In summary, the very idea that "we are all created equal" is a mindless, pointless statement that speaks only to turning a blind eye to reality.
The method you used to disprove the statement can also be used in support of it. The statement does not mention in what way men(mankkind, humankind, whatever. I'm using the Declaration of Independence wording) are equal. All it says is that they are equal at their creation. This part of the statement actually eliminates at least one of your arguments(we aren't born with the same amount of consideration that we have when we mature).
One way that all people are equal at the moment of their birth is their experience. Newborn children have done neither good nor ill to anyone. This is actually the only way that I see people as being naturally equal upon their creation. Rights and opportunities are more dependent upon the actions of others.
Affording "equal opportunity to our fellows at each set of choices in life" is a somewhat narrowminded(or, perhaps, narrow-worded) idea. You brought up Dahmer and King: had not Dahmer in his infamous crimes unearned opportunities that King should have kept upon the realizing of his fame? Had Dahmer not forfeited rights that any decent person should have?
The Bible says (pooh pooh on it all u like, but it does make some good points).. and how is it in the national interest to piss off God..he can take down nations can't he?.. It's one of the proverbs (16:8 I think).. look it up.:
"Better a little gain by righteousness than a lot by injustice"
And to answer out of Shakespeare:
"Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall"
and to further rob Quiz show of some of its Shakespeare quotations:
"To do a great right do a little wrong"
It is not always in our power to make goodness and righteousness prevail by their own devices. We may fight for them, and if we do, then we should fight hard, but that may mean dipping into more unsavory ideas. It is then also our duty not to destroy what we are trying to protect.
"... dynamic, constantly updating. Don't judge a book by it's cover: especially since it was something else five minutes ago. Some error in publication? It's been recorrected. Information becomes a wiki, constantly edited..."
There's something to be said for permanence. Even if an event is misreported, it is not without value: it shows us what people were saying and/or thought about the event at the time. We learn more from our mistakes than from our successes, and getting into the habit of erasing those mistakes is a very bad idea.
"We think that at the moment the screens will appear first in more expensive magazines in the form of high-impact adverts. But as the price sinks we expect them to appear in papers as well, possibly as a really attention-grabbing front page."
To broaden your point a bit: do we need more moving pictures? I'm not advocating against the technology, just saying that I see enough images moving about daily as it is.
With TV and the internet, there are plenty of videos and animations to take in with, or as part of your information diet. The permanence and patience of newspapers and magazines is a nice diversion from the visual bombardment of those other mediums.
"Google's mission statement is Do No Evil. The inclusion of Taiwan with an aggressive power such as China is not exactly good. They should acknowledge the defacto freedoms the Taiwanese currently possess."
The mission statement is not "do good," nor is it "fight evil." It is, as you said, "do no evil."
All that that statement implies is that the company should not personally do evil. Regardless of whether we, as individual people or companies avoid creating it, evil exists, and there will always be others willing or misguided enough to make it. Being good means doing good. It means fighting evil when we can and how we can.
Neville Chamberlin was not a bad man. Nevertheless, he tried to appease evil when he saw it. What good did that do?(Does it count as a Godwin violation if I compare someone to Chamberlin? This isn't to compare China to Nazi Germany, nor to suggest that Google ought to declare war on China... Chamberlin was merely the first appeaser who came to mind.)
I'll be surprised if Kameo or Perfect Dark are actually released at launch. At least since that Conker game(which went through at least three publicized versions across several years), they've been rather longwinded in their game development... especially after announcing and promoting their games.
Yes, if we expose people to figures of speech at an early age then we run the risk of raising a generation that can use language effectively. This could be the end of the internet as we know it.
Did you use sarcasm in that sentence? It is just that I have heard rumors of the concept, and as your statement seemed odd, I thought this would be a good opportunity to ask.
"We all know he had a fun, fake Scottish accent and was unparalleled in delivering technobabble in just the right doses for a good episode of Trek, but I'd love to hear the stories of this man that aren't penned by Rodenberry or copyrighted by Viacom."
Most people are not famous, and will not be remembered by a large audience, because that audience never knew they existed in the first place. James Doohan would still have been a very nice man and cool guy even if he hadn't been on Star Trek, but more likely than not, he wouldn't have been terribly famous.
Most people don't get the opportunity to be famous at all. The lucky ones (if fame is appreciated), usually only get one chance. How many actors from all the Star Trek series over the years would you know the names of if they had chosen not to be on those series? It's like the Bond franchise: if you have the opportunity to play James Bond, that's probably going to be the one thing you'll be famous for.
As others have said: I didn't know James Doohan personally. I had no manner of contact with him to give me any reason to know about him, or remember him for anything other than his most popular role. There's nothing wrong with remembering him for playing Scotty -- I've had a lot of fun watching him in that role over the years. I know he was a class act, and that just makes him all the cooler.
Thank you, James Doohan, for all the good times. You're missed already.
I know it's only six episodes, but you can't just pass over FLCL like that. One of my favorites, of anything I've seen. As much as Cowboy Bebop kicked my ass in a places, FLCL was a continual three-hour ass-kicking.
I haven't seen NGE yet... but the fact that it is also from Gainax has me very hopeful.
Nice to know you're not paying too much attention to this thread.;)
I wasn't speaking to the original poster's usage of the term... until now, I hadn't read that post. On his usage of the word with Bork himself, I tentatively agree with you.(my knowledge of his confirmation hearings is very slight, my knowledge of Watergate I have little confidence in, and about Bork himself I don't know much more than your original post)
As to the general usage of the term "bork," I still think it a fine one. It may just be my misconception (and/or derrivative of those around me), but I never recall any sort of specific partisan association with the word.
(As a side note: how long do you think it takes for a word to live down its origin?)
I did not share in your former delusion, and for that I am sorry. In general, I try to take all opportunities to promote the Chef, and am, myself, a large fan of his.
The origins of words don't necessarily have a lot of impact on their current meanings. The word "guy" originates from the name "Guy Fawkes," who conspired to blow up the British Parliament in 1605. Few people have compunctions about using the word because of that.
I see no problem with using the word "bork." It expresses a sentiment well.
(And I do appreciate your post with the Bork-Nixon history lesson)
"I suspect most of the Slashdot readers currently whining about how "why does everything have to be based on real facts" would turn the TV off in disgust if the next episode of "24" featured a nuclear bomb stolen by leprechauns or if "CSI" started occasionally solving mysteries with magic spells."
The problem within both those scenarios is not that they defy reality, but that defy internal consistency within the stories. Yellow Submarine isn't hurt by the fact that the Beatles go through a bunch of crazy locations, meeting Nowhere Men and Blue Meanies. and Being John Malkovich isn't hurt by the fact that there's a door on the seventh-and-a-half floor of an office building that leads to the inside of the titular character's head.
Stories -- all stories -- take place in specialized Universes with specialized rules. All borrow rules from the real world, the number borrowed varies with the story. Breaking real world rules doesn't matter unless they're also rules of that story's Universe.
Well, from a storytelling perspective, the installation of the projectors into the banks is the only real snag. Well, that and the fact that you can't see through the eyes of your claymation sellf. You could always conjure up some way to leave your clay self the tools necessary to do the deed, but unless the projector had the range to get your clay self to the cash, and you could arrange for some additional eyes, you'd be screwed.
It's been twenty-five years since the 1970's ended.(or twenty-four, depending on level of pedantry) I can't decisively argue whether or not Americans, on the whole, are afraid of nuclear power. What I'm saying is that if they are, they are not alone. You can build a lot of power plants in twenty-five yearrs. If the rest of the industrialized world is so blithely unafraid of nuclear power, why does the U.S. produce one-fifth of all electricity so generated in the world?
According to the Wikipedia article on nuclear power:
"In 2000, there were 438 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 351 gigawatts.
In 2001, the U.S. nuclear share of electricity generation was 19%. In 2004, there were 104 (69 pressurized water reactors, 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate in the United States, producing a total of 97,400 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20 percent of the nation's total electric energy consumption. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.
In France, as of 2002, 78% of all electric power was generated by nuclear reactors."
About one-fifth of the nuclear generated electricity in the world is produced by superstitious Americans. A little under one-fourth of the commercial nuclear plants in the world are in the Unitied States.
There are about 63 million people in France. There are almost 300 million in the U.S.(I'd bring Japan in... but I have no specific figures on its power production). In 2001, the U.S. consumed about 424.3 GW of electricity, more than is produced by nuclear reactors in the world.(again, missing data... don't have any on France or Japan)
Helium-3, perhaps, but for the fact that humanity is a bit gun shy of nuclear power.
Solar power is there, and here, and everywhere in between. The problem with having it there is getting it back here... which, consequently, is another problem with the Helium-3.
Getting there, and gathering the resources is a gargantuan task, capped with the problem of getting those resources home. A resource incentive would have to be much larger(and/or more immediately striking).
Slashdot Mirror
In summary, the very idea that "we are all created equal" is a mindless, pointless statement that speaks only to turning a blind eye to reality.
The method you used to disprove the statement can also be used in support of it. The statement does not mention in what way men(mankkind, humankind, whatever. I'm using the Declaration of Independence wording) are equal. All it says is that they are equal at their creation. This part of the statement actually eliminates at least one of your arguments(we aren't born with the same amount of consideration that we have when we mature).
One way that all people are equal at the moment of their birth is their experience. Newborn children have done neither good nor ill to anyone. This is actually the only way that I see people as being naturally equal upon their creation. Rights and opportunities are more dependent upon the actions of others.
Affording "equal opportunity to our fellows at each set of choices in life" is a somewhat narrowminded(or, perhaps, narrow-worded) idea. You brought up Dahmer and King: had not Dahmer in his infamous crimes unearned opportunities that King should have kept upon the realizing of his fame? Had Dahmer not forfeited rights that any decent person should have?
The Bible says (pooh pooh on it all u like, but it does make some good points) .. and how is it in the national interest to piss off God ..he can take down nations can't he? .. It's one of the proverbs (16:8 I think).. look it up.:
"Better a little gain by righteousness than a lot by injustice"
And to answer out of Shakespeare:
"Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall"
and to further rob Quiz show of some of its Shakespeare quotations:
"To do a great right do a little wrong"
It is not always in our power to make goodness and righteousness prevail by their own devices. We may fight for them, and if we do, then we should fight hard, but that may mean dipping into more unsavory ideas. It is then also our duty not to destroy what we are trying to protect.
because I finally found someone as great as me. It's like I always say, "Make new friends and keep the old. One is silver..."
You stole my post! That's it, Cappy Red should not be allowed on Slashdot! Let's march to Hollywood!
"... dynamic, constantly updating. Don't judge a book by it's cover: especially since it was something else five minutes ago. Some error in publication? It's been recorrected. Information becomes a wiki, constantly edited..."
There's something to be said for permanence. Even if an event is misreported, it is not without value: it shows us what people were saying and/or thought about the event at the time. We learn more from our mistakes than from our successes, and getting into the habit of erasing those mistakes is a very bad idea.
From TFA:
"We think that at the moment the screens will appear first in more expensive magazines in the form of high-impact adverts. But as the price sinks we expect them to appear in papers as well, possibly as a really attention-grabbing front page."
To broaden your point a bit: do we need more moving pictures? I'm not advocating against the technology, just saying that I see enough images moving about daily as it is.
With TV and the internet, there are plenty of videos and animations to take in with, or as part of your information diet. The permanence and patience of newspapers and magazines is a nice diversion from the visual bombardment of those other mediums.
"Google's mission statement is Do No Evil. The inclusion of Taiwan with an aggressive power such as China is not exactly good. They should acknowledge the defacto freedoms the Taiwanese currently possess."
The mission statement is not "do good," nor is it "fight evil." It is, as you said, "do no evil."
All that that statement implies is that the company should not personally do evil. Regardless of whether we, as individual people or companies avoid creating it, evil exists, and there will always be others willing or misguided enough to make it. Being good means doing good. It means fighting evil when we can and how we can.
Neville Chamberlin was not a bad man. Nevertheless, he tried to appease evil when he saw it. What good did that do?(Does it count as a Godwin violation if I compare someone to Chamberlin? This isn't to compare China to Nazi Germany, nor to suggest that Google ought to declare war on China... Chamberlin was merely the first appeaser who came to mind.)
*honken*
"Who knew that one day, we'd have to worry about a new tombstone-trade in the black market."
Yeah, so far as markets go, it doesn't get much more macabre than that.
I'll be surprised if Kameo or Perfect Dark are actually released at launch. At least since that Conker game(which went through at least three publicized versions across several years), they've been rather longwinded in their game development... especially after announcing and promoting their games.
Yes, if we expose people to figures of speech at an early age then we run the risk of raising a generation that can use language effectively. This could be the end of the internet as we know it.
Did you use sarcasm in that sentence? It is just that I have heard rumors of the concept, and as your statement seemed odd, I thought this would be a good opportunity to ask.
"We all know he had a fun, fake Scottish accent and was unparalleled in delivering technobabble in just the right doses for a good episode of Trek, but I'd love to hear the stories of this man that aren't penned by Rodenberry or copyrighted by Viacom."
Most people are not famous, and will not be remembered by a large audience, because that audience never knew they existed in the first place. James Doohan would still have been a very nice man and cool guy even if he hadn't been on Star Trek, but more likely than not, he wouldn't have been terribly famous.
Most people don't get the opportunity to be famous at all. The lucky ones (if fame is appreciated), usually only get one chance. How many actors from all the Star Trek series over the years would you know the names of if they had chosen not to be on those series? It's like the Bond franchise: if you have the opportunity to play James Bond, that's probably going to be the one thing you'll be famous for.
As others have said: I didn't know James Doohan personally. I had no manner of contact with him to give me any reason to know about him, or remember him for anything other than his most popular role. There's nothing wrong with remembering him for playing Scotty -- I've had a lot of fun watching him in that role over the years. I know he was a class act, and that just makes him all the cooler.
Thank you, James Doohan, for all the good times. You're missed already.
Alderan is peaceful, they have no weapons! Like Greedo! ...
Crap...
I know it's only six episodes, but you can't just pass over FLCL like that. One of my favorites, of anything I've seen. As much as Cowboy Bebop kicked my ass in a places, FLCL was a continual three-hour ass-kicking.
I haven't seen NGE yet... but the fact that it is also from Gainax has me very hopeful.
He's gonna be pissed when he finds out that Napoleon lost. Whatever you do, don't mention "Kirk" or "Wellington."
Nice to know you're not paying too much attention to this thread. ;)
I wasn't speaking to the original poster's usage of the term... until now, I hadn't read that post. On his usage of the word with Bork himself, I tentatively agree with you.(my knowledge of his confirmation hearings is very slight, my knowledge of Watergate I have little confidence in, and about Bork himself I don't know much more than your original post)
As to the general usage of the term "bork," I still think it a fine one. It may just be my misconception (and/or derrivative of those around me), but I never recall any sort of specific partisan association with the word.
(As a side note: how long do you think it takes for a word to live down its origin?)
I did not share in your former delusion, and for that I am sorry. In general, I try to take all opportunities to promote the Chef, and am, myself, a large fan of his.
The origins of words don't necessarily have a lot of impact on their current meanings. The word "guy" originates from the name "Guy Fawkes," who conspired to blow up the British Parliament in 1605. Few people have compunctions about using the word because of that.
I see no problem with using the word "bork." It expresses a sentiment well.
(And I do appreciate your post with the Bork-Nixon history lesson)
"You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there."
:)
Heh, very apropos sig.
"I suspect most of the Slashdot readers currently whining about how "why does everything have to be based on real facts" would turn the TV off in disgust if the next episode of "24" featured a nuclear bomb stolen by leprechauns or if "CSI" started occasionally solving mysteries with magic spells."
The problem within both those scenarios is not that they defy reality, but that defy internal consistency within the stories. Yellow Submarine isn't hurt by the fact that the Beatles go through a bunch of crazy locations, meeting Nowhere Men and Blue Meanies. and Being John Malkovich isn't hurt by the fact that there's a door on the seventh-and-a-half floor of an office building that leads to the inside of the titular character's head.
Stories -- all stories -- take place in specialized Universes with specialized rules. All borrow rules from the real world, the number borrowed varies with the story. Breaking real world rules doesn't matter unless they're also rules of that story's Universe.
Yeah, and Germany hasn't become Nazi-Planet-Episode Land. ...
I want my 600 quatloos.
Well, from a storytelling perspective, the installation of the projectors into the banks is the only real snag. Well, that and the fact that you can't see through the eyes of your claymation sellf. You could always conjure up some way to leave your clay self the tools necessary to do the deed, but unless the projector had the range to get your clay self to the cash, and you could arrange for some additional eyes, you'd be screwed.
It's been twenty-five years since the 1970's ended.(or twenty-four, depending on level of pedantry) I can't decisively argue whether or not Americans, on the whole, are afraid of nuclear power. What I'm saying is that if they are, they are not alone. You can build a lot of power plants in twenty-five yearrs. If the rest of the industrialized world is so blithely unafraid of nuclear power, why does the U.S. produce one-fifth of all electricity so generated in the world?
According to the Wikipedia article on nuclear power:
"In 2000, there were 438 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 351 gigawatts.
In 2001, the U.S. nuclear share of electricity generation was 19%. In 2004, there were 104 (69 pressurized water reactors, 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate in the United States, producing a total of 97,400 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20 percent of the nation's total electric energy consumption. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.
In France, as of 2002, 78% of all electric power was generated by nuclear reactors."
About one-fifth of the nuclear generated electricity in the world is produced by superstitious Americans. A little under one-fourth of the commercial nuclear plants in the world are in the Unitied States.
There are about 63 million people in France. There are almost 300 million in the U.S.(I'd bring Japan in... but I have no specific figures on its power production). In 2001, the U.S. consumed about 424.3 GW of electricity, more than is produced by nuclear reactors in the world.(again, missing data... don't have any on France or Japan)
Helium-3, perhaps, but for the fact that humanity is a bit gun shy of nuclear power.
Solar power is there, and here, and everywhere in between. The problem with having it there is getting it back here... which, consequently, is another problem with the Helium-3.
Getting there, and gathering the resources is a gargantuan task, capped with the problem of getting those resources home. A resource incentive would have to be much larger(and/or more immediately striking).