In minutes? Wake me up when holographic images can be created in tens of milliseconds. Also, I demand a 20 cubic foot recessed tabletop display. Finally, it probably needs to cost under $500, so we can put one in every classroom.
The clarification is helpful. Still, it dodges the issue that started this discussion: should Microsoft pay taxes on the profits they make in selling their software? If so, where? If not, why the hell not?
Aristotle described the hand as the "tool of tools," by which he meant to say something about its indeterminacy and potentiality for indefinitely many and varied uses.
You know who else thought that a position isn't false, or wrong, because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with said position? That's right!
I don't think one ever needs to say "firstly," since "first" functions just fine, but I acknowledge that others have a different view. Still, what is not a matter of choice is whether one is going to be consistent.
Let me get this straight. If, in the rambling, intergalactic, trans-generational epic that one of my dreams is, one small thing happens that poses some kind of danger, challenge, or puzzle, that is all that is required to characterize the whole thing as a "threat dream"?
Fucking idiots. By this measure, we'd have to say that nearly all human literature is "threat literature." Surely these scientists would conclude that that proves that "the reason" we write and read literature is that we are evolutionarily predisposed to imaginatively process threat scenarios.
Anyone who doesn't see what is wrong with that inference has not been reading. Worse: anyone who doesn't see what is wrong with that inference has no soul and cannot dream.
Perhaps my boring you will make you want to think about something else, which might lead you down a path toward molecular pharmaceutical research, which might then lead to your developing medicines that improve many millions of people's lives!
Is that a reasonable anticipation? No. Is it a possible consequence? Not bloody likely, but the question is whether it's possible. It is, in fact, possible, but there's no meaningful way it could work into our decision-making or even our retrospective assignment of credit or blame. Ergo, "actual or foreseeable consequences" are not a sufficient sign of the wrongness or rightness of an action.
It's not the only argument against consequentialism, nor even the best, but I think it's good enough to defeat the simplistic view you put forward. Since you're complaining about people who don't explain their views, notice that in your original post, you did nothing to explain why only consequences are legitimate things to point to when we want to know whether an act is wrong; you just asserted it.
These guys have two hundred years experience selling art, etc, with questionable history coming out of war-torn countries. You really think this visor is going to blindside them in a fraud suit?
If tachyons are present at abnormally high levels and disrupt the temporal matrix? It could totally blindside them.
Now, by "foreseeable consequences" do you mean those that are accurately predicted, or those that can be reasonably expected. If it's the latter, then you're not really a strict consequentialist. If it's the former, then you can hardly make any moral judgments at all (given how indefinite the chain of consequences of a given act is).
Slashdot Mirror
Birds Give a Lesson to Plane Designers
By crapping on their freshly washed cars?
In minutes? Wake me up when holographic images can be created in tens of milliseconds. Also, I demand a 20 cubic foot recessed tabletop display. Finally, it probably needs to cost under $500, so we can put one in every classroom.
OK, back to sleep now.
The clarification is helpful. Still, it dodges the issue that started this discussion: should Microsoft pay taxes on the profits they make in selling their software? If so, where? If not, why the hell not?
So, in other words, only workers should have to pay taxes.
"And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire. The ring of fire."
Aristotle described the hand as the "tool of tools," by which he meant to say something about its indeterminacy and potentiality for indefinitely many and varied uses.
You know who else thought that a position isn't false, or wrong, because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with said position? That's right!
But why male models?
The original "Airplane!" movie (1980) called. It wants its joke back.
It depends how clever her machinations are.
In short, if you want to distinguish yourself as a fusspot of the first order, this is a great way to do so.
'Tis ever my wish. But just what is a great way to so distinguish myself: backing Fowler or bucking him?
Geeks who know more Greek know that the combining form for "human" is "anthropo-," while the combining form for "man (male human)" is "andro-."
I don't think one ever needs to say "firstly," since "first" functions just fine, but I acknowledge that others have a different view. Still, what is not a matter of choice is whether one is going to be consistent.
First, its duels [...]. Secondly, [...].
First, it's "it's." Second, if it's "first, ..." it's "second, ...."
Pancreas. Amphetamines.
And the researcher who came up with this is named Armitage.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Let me get this straight. If, in the rambling, intergalactic, trans-generational epic that one of my dreams is, one small thing happens that poses some kind of danger, challenge, or puzzle, that is all that is required to characterize the whole thing as a "threat dream"?
Fucking idiots. By this measure, we'd have to say that nearly all human literature is "threat literature." Surely these scientists would conclude that that proves that "the reason" we write and read literature is that we are evolutionarily predisposed to imaginatively process threat scenarios.
Anyone who doesn't see what is wrong with that inference has not been reading. Worse: anyone who doesn't see what is wrong with that inference has no soul and cannot dream.
*leans back and holds pen and pad at the ready*
Tell me about your mother.
Well, it is wet.
Yes, anyone who recommends trains and buses as modes of urban transportation is clearly a nut.
It's the worst kind of fluffy futurism. It wouldn't be so offensive if it weren't coupled with his oddly oily smugness.
TEDitis?
This is a new one. "You know what's wrong with Linux? It's old." Linux bashers must be getting desperate.
Perhaps my boring you will make you want to think about something else, which might lead you down a path toward molecular pharmaceutical research, which might then lead to your developing medicines that improve many millions of people's lives!
Is that a reasonable anticipation? No. Is it a possible consequence? Not bloody likely, but the question is whether it's possible. It is, in fact, possible, but there's no meaningful way it could work into our decision-making or even our retrospective assignment of credit or blame. Ergo, "actual or foreseeable consequences" are not a sufficient sign of the wrongness or rightness of an action.
It's not the only argument against consequentialism, nor even the best, but I think it's good enough to defeat the simplistic view you put forward. Since you're complaining about people who don't explain their views, notice that in your original post, you did nothing to explain why only consequences are legitimate things to point to when we want to know whether an act is wrong; you just asserted it.
These guys have two hundred years experience selling art, etc, with questionable history coming out of war-torn countries. You really think this visor is going to blindside them in a fraud suit?
If tachyons are present at abnormally high levels and disrupt the temporal matrix? It could totally blindside them.
Now, by "foreseeable consequences" do you mean those that are accurately predicted, or those that can be reasonably expected. If it's the latter, then you're not really a strict consequentialist. If it's the former, then you can hardly make any moral judgments at all (given how indefinite the chain of consequences of a given act is).
The odds are totally fair. The house, however, takes a 3 percent cut.