If you're trying to, or are, impying that the majority of people don't understand evolution I'm going to have to dissagree. It seems to me that most people understand the concept but choose to believe in God anyway. Some people just want to believe in something, it doesn't make them stupid to decide to believe in a God.
Well, actually, if you accept the chaotic side of evolution- then there cannot be a God. The concept of a God insists that someone is in control of this mess- and the concept of chaos is that nothing is in control of this mess. Those two items are completely, utterly, antithetical.
The problem with (some) IDers is that they're claiming that ID is somehow a scientific theory which deserves to set beside (if not in front of) evolution in our science classes. If these pseudo-science IDers were to simply acknowledge that their belief is religious and not scientific, we could all get back to what we do best.
An interesting idea- especially considering that science is religious at it's base- an unwavering belief in the myth of reality.
There are, by the way a number of religious figures (including the vatican) who have no problem accepting both evolution and a belief that god had a hand in creation.
Still *no* - facts are things that are true, whether they are believed, or even known, or not.
And thus are unknowable by human beings- EVER.
Sure, you may not be able to prove 100% that something is true ("a fact"), or you may not be able to prove 100% that something is not true, but that doesn't change whether it actually really is a fact or not.
If you can't prove 100% that it is true- beyond ALL doubt- then it doesn't fit the definition of a fact and you can't call it one.
Facts are not subjective.
And everything human beings think they know IS subjective.
So the model of the universe we build may consist of facts, or it may not, depending on whether we are right, NOT depending on whether we can prove/know for certain that we're right.
Actually, it will NEVER consist entirely of facts- because human beings are incapable of finding facts and are NEVER right.
Crikey, are you blind? You should see my kids, they don't look one bit like they came out of their mother. But seriously, games of chance are a fundamental part of all human cultures, so don't tell me that it's too hard to grasp.
You're using the wrong set of axioms. Religious people don't gamble. They trust in God instead- the idea that God is in CONTROL of the universe. Now do you understand why Chaos and Mutation makes no sense to such people? It denies that their father-figure is in CONTROL.
Holy guacamole! did you really just write that? Wow. Penises indicate maleness. So does the pronoun "he." And why would the creator have a large lump of neurons, i.e. a 'brain?' Puny human.
Read the Shepherd of Hermes sometime if you get a chance- it gets pretty graphic about the conception of Jesus Christ, and specifically refers to semen coming out of the Father's BREASTS.
Now see, that's a real stretch. I can believe "shit happens" much easier than some twilight zone episode
Once again, you're working with a different set of axioms and assumptions.
Well, yours ain't it, and neither's the set of laws set out by a bunch of nomads who grew up to slaughter cities and divvy up the donkeys and virgins (Deuteronomy and Numbers: yeah, that's how we should live, right). Don't forget the 10th commandment-- never cook a kid goat in its mothers milk.
You're missing the big picture- and trying to use your worldview to explain somebody else's.
See, the problem with universal (totalizing, really) laws associated with stone-age living is that they don't work anymore. They never really worked then, and they don't work now. They aren't holy, they're patently temporal, and invariably enforced by jerks.
And yet without them, stupid things happen- like kids raised without fathers.
Yes, it was so much better in the days of Jim Crow! Sod. Corporatism and revolt are at the very origins of your precious State.
Actually, I was thinking about the days before the white man came- but yes.
Just goes to show what a crappy educational system you have -- by design. Excuse the pun.
Well, I think it's a pretty crappy educational system that teaches people that there's only ONE way to think. But we seem to be stuck with them.
This is what comes of worshipping Logos over creation. Just another golden calf. The people of the Book have all substituted their poetry for their deity.
Just as you have substituted a crazy myth about reality for a diety.
:-) Congradulations- you're the first person to figure it out completely. If you understand truthiness, you understand *why* science is having such a hard time- because it's not approachable by the common man.
An axiom is a directly perceptible truth that cannot be undermined.
Yep- except for such a thing cannot exist, therefore an axiom must be something else- a worldview assumption that defines a system of thought.
I believe there are 3 axioms inherent in perception (perception being the common pre-conceptual experience of every person). Existence exists. (otherwise you wouldn't be there to perceive nothing) Things exist with identities. (otherwise everything would be EXACTLY the same) You are conscious of it. (otherwise you would not perceive it)
None of which I would automatically agree to. I have no proof that perception is the same from person to person. Without that proof, I have no prove that existance exists. Without existance, we can't have identity- or even conscioiusness.
"There are no facts" cannot be an axiom because it is a. a negative (try perceiving a negative some time) and b. certainly not inherent in perception and c. wrong. There are facts.
Only if you accept that existance exists- and I see no reason to do that.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it- just know that the majority of the world pretends to agree, but when you get right down to it doesn't. I dispair of ever finding Kant's intersection of perception- I certainly have yet to experience it.
Facts are things that are true, despite whether they are believed or not.
I agree with this definition- the problem is that this definition does not fit the human psyche OR our understanding of the universe.
Facts are not subjective, only the OPINION as to whether they are true or not.
Agreed. And since human beings are only capable of opinion- not actually knowing reality, but only a model of reality we carry around in our heads- facts cannot exist.
It isn't natural selection that is the anti-intuitive part of evolution at all. It's chaos theory (mutation) that is the anti-intuitive part. And so we find that ID actually accepts natural selection (microevolution) but not massive mutation (macroevolution).
On the other hand, how did that Guy in the sky get a penis?
Nobody said he did- the universe and his brain are one and the same. His "word", his "thoughts" are- is how ID works anyway.
Why bother running this whole place as a complex simulation for the sake of some shaky moral principles?
Because it's fun? Same reason I design horridly complex track layouts for my kid's model train.
Why is this book that was assembled in a political process 1700 years ago taken as universal law?
Basically so that we HAVE a universal law- a shared set of values. Societies don't work very well without them- which is why the United States is sinking into corporatism and revolt.
Why do people ignore all the contradictions in these absolute, but textual laws?
Because contradictions are only a problem to scientists- nobody else cares.
Where is the physical evidence?
Nobody can actually prove there is a world, let alone a shared body of reality we call "physical evidence", that's just yet another axiomatic assumption.
That I have trouble understanding, as theology is incredibly abstruse.
Well, actually, so is science- complex minds lead to complex reasoning. It all comes down to what assumptions you make to base your argument on. Use one set of axioms, you get math and science, use another set, you get Catholicism, use a third set, you get Hinduism, and so on. No one set of assumptions is any better than any other- but we're arrogant enough to each think our set of assumptions is best.
That's just trolling. Even if we were all insanely intelligent, there would still be a majority of people under 110 IQ. By definition, 100 is the median IQ, therefore claiming that there is a majority of people with an IQ below X (where X is an IQ larger than 100) is meaningless. The more important question is that of the capabilities of a person with an IQ of 100.
Exactly- and I say those capabilities do NOT include comprehending the evidence for evolution at this point in time. Maybe someday- but not now.
Just because a theory is easy to understand doesn't mean it is inherently true.
Agreed- but what you're forgetting is that for most people's daily lives, truth doesn't matter. This world got along just fine for millions of years without anybody realizing that the Giant's Bones were fossils- and *most* people get by just fine without ever understanding a single scientific theory.
It is most certainly easier to "understand" when I say that li'l people in the computer make it tick, compared to how it really works.
I use that all the time with my older customers- it's why they keep paying me for lessons.
1) ID does not explain a damn thing. They only take the stance that evolution be explained, not their claims. Ask away; all you'll get from them are evasions, fabrications, and references to long-rebuked psuedo-science.
Which to THEM, is explaination. You're trying to stick with a scientific mindset while talking to non-scientific people, which is a basic error.
2) Not even people who do go to church and still have a semi-scientific literate brain can decipher and support the vague claims of ID'rs.
The only claim I can see of the IDers that is vaugely testible is that God exists and Chaos doesn't. Aside from that basic, they seem to accept every bit of evidence evolution does.
3) Biology can explain the complexity of life and does it every day. Turn on any science channel and actually watch the biology at work.
That isn't a simple enough explaination for MOST human beings on this planet.
Those who believe ID are nothing more than a group of self-ignorant fools.
Well, for that matter, those of us who believe evolution are nothing more than a group of arrogant bigots. Name calling does not help the cause.
Facts don't exist. What is fact and what is fiction changes depending upon whom you are talking to. Thus, in a world where most human beings have IQs below 110- evidence is just somebody telling you something when you trust that somebody, and lies are just somebody telling you something when you don't trust that somebody.
Only if you consider "God did it" as some kind of answer. Fortunately for humanity, most of us realize that's a pretty crappy answer. Has been since the 15th century or thereabouts.
Actually, MOST of humanity has IQs less than 110 and couldn't understand the scientific method when it was taught to them. I agree that it's a crappy answer- but it isn't if you are an idiot, and most of humanity are idiots.
And the majority of people on the planet have IQs less than 110 (See the definition of the Intelligence Quotient if you don't believe me) so what else is new? That's the danger of democracy for you.
Wrong way around- if he doesn't worship at the altar of ID, AND doesn't prove his basic assumptions, he's denied funding. (the basic assumptions of ID being unproveable of course, gives you the meaning of the word Irony).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! I GET IT! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA! I think.....- No Man the Barbarian.
Still, this should be easy to rectify, right? All you have to do is send them several books full of the evidence for evolution as it is currently understood- thus proving the point that ID should be banned from Canada.
But that's the problem with the whole debate, isn't it? ID can take the complexity of life and the structure of the universe itself and explain it in terms anybody who has ever been to church can understand. Biology can't. Which is sad.
By the way, I like your signature quote, I copied it over to my Great Quotes file. Is it something you said, or should I attribute it to someone else?
It's a paraphrase of a line from Monday night's 7th Heaven- the preacher said it. But he said internet connection, it's me who put in broadband (see my journal- back a few entries now- for why).
I would disagree with the essence of the free market being based on lies and deceptions- the essence of the free market is choice. And you can't have choice without knowledge. If everyone is lying about what a product or price really is, then you can't make an educated choice, and there is no longer any freedom.
Exactly the reason that I say free markets cannot exist. The information transfer is all one way- because it is most profitable to be one way. Wal*Mart's (Or Target's or whatever's) computers have recorded every purchase you've ever made- and targets you with advertising that speaks to your weaknesses. But their corporate processes aren't similarily transparent- you aren't allowed to know what they pay their workers or what their motives are. In the end, the *only* bit of data you're presented with is price/unit- and most people don't even have enough math to figure that out.
On a stagnant society- beware, it's not likely to stay stagnant for long- it's much more likely to fail.
Eventually all societies fail. We should let them, that's the way we learn.
I agree that current enconomic regulation is really stifling long term economic viability.
It's being done *wrong*. Thanks to corporatism, it's the fraudsters and the parasites who write the rules- and thus, current economic regulation is entirely designed for short term profit. But it's damn hard to avoid corporatism in a free market- the aggregation of wealth practically guarantees that even a country that starts out as an anarchy will end up a corporatist oligarchy once enough wealth accumulates to create a government. The Constitution means nothing if you have enough money to buy the campaigns of 537 people.
It is sad that Sam is no longer around. I grew up and live in the Ozarks, and Wal-Mart has always been a part of our community. I can remember Sam coming to visit our local store. He was a great man, and a great business leader. Wal-Mart has changed a lot over the years since Sam's death. Of course, I can't personally validate that the Waltons hate each other- I really don't know. But nonetheless, it is sad.
We've got a similar fellow out here on the West Coast- Les Schwab, tire salesman and cattle rancher (Free Beef Month Is February! If you can, you time your tire replacement for then, and get steaks with the tires you buy!). He's actually set up his corporation to survive his death rather well- the highest paid people in the system are the store managers and they're on commission, plus he's got a expansion/promotion system in place that guarantees a new store every time somebody's ready to promote out to management. But he's in his late 80s- it will be interesting to see in a few years if his heirs keep the faith (quite literally- he ties all of his business decisions to his Catholicism) or goes the same way as Wal*Mart. Personally, I'll stop buying tires from them the day they stop offering free rotations and flat repair.
As far as it being tough, your right on the mark. It is tough, but it is possible, and it is certainly worth it. If Sam Walton did anything significantly wrong, it may (perhaps- again, I have no first hand experiece) have been not spending more time with his family nurturing values in them. I do not know if this is the case, or not.
If he had bothered to instill his patriotism in them, China would be out about $14 billion a year in exports today.
But there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing in this article.
Thanks to corporatism, this concept can't be described as wrongdoing at all. Microsoft, under the EUCD and DMCA laws, is perfectly within their rights to stop manufacturers from selling blank machines- for the same reason that movie companies are within their rights to keep us from having blank DVDs, software, and drives that can bitcopy rented DVDs.
And they were trying to stop manufacturers, sorry MANUFACTURERS from installing pirated Windows, and trying to persuade them to enter the exciting world of software services.
Nope- they were trying to stop them from selling BLANK MACHINES that would allow the end-user to install pirated copies of windows.
And I've built or bought half a dozen machines over the last ten years. Most had an option whether they had Windows installed or not.
Yes- so have I. But they do have a point that a machine being sold with a *blank hard drive* could indeed be considered piracy hardware under the EUCD or DCMA.
If you really don't want a Windows license, buy all the parts of your PC from different MAUFACTURERS with different credit cards. If the Microsoft License Police manage to collate the purchases with help from the NSA/CIA etc and call accusing you of having a PC, just say some of the bits went wrong or you sold them. Don't buy a case, just put the motherboard on a tinfoil sheet. You can use the same stuff you make hats from. Buy a steel reinforced apartment door to give yourself time to throw the parts of the PC out of the window before the Microsoft Gestapo can break it down. Do not sleep either at night either, that's a rookie mistake. Make sure you are alert at 3-5am, since that's the most likely time for them to raid your apartment. Most importantly, make sure you memorise the Linux source code so you can still think about it when they take you to Gitmo after the raid.
I agree with all of this- except for the tinfoil sheet part. I find cardboard boxes (also known as "Leaning Tower" cases to us Oregon Institute of Technology graduates, because the old 286 boards we'd put in them rarely fit) work much better at not shorting out the electronics.
Well, I agree with that! I thought about mentioning deception in the post, but decided against it. I think deception, when it is used to cause financial or physical harm, should also be against the law. There may be a few other situations where deception should be illegal too- especially when it is comitted be an elected official, or in the case of obstruction to justice.
Of course, once you do that, you no longer have a free market. The essence of the free market is buyer beware- the fact that the seller can hide information from the buyer, on pricing, quality, and origin of manufacture.
We seem to want to always do better, to be always progressing. If everyone is doing the miniumun, society will stagnant, and when society stagnants, it has a tendency to degrade. Of course, as I said, if that compulsion eases, society would slip extremly fast. It's walking a very thin line, and when your that close to the edge, your likely to fall.
I wouldn't mind a stagnant society- at least I'd be able to count on *something*- which is more than what I can say about my economic and legal prospects right now.
Perhaps there is danger to short term profit, but in the long term, profitability would increase. At least, happiness- which is much better than money, would be much more prevalent and abundant.
The existance of the SEC prevents looking at long term profit- any project that doesn't begin to pay off within 4 months simply won't get financing.
As far as the last comment goes, my comment above covers it, too. You are right, when famalies have both parent working 60 hours a week and they don't care about spending time togeher and with their kids, and they come home tired and not willing to teach value lessons to their children, we will never crawl out of the hole we are in. Couples need to spend time nurturing theiir relationships, thereby reducing the plague of divorce. Parents need to teach children by example and exhortation about values, thereby biulding strong famalies and strong future leadership.
Unfortuneately that's just the begining. In the more wealthy families in this country, you also get parents against children, brothers against sisters, husbands against wives in boardroom battles that are *bound* to affect home life as well. A great example is what happened to Wal*Mart after Mr. Sam died- the family is hardly speaking anymore, and their one wish as majority stockholders is profit. And that lack of family ethics translated into the monster corporation it is today.
But take comfort, as there are still many who believe in the family and it's value. Those of us who are faithful to family values can build up an isulation from the outside, we can live in society, and be a valuable contributer to it, without being consumed by it.
Damn tough though as long as the average person can't afford a house outright- and has to pay 10 to 45 years worth of usury just to get one.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're trying to, or are, impying that the majority of people don't understand evolution I'm going to have to dissagree. It seems to me that most people understand the concept but choose to believe in God anyway. Some people just want to believe in something, it doesn't make them stupid to decide to believe in a God.
Well, actually, if you accept the chaotic side of evolution- then there cannot be a God. The concept of a God insists that someone is in control of this mess- and the concept of chaos is that nothing is in control of this mess. Those two items are completely, utterly, antithetical.
The problem with (some) IDers is that they're claiming that ID is somehow a scientific theory which deserves to set beside (if not in front of) evolution in our science classes. If these pseudo-science IDers were to simply acknowledge that their belief is religious and not scientific, we could all get back to what we do best.
An interesting idea- especially considering that science is religious at it's base- an unwavering belief in the myth of reality.
There are, by the way a number of religious figures (including the vatican) who have no problem accepting both evolution and a belief that god had a hand in creation.
Exactly right.
That is of course your opinion. But how do I know it's right?
Human beings are incapable of being right- therefore it's most certainly wrong.
Still *no* - facts are things that are true, whether they are believed, or even known, or not.
And thus are unknowable by human beings- EVER.
Sure, you may not be able to prove 100% that something is true ("a fact"), or you may not be able to prove 100% that something is not true, but that doesn't change whether it actually really is a fact or not.
If you can't prove 100% that it is true- beyond ALL doubt- then it doesn't fit the definition of a fact and you can't call it one.
Facts are not subjective.
And everything human beings think they know IS subjective.
So the model of the universe we build may consist of facts, or it may not, depending on whether we are right, NOT depending on whether we can prove/know for certain that we're right.
Actually, it will NEVER consist entirely of facts- because human beings are incapable of finding facts and are NEVER right.
Crikey, are you blind? You should see my kids, they don't look one bit like they came out of their mother. But seriously, games of chance are a fundamental part of all human cultures, so don't tell me that it's too hard to grasp.
You're using the wrong set of axioms. Religious people don't gamble. They trust in God instead- the idea that God is in CONTROL of the universe. Now do you understand why Chaos and Mutation makes no sense to such people? It denies that their father-figure is in CONTROL.
Holy guacamole! did you really just write that? Wow. Penises indicate maleness. So does the pronoun "he." And why would the creator have a large lump of neurons, i.e. a 'brain?' Puny human.
Read the Shepherd of Hermes sometime if you get a chance- it gets pretty graphic about the conception of Jesus Christ, and specifically refers to semen coming out of the Father's BREASTS.
Now see, that's a real stretch. I can believe "shit happens" much easier than some twilight zone episode
Once again, you're working with a different set of axioms and assumptions.
Well, yours ain't it, and neither's the set of laws set out by a bunch of nomads who grew up to slaughter cities and divvy up the donkeys and virgins (Deuteronomy and Numbers: yeah, that's how we should live, right). Don't forget the 10th commandment-- never cook a kid goat in its mothers milk.
You're missing the big picture- and trying to use your worldview to explain somebody else's.
See, the problem with universal (totalizing, really) laws associated with stone-age living is that they don't work anymore. They never really worked then, and they don't work now. They aren't holy, they're patently temporal, and invariably enforced by jerks.
And yet without them, stupid things happen- like kids raised without fathers.
Yes, it was so much better in the days of Jim Crow! Sod. Corporatism and revolt are at the very origins of your precious State.
Actually, I was thinking about the days before the white man came- but yes.
Just goes to show what a crappy educational system you have -- by design. Excuse the pun.
Well, I think it's a pretty crappy educational system that teaches people that there's only ONE way to think. But we seem to be stuck with them.
This is what comes of worshipping Logos over creation. Just another golden calf. The people of the Book have all substituted their poetry for their deity.
Just as you have substituted a crazy myth about reality for a diety.
Yes, except it's not really an explanation.
It is to THEM- and that's all that really counts.
:-) Congradulations- you're the first person to figure it out completely. If you understand truthiness, you understand *why* science is having such a hard time- because it's not approachable by the common man.
An axiom is a directly perceptible truth that cannot be undermined.
Yep- except for such a thing cannot exist, therefore an axiom must be something else- a worldview assumption that defines a system of thought.
I believe there are 3 axioms inherent in perception (perception being the common pre-conceptual experience of every person). Existence exists. (otherwise you wouldn't be there to perceive nothing) Things exist with identities. (otherwise everything would be EXACTLY the same) You are conscious of it. (otherwise you would not perceive it)
None of which I would automatically agree to. I have no proof that perception is the same from person to person. Without that proof, I have no prove that existance exists. Without existance, we can't have identity- or even conscioiusness.
"There are no facts" cannot be an axiom because it is a. a negative (try perceiving a negative some time) and b. certainly not inherent in perception and c. wrong. There are facts.
Only if you accept that existance exists- and I see no reason to do that.
All definitions are assumptions- they assume a certain worldview, then define the world by that view.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it- just know that the majority of the world pretends to agree, but when you get right down to it doesn't. I dispair of ever finding Kant's intersection of perception- I certainly have yet to experience it.
You apparently didn't get my meaning:
Facts are things that are true, despite whether they are believed or not.
I agree with this definition- the problem is that this definition does not fit the human psyche OR our understanding of the universe.
Facts are not subjective, only the OPINION as to whether they are true or not.
Agreed. And since human beings are only capable of opinion- not actually knowing reality, but only a model of reality we carry around in our heads- facts cannot exist.
Reehhh? What's so tough about natural selection?
It isn't natural selection that is the anti-intuitive part of evolution at all. It's chaos theory (mutation) that is the anti-intuitive part. And so we find that ID actually accepts natural selection (microevolution) but not massive mutation (macroevolution).
On the other hand, how did that Guy in the sky get a penis?
Nobody said he did- the universe and his brain are one and the same. His "word", his "thoughts" are- is how ID works anyway.
Why bother running this whole place as a complex simulation for the sake of some shaky moral principles?
Because it's fun? Same reason I design horridly complex track layouts for my kid's model train.
Why is this book that was assembled in a political process 1700 years ago taken as universal law?
Basically so that we HAVE a universal law- a shared set of values. Societies don't work very well without them- which is why the United States is sinking into corporatism and revolt.
Why do people ignore all the contradictions in these absolute, but textual laws?
Because contradictions are only a problem to scientists- nobody else cares.
Where is the physical evidence?
Nobody can actually prove there is a world, let alone a shared body of reality we call "physical evidence", that's just yet another axiomatic assumption.
That I have trouble understanding, as theology is incredibly abstruse.
Well, actually, so is science- complex minds lead to complex reasoning. It all comes down to what assumptions you make to base your argument on. Use one set of axioms, you get math and science, use another set, you get Catholicism, use a third set, you get Hinduism, and so on. No one set of assumptions is any better than any other- but we're arrogant enough to each think our set of assumptions is best.
Is that a fact?
No- it's only an axiom by definition, an assumption.
That's just trolling. Even if we were all insanely intelligent, there would still be a majority of people under 110 IQ. By definition, 100 is the median IQ, therefore claiming that there is a majority of people with an IQ below X (where X is an IQ larger than 100) is meaningless. The more important question is that of the capabilities of a person with an IQ of 100.
Exactly- and I say those capabilities do NOT include comprehending the evidence for evolution at this point in time. Maybe someday- but not now.
Just because a theory is easy to understand doesn't mean it is inherently true.
Agreed- but what you're forgetting is that for most people's daily lives, truth doesn't matter. This world got along just fine for millions of years without anybody realizing that the Giant's Bones were fossils- and *most* people get by just fine without ever understanding a single scientific theory.
It is most certainly easier to "understand" when I say that li'l people in the computer make it tick, compared to how it really works.
I use that all the time with my older customers- it's why they keep paying me for lessons.
1) ID does not explain a damn thing. They only take the stance that evolution be explained, not their claims. Ask away; all you'll get from them are evasions, fabrications, and references to long-rebuked psuedo-science.
Which to THEM, is explaination. You're trying to stick with a scientific mindset while talking to non-scientific people, which is a basic error.
2) Not even people who do go to church and still have a semi-scientific literate brain can decipher and support the vague claims of ID'rs.
The only claim I can see of the IDers that is vaugely testible is that God exists and Chaos doesn't. Aside from that basic, they seem to accept every bit of evidence evolution does.
3) Biology can explain the complexity of life and does it every day. Turn on any science channel and actually watch the biology at work.
That isn't a simple enough explaination for MOST human beings on this planet.
Those who believe ID are nothing more than a group of self-ignorant fools.
Well, for that matter, those of us who believe evolution are nothing more than a group of arrogant bigots. Name calling does not help the cause.
Facts don't exist. What is fact and what is fiction changes depending upon whom you are talking to. Thus, in a world where most human beings have IQs below 110- evidence is just somebody telling you something when you trust that somebody, and lies are just somebody telling you something when you don't trust that somebody.
Only if you consider "God did it" as some kind of answer. Fortunately for humanity, most of us realize that's a pretty crappy answer. Has been since the 15th century or thereabouts.
Actually, MOST of humanity has IQs less than 110 and couldn't understand the scientific method when it was taught to them. I agree that it's a crappy answer- but it isn't if you are an idiot, and most of humanity are idiots.
And the majority of people on the planet have IQs less than 110 (See the definition of the Intelligence Quotient if you don't believe me) so what else is new? That's the danger of democracy for you.
Wrong way around- if he doesn't worship at the altar of ID, AND doesn't prove his basic assumptions, he's denied funding. (the basic assumptions of ID being unproveable of course, gives you the meaning of the word Irony).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! I GET IT! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA! I think.....- No Man the Barbarian.
Still, this should be easy to rectify, right? All you have to do is send them several books full of the evidence for evolution as it is currently understood- thus proving the point that ID should be banned from Canada.
But that's the problem with the whole debate, isn't it? ID can take the complexity of life and the structure of the universe itself and explain it in terms anybody who has ever been to church can understand. Biology can't. Which is sad.
By the way, I like your signature quote, I copied it over to my Great Quotes file. Is it something you said, or should I attribute it to someone else?
It's a paraphrase of a line from Monday night's 7th Heaven- the preacher said it. But he said internet connection, it's me who put in broadband (see my journal- back a few entries now- for why).
I would disagree with the essence of the free market being based on lies and deceptions- the essence of the free market is choice. And you can't have choice without knowledge. If everyone is lying about what a product or price really is, then you can't make an educated choice, and there is no longer any freedom.
Exactly the reason that I say free markets cannot exist. The information transfer is all one way- because it is most profitable to be one way. Wal*Mart's (Or Target's or whatever's) computers have recorded every purchase you've ever made- and targets you with advertising that speaks to your weaknesses. But their corporate processes aren't similarily transparent- you aren't allowed to know what they pay their workers or what their motives are. In the end, the *only* bit of data you're presented with is price/unit- and most people don't even have enough math to figure that out.
On a stagnant society- beware, it's not likely to stay stagnant for long- it's much more likely to fail.
Eventually all societies fail. We should let them, that's the way we learn.
I agree that current enconomic regulation is really stifling long term economic viability.
It's being done *wrong*. Thanks to corporatism, it's the fraudsters and the parasites who write the rules- and thus, current economic regulation is entirely designed for short term profit. But it's damn hard to avoid corporatism in a free market- the aggregation of wealth practically guarantees that even a country that starts out as an anarchy will end up a corporatist oligarchy once enough wealth accumulates to create a government. The Constitution means nothing if you have enough money to buy the campaigns of 537 people.
It is sad that Sam is no longer around. I grew up and live in the Ozarks, and Wal-Mart has always been a part of our community. I can remember Sam coming to visit our local store. He was a great man, and a great business leader. Wal-Mart has changed a lot over the years since Sam's death. Of course, I can't personally validate that the Waltons hate each other- I really don't know. But nonetheless, it is sad.
We've got a similar fellow out here on the West Coast- Les Schwab, tire salesman and cattle rancher (Free Beef Month Is February! If you can, you time your tire replacement for then, and get steaks with the tires you buy!). He's actually set up his corporation to survive his death rather well- the highest paid people in the system are the store managers and they're on commission, plus he's got a expansion/promotion system in place that guarantees a new store every time somebody's ready to promote out to management. But he's in his late 80s- it will be interesting to see in a few years if his heirs keep the faith (quite literally- he ties all of his business decisions to his Catholicism) or goes the same way as Wal*Mart. Personally, I'll stop buying tires from them the day they stop offering free rotations and flat repair.
As far as it being tough, your right on the mark. It is tough, but it is possible, and it is certainly worth it. If Sam Walton did anything significantly wrong, it may (perhaps- again, I have no first hand experiece) have been not spending more time with his family nurturing values in them. I do not know if this is the case, or not.
If he had bothered to instill his patriotism in them, China would be out about $14 billion a year in exports today.
But there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing in this article.
Thanks to corporatism, this concept can't be described as wrongdoing at all. Microsoft, under the EUCD and DMCA laws, is perfectly within their rights to stop manufacturers from selling blank machines- for the same reason that movie companies are within their rights to keep us from having blank DVDs, software, and drives that can bitcopy rented DVDs.
And they were trying to stop manufacturers, sorry MANUFACTURERS from installing pirated Windows, and trying to persuade them to enter the exciting world of software services.
Nope- they were trying to stop them from selling BLANK MACHINES that would allow the end-user to install pirated copies of windows.
And I've built or bought half a dozen machines over the last ten years. Most had an option whether they had Windows installed or not.
Yes- so have I. But they do have a point that a machine being sold with a *blank hard drive* could indeed be considered piracy hardware under the EUCD or DCMA.
If you really don't want a Windows license, buy all the parts of your PC from different MAUFACTURERS with different credit cards. If the Microsoft License Police manage to collate the purchases with help from the NSA/CIA etc and call accusing you of having a PC, just say some of the bits went wrong or you sold them. Don't buy a case, just put the motherboard on a tinfoil sheet. You can use the same stuff you make hats from. Buy a steel reinforced apartment door to give yourself time to throw the parts of the PC out of the window before the Microsoft Gestapo can break it down. Do not sleep either at night either, that's a rookie mistake. Make sure you are alert at 3-5am, since that's the most likely time for them to raid your apartment. Most importantly, make sure you memorise the Linux source code so you can still think about it when they take you to Gitmo after the raid.
I agree with all of this- except for the tinfoil sheet part. I find cardboard boxes (also known as "Leaning Tower" cases to us Oregon Institute of Technology graduates, because the old 286 boards we'd put in them rarely fit) work much better at not shorting out the electronics.
Well, I agree with that! I thought about mentioning deception in the post, but decided against it. I think deception, when it is used to cause financial or physical harm, should also be against the law. There may be a few other situations where deception should be illegal too- especially when it is comitted be an elected official, or in the case of obstruction to justice.
Of course, once you do that, you no longer have a free market. The essence of the free market is buyer beware- the fact that the seller can hide information from the buyer, on pricing, quality, and origin of manufacture.
We seem to want to always do better, to be always progressing. If everyone is doing the miniumun, society will stagnant, and when society stagnants, it has a tendency to degrade. Of course, as I said, if that compulsion eases, society would slip extremly fast. It's walking a very thin line, and when your that close to the edge, your likely to fall.
I wouldn't mind a stagnant society- at least I'd be able to count on *something*- which is more than what I can say about my economic and legal prospects right now.
Perhaps there is danger to short term profit, but in the long term, profitability would increase. At least, happiness- which is much better than money, would be much more prevalent and abundant.
The existance of the SEC prevents looking at long term profit- any project that doesn't begin to pay off within 4 months simply won't get financing.
As far as the last comment goes, my comment above covers it, too. You are right, when famalies have both parent working 60 hours a week and they don't care about spending time togeher and with their kids, and they come home tired and not willing to teach value lessons to their children, we will never crawl out of the hole we are in. Couples need to spend time nurturing theiir relationships, thereby reducing the plague of divorce. Parents need to teach children by example and exhortation about values, thereby biulding strong famalies and strong future leadership.
Unfortuneately that's just the begining. In the more wealthy families in this country, you also get parents against children, brothers against sisters, husbands against wives in boardroom battles that are *bound* to affect home life as well. A great example is what happened to Wal*Mart after Mr. Sam died- the family is hardly speaking anymore, and their one wish as majority stockholders is profit. And that lack of family ethics translated into the monster corporation it is today.
But take comfort, as there are still many who believe in the family and it's value. Those of us who are faithful to family values can build up an isulation from the outside, we can live in society, and be a valuable contributer to it, without being consumed by it.
Damn tough though as long as the average person can't afford a house outright- and has to pay 10 to 45 years worth of usury just to get one.