a Bain Capital Corporate Raider.
Except that said verse is considered al-mansukh (abrogated), superceded by al-nasikh (abrogating) verses including most of the bloodthirsty Sura 9, especially:
O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73) O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123) Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)
Shah Wali Ullah on the matter: "That is to say, the reasoned guidance of Islam has become manifest. Therefore, so to speak, there is no compulsion, although, in sum, there may be coercion"
Point 1: Men cannot ascend to the "highest level" unless dragged there attached to a woman. It's called marriage. Men don't get in alone and neither do women.
And in the mormon enslavement religion, the point was to ensure that all MEN had an ample supply of women in which to take multiple wives. There was no worry about a man being unmarried, but women were forced into a cattle call in hopes of getting one to attach to.
Point 3: Once again wrong. The primary way for Mormon women to become "garmented" is actually a ceremony in the temple called the endowment. It has nothing to do with being married nor with bearing children.
On this point you are simply wrong. Women are NOT allowed to be "garmented" in the Endowment Ceremony unless they are married in the church or are one of the few girls (very, very few) selected to be sent "on mission" as a reminder to the boys to keep up their appearances while on mission. They are not allowed to ascend from the "base level", which allows them to set foot in the temple but no further, until they have actually bred like cows for the mor(m)on misogynist religion.
The Kurds are (mostly) "Sunni" according to the classical definition, but they have a separate language and culture from the Arabs. Most Sunnis regard them as a separate sect because they follow the Shafi traditions whereas most Sunni today are Habali (the school most closely associated with the Saudis and Wahhabism).
To offer a christian level comparison, it's like the difference between being Catholic and Greek Orthodox. Both religions could be called "Orthodox", but there's a definitive split.
Mormonism to this day insists the following things: - Women cannot ascend to the "highest level" unless dragged there attached to a man. - Women cannot enter the priesthood - The primary way for Mormon women to become "garmented" is through not just being married, but bearing children.
The phenomenon of women as workers in society under Brigham Young came about SOLELY because women began to outnumber the men in large number, due to the practices necessary to send young men away from the society in order to ensure enough young, unmarried women desperate enough to become married that they could be given to the old pervs of the Mormon hierarchy as second, third, fourth, or higher number wives as a form of enslavement. From a visit by Sir Richard Burton to the Mormons: "The motive for polygamy in Utah is economy. Servants are rare and costly; it is cheaper and more comfortable to marry them."
You sound like a fucking mor(m)on who doesn't understand the LDS "religion."
You forgot his convictions about keeping women barefoot and pregnant at home. That's a key tenet of Mormonism.
Meanwhile, for the benefit of Kuwaitis: #1 - God is a drunken asshole who starts wars, causes nothing but suffering, and is such a piss poor retarded deity that he "designed" humans with a windpipe crossing the food pipe and a reproductive system crossing the waste elimination system. If God were an engineer he'd have been flunked out in freshman courses and barred from reentry before he REALLY hurt someone... oh crap too late.
#2 - Mohammed was a warmonger, a war criminal, a genocidal fucktard, and a pedophile. Deal with it.
#3 - Mohammed's wives... don't really have much to say about them. For the most part, they were just a part of the society they were living in, and I really feel sorry for Khadija, who started out owning and operating her own business and only married Mohammed because she wanted a young boytoy (kinda like the Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher deal) and instead wound up with him taking her life, turning her into a virtual slave, and fooling around with as many other women as he could get his hands on.
Your position holds only if A and B are both provable conditions.
The definition of a square and rectangle are sound.
Your position does NOT hold when you are considering a point where A is a provable position and B is a course of action or other consequence following.
"If X is a square, then X is a rectangle" requires the definition of a square to be "also a rectangle."
In the case of "stating the contrapositive", Republicans are taking their desired policy position ("we should not do anything about climate change") and using it as PROOF of their claim that climate change is unrelated to human activity. The problem is that the A/Not-A relationship (e.g. Climate change is/is-not related to human activity) is provable and scientifically investigable and all available reputable science points to A: climate change is related to human activity. The Republicans' B is a mere policy position, which cannot be proven for it rests upon no fact and, in fact, the "fact" that they claim it is related to (that climate change is unrelated to human activity) is completely false according to all available reputable research.
"Stating the contrapositive" sometimes and ONLY sometimes works in math when dealing in defined quantities; it fails miserably in discussing public policy, where it quickly descends into the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent aka Converse Error.
By all accounts, sectarian war is also how Saddam Hussein took power and ran his regime. Saddam was a Sunni, as were approximately 20% of the Iraqi population; meanwhile, he gassed the Kurds and engaged in major terror operations against the Shi'a.
Arab society runs roughly thus: (sorry I can't paste the arabic script, Slashdot doesn't like it much): Me against my brothers until a cousin comes; Me and my brothers against my cousins until a neighbor comes; Me and my brother and my cousins against the neighbor until a foreigner comes; all of us against the foreigners.
Arab shill group accuses Mossad of being involved in something they don't like.
In other news: Dog bites man. Water is wet. Sky is blue. Republicans are racist. Clouds primarily composed of water vapor. Ratio of circumference of circle to radius = tau. Nickelback is lame.
Standard retardican false logic in action. It follows the affirming the consequent logical fallacy - ""if A, then B; B, therefore A."
The normal way to test a consequent is to apply the testable quantity. For instance: Problem: I need boiling hot water for tea. If (A), heat is applied to water, (B) it begins to boil. Therefore, (A) placing a pot of cold water on a stove's lit burner will (B) cause the water to boil.
The reverse, however, does not follow. And here is how the retardicans phrase it: Problem: Climate change affecting a wide variety of If (A) human behavior is causing global warming, then (B) we should enact sensible environmental and energy reforms (carbon limits, wean off of fossil fuels towards geothermal/nuclear/solar, etc). Republican fallacious reply: "(B) We should not (insert environmental reform here) therefore (a) human behavior is not causing global warming."
And that, in a nutshell, is why the climate deniers are full of shit. Their position is 100% logical fallacy.
At one time there were laws insisting that anyone driving a "new-fangled horseless carriage" must:
- have someone walk ahead of them waving a red flag or lantern. - shouting to warn others of the approaching vehicle - honking a horn or otherwise making noise to "warn" oncoming traffic at any intersection.
The horse and buggy whip cartels also insisted that the automobile would "spook horses" and cause all sorts of problems. As it turned out, of course, the horses didn't give a rat's ass about the cars, they were more likely to spook because some idiot hitched up a mare in heat and some other idiot had an un-gelded stallion on the rein, or because some asshole shot off a gun near them.
The nonsense about electric cars is no different. It's just attempts by the lobbying department of interested automobile makers (the ones who aren't adapting to the 21st century) using bribed republicans and regulatory capture to try to create artificial barriers to adoption against their competition.
Try Retardican states like Tex-ass, you worthless idiot.
They have a rainy day fund. They REFUSED to use it for what was needed and instead fucked the public school system over while complaining they were "not getting enough back" (they get back $1.10 for every $1 of federal income tax paid).
The problem is that in the 1980s and 1990s, Republicans were GLEEFULLY GETTING SPECULATION REGULATIONS REPEALED. It's the same sort of crap in other markets (see: Republican repeal of Glass-Steagal separation of banking and stock market) that caused the Bush Depression.
No, the second amendment is to make it so that when the mentally handicapped republican 5-year-olds throw a temper tantrum, they can actually leave dead bodies in the process.
The larger problem today is that we haven't had adults in the Republican party in over 40 years, ever since they started running on the "Southern Strategy." Some of their stupider ideas are the kind of "omg brilliant" that only works with Enron Math.
Case in point: "balanced budget amendments" in republican states, that never, ever, every can possibly work unless they rely on Federal emergency funding to close the gaps on countercyclical needs like unemployment benefits, medicaid for the poor, and job search/training programs during an economic downturn... meanwhile they get to bitch about "we balanced our state budget why doesn't the federal government balance theirs."
Enron math, brought to you by the republican retard squad. And they're dumb enough to fall for it.
In the USA we've PROVEN that most republicans are mentally handicapped five year olds, the problem is every time we try to fix the problems they've caused, we're subjected to republican temper tantrums.
Slashdot Mirror
Only for very forgiving definitions of "people." I rank them up there with Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Bernie Madoff in the "waste of perfectly good oxygen" category.
Maybe not. Many "private sector" jobs are of the non-corporate (e.g. not desk-and-cubicle/office) variety, especially if you run a small business or work in fields like electrical or construction work.
How world works:
CIO: In order to support [business_plan], we need the following infrastructure: [list of modern hardware]
CEO: But think of the bottom line! Make it work with what we've got now.
CIO: It won't work with what we have now. What we have now is insufficiently powerful, further it's out of warranty and we run increased risk of catastrophic hardware failures the longer we fail to replace it with up to date infrastructure that can handle the current bandwidth, storage and processing requirements.
CEO: But maintenance costs money. Just make it work with what we have. My management for dummies courses at MBA Mill University said all we have to do is tell people what to do and make sure they know their job is on the line and they'll find a way, so tell your people their jobs are on the line unless they make it work with what we already have. Do more with less. Leverage that diversity and synergize to create a new paradigm by thinking outside the box so we can make a sea change to increase company wellness. At the end of the day the new alignment will have the rank and file thanking you for all the empowerment and mean more organic growth for the company.
CIO: Fine. Go back to playing with your etch-a-sketch.
CEOs don't care about "cutting corners dangerously", causing potential problems in some nebulous "future", they only care about this quarters stock price. By the time problems develop from their shortsightedness, it will be Someone Else's Problem... because they will have long ago jumped out the window on a golden parachute and now be running for president while claiming they "created jobs" as a Bain Capital Corporate Raider.
Who was talking about the christians? I seem to remember the parent poster talking about Buddhism, not christianity...
Where did the parent poster say anything about the christians? They were referring to Buddhism.
Your bullshit has failed.
Except that said verse is considered al-mansukh (abrogated), superceded by al-nasikh (abrogating) verses including most of the bloodthirsty Sura 9, especially:
O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73)
O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123)
Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)
Shah Wali Ullah on the matter: "That is to say, the reasoned guidance of Islam has become manifest. Therefore, so to speak, there is no compulsion, although, in sum, there may be coercion"
Bullshit.
Point 1: Men cannot ascend to the "highest level" unless dragged there attached to a woman. It's called marriage. Men don't get in alone and neither do women.
And in the mormon enslavement religion, the point was to ensure that all MEN had an ample supply of women in which to take multiple wives. There was no worry about a man being unmarried, but women were forced into a cattle call in hopes of getting one to attach to.
Point 3: Once again wrong. The primary way for Mormon women to become "garmented" is actually a ceremony in the temple called the endowment. It has nothing to do with being married nor with bearing children.
On this point you are simply wrong. Women are NOT allowed to be "garmented" in the Endowment Ceremony unless they are married in the church or are one of the few girls (very, very few) selected to be sent "on mission" as a reminder to the boys to keep up their appearances while on mission. They are not allowed to ascend from the "base level", which allows them to set foot in the temple but no further, until they have actually bred like cows for the mor(m)on misogynist religion.
No, this is typical US attitude. They think they own the world.
If the rest of the world would tell the US to piss off, maybe things could get better. Instead, the US throws their totalitarian weight around and we get bought-off British judges trying to extradite British citizens to the US for conduct that occurred in Britain, between British citizens, that was 100% legal under British law because the US MafiAA wants to try to have the British citizen prosecuted under US fascist law.
The Kurds are (mostly) "Sunni" according to the classical definition, but they have a separate language and culture from the Arabs. Most Sunnis regard them as a separate sect because they follow the Shafi traditions whereas most Sunni today are Habali (the school most closely associated with the Saudis and Wahhabism).
To offer a christian level comparison, it's like the difference between being Catholic and Greek Orthodox. Both religions could be called "Orthodox", but there's a definitive split.
Oh, and:
Here, educate yourself.
Mormons.
Mormonism to this day insists the following things:
- Women cannot ascend to the "highest level" unless dragged there attached to a man.
- Women cannot enter the priesthood
- The primary way for Mormon women to become "garmented" is through not just being married, but bearing children.
The phenomenon of women as workers in society under Brigham Young came about SOLELY because women began to outnumber the men in large number, due to the practices necessary to send young men away from the society in order to ensure enough young, unmarried women desperate enough to become married that they could be given to the old pervs of the Mormon hierarchy as second, third, fourth, or higher number wives as a form of enslavement. From a visit by Sir Richard Burton to the Mormons: "The motive for polygamy in Utah is economy. Servants are rare and costly; it is cheaper and more comfortable to marry them."
You sound like a fucking mor(m)on who doesn't understand the LDS "religion."
More like this.
Damnit, I miss Bill Watterson's comics.
You forgot his convictions about keeping women barefoot and pregnant at home. That's a key tenet of Mormonism.
Meanwhile, for the benefit of Kuwaitis:
#1 - God is a drunken asshole who starts wars, causes nothing but suffering, and is such a piss poor retarded deity that he "designed" humans with a windpipe crossing the food pipe and a reproductive system crossing the waste elimination system. If God were an engineer he'd have been flunked out in freshman courses and barred from reentry before he REALLY hurt someone... oh crap too late.
#2 - Mohammed was a warmonger, a war criminal, a genocidal fucktard, and a pedophile. Deal with it.
#3 - Mohammed's wives... don't really have much to say about them. For the most part, they were just a part of the society they were living in, and I really feel sorry for Khadija, who started out owning and operating her own business and only married Mohammed because she wanted a young boytoy (kinda like the Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher deal) and instead wound up with him taking her life, turning her into a virtual slave, and fooling around with as many other women as he could get his hands on.
Obligatory XKCD.
I'm sorry you failed logic.
Your position holds only if A and B are both provable conditions.
The definition of a square and rectangle are sound.
Your position does NOT hold when you are considering a point where A is a provable position and B is a course of action or other consequence following.
"If X is a square, then X is a rectangle" requires the definition of a square to be "also a rectangle."
In the case of "stating the contrapositive", Republicans are taking their desired policy position ("we should not do anything about climate change") and using it as PROOF of their claim that climate change is unrelated to human activity. The problem is that the A/Not-A relationship (e.g. Climate change is/is-not related to human activity) is provable and scientifically investigable and all available reputable science points to A: climate change is related to human activity. The Republicans' B is a mere policy position, which cannot be proven for it rests upon no fact and, in fact, the "fact" that they claim it is related to (that climate change is unrelated to human activity) is completely false according to all available reputable research.
"Stating the contrapositive" sometimes and ONLY sometimes works in math when dealing in defined quantities; it fails miserably in discussing public policy, where it quickly descends into the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent aka Converse Error.
By all accounts, sectarian war is also how Saddam Hussein took power and ran his regime. Saddam was a Sunni, as were approximately 20% of the Iraqi population; meanwhile, he gassed the Kurds and engaged in major terror operations against the Shi'a.
Arab society runs roughly thus: (sorry I can't paste the arabic script, Slashdot doesn't like it much):
Me against my brothers until a cousin comes;
Me and my brothers against my cousins until a neighbor comes;
Me and my brother and my cousins against the neighbor until a foreigner comes;
all of us against the foreigners.
Arab shill group accuses Mossad of being involved in something they don't like.
In other news:
Dog bites man.
Water is wet.
Sky is blue.
Republicans are racist.
Clouds primarily composed of water vapor.
Ratio of circumference of circle to radius = tau.
Nickelback is lame.
Wake me when we get some real news?
Standard retardican false logic in action. It follows the affirming the consequent logical fallacy - ""if A, then B; B, therefore A."
The normal way to test a consequent is to apply the testable quantity. For instance:
Problem: I need boiling hot water for tea.
If (A), heat is applied to water, (B) it begins to boil.
Therefore, (A) placing a pot of cold water on a stove's lit burner will (B) cause the water to boil.
The reverse, however, does not follow. And here is how the retardicans phrase it:
Problem: Climate change affecting a wide variety of
If (A) human behavior is causing global warming, then (B) we should enact sensible environmental and energy reforms (carbon limits, wean off of fossil fuels towards geothermal/nuclear/solar, etc).
Republican fallacious reply: "(B) We should not (insert environmental reform here) therefore (a) human behavior is not causing global warming."
And that, in a nutshell, is why the climate deniers are full of shit. Their position is 100% logical fallacy.
At one time there were laws insisting that anyone driving a "new-fangled horseless carriage" must:
- have someone walk ahead of them waving a red flag or lantern.
- shouting to warn others of the approaching vehicle
- honking a horn or otherwise making noise to "warn" oncoming traffic at any intersection.
The horse and buggy whip cartels also insisted that the automobile would "spook horses" and cause all sorts of problems. As it turned out, of course, the horses didn't give a rat's ass about the cars, they were more likely to spook because some idiot hitched up a mare in heat and some other idiot had an un-gelded stallion on the rein, or because some asshole shot off a gun near them.
The nonsense about electric cars is no different. It's just attempts by the lobbying department of interested automobile makers (the ones who aren't adapting to the 21st century) using bribed republicans and regulatory capture to try to create artificial barriers to adoption against their competition.
Try Retardican states like Tex-ass, you worthless idiot.
They have a rainy day fund. They REFUSED to use it for what was needed and instead fucked the public school system over while complaining they were "not getting enough back" (they get back $1.10 for every $1 of federal income tax paid).
More stupid laws brought to you by the buggy whip manufacturer's cartel.
Really, this is just stupid shit all over again.
WRONG!
Right here, moron.
The problem is that in the 1980s and 1990s, Republicans were GLEEFULLY GETTING SPECULATION REGULATIONS REPEALED. It's the same sort of crap in other markets (see: Republican repeal of Glass-Steagal separation of banking and stock market) that caused the Bush Depression.
No, the second amendment is to make it so that when the mentally handicapped republican 5-year-olds throw a temper tantrum, they can actually leave dead bodies in the process.
The larger problem today is that we haven't had adults in the Republican party in over 40 years, ever since they started running on the "Southern Strategy." Some of their stupider ideas are the kind of "omg brilliant" that only works with Enron Math.
Case in point: "balanced budget amendments" in republican states, that never, ever, every can possibly work unless they rely on Federal emergency funding to close the gaps on countercyclical needs like unemployment benefits, medicaid for the poor, and job search/training programs during an economic downturn... meanwhile they get to bitch about "we balanced our state budget why doesn't the federal government balance theirs."
Enron math, brought to you by the republican retard squad. And they're dumb enough to fall for it.
In the USA we've PROVEN that most republicans are mentally handicapped five year olds, the problem is every time we try to fix the problems they've caused, we're subjected to republican temper tantrums.
Case in point: the latest anti-science law crap passed by the republican retard squads in Tennessee (6 million people, 6 last names!) and Louisiana (most corrupt state in the USA!).