It's not as vague as "using the UN". He is attempting to use eminent domain rather than buy something on the open market. This is absolutely the opposite of the principles he espouses. There is no doubt he is a hypocrite.
Some people's solution to not seeming a hypocrite is to express no opinion that they may not be able to follow themselves. And I assert, this is one of the worst problems with those who put such stock in hypocrisy in arguments.
The correct way is to be honest. It's fine to say "Ideally one should go to the gym 3 times a week. But I personally find it difficult to manage." It's not OK to say "You should always go to the gym 3 times a week", if you rarely go yourself.
The latter are hypocrites, and it's always a good thing to call them out. The former are open and honest.
You talk of a third group that couldn't bring themselves to say what a good gym regime is if they are not able to follow it themselves. Honest but silent. Well so what? There are enough open and honest people about. We don't need everyone to voice their opinions on gyms.
I'm fine with discussing objectivism itself, and homosexuality. When they are on-topic. Here it wasn't. The hypocrisy of libertarians was the topic here.
And hypocrisy is always worth pointing out. Regardless of any other discussions about the underlying issue.
It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately.
Then you are ignorant of the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. That was the reason for Gadaffi developing chemical weapons in the first place. To use agaist Iran. If he still had them in the period before GWII, the very last place he'd have sent them would be Iran.
The mostly likely thing he would have done is to bury them in the desert. That's what he did with his air force fighters after all. But given that they still haven't been found, the chance of them still existing at the time of GWII are negligible.
For sure he gave a great big "Fuck you" to the US and their allies. But that is neither morally justified, nor a rational reason for a country to be invaded. Neither NK, Cuba, nor any of the countries of Africa that say "fuck you" to America get invaded. Iraq was invaded as a US power play in the oil states of the middle east. No more and no less.
They're either criminals or objectivists. Criminal if they believe the money originates from a crime. Objectivists if they believe the origin of the money is merely immoral, but not criminal.
Either way, I'm not losing any sleep over their losses.
Does man have the right to exist for his own sake, or not?
There's not a libertarian in the world that even tries to. They all use the roads that the government put there for example. And shelter in the relative peace that military and constabulary give him.
Libertarianism is just a big word for selfishness. It means: I'll take what I can get, but I'll resent giving anything back.
You are forced to participate, and only an idiot would not seek to regain the money they were forced to hand over to Social Security.
You say it like it's a free choice to claim social security. Of course it's not. You have to be poor enough. By claiming social security she proved she needed it. And there's the end of her philosophy - a lifetime of Objectivism; of acting in her "rational self-interest" left her impoverished.
So where do people who choose to sit at home and write novels fit? When that activity leaves them so poor they have to claim social security?
I mean, Rand could have chosen to be one of those industrial executives she admired so much, and presumably earned a huge salary. But she chose a path that led her impoverished and claiming welfare instead. Presumably because she considered it in her rational self-interest.
Your point is well taken, but even in the specific case of showing whether something is a reasonable path to take, the founder's ability to follow their own path still reduces to an anecdote.
It was put forward as an anecdote. Nothing further was claimed.
That is why specific hypocrisy is not useful in these discussions.
What discussions? The only relevance to the story was another example of a libertarian hypocrite.
I have a great deal of difficulty keeping my mouth shut when people start using "proof by hypocrisy".
Proof? The only person who's using the word proof here is you. Pointing out a hypocrisy is valuable, whether or not it proves anything. For example when you're bible bashing preacher denounces gays, then it turns out that he's been having secret affairs with men all along, that is well worth pointing out the hypocrisy. It may say nothing about gays or the bible - but it does mean that the preacher himself is a worthless sack of shit.
If I beat you up for your lunch money, and then offered to give it back to you, would you go without lunch despite the fact that you are of the belief that you shouldn't have your lunch money taken away in the first place? Hardly.
For sure I would refuse it. Because I wouldn't want to let you off the hook with the principle of the school, when you got punished for stealing my lunch money. You see, it's a false analogy: Stealing, unlike tax, is a crime.
Of all the things to beat up Ayn Rand about, it seems like people like to flock to the weakest criticism just so they can use the word "hypocrisy".
That's because the subject of the story is the hypocrisy of another libertarian. There is indeed vast numbers of things to beat Ayn Rand up about, and criticising objectivism is like shooting fish in a barrel. But it's her hypocrisy that is pertinent here.
You know, if the government made me pay for a benefit, then I'm damn well going to use it.
But of course you won't be able to claim social security unless you're poor. And that's the point: Rand wasn't choosing to claim social security, as part of her philosophy. She was claiming it because she was on skid row. A lifetime of acting in her own rational self interest had her suffering from poverty.
And if it was such a good example of her beliefs, why did she hide it rather than broadcast it?
When they've termed people who claim welfare "parasites" all their life, it's a deliciously amusing hypocrisy.
Also amusing is that she ended up poor enough to be able to claim social security. Both because to her the only heroic people in the world are the rich, and because it shows the outcome of either her belief set, or what she practiced contrary to her beliefs. Poverty.
He didn't just say "chemicals" he said "bullshit chemicals", which whilst not the most technical of terms is clearly a subset of all chemicals.
What he says is absolutely true. There's an enormous health difference between eating unprocessed foods and processed foods. You're young... in your 20s you don't necessarily feel the effects of a bad diet. You certainly will as you get older.
Yes, it's the most delicious piece of libertarian hypocrisy since Ayn Rand took Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor.
But Microsoft isn't pretending to be a libertarian. This isn't about whether legislation or the power of the UN can get him the domain name without paying for it. It's whether Ron Paul is a hypocrite or not.
And yes, he is being a hypocrite. He want's a governmental body to take someone else's property off them rather than buy it in a free market.
As I said, we're in the vicinity of whether a cat is a feline if it doesn't have whiskers.
You'll find far more fuzzy boundaries with any of the other PC definitions suggested in comments to the story. So finding a fuzzy boundary here doesn't mean it's not the best definition.
I didn't even put the BIOS in the definition I gave. I only said it's a good indicator, when you brought the BIOS up. Just as whiskers are a good indicator of a feline, though not the definition of one.
At all points I stressed in the definition the EVOLUTION of the IBM PC and it's clones. The evolutionary change from BIOS to UEFI doesn't break it any more than the change from ISA to PCI did.
If it was only the Mac that had UEFI, and Windows had been specifically adapted to account for it, then there might be a stronger case for the beginning of a new genus. But PCs in general are making that same evolutionary change. That's yet another indication that the Mac is a PC.
I saw the title, I saw the summary. Google failing to enforce patent claims on Microsoft. And my first thought was, this is Slashdot: how long before some idiot claims this is Apple's fault.
So I clicked. And at the time of writing it was the 6th comment in the list.
Slashdot, you may disappoint regularly. But you are at least predictable.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not as vague as "using the UN". He is attempting to use eminent domain rather than buy something on the open market. This is absolutely the opposite of the principles he espouses. There is no doubt he is a hypocrite.
Some people's solution to not seeming a hypocrite is to express no opinion that they may not be able to follow themselves. And I assert, this is one of the worst problems with those who put such stock in hypocrisy in arguments.
The correct way is to be honest. It's fine to say "Ideally one should go to the gym 3 times a week. But I personally find it difficult to manage." It's not OK to say "You should always go to the gym 3 times a week", if you rarely go yourself.
The latter are hypocrites, and it's always a good thing to call them out. The former are open and honest.
You talk of a third group that couldn't bring themselves to say what a good gym regime is if they are not able to follow it themselves. Honest but silent. Well so what? There are enough open and honest people about. We don't need everyone to voice their opinions on gyms.
I'm fine with discussing objectivism itself, and homosexuality. When they are on-topic. Here it wasn't. The hypocrisy of libertarians was the topic here.
And hypocrisy is always worth pointing out. Regardless of any other discussions about the underlying issue.
It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately.
Then you are ignorant of the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. That was the reason for Gadaffi developing chemical weapons in the first place. To use agaist Iran. If he still had them in the period before GWII, the very last place he'd have sent them would be Iran.
The mostly likely thing he would have done is to bury them in the desert. That's what he did with his air force fighters after all. But given that they still haven't been found, the chance of them still existing at the time of GWII are negligible.
For sure he gave a great big "Fuck you" to the US and their allies. But that is neither morally justified, nor a rational reason for a country to be invaded. Neither NK, Cuba, nor any of the countries of Africa that say "fuck you" to America get invaded. Iraq was invaded as a US power play in the oil states of the middle east. No more and no less.
Who are these "mules"?
They're either criminals or objectivists. Criminal if they believe the money originates from a crime. Objectivists if they believe the origin of the money is merely immoral, but not criminal.
Either way, I'm not losing any sleep over their losses.
It's a repudiation of her beliefs that she needed to. In the end even the great objectivist had to get support from the government.
Does man have the right to exist for his own sake, or not?
There's not a libertarian in the world that even tries to. They all use the roads that the government put there for example. And shelter in the relative peace that military and constabulary give him.
Libertarianism is just a big word for selfishness. It means: I'll take what I can get, but I'll resent giving anything back.
Now explain "Ann".
You are forced to participate, and only an idiot would not seek to regain the money they were forced to hand over to Social Security.
You say it like it's a free choice to claim social security. Of course it's not. You have to be poor enough. By claiming social security she proved she needed it. And there's the end of her philosophy - a lifetime of Objectivism; of acting in her "rational self-interest" left her impoverished.
So where do people who choose to sit at home and write novels fit? When that activity leaves them so poor they have to claim social security?
I mean, Rand could have chosen to be one of those industrial executives she admired so much, and presumably earned a huge salary. But she chose a path that led her impoverished and claiming welfare instead. Presumably because she considered it in her rational self-interest.
Your point is well taken, but even in the specific case of showing whether something is a reasonable path to take, the founder's ability to follow their own path still reduces to an anecdote.
It was put forward as an anecdote. Nothing further was claimed.
That is why specific hypocrisy is not useful in these discussions.
What discussions? The only relevance to the story was another example of a libertarian hypocrite.
I have a great deal of difficulty keeping my mouth shut when people start using "proof by hypocrisy".
Proof? The only person who's using the word proof here is you. Pointing out a hypocrisy is valuable, whether or not it proves anything. For example when you're bible bashing preacher denounces gays, then it turns out that he's been having secret affairs with men all along, that is well worth pointing out the hypocrisy. It may say nothing about gays or the bible - but it does mean that the preacher himself is a worthless sack of shit.
If I beat you up for your lunch money, and then offered to give it back to you, would you go without lunch despite the fact that you are of the belief that you shouldn't have your lunch money taken away in the first place? Hardly.
For sure I would refuse it. Because I wouldn't want to let you off the hook with the principle of the school, when you got punished for stealing my lunch money. You see, it's a false analogy: Stealing, unlike tax, is a crime.
Of all the things to beat up Ayn Rand about, it seems like people like to flock to the weakest criticism just so they can use the word "hypocrisy".
That's because the subject of the story is the hypocrisy of another libertarian. There is indeed vast numbers of things to beat Ayn Rand up about, and criticising objectivism is like shooting fish in a barrel. But it's her hypocrisy that is pertinent here.
You know, if the government made me pay for a benefit, then I'm damn well going to use it.
But of course you won't be able to claim social security unless you're poor. And that's the point: Rand wasn't choosing to claim social security, as part of her philosophy. She was claiming it because she was on skid row. A lifetime of acting in her own rational self interest had her suffering from poverty.
And if it was such a good example of her beliefs, why did she hide it rather than broadcast it?
When they've termed people who claim welfare "parasites" all their life, it's a deliciously amusing hypocrisy.
Also amusing is that she ended up poor enough to be able to claim social security. Both because to her the only heroic people in the world are the rich, and because it shows the outcome of either her belief set, or what she practiced contrary to her beliefs. Poverty.
He didn't just say "chemicals" he said "bullshit chemicals", which whilst not the most technical of terms is clearly a subset of all chemicals.
What he says is absolutely true. There's an enormous health difference between eating unprocessed foods and processed foods. You're young... in your 20s you don't necessarily feel the effects of a bad diet. You certainly will as you get older.
Yes, it's the most delicious piece of libertarian hypocrisy since Ayn Rand took Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor.
But Microsoft isn't pretending to be a libertarian. This isn't about whether legislation or the power of the UN can get him the domain name without paying for it. It's whether Ron Paul is a hypocrite or not.
And yes, he is being a hypocrite. He want's a governmental body to take someone else's property off them rather than buy it in a free market.
Gaggle? Hmm... I'd go with a google of fanboys.
As I said, we're in the vicinity of whether a cat is a feline if it doesn't have whiskers.
You'll find far more fuzzy boundaries with any of the other PC definitions suggested in comments to the story. So finding a fuzzy boundary here doesn't mean it's not the best definition.
I didn't even put the BIOS in the definition I gave. I only said it's a good indicator, when you brought the BIOS up. Just as whiskers are a good indicator of a feline, though not the definition of one.
At all points I stressed in the definition the EVOLUTION of the IBM PC and it's clones. The evolutionary change from BIOS to UEFI doesn't break it any more than the change from ISA to PCI did.
If it was only the Mac that had UEFI, and Windows had been specifically adapted to account for it, then there might be a stronger case for the beginning of a new genus. But PCs in general are making that same evolutionary change. That's yet another indication that the Mac is a PC.
Look before you leap.
So, you're fine to have that performance because the value of the security and privacy update was worth it.
Yes. Outcompeted in the way McDonalds outcompeted real restaurants.
i.e. The mass of people make stupid choices.
I saw the title, I saw the summary. Google failing to enforce patent claims on Microsoft. And my first thought was, this is Slashdot: how long before some idiot claims this is Apple's fault.
So I clicked. And at the time of writing it was the 6th comment in the list.
Slashdot, you may disappoint regularly. But you are at least predictable.
This is what the Hurd needs to take the time to make sure they get right before they start adding random features.
I don't think you can accuse the HURD developers of rushing into things!
... meanwhile we've all seen reviews of Android devices that had performance like that when they were new. With the software they shipped with.