You're begging the question: how do we know what is normal? Who made you the decider of normalcy? What if the weather in the 60s and 70s was the outlier?
I find it ludicrous that we measly humans think we know anything about something as enormously complex as planetary weather and climate over the estimated lifetime of the Earth.
Where did we get this idea that weather and climate are supposed to stay the same? What people really mean is, "The weather should stay the way I like it to be." How arrogant. (Yet these are the people who call others arrogant for "destroying the planet.")
Right because the possibilities of water wars, refugees, failing economies, destruction of the food chain, droughts and general destabilization of the planet will have no effect on you whatsoever.
I didn't say the military or SS should be exempt from cuts. I didn't even say that only discretionary spending should be cut. I think there are lots of government programs that should be cut, and plenty more that could be.
You know what would really be more efficient? Having a flat, fair tax. Get rid of the thousands upon thousands of pages of tax code and stop wasting citizens' money on professionals who still don't understand it all. Let them put that money toward something useful, and those people toward something productive.
I don't know if you live in Alaska. If you do, maybe you're used to a different kind of government. From where I sit, there's basically no such thing as government efficiency--it's an oxymoron.
But on principle, I think taxes should not be raised ever again, period, except for a World War III. More government is never the answer to societal or economic problems. People should keep more of their hard-earned money and spend it as they choose, determining their own destiny and--wait for it--pursuing happiness on their own terms.
Tell me about individual liberty and codified rights. Tell me what percentage of your income goes to the government. Tell me which choices you're allowed to make and which are made for you. I really don't know much about Denmark.
Hey, I'm not saying the USA is perfect; I'm not saying there aren't some nations that do some things better. But for all the benefits you listed, you pay a price that's not only monetary. If you prefer it, good for you.
Yes, exactly. I didn't see anything in neokushan's posts to counter this problem, other than that eventually maybe everything will be on the chip terminals, which are supposedly immune to this problem.
But then my question is, how do we buy things online without having a chip reader hooked up to my PC?
1. What is an idea? 2. Is there even such a thing as an original idea? 3. Who really deserves exclusive right to an idea? 4. Can ideas even be owned? 5. Should they be owned? 6. Is anyone entitled to money just because he thought of something? 7. Is one who thought of an idea entitled to more money than the one who puts in the work to develop it, engineer it, and bring it to market? 8. Is it necessary for someone who thinks of an idea to receive compensation for it without continuing to do useful work? 9. Would it be wise or good for that to be the case? 10. Can an idea even be "stolen" or "ripped-off"? 11. Is it not possible for someone to "make stuff" (ideas, not goods), offer them freely, and still be compensated for his work? Are ideas worthless if offered freely? Is the thinker no longer useful after he explains his idea openly? (In a similar way, is a singer-songwriter obsoleted when others start singing his songs?)
I think that's enough. All of those are questions whose answers are implicit in your question; without all of those presuppositions, your argument evaporates. In other words, it's not even a real argument, just a cliche.
50% flamebait, 50% overrated. Not even a little insightful or interesting. Slashdot, I never knew ye. It's enough to make one wonder if the mega corps really are hiring armies of downmodders.
I guess you've been brainwashed, or else you wouldn't be in denial of all the evidence that Scientology is a cult. Either that, or you're on the inside, a simple con artist.
But laying that aside for a moment, consider this thought exercise: two groups claim to have truth: one offers it freely, the other charges fees in a multi-step program of enlightenment. Which group makes money from winning converts, and which group makes nothing from winning converts? Which group is more likely to be offering truth, and which group is more likely to be a scam, making things up to trick people into giving up their money? "False dichotomy," you might say. Sure, it's just a thought exercise; it's only intended to get you thinking, not to prove anything.
You are indeed wrong about the nature of my interest.:) I do have an interest in teaching, but any teacher who doesn't learn from his students isn't worth listening to. But anyway, I wouldn't call you or anyone else a student of mine; I don't think so highly of myself that I would think I have more to teach than to learn. My primary goal is seeking truth, learning about it, and sharing it with others. I'm very interested in what you think, whether or not I end up agreeing with you.
For internal flash there's no reason to not use F2FS or any other non-FAT filesystem. In fact there are several flash filesystems already available which could be used instead of FAT32, like NILFS.
For removable cards it's another matter. But internal flash may provide a stepping stone, especially if Samsung or someone else makes a free Windows driver.
Hm, appeal to authority much? The GOP is not an outlier. If it was, it wouldn't control one of the two houses of Congress. But painting your enemy as extremists is easier than rational argument.
Your Romney quote is unbearably stupid. Cut spending by $10 and increase taxes by $1? If spending were cut by X percent, why increase taxes by X/10 percent? Just cut the spending and let the citizens keep their money! Who would honestly propose taking more money from citizens while at the same time decreasing their benefits?! This kind of irrational thinking and blaming is the problem!
Someone has to stand up to the Democrats and say, "NO MORE TAXES." Good grief, this was how our country was founded in the first place! Now people want to throw it away!
"Oh those evil Republicans, they are unwilling to compromise and increase taxes even a little bit!"
On the other hand: Those evil Democrats are unwilling to compromise and cut spending even a little bit without tax increases.
See? It works both ways. The fallacy is that the middle ground must always be the right place to stand.
Yeah, let's help people recover from recession, unemployment, and rising costs by taking more of their money away from them. Makes perfect sense.
Yeah, when we've recovered from this recession, and when we have more tax revenue, then we'll trim government...honest! I promise I'll go on a diet as soon as I lose all this weight!
The fundamental problem is that some people think the good of the nation lies in the government taking over and doing things for citizens, while other people think the good of the nation lies in the government getting out of the way and letting citizens do things for themselves.
The funny thing is, our nation didn't become the superpower it is by following the former strategy, yet some people think that's the way to recovery...
Ha, you're funny. The Democrats want to regulate your private life more than any Republican, because they want to control more of your MONEY. The Democrats want to take your hard-earned cash and then dribble it back to you in the form of social programs, according to what they think you deserve.
On top of that, you're either a liar or completely irrational. The Republicans do not want to legislate what anyone does in his bedroom. But according to you, not wanting to give a government endorsement of a partnership intended to establish the fundamental building block of society--the nuclear family--to a partnership scientifically (oh!) unable to create a nuclear family is "legislating what I do in my bedroom." Yeah, but the Republicans don't understand science at all...
Oh and those Democrats and their economic prowess. Yeah, let's enlarge the middle class by raising taxes and making more people dependent on government handouts. That's so much more economically inspiring than allowing people to keep what they earn and determine their own destiny. No, they don't have a clue what they're doing, but oh, they're so kind and generous, their heart is in the right place, so let's keep giving them more money until they get it right. This time it will work.
The logical disconnects...they hurt...
I won't even bother to counter "enforce Christian beliefs" and "refuses compromise." If you can't comprehend how the rest of your arguments are empty...
Insightful? That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. It's worse than the worst car analogy in the history of Slashdot.
Try this: Think of it like a family member who's grossly obese. You want him to lose weight, so you tell him to spend his money on healthier food. He ignores you and continues to gain weight. So you threaten to cut his allowance; at least he won't be able to buy as much unhealthy food. But he says, no, I need more money so I can buy healthy food; I have to buy this unhealthy food now because if I bought healthy food, I'd still feel hungry. He convinces the family he's right, so he gets more money, and buys even more junk food.
Except it's even worse, because he's also the food purchaser for others in the family; so whenever he buys unhealthy food, other people in the family become unhealthy too.
Government is fundamentally like a spoiled, entitled brat. You can't reason with him. You can't convince him to be more responsible or healthy with his spending. The only thing you can do is limit his allowance to the bare minimum to limit the damage. That, and tell the rest of the family to use their own brains to buy their own food.
Slashdot Mirror
You're begging the question: how do we know what is normal? Who made you the decider of normalcy? What if the weather in the 60s and 70s was the outlier?
I find it ludicrous that we measly humans think we know anything about something as enormously complex as planetary weather and climate over the estimated lifetime of the Earth.
Where did we get this idea that weather and climate are supposed to stay the same? What people really mean is, "The weather should stay the way I like it to be." How arrogant. (Yet these are the people who call others arrogant for "destroying the planet.")
Right because the possibilities of water wars, refugees, failing economies, destruction of the food chain, droughts and general destabilization of the planet will have no effect on you whatsoever.
Man, Hollywood's worked you over good.
Of course, a voice of reason gets modded "Flamebait." I know Slashdot's color is green, but come on...
And what's to stop you from running an app that tells the Exchange server you've accepted those settings and then ignore them?
Why does no one cry "bigot!" when someone slanders an entire nation? It's pure hatred, as evil as hating Jews or Muslims or Asians or blacks.
Oh, but it's ok to hate those people, because I don't like some of the things their government has done.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Curious, why did you have to play with the I/O scheduler?
I didn't say the military or SS should be exempt from cuts. I didn't even say that only discretionary spending should be cut. I think there are lots of government programs that should be cut, and plenty more that could be.
You know what would really be more efficient? Having a flat, fair tax. Get rid of the thousands upon thousands of pages of tax code and stop wasting citizens' money on professionals who still don't understand it all. Let them put that money toward something useful, and those people toward something productive.
I don't know if you live in Alaska. If you do, maybe you're used to a different kind of government. From where I sit, there's basically no such thing as government efficiency--it's an oxymoron.
But on principle, I think taxes should not be raised ever again, period, except for a World War III. More government is never the answer to societal or economic problems. People should keep more of their hard-earned money and spend it as they choose, determining their own destiny and--wait for it--pursuing happiness on their own terms.
Tell me about individual liberty and codified rights. Tell me what percentage of your income goes to the government. Tell me which choices you're allowed to make and which are made for you. I really don't know much about Denmark.
Hey, I'm not saying the USA is perfect; I'm not saying there aren't some nations that do some things better. But for all the benefits you listed, you pay a price that's not only monetary. If you prefer it, good for you.
Yes, exactly. I didn't see anything in neokushan's posts to counter this problem, other than that eventually maybe everything will be on the chip terminals, which are supposedly immune to this problem.
But then my question is, how do we buy things online without having a chip reader hooked up to my PC?
Ah, the presuppositions!
1. What is an idea?
2. Is there even such a thing as an original idea?
3. Who really deserves exclusive right to an idea?
4. Can ideas even be owned?
5. Should they be owned?
6. Is anyone entitled to money just because he thought of something?
7. Is one who thought of an idea entitled to more money than the one who puts in the work to develop it, engineer it, and bring it to market?
8. Is it necessary for someone who thinks of an idea to receive compensation for it without continuing to do useful work?
9. Would it be wise or good for that to be the case?
10. Can an idea even be "stolen" or "ripped-off"?
11. Is it not possible for someone to "make stuff" (ideas, not goods), offer them freely, and still be compensated for his work? Are ideas worthless if offered freely? Is the thinker no longer useful after he explains his idea openly? (In a similar way, is a singer-songwriter obsoleted when others start singing his songs?)
I think that's enough. All of those are questions whose answers are implicit in your question; without all of those presuppositions, your argument evaporates. In other words, it's not even a real argument, just a cliche.
50% flamebait, 50% overrated. Not even a little insightful or interesting. Slashdot, I never knew ye. It's enough to make one wonder if the mega corps really are hiring armies of downmodders.
Wow, I wasn't expecting to see that here.
I guess you've been brainwashed, or else you wouldn't be in denial of all the evidence that Scientology is a cult. Either that, or you're on the inside, a simple con artist.
But laying that aside for a moment, consider this thought exercise: two groups claim to have truth: one offers it freely, the other charges fees in a multi-step program of enlightenment. Which group makes money from winning converts, and which group makes nothing from winning converts? Which group is more likely to be offering truth, and which group is more likely to be a scam, making things up to trick people into giving up their money? "False dichotomy," you might say. Sure, it's just a thought exercise; it's only intended to get you thinking, not to prove anything.
So think about it.
You are indeed wrong about the nature of my interest. :) I do have an interest in teaching, but any teacher who doesn't learn from his students isn't worth listening to. But anyway, I wouldn't call you or anyone else a student of mine; I don't think so highly of myself that I would think I have more to teach than to learn. My primary goal is seeking truth, learning about it, and sharing it with others. I'm very interested in what you think, whether or not I end up agreeing with you.
For internal flash there's no reason to not use F2FS or any other non-FAT filesystem. In fact there are several flash filesystems already available which could be used instead of FAT32, like NILFS.
For removable cards it's another matter. But internal flash may provide a stepping stone, especially if Samsung or someone else makes a free Windows driver.
But does MS's agreement actually prohibit distribution? And do they actually admit to infringement by signing the agreement?
Haha, you think government ever worked well?
Hm, appeal to authority much? The GOP is not an outlier. If it was, it wouldn't control one of the two houses of Congress. But painting your enemy as extremists is easier than rational argument.
Your Romney quote is unbearably stupid. Cut spending by $10 and increase taxes by $1? If spending were cut by X percent, why increase taxes by X/10 percent? Just cut the spending and let the citizens keep their money! Who would honestly propose taking more money from citizens while at the same time decreasing their benefits?! This kind of irrational thinking and blaming is the problem!
The idea that the middle ground is always right is a fallacy. Leadership is rarely popular, but always necessary.
Someone has to stand up to the Democrats and say, "NO MORE TAXES." Good grief, this was how our country was founded in the first place! Now people want to throw it away!
"Oh those evil Republicans, they are unwilling to compromise and increase taxes even a little bit!"
On the other hand: Those evil Democrats are unwilling to compromise and cut spending even a little bit without tax increases.
See? It works both ways. The fallacy is that the middle ground must always be the right place to stand.
Yeah, let's help people recover from recession, unemployment, and rising costs by taking more of their money away from them. Makes perfect sense.
Yeah, when we've recovered from this recession, and when we have more tax revenue, then we'll trim government...honest! I promise I'll go on a diet as soon as I lose all this weight!
The fundamental problem is that some people think the good of the nation lies in the government taking over and doing things for citizens, while other people think the good of the nation lies in the government getting out of the way and letting citizens do things for themselves.
The funny thing is, our nation didn't become the superpower it is by following the former strategy, yet some people think that's the way to recovery...
Ha, you're funny. The Democrats want to regulate your private life more than any Republican, because they want to control more of your MONEY. The Democrats want to take your hard-earned cash and then dribble it back to you in the form of social programs, according to what they think you deserve.
On top of that, you're either a liar or completely irrational. The Republicans do not want to legislate what anyone does in his bedroom. But according to you, not wanting to give a government endorsement of a partnership intended to establish the fundamental building block of society--the nuclear family--to a partnership scientifically (oh!) unable to create a nuclear family is "legislating what I do in my bedroom." Yeah, but the Republicans don't understand science at all...
Oh and those Democrats and their economic prowess. Yeah, let's enlarge the middle class by raising taxes and making more people dependent on government handouts. That's so much more economically inspiring than allowing people to keep what they earn and determine their own destiny. No, they don't have a clue what they're doing, but oh, they're so kind and generous, their heart is in the right place, so let's keep giving them more money until they get it right. This time it will work.
The logical disconnects...they hurt...
I won't even bother to counter "enforce Christian beliefs" and "refuses compromise." If you can't comprehend how the rest of your arguments are empty...
So now when they refuse to increase spending further, they are the bad guys?
It's hard to take you seriously when you compare exercise to tax increases. Exercise is good for you.
Exactly. It's impossible to reduce government spending except by giving it less money to work with.
Insightful? That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. It's worse than the worst car analogy in the history of Slashdot.
Try this: Think of it like a family member who's grossly obese. You want him to lose weight, so you tell him to spend his money on healthier food. He ignores you and continues to gain weight. So you threaten to cut his allowance; at least he won't be able to buy as much unhealthy food. But he says, no, I need more money so I can buy healthy food; I have to buy this unhealthy food now because if I bought healthy food, I'd still feel hungry. He convinces the family he's right, so he gets more money, and buys even more junk food.
Except it's even worse, because he's also the food purchaser for others in the family; so whenever he buys unhealthy food, other people in the family become unhealthy too.
Government is fundamentally like a spoiled, entitled brat. You can't reason with him. You can't convince him to be more responsible or healthy with his spending. The only thing you can do is limit his allowance to the bare minimum to limit the damage. That, and tell the rest of the family to use their own brains to buy their own food.