No, he sounds like he is not willing to get his feelings to get in front of his reason. Unlike progressives.
Basically you're equating anyone who wants to promote equality to someone who wants more power at any cost and is prepared to kill millions to do it.
I don't think he was making that statement explicitly. But I will. That statement is 100% accurate. Anyone who wants to promote equality is either a con man who is out for personal gain or is an idiot fooled into believing incorrect facts about human nature by such a con man.
Fortunately, people like you won't get your hands on me to "educate" me. We are still a country where we come to the party -- not the country where YOUR party comes to us.
A progressive could argue that technology or societal conditions have changed such that a new policy would make sense.
It wasn't first. It was one in a series of many. What hasn't changed is the species. Not realizing that experiments which definitely disprove a theory actually invalidate the said theory is precisely why progressive definitely belong in the group you were trying to compose.
Not to mention progressives. Because you know, it takes not knowing anything about 20th century to think that leftist ideas don't lead to mass starvation.
Shortened lives? Correlation v causation strikes again. It is entirely possible that the people who took vitamins lived long enough to develop cancer (and didn't die from other organ failures caused by shortage of vitamins). This is almost like arguing that nursing homes cause deaths because people in nursing homes die at higher rates than residents of other homes.
It's not as if it's binary. It's not a know vs don't-know that makes for a link in this maze. There are weights attached to all links in graphs and what determines these weights is what makes the algorithm -- not the mere presence or absence of a link. As an extreme case, what if you considered yourself linked to everyone, just with links of weight 0? This whole "we are all connected" crap is not very meaningful without the subtle answer to the question "how much?"
The Vatican is a sovereign state, we may agree or disagree with how it is organized and run, but that doesn't change it. It's leader is elected, although his rule is more of a monarchy. He does not have supreme authority over secular matters, just non-secular ones.
Says who? Sovereignty means ability to impose any power structure of your choosing.
You keep trying to impose power paradigms which are true in American on all power structures which exist. For example, leadership being accountable to the people. That's not always the case. Usually, in fact, it is not. Think of a corporation, for example. It's leadership is only accountable to its owners -- not to its employees. That's one type of power arrangement. You assume that in some way all countries have an implicit understanding that leadership is accountable to the citizenry. That's just not the case.
The other distinction you try to draw is between Vatican, the state, and Vatican, the religious institution. Separation of church and state is also a fairly American concept that you seem to take for granted. But it's does not have to be present in every government. By definition, it is not present in a theocracy. And I don't mean that it doesn't exist de facto. I mean it doesn't exist de jure.
Yet another concept that you try to impose on all states is that law is supreme. That's only true in republics. In fact, that is what makes a government a republic. In any monarchy, that is not the case. The supreme leader is above the law in every sense of the word de jure. No one is above the will of the people de facto, but a person can be the supreme leader de jure (think of North Korea for another example of a non-religious supreme leader).
As for citizens being free to leave, aren't citizens of any free society free to renounce their citizenship?
First of all, no, not even by law (Turkey, for example, does not recognize renouncement of citizenship). But the legal ability to renounce citizenship is besides the point. All Vatican citizens can leave as a matter of fact -- not just as a matter of law. There is plenty of countries which have legal structure for leaving, but don't offer such an ability to most citizens. Citizens of those countries are free to leave de jure but not de facto. Vatican citizenship is something one has to opt-in -- not something one has to beg to opt-out.
The point about Israel was that the religion of the state is not the same as the government of the state.
Israel does not have an official religion. It's a secular state. It was founded by Zionists and Zionism was a secular (largely socialist) movement. In the Zionist view (a view that, to make matters more confusing, steams from Judaism) being a Jew is an ethnic delineation rather than a religious one.
But the Vatican is an independent state with it's own form of government and laws. It's leader is accountable to the citizens of that state.
Why? That's only the case under certain systems of government. It need not be the case under all systems of government. By all accounts, the state of Vatican exists to serve the Pope. Clearly, the citizenship of the state of Vatican is entirely voluntary, so it's not as if such self-subjugation could be deemed a humanitarian problem in that regard. But the legal arrangement of obligations seems to be that the citizens of Vatican have responsibilities to the Pope who has no obligations to the citizens of Vatican.
Notice that religion was not mentioned in the previous paragraph at all -- only law.
Think of it like Israel. There is the Israeli government, the Israeli people and the Jewish religion, they are not one and the same.
Yes, Israel has an entirely different system of government. It's clearly a democracy with general public voting in all levels of leadership.
Who said that leaders are accountable or have to be accountable? That is only the case under specific systems of government. Theocracy is not one of those systems. That's just not part of the definition of "government". Government being accountable to laws is a specific aspect of a government system (this is what makes a government a "republic"). Government accountable to people is another specific aspect of a government system. Vatican is probably best described as a theocratic republic. In no way does that imply any kind of obligation or responsibility to "the people".
How would "we" know? I'll preface this with saying that I am an atheist. But that doesn't mean that I can't entertain abstract notions such as a legal system of a theocracy. In such a system "we" are not entitled to transparency. The legal system of Vatican does not make Vatican or the Pope accountable to anyone. What it considers crimes become crimes against god or the church or even the supreme leader "on earth". The establishment doesn't exist to accommodate "we the people". It exists to accommodate the Pope (yes, the claim is that he is to accommodate god). This is premised on Vatican functioning to enable functioning of the church, but that doesn't matter. As a legal system, it exists solely to fulfill the wishes of the Pope.
Some people might dislike that. I don't really care. Some people dislike families set up with overbearing father-figure influence reducing everyone else in the family to second class because that's how they chose their gender roles. Belonging to this Vatican city state is (at this point in time) completely voluntary. If they sign up for this type of patronage arrangement, why should I care? Why would a non-Catholic care? And why would a catholic expect accountability from the church? Catholicism expect accountability only in the other direction -- to the church (Ok, to "The Church"). The choice to be Catholic is completely voluntary though
Can I get in on that action? That's waaaay more money than a phone subscription would cost. I'll record all of my own conversations on all communication devices (and I'll increase the number of those that I have by a factor of 10-100) if they pay me half of that amount for each device-subscription combo. Heck, I'd do for a quarter of that amount. I'd still be ahead.
No, I am not a dumb ass. H1B visas is what drives Americans out of of this profession. If they are good enough to get an H1B visa, they are good enough to have an unconditional Green Card. No, this is not a security threat. Physical presence of person in a place is what constitutes or doesn't constitute a security threat -- not the papers they hold. As long as a companies can hire people who work under threat of deportation rather than under threat of getting fired, those companies are not hiring employees. They are hiring indentured servants. In fact, if there were a test case, it would have a pretty chance of SCOTUS saying the same thing. And as long as Americans have to compete with indentured servants on work conditions (never mind on salary), they will not want to work in this profession. Give them Green Cards so that they have the option of saying "no" to 14 hour work days. Then Americans will want to do the same work.
The government is (supposed to be) society's instrument.
This notion is very, very false unless the government is small. The larger the government, the less it is accountable to voters. It's simple math. Ok, maybe not simple by American standards. But in most industrialized nations, learning vectors spaces is essentially a requirement for a high school graduate planning to attend college.
There is a vector space of N issues. A single person cannot care about more than 7 of those issues when doing the actual voting. As the government gets larger so does N, unless the absolute size of the government is limited. Which means that most people cannot have any voting power over N-7 issues where N is always increasing. Which means most people gradually see the control over their lives ceded to the government with time unless N is capped. Example: don't like high taxes. Ok, but let's piss you off about the the people who want to reduce your taxes by claiming that they "hate women." There. We just made N into N+1. And you just saw the number of issues you can care about reduce from 7 to 6. Your level of control of the overall issues controlled by the government just went from 7/N to 6/(N+1). Happen to be gay? A gay smoker? Well, we'll screw over all the smokers, but then claim that the opposition hates gays. Enjoy your level of control slipping to 5/(N+2). Always remember that the attention span is not an abstraction. It's a very concrete limitation on what you'll undertake and what you will concern yourself with. As long there is K (fixed) issues that the government wants to take control over, all they need to do is make sure that K is much smaller than N.
And don't forget to vote.
PS: this isn't only left-on-population crime. It's also the right-on-population crime. Happen to dislike overreaching drug laws, but also happen to be raised Christian (so you really can't talk to your parents about anything unless it involves church or community)? Well, we'll use the bond you have with your family as one of "your issues" so you don't make legalization of drugs one of your issues. And the N keeps growing.
There is little empirical evidence to suggest that foreign engineers displace American engineers as a whole.
If this were true, they'd be given green cards instead H1B. With H1B, they are indentured servants. Getting fired means getting deported for them. Stop forcing Americans to compete with indentured servants in technology and then you'll see more Americans going into those fields. Even if you accept that they don't compete on salary, they still compete on work conditions.
As long as he is not a fool who keeps people around after finding out that they can't do the work. The fool is doing something right to keep the business afloat, you might learn from him. Or you might not. No one can stop the guy from looking further, but he will get a job which is what the objective of this exercise was.
You make the classical mistake of introducing absolute numbers into the discussion in which only relative numbers matter. The guy in question was trying to increase his chances of hiring. What percentage of oss code is good is the question -- not how many oss developers are good. If you are drawing from a pool which has a very small percentage of good people (regardless of how exceptionally good they are), you have a lesser chance of success than if you are drawing from a pool in which a large percentage has demonstrated a minimum level of competence. Anecdotal stories (eg, "my cousin's daughters has no problems... blah, blah, blah") don't matter in this type of discussion. The only thing that matters is the percentage of good developers to bad developers in one pool of developers vs another pool of developers. Remember, the guy didn't ask how to learn to code. He asked how to improve his chances of getting hired. Advising him to try to become one of the best of oss coders is like advising him to win a lottery. It's irresponsible.
An artist retains copyrights to his art. And art doesn't lose relevance after 5 years. Less than.01% of oss code which hasn't seen updates in 5 years will work as intended. I am exaggerating, perhaps, but I have yet to see old code which can be made to work without modifying the actual code. As the code loses relevance, you begin to look like an incompetent for putting those 2 lines of code out there.
No, don't do that. Never give away free code. That's for the suckers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. oss goodness.. blah blah blah. I read enough oss code to know that most of it is crap which worked for 20 minutes under exact configuration which was relevant during those 20 minutes. And if an idea is original enough to be timeless it's worth a lot more than free self-promotion. I would NEVER under any circumstances hire anyone whose oss code I read. Not that they are necessarily terrible, but why take the chance? I saw their code. It sucks.
Lie, lie, lie. No one checks references. And even if you 1 out of 10 do check, you'll end up getting rejected because they checked only from that one place.
Every leftie, every Democrat, every Obama supporter just doesn't know which hole to blow out of. Quick! They need to know what to think! Slashot, you have a mission!
Their subsidies are not earmarked for rent. They are general-purpose subsidies. But they allow them this kind of wastefulness of (essentially public) resources.
Slashdot Mirror
You are sounding like a far out crazy person.
No, he sounds like he is not willing to get his feelings to get in front of his reason. Unlike progressives.
Basically you're equating anyone who wants to promote equality to someone who wants more power at any cost and is prepared to kill millions to do it.
I don't think he was making that statement explicitly. But I will. That statement is 100% accurate. Anyone who wants to promote equality is either a con man who is out for personal gain or is an idiot fooled into believing incorrect facts about human nature by such a con man.
Fortunately, people like you won't get your hands on me to "educate" me. We are still a country where we come to the party -- not the country where YOUR party comes to us.
It doesn't say sooner. It says they developed various conditions.
A progressive could argue that technology or societal conditions have changed such that a new policy would make sense.
It wasn't first. It was one in a series of many. What hasn't changed is the species. Not realizing that experiments which definitely disprove a theory actually invalidate the said theory is precisely why progressive definitely belong in the group you were trying to compose.
No, that's not what I'm talking about.
I suspected as much.
Birthers, truthers, AGW deniers, anti-vaccine nutters, young earthers, homeopaths, intelligent design advocates,
Not to mention progressives. Because you know, it takes not knowing anything about 20th century to think that leftist ideas don't lead to mass starvation.
Shortened lives? Correlation v causation strikes again. It is entirely possible that the people who took vitamins lived long enough to develop cancer (and didn't die from other organ failures caused by shortage of vitamins). This is almost like arguing that nursing homes cause deaths because people in nursing homes die at higher rates than residents of other homes.
It's not as if it's binary. It's not a know vs don't-know that makes for a link in this maze. There are weights attached to all links in graphs and what determines these weights is what makes the algorithm -- not the mere presence or absence of a link. As an extreme case, what if you considered yourself linked to everyone, just with links of weight 0? This whole "we are all connected" crap is not very meaningful without the subtle answer to the question "how much?"
The Vatican is a sovereign state, we may agree or disagree with how it is organized and run, but that doesn't change it. It's leader is elected, although his rule is more of a monarchy. He does not have supreme authority over secular matters, just non-secular ones.
Says who? Sovereignty means ability to impose any power structure of your choosing.
You keep trying to impose power paradigms which are true in American on all power structures which exist. For example, leadership being accountable to the people. That's not always the case. Usually, in fact, it is not. Think of a corporation, for example. It's leadership is only accountable to its owners -- not to its employees. That's one type of power arrangement. You assume that in some way all countries have an implicit understanding that leadership is accountable to the citizenry. That's just not the case.
The other distinction you try to draw is between Vatican, the state, and Vatican, the religious institution. Separation of church and state is also a fairly American concept that you seem to take for granted. But it's does not have to be present in every government. By definition, it is not present in a theocracy. And I don't mean that it doesn't exist de facto. I mean it doesn't exist de jure.
Yet another concept that you try to impose on all states is that law is supreme. That's only true in republics. In fact, that is what makes a government a republic. In any monarchy, that is not the case. The supreme leader is above the law in every sense of the word de jure. No one is above the will of the people de facto, but a person can be the supreme leader de jure (think of North Korea for another example of a non-religious supreme leader).
As for citizens being free to leave, aren't citizens of any free society free to renounce their citizenship?
First of all, no, not even by law (Turkey, for example, does not recognize renouncement of citizenship). But the legal ability to renounce citizenship is besides the point. All Vatican citizens can leave as a matter of fact -- not just as a matter of law. There is plenty of countries which have legal structure for leaving, but don't offer such an ability to most citizens. Citizens of those countries are free to leave de jure but not de facto. Vatican citizenship is something one has to opt-in -- not something one has to beg to opt-out.
The point about Israel was that the religion of the state is not the same as the government of the state.
Israel does not have an official religion. It's a secular state. It was founded by Zionists and Zionism was a secular (largely socialist) movement. In the Zionist view (a view that, to make matters more confusing, steams from Judaism) being a Jew is an ethnic delineation rather than a religious one.
But the Vatican is an independent state with it's own form of government and laws. It's leader is accountable to the citizens of that state.
Why? That's only the case under certain systems of government. It need not be the case under all systems of government. By all accounts, the state of Vatican exists to serve the Pope. Clearly, the citizenship of the state of Vatican is entirely voluntary, so it's not as if such self-subjugation could be deemed a humanitarian problem in that regard. But the legal arrangement of obligations seems to be that the citizens of Vatican have responsibilities to the Pope who has no obligations to the citizens of Vatican.
Notice that religion was not mentioned in the previous paragraph at all -- only law.
Think of it like Israel. There is the Israeli government, the Israeli people and the Jewish religion, they are not one and the same.
Yes, Israel has an entirely different system of government. It's clearly a democracy with general public voting in all levels of leadership.
Who said that leaders are accountable or have to be accountable? That is only the case under specific systems of government. Theocracy is not one of those systems. That's just not part of the definition of "government". Government being accountable to laws is a specific aspect of a government system (this is what makes a government a "republic"). Government accountable to people is another specific aspect of a government system. Vatican is probably best described as a theocratic republic. In no way does that imply any kind of obligation or responsibility to "the people".
How would "we" know? I'll preface this with saying that I am an atheist. But that doesn't mean that I can't entertain abstract notions such as a legal system of a theocracy. In such a system "we" are not entitled to transparency. The legal system of Vatican does not make Vatican or the Pope accountable to anyone. What it considers crimes become crimes against god or the church or even the supreme leader "on earth". The establishment doesn't exist to accommodate "we the people". It exists to accommodate the Pope (yes, the claim is that he is to accommodate god). This is premised on Vatican functioning to enable functioning of the church, but that doesn't matter. As a legal system, it exists solely to fulfill the wishes of the Pope.
Some people might dislike that. I don't really care. Some people dislike families set up with overbearing father-figure influence reducing everyone else in the family to second class because that's how they chose their gender roles. Belonging to this Vatican city state is (at this point in time) completely voluntary. If they sign up for this type of patronage arrangement, why should I care? Why would a non-Catholic care? And why would a catholic expect accountability from the church? Catholicism expect accountability only in the other direction -- to the church (Ok, to "The Church"). The choice to be Catholic is completely voluntary though
Can I get in on that action? That's waaaay more money than a phone subscription would cost. I'll record all of my own conversations on all communication devices (and I'll increase the number of those that I have by a factor of 10-100) if they pay me half of that amount for each device-subscription combo. Heck, I'd do for a quarter of that amount. I'd still be ahead.
No, I am not a dumb ass. H1B visas is what drives Americans out of of this profession. If they are good enough to get an H1B visa, they are good enough to have an unconditional Green Card. No, this is not a security threat. Physical presence of person in a place is what constitutes or doesn't constitute a security threat -- not the papers they hold. As long as a companies can hire people who work under threat of deportation rather than under threat of getting fired, those companies are not hiring employees. They are hiring indentured servants. In fact, if there were a test case, it would have a pretty chance of SCOTUS saying the same thing. And as long as Americans have to compete with indentured servants on work conditions (never mind on salary), they will not want to work in this profession. Give them Green Cards so that they have the option of saying "no" to 14 hour work days. Then Americans will want to do the same work.
The government is (supposed to be) society's instrument.
This notion is very, very false unless the government is small. The larger the government, the less it is accountable to voters. It's simple math. Ok, maybe not simple by American standards. But in most industrialized nations, learning vectors spaces is essentially a requirement for a high school graduate planning to attend college.
There is a vector space of N issues. A single person cannot care about more than 7 of those issues when doing the actual voting. As the government gets larger so does N, unless the absolute size of the government is limited. Which means that most people cannot have any voting power over N-7 issues where N is always increasing. Which means most people gradually see the control over their lives ceded to the government with time unless N is capped. Example: don't like high taxes. Ok, but let's piss you off about the the people who want to reduce your taxes by claiming that they "hate women." There. We just made N into N+1. And you just saw the number of issues you can care about reduce from 7 to 6. Your level of control of the overall issues controlled by the government just went from 7/N to 6/(N+1). Happen to be gay? A gay smoker? Well, we'll screw over all the smokers, but then claim that the opposition hates gays. Enjoy your level of control slipping to 5/(N+2). Always remember that the attention span is not an abstraction. It's a very concrete limitation on what you'll undertake and what you will concern yourself with. As long there is K (fixed) issues that the government wants to take control over, all they need to do is make sure that K is much smaller than N.
And don't forget to vote.
PS: this isn't only left-on-population crime. It's also the right-on-population crime. Happen to dislike overreaching drug laws, but also happen to be raised Christian (so you really can't talk to your parents about anything unless it involves church or community)? Well, we'll use the bond you have with your family as one of "your issues" so you don't make legalization of drugs one of your issues. And the N keeps growing.
Have they looked in London's Stratford? Plenty of aliens there. Oh... they meant extraterrestrials, didn't they?
There is little empirical evidence to suggest that foreign engineers displace American engineers as a whole.
If this were true, they'd be given green cards instead H1B. With H1B, they are indentured servants. Getting fired means getting deported for them. Stop forcing Americans to compete with indentured servants in technology and then you'll see more Americans going into those fields. Even if you accept that they don't compete on salary, they still compete on work conditions.
As long as he is not a fool who keeps people around after finding out that they can't do the work. The fool is doing something right to keep the business afloat, you might learn from him. Or you might not. No one can stop the guy from looking further, but he will get a job which is what the objective of this exercise was.
You make the classical mistake of introducing absolute numbers into the discussion in which only relative numbers matter. The guy in question was trying to increase his chances of hiring. What percentage of oss code is good is the question -- not how many oss developers are good. If you are drawing from a pool which has a very small percentage of good people (regardless of how exceptionally good they are), you have a lesser chance of success than if you are drawing from a pool in which a large percentage has demonstrated a minimum level of competence. Anecdotal stories (eg, "my cousin's daughters has no problems... blah, blah, blah") don't matter in this type of discussion. The only thing that matters is the percentage of good developers to bad developers in one pool of developers vs another pool of developers. Remember, the guy didn't ask how to learn to code. He asked how to improve his chances of getting hired. Advising him to try to become one of the best of oss coders is like advising him to win a lottery. It's irresponsible.
Valuing your own work is not an expression of embarrassment. It's the opposite -- it's an expression of high self-esteem.
An artist retains copyrights to his art. And art doesn't lose relevance after 5 years. Less than .01% of oss code which hasn't seen updates in 5 years will work as intended. I am exaggerating, perhaps, but I have yet to see old code which can be made to work without modifying the actual code. As the code loses relevance, you begin to look like an incompetent for putting those 2 lines of code out there.
Seriously. Write some code, publish it on Github.
No, don't do that. Never give away free code. That's for the suckers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. oss goodness.. blah blah blah. I read enough oss code to know that most of it is crap which worked for 20 minutes under exact configuration which was relevant during those 20 minutes. And if an idea is original enough to be timeless it's worth a lot more than free self-promotion. I would NEVER under any circumstances hire anyone whose oss code I read. Not that they are necessarily terrible, but why take the chance? I saw their code. It sucks.
Lie, lie, lie. No one checks references. And even if you 1 out of 10 do check, you'll end up getting rejected because they checked only from that one place.
Every leftie, every Democrat, every Obama supporter just doesn't know which hole to blow out of. Quick! They need to know what to think! Slashot, you have a mission!
Thank you for proving my point.
Who is subsidizing their rent?
Their subsidies are not earmarked for rent. They are general-purpose subsidies. But they allow them this kind of wastefulness of (essentially public) resources.