Europe's been at peace for "a fucking long time", but 50 years isn't enouigh to change huma nature, and the nature of humans is to make war.
No, it isn't. Europe has been at peace and will continue to be at peace because of international trade. War is caused by two factors: (1) a psychopath manages to become dictator, or (2) you can realize a significant material gain from invading your neighbour. We must be eternally vigilant against (1) (and strong democratic institutions are a good defense), but for (2), there is no sense in invading your neighbour for its resources if your neighbours are willing to harvest what you want and deliver it to your door for about the same price as if you had done it yourself.
and people today would be well pressed to stop trying to get rid of natural law theory.
It seems to me that the law of nature has only one tenet: Might is right. I'm not sure how one derives "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from this, only "the right to live under the boot of an absolute dictator".
It's one thing to revoke the key, then prosecute the original crackers under the DMCA. (As distasteful as that is.)
Has anyone ever been prosecuted under the you-don't-talk-about-DMCA provision? I have to assume that the copyright holders don't want to bring such a prosecution because the DMCA would be unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge.
and some are REALLY not happy when you tell them "I told you this months before we moved to AIX. In fact here's an Email trail showing me telling you that about 50 times in the past 6 months."
I think this is mentioned in 20% of Dilbert strips.
Perhaps every time another milestone is passed, the new understanding moves us closer to fusion and thus on to the next unexpected hurdle. Sort of like being able to see the second mountain that was previously obscured by the first.
Or maybe it's like the religious nuts who have been saying all throughout history that Armageddon will happen within our lifetimes. It's a scam to keep their followers toeing the line, since people would loose interest if the church were to definitively say that Armageddon was 500 years in the future.
The end is nigh! Give me your money and you will be saved!
There are a few major reasons that first-world democracies don't invade each other and one of them is free trade. It would be senseless for America to invade Canada in order to acquire Canada's oil reserves, because Canadians are willing extract this oil from the ground and ship to the Americans' doorsteps for about the same price as it would take for Americans to do it themselves.
are much less subjected to some obvious forms of natural selection like predation by other animals, but it just hasn't been long enough to be meaningful.
We're not really evolution here. We have produced many different breeds of dogs in a short period of time that have shocking differences between them but they are all still the same species. Likewise, we can produce a lot of religious A.D.D. 'tardos in a short period of time who are still homo "sapiens" "sapiens".
(Just so we're clear, what we have today in the US is not even close to a free market. Indeed, government and its special "right" to employ coercion is more heavily entangled in business than ever before.)
It is the responsibility of government to maintain a free market. A free market does not maintain itself; it is a very fragile thing. Unfortunately, the government has fallen down on the job. Microsoft is not part of a free market. It is a monopoly. A monopolized market is the opposite of a free market.
It's characterized by a lack of ability to feel empathy. These people's brains are wired differently than most. There are millions of them, but most are small-time crooks and swindlers.
There are a few different types of people who don't feel empathy and we shouldn't confuse them. There are sociopathic types who are generally the small-time swindlers you mention. They enjoy manipulating people and probably aren't the mass-murdering type. There are also schizoid (not schizotypal) people who generally don't feel any emotions, but don't care, don't need other people, feel fine alone, and are very unlikely to go on killing sprees. And then there are the Antisocial types who want to and try to fit in but cannot, feel very empty inside, and become very angry about it--angry against the world in general. These are the most likely to go on mass killing sprees.
People experiencing the kind of psychopathy you seem to allude to are more likely to be serial killers who evade detection than mass murders who also commit suicide.
because it's unwieldy and thief-proof. Just imagine the poor schmuck who tries to steal it.
The schmuck will injure himself on your property while trying to steal the TV and then sue you for millions of dollars. The court will side with him because you didn't put a "Danger: Do Not Steal--May Cause Injury" sign on your TV.
OMG.. you mean people would actually SEE and/or NOTICE the protestors in the streets, and possibly be educated and recruited to their cause?!
Blocking traffic is a criminal offense. Of course, you could always break into people's houses and verbally assault them with your views on how you deserve bigger hand-outs. You're entitled to commit that criminal offense too, right?
If you March anyway you WILL be arrested for trying to exercise your free speech.
You'll be arrested for marching without a permit, stopping traffic (a criminal offense), loitering on government land, breaking windows, torching cars, other vandalism, assaulting police officers and each other, and littering. Pretending that your demonstration is legitimate doesn't allow you to commit criminal and civic offenses, though many protesters like to pretend otherwise. "We're angry that our hand-outs aren't big enough, so we're going to block traffic!" IMHO, the cops are far too lenient with these goons.
Technically, they would be "Freedom Fighters" since they are fighting against a totalitarian dictatorship (unless they intend to install another one themselves). Do you have a reference to a list of atrocities committed by these people?
Yeah there is only one difference between 2 terrorists acts (the WTC and the various attacks in Iraq) Probably more than 90 000 more casualties on the Iraqi side than on the WTC.
Indeed, the Islamic militants have been much more successful at killing civilians in Iraq than in the US.
Good news never ends up on TV because it's boring, but that basically implies that we pay news services to give us horrific violent news, which in turn enpowers people using horrific violence to get media attention.
Most people don't pay directly for news services; their primary revenue comes from selling advertising. Therefore, they feature horrific violence in their content because that is what the public wants to see.
Terrorists are also freedom fighters, it just depends on who's viewpoint you prefer.
It seems to me that the terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are orthogonal. A "terrorist" is someone who intentionally and specifically targets civilians for mass murder, kidnapping, etc. A "freedom fighter" is someone who is fighting against an authoritarian regime in order to give his people political self-determination. One can be both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter", though this is often not the case. For instance, radical Islamists seek to enslave "their people" to a theocratic dictatorship, not free them.
That could cover just about any form of violence whether perpetrated by governments or terrorists/freedom fighters, east or west.
The Western powers don't intentionally and specifically target civilians. If they did, there would be no civilians left. These entities are not morally equivalent.
I, too, am a Libertarian - as is most of slashdot really.
I doubt this. I would say that Slashdot is: 50% liberal, 15% centrist, 20% conservative, 10% libertarian, 5% bonkers.
I have to ask how Libertarians might hope to do anything about global warming when they systematically oppose any organization with enough power to do anything about it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't. Europe has been at peace and will continue to be at peace because of international trade. War is caused by two factors: (1) a psychopath manages to become dictator, or (2) you can realize a significant material gain from invading your neighbour. We must be eternally vigilant against (1) (and strong democratic institutions are a good defense), but for (2), there is no sense in invading your neighbour for its resources if your neighbours are willing to harvest what you want and deliver it to your door for about the same price as if you had done it yourself.
It seems to me that the law of nature has only one tenet: Might is right. I'm not sure how one derives "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from this, only "the right to live under the boot of an absolute dictator".
Has anyone ever been prosecuted under the you-don't-talk-about-DMCA provision? I have to assume that the copyright holders don't want to bring such a prosecution because the DMCA would be unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge.
I think this is mentioned in 20% of Dilbert strips.
"Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."
Or maybe it's like the religious nuts who have been saying all throughout history that Armageddon will happen within our lifetimes. It's a scam to keep their followers toeing the line, since people would loose interest if the church were to definitively say that Armageddon was 500 years in the future.
The end is nigh! Give me your money and you will be saved!
There are a few major reasons that first-world democracies don't invade each other and one of them is free trade. It would be senseless for America to invade Canada in order to acquire Canada's oil reserves, because Canadians are willing extract this oil from the ground and ship to the Americans' doorsteps for about the same price as it would take for Americans to do it themselves.
We're not really evolution here. We have produced many different breeds of dogs in a short period of time that have shocking differences between them but they are all still the same species. Likewise, we can produce a lot of religious A.D.D. 'tardos in a short period of time who are still homo "sapiens" "sapiens".
It is the responsibility of government to maintain a free market. A free market does not maintain itself; it is a very fragile thing. Unfortunately, the government has fallen down on the job. Microsoft is not part of a free market. It is a monopoly. A monopolized market is the opposite of a free market.
There are a few different types of people who don't feel empathy and we shouldn't confuse them. There are sociopathic types who are generally the small-time swindlers you mention. They enjoy manipulating people and probably aren't the mass-murdering type. There are also schizoid (not schizotypal) people who generally don't feel any emotions, but don't care, don't need other people, feel fine alone, and are very unlikely to go on killing sprees. And then there are the Antisocial types who want to and try to fit in but cannot, feel very empty inside, and become very angry about it--angry against the world in general. These are the most likely to go on mass killing sprees.
People experiencing the kind of psychopathy you seem to allude to are more likely to be serial killers who evade detection than mass murders who also commit suicide.
The would have added that CSI miracle-zoom-in technology that would make a higher pixel resolution a sensible option, but the royalties were too high.
The schmuck will injure himself on your property while trying to steal the TV and then sue you for millions of dollars. The court will side with him because you didn't put a "Danger: Do Not Steal--May Cause Injury" sign on your TV.
Blocking traffic is a criminal offense. Of course, you could always break into people's houses and verbally assault them with your views on how you deserve bigger hand-outs. You're entitled to commit that criminal offense too, right?
You'll be arrested for marching without a permit, stopping traffic (a criminal offense), loitering on government land, breaking windows, torching cars, other vandalism, assaulting police officers and each other, and littering. Pretending that your demonstration is legitimate doesn't allow you to commit criminal and civic offenses, though many protesters like to pretend otherwise. "We're angry that our hand-outs aren't big enough, so we're going to block traffic!" IMHO, the cops are far too lenient with these goons.
Seems more like an extremely distance cousin. Or future nephew [Futurama 2:12 (2443)].
What things can we compute that a Turing machine cannot?
Consciousness can be easily explained in three words: It's an illusion. Well, okay, one of those three words is a contraction.
Technically, they would be "Freedom Fighters" since they are fighting against a totalitarian dictatorship (unless they intend to install another one themselves). Do you have a reference to a list of atrocities committed by these people?
Which groups are those? The Afghanistan Mujahadeen targeted the Soviet military.
Indeed, the Islamic militants have been much more successful at killing civilians in Iraq than in the US.
Most people don't pay directly for news services; their primary revenue comes from selling advertising. Therefore, they feature horrific violence in their content because that is what the public wants to see.
It seems to me that the terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are orthogonal. A "terrorist" is someone who intentionally and specifically targets civilians for mass murder, kidnapping, etc. A "freedom fighter" is someone who is fighting against an authoritarian regime in order to give his people political self-determination. One can be both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter", though this is often not the case. For instance, radical Islamists seek to enslave "their people" to a theocratic dictatorship, not free them.
The Western powers don't intentionally and specifically target civilians. If they did, there would be no civilians left. These entities are not morally equivalent.
I doubt this. I would say that Slashdot is: 50% liberal, 15% centrist, 20% conservative, 10% libertarian, 5% bonkers.
I have to ask how Libertarians might hope to do anything about global warming when they systematically oppose any organization with enough power to do anything about it.