America's poor are in some ways arguably richer than the middle class of America was 30 years ago. They have more stuff, and in fact, they have so much more stuff, not only in America, but in every place where capitalism has been put into place, that the biggest complaint from the left wing these days is that the poor actually have too much stuff.
The poverty level for a single person as of 2008 is an income of $10,400. Hey if you think the poor have it so good maybe you should try it out. Don't spend more than $10,400 for an entire year. I think "having too much stuff" won't be one of your major problems.
That doesn't follow. The math may be embodied in the physical universe in which the human brains are embedded. One need not postulate a non-physical state. The convergence of math and physics tends to support this.
This will never happen. For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know.
The internet is for learning about new things? Dude.. that's so Web 1.0.
Unless you turn tricks for $15 to pay for your Warcraft "addiction", you're not addicted. World of Warcraft is not just like Crack, and anybody who seriously claims it is should go and volunteer in a real rehab center for a full day. You don't have an addiction, you have a hobby. Learn some god-damned perspective, you molly-coddled children.
You know being addicted to something doesn't mean you have to be a ragged homeless person wandering the streets looking for a a fix. There are millions of people who are addicted to alcohol/cigarettes/prescription drugs/gambling/etc who are highly functional. They have a job, an active social life, wife/husband, kids etc. But they can still be addicted to something. If anyone has a "childish" view of addiction it's you.
The intelligence reports you cite came from an intelligence operation created by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Which was created after the CIA denied any connections between Iraq and 911.
I never said Al Gore was perfect. I never defended the PMRC nor agree with it. But to morally equate the actions of the PMRC with the fiasco in Iraq is just plain insanity.
Bullshit. Every time someone says "the democrats and the republicans are the same" I think back to 2000 when I said something similar.. "Bush or Gore... eh it doesn't really matter, both parties are the same". And boy I don't think I've ever been so wrong about something in all my life.
The difference is that Muslims are commanded to subdue the world by force, impose their political system and by threat of death create converts. Christians are commanded to spread the message of God's sacrificial death and perform works of service to demonstrate God's love and convince people to convert. No interpretation needed, it's plain as day.
Honestly who cares about the differences in their respective texts. The history of both religions is filled with crimes of an almost unimaginable magnitude. I mean what exactly is your point? If what you say is true about Islam then what is the logical conclusion? You want to persecute these people in fear they might try to kill you? Send an army into their lands in the name of self-defense? Do you want to make them abandon their beliefs because their religion is incompatible with yours?
I don't know what your type of thinking actually accomplishes other then piss a bunch of people off and just make things worse. It would be another matter if Muslim countries were actively murdering Christians by the thousands and amassing armies at our borders. But they aren't and if anything we are doing that to them.
Perhaps these things seem simple now because they were solved so long ago. Genius is genius. I have no doubt if Newton was alive today he would have no trouble understanding and solving the major outstanding problems faced by today's scientists. Also that's not to say there haven't been modern era "Renaissance" scientists, John von Neumann immediately comes to mind. I think however the GP's point was that sometimes real progress is made through the application of one field on another seemingly unrelated field. That in today's community of scientists there might be a degree of overspecialization which is acting as a detriment.
If a culture of untold millions of people is unable to regularly figure out that they're not helping themselves by aggressively shouting down and personally doing everything they can to extinguish movements like the Taliban, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they're perceived as being part of the problem.
Isn't this the same line of thinking terrorists use to justify killing innocent civilians for the perceived crimes committed by their governments?
Well it certainly is nonsensical to talk about "before the Big Bang" with modern physical theories like QFT and GR. However newer GUT theories, like string theory, it does makes sense to talk about "before the Big Bang". The formation of such theories centered on dealing which such questions.
Now metaphysically I suppose you could say "what came before time?" is a meaningless question because normally we associate "before" as a function of time. However what if we rephrase the question as "what exists without time?" to me at least prima facie appears to be OK. Does existence require time? I don't think so.
We've had similar laws enacted to fight illegal drug trafficking and the net result is an actual increase in these activities. I'm sure the same thing will happen with piracy. It's just another excuse for the State to gain more powers and collect more taxes.
The current American power structure and the society it entails requires that all citizens be good consumers not good thinkers. Hell if the majority of America was instantly blessed with the power of critical thinking there would be a total collapse of the government and rioting in the streets.
no: something that manipulates biochemical pathways directly is addiction, something that works on reward pathways via psychological stimulus is habituation
Actually neurology is slowly coming to the conclusion that these two phenomena basically work on the same mechanism. It doesn't really matter if the stimulus is sensory or physical; the end result is a chemical reaction inside the brain which generates an addiction. Essentially you create your own distinction by introducing the "ghost in the machine" in which a person can "will" themselves to override a chemical mechanism in the brain. I think the science has been out for quite some time, there is no "will" or at least one we can find in the physical realm.
I think what this incident reveals is the disastrous state of Mental Health in the United States. Mental illness is poorly understood by the public at large and trying to get access to health care for treatment is very difficult. Cho had many of the symptoms of a major mental illness yet he did not receive proper treatment. If anything his peers and teachers only worsened his condition by isolating him and feeding his paranoia.
Also if a person is eventually diagnosed trying to get the right medication and therapy without health care insurance can be a daunting task. While many of these people need immediate care, applying for public services is a very difficult and long process. Sadly I think this report will not result in a better Mental Health system but rather a system that profiles and stigmatizes those who suffer from mental illness.
IANAL but I always assumed that the defendant in a patent infringement case must be notified beforehand that they are potentially infringing. In which the specifics are mentioned such as the actual patent and the actual instance of infringement. Then if the defendant refuses to comply then a case may move forward.
Now if Microsoft did notify the relevant parties wouldn't they then have the ability to remove all potential infringing material before Microsoft could actually sue them? Or can you just bring a case to court without the defendants even knowing they were potentially infringing?
WoW's effect on people is similar to some drugs but to a much lesser degree and without a chemical component.
All your actions and behaviors have a chemical component. That is how the brain works.
An alcoholic can blame alcohol all he or she wants, but the responsibility will sit with the alcoholic for their actions. And it's their prerogative to make the right decisions and accept the consequences. It may seem harsh, but I do prefer it over the alternative, where decisions are made for me by someone else.
Your decisions are made for you by "someone else"; it's called your subconscious which is nothing but deterministic chemical reactions happening in your brain. Your consciousness is not being in control of your actions but rather being aware of them. See Libet's experiments.
Just to counterpoint having an armed population would probably decrease mass killings because it would increase the chance someone would be armed and stop the assailant(s). However this would probably do nothing to decrease gun crime in general and may even increase gun related deaths.
In the end mass-murders is a psychological (group and individual) dilemma and not something that cat be solved with something as simple as more or less guns in the general population.
Bush had a Republican congress for the majority of his tenure and in essence his power was left unrestrained. What you call "harass" I call keeping the equal branches of government in check. That's the supposed beauty of our system; you have three equal but separate branches of government that compete for power. Which in turn makes sure we don't have one person or one group dominating politics for any extended period of time.
The seperation between environmental and innate features is an illusion. Whatever is our biological language mechanism was shaped in the past by the environment through evolution. We call this "innate" because we mistakenly believe that "now" is separated from the past.
I think though some people deny that there does exist some sort of biological language mechanism. They believe that language is part of "mind" and not "brain". So they will also have to deny any common biological structure specialized for language. So the reason there is a common structure is because of a common environment that interacts with the "mind". But this is one of those problems you create yourself when you arbitrarily separate "mind" and "brain".
Chomsky's UG is the biological endowment for language in human beings, serving as a set of constraints and requirements for the development of actual instances of human language.
I don't see how this statement is functionally different than what I said "... has some universal set of rules which are isomorphic to some biological mechanism/structure in the brain."
First-order logic is not expressive enough to describe many philosophical topics which even include things like philosophy of language. If it did then philosophy would surely be more productive in solving it's own problems.
This is basically Chomsky (Universal Grammar) but applied to morality. So human morality has some universal set of rules which are isomorphic to some biological mechanism/structure in the brain. The reason that there is a common "universal morality" is not because these moral statements are True but rather we all share a common mechanism for creating these statements. A mechanism that was shaped by evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
America's poor are in some ways arguably richer than the middle class of America was 30 years ago. They have more stuff, and in fact, they have so much more stuff, not only in America, but in every place where capitalism has been put into place, that the biggest complaint from the left wing these days is that the poor actually have too much stuff.
The poverty level for a single person as of 2008 is an income of $10,400. Hey if you think the poor have it so good maybe you should try it out. Don't spend more than $10,400 for an entire year. I think "having too much stuff" won't be one of your major problems.
That doesn't follow. The math may be embodied in the physical universe in which the human brains are embedded. One need not postulate a non-physical state. The convergence of math and physics tends to support this.
sad you didn't get modded up for this
Japan has universal health care which is not considered socialized. The only major flaw of their system is that the health care costs are too cheap.
This will never happen. For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know.
The internet is for learning about new things? Dude.. that's so Web 1.0.
Unless you turn tricks for $15 to pay for your Warcraft "addiction", you're not addicted. World of Warcraft is not just like Crack, and anybody who seriously claims it is should go and volunteer in a real rehab center for a full day. You don't have an addiction, you have a hobby. Learn some god-damned perspective, you molly-coddled children.
You know being addicted to something doesn't mean you have to be a ragged homeless person wandering the streets looking for a a fix. There are millions of people who are addicted to alcohol/cigarettes/prescription drugs/gambling/etc who are highly functional. They have a job, an active social life, wife/husband, kids etc. But they can still be addicted to something. If anyone has a "childish" view of addiction it's you.
The intelligence reports you cite came from an intelligence operation created by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Which was created after the CIA denied any connections between Iraq and 911.
I never said Al Gore was perfect. I never defended the PMRC nor agree with it. But to morally equate the actions of the PMRC with the fiasco in Iraq is just plain insanity.
Bullshit. Every time someone says "the democrats and the republicans are the same" I think back to 2000 when I said something similar.. "Bush or Gore... eh it doesn't really matter, both parties are the same". And boy I don't think I've ever been so wrong about something in all my life.
The difference is that Muslims are commanded to subdue the world by force, impose their political system and by threat of death create converts. Christians are commanded to spread the message of God's sacrificial death and perform works of service to demonstrate God's love and convince people to convert. No interpretation needed, it's plain as day.
Honestly who cares about the differences in their respective texts. The history of both religions is filled with crimes of an almost unimaginable magnitude. I mean what exactly is your point? If what you say is true about Islam then what is the logical conclusion? You want to persecute these people in fear they might try to kill you? Send an army into their lands in the name of self-defense? Do you want to make them abandon their beliefs because their religion is incompatible with yours?
I don't know what your type of thinking actually accomplishes other then piss a bunch of people off and just make things worse. It would be another matter if Muslim countries were actively murdering Christians by the thousands and amassing armies at our borders. But they aren't and if anything we are doing that to them.
Perhaps these things seem simple now because they were solved so long ago. Genius is genius. I have no doubt if Newton was alive today he would have no trouble understanding and solving the major outstanding problems faced by today's scientists. Also that's not to say there haven't been modern era "Renaissance" scientists, John von Neumann immediately comes to mind. I think however the GP's point was that sometimes real progress is made through the application of one field on another seemingly unrelated field. That in today's community of scientists there might be a degree of overspecialization which is acting as a detriment.
If a culture of untold millions of people is unable to regularly figure out that they're not helping themselves by aggressively shouting down and personally doing everything they can to extinguish movements like the Taliban, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they're perceived as being part of the problem.
Isn't this the same line of thinking terrorists use to justify killing innocent civilians for the perceived crimes committed by their governments?
Well it certainly is nonsensical to talk about "before the Big Bang" with modern physical theories like QFT and GR. However newer GUT theories, like string theory, it does makes sense to talk about "before the Big Bang". The formation of such theories centered on dealing which such questions.
Now metaphysically I suppose you could say "what came before time?" is a meaningless question because normally we associate "before" as a function of time. However what if we rephrase the question as "what exists without time?" to me at least prima facie appears to be OK. Does existence require time? I don't think so.
We've had similar laws enacted to fight illegal drug trafficking and the net result is an actual increase in these activities. I'm sure the same thing will happen with piracy. It's just another excuse for the State to gain more powers and collect more taxes.
How about microwaving them?
The current American power structure and the society it entails requires that all citizens be good consumers not good thinkers. Hell if the majority of America was instantly blessed with the power of critical thinking there would be a total collapse of the government and rioting in the streets.
no: something that manipulates biochemical pathways directly is addiction, something that works on reward pathways via psychological stimulus is habituation
Actually neurology is slowly coming to the conclusion that these two phenomena basically work on the same mechanism. It doesn't really matter if the stimulus is sensory or physical; the end result is a chemical reaction inside the brain which generates an addiction. Essentially you create your own distinction by introducing the "ghost in the machine" in which a person can "will" themselves to override a chemical mechanism in the brain. I think the science has been out for quite some time, there is no "will" or at least one we can find in the physical realm.
I think what this incident reveals is the disastrous state of Mental Health in the United States. Mental illness is poorly understood by the public at large and trying to get access to health care for treatment is very difficult. Cho had many of the symptoms of a major mental illness yet he did not receive proper treatment. If anything his peers and teachers only worsened his condition by isolating him and feeding his paranoia.
Also if a person is eventually diagnosed trying to get the right medication and therapy without health care insurance can be a daunting task. While many of these people need immediate care, applying for public services is a very difficult and long process. Sadly I think this report will not result in a better Mental Health system but rather a system that profiles and stigmatizes those who suffer from mental illness.
IANAL but I always assumed that the defendant in a patent infringement case must be notified beforehand that they are potentially infringing. In which the specifics are mentioned such as the actual patent and the actual instance of infringement. Then if the defendant refuses to comply then a case may move forward.
Now if Microsoft did notify the relevant parties wouldn't they then have the ability to remove all potential infringing material before Microsoft could actually sue them? Or can you just bring a case to court without the defendants even knowing they were potentially infringing?
WoW's effect on people is similar to some drugs but to a much lesser degree and without a chemical component.
All your actions and behaviors have a chemical component. That is how the brain works.
An alcoholic can blame alcohol all he or she wants, but the responsibility will sit with the alcoholic for their actions. And it's their prerogative to make the right decisions and accept the consequences. It may seem harsh, but I do prefer it over the alternative, where decisions are made for me by someone else.
Your decisions are made for you by "someone else"; it's called your subconscious which is nothing but deterministic chemical reactions happening in your brain. Your consciousness is not being in control of your actions but rather being aware of them. See Libet's experiments.
Just to counterpoint having an armed population would probably decrease mass killings because it would increase the chance someone would be armed and stop the assailant(s). However this would probably do nothing to decrease gun crime in general and may even increase gun related deaths.
In the end mass-murders is a psychological (group and individual) dilemma and not something that cat be solved with something as simple as more or less guns in the general population.
Bush had a Republican congress for the majority of his tenure and in essence his power was left unrestrained. What you call "harass" I call keeping the equal branches of government in check. That's the supposed beauty of our system; you have three equal but separate branches of government that compete for power. Which in turn makes sure we don't have one person or one group dominating politics for any extended period of time.
The seperation between environmental and innate features is an illusion. Whatever is our biological language mechanism was shaped in the past by the environment through evolution. We call this "innate" because we mistakenly believe that "now" is separated from the past.
I think though some people deny that there does exist some sort of biological language mechanism. They believe that language is part of "mind" and not "brain". So they will also have to deny any common biological structure specialized for language. So the reason there is a common structure is because of a common environment that interacts with the "mind". But this is one of those problems you create yourself when you arbitrarily separate "mind" and "brain".
Chomsky's UG is the biological endowment for language in human beings, serving as a set of constraints and requirements for the development of actual instances of human language.
I don't see how this statement is functionally different than what I said "... has some universal set of rules which are isomorphic to some biological mechanism/structure in the brain."
First-order logic is not expressive enough to describe many philosophical topics which even include things like philosophy of language. If it did then philosophy would surely be more productive in solving it's own problems.
This is basically Chomsky (Universal Grammar) but applied to morality. So human morality has some universal set of rules which are isomorphic to some biological mechanism/structure in the brain. The reason that there is a common "universal morality" is not because these moral statements are True but rather we all share a common mechanism for creating these statements. A mechanism that was shaped by evolution.