Which is why you need a good leader. It may not work all the time, but it's better than either anarchy or totalitarianism. Hopefully, a good leader can convince the people that his way is the best way by showing them with his actions (assuming that his or her way *is* the best way, of course).
The people see that his or her system works, and they vote him or her back in.
Chretien didn't and isn't standing up for his (purported, but let's not go there) beliefs. He's pandering to what he thinks will win the Liberals the next election, as he always has. In other words, Chretien is in my opinion the antithesis to a good leader.
If he doesn't feel comfortable doing what he thinks is right, he should step down.
"My favorite, so oft forgotten dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged". "
Exactly. I'm sick of being pigeon-holed because of people manipulating the text and extrapolating to extremes, and not living up to their selective standards.
Cancer is less preventable than malaria? That's just laughable. It's just not always possible for little African children to always have a can of DEET repellent, or a mosquito suit, and at the same time people in first world countries are abusing their bodies more and more. Lets see... people lead increasingly unhealthy lifestyles, and cancer, heart disease et al are on the rise! (not that ALL cancers are preventable, but a lot are)
He just wanted an excuse to substitute "nigger" for human.
("he parasite, a single-cell organism known as a protozoan, goes through different phases in both its mosquito and ***nigger*** hosts.")
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/health/12MALA.ht ml?ex=1061265600&en=cbb7f9d4a0084265&ei=5040&partn er=MOREOVER
"Oddly, eventual wide acceptance of that information did not lead to the fall of the Church."
Oddly, not everything has to be taken absolutely literally. Have you ever heard of a metaphor? While I don't want to get into a long debate about the veracity of my beliefs, suffice it to say that I doubt that stone age people would've understood a literal account of creation.
"The first thing moralist do is attack any new science."
That's right, generalize! I can be punished for another person's actions simply because I subscribe to a similar set of beliefs!
"Our Fearless Leader told us stem-cell research and human cloning would be morally wrong. (Dropping bombs on Afgan and Iraqii civilians, well, that's okay.)"
I for one want a leader with the balls to stand up for what s/he thinks is right. Whether or not the people decide to keep himm/her in office is up to them.
I'll just leave the Afghanistan/Iraq issue. Nothing good will come out of that argument.
Who would be content to let somebody else live while they die, just because that other person has their memories? Unless your consciousness just magically warps over to that other person (your backup) when they body that it happens to be inhabiting dies.
What age group gets in the most reckless accidents?
(~20)
Who has a larger amount of time left to live, on average, an 18 year old or a 40 year old?
On the other hand, maybe growing up with no concept of death will only most people much more reckless.
Surely in science your skills won't all become obsolete (ok so stuff gets automated, etc), especially general thinking and logic skills.
Unless we start using computers to think for us:(
What makes you think it won't just fuel the problem and make it worse? I'd think it would just make it less wrong in their minds, over time. Then they head down a slippery slope...
Besides, child pornography is wrong because it exploits vulnerable children to produce it, as well as (probably, I'm no psychiatrist) endangering more for the same reason as I listed above.
" She doesn't get prettier over the years..."
Neither do you, and you're gonna start regretting it when you haven't had sex in 40 years.
And then there's this thing called "love" that you seem to have no concept of.
Do you honestly think most people haven't heard those numbers?
I'd say that it's more likely that they consider the cost in human lives to be worth the gains in freedom (for the Iraqi people) and (to many people, debatably) security.
You say it won't reduce any collateral damage since most of it comes from human error. Notice the word "most". That means not all. That means that at least some is caused by shrapnel and such. Which means that this would be at least a slight improvement. Who wouldn't agree that even a slight improvement is better than no improvement when it comes to saving innocent lives? And if a wrong target is selected, well guess what! There's *still* less shrapnel to kill civilians!
If you make yourself totally unable to defend yourself, it makes you a much less desirable target and makes people like you more.
Wait, never mind. It makes the peaceloving people that you don't have to defend yourself against in the first place love you more. It also makes you unable to defend yourself against the people who want you dead with no comprimises.
Nature abhors a vacuum... but there are people out there who would love a power vacuum.
However, if you design weapons that can kill your enemies with extremely little collateral damage, you can let your enemies know that hiding behind civilians won't work any more. They'll be that much more hesitant to attack you in the future if they know that the threat of bad PR isn't going to save them any more.
I think there are international human rights groups that would probably see to it that the code gets checked. Even if not, I didn't see it saying that it had to be the one solution that is perfect in every country. Or maybe it did, I just skimmed the article:)
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why you need a good leader. It may not work all the time, but it's better than either anarchy or totalitarianism. Hopefully, a good leader can convince the people that his way is the best way by showing them with his actions (assuming that his or her way *is* the best way, of course). The people see that his or her system works, and they vote him or her back in.
Chretien didn't and isn't standing up for his (purported, but let's not go there) beliefs. He's pandering to what he thinks will win the Liberals the next election, as he always has. In other words, Chretien is in my opinion the antithesis to a good leader. If he doesn't feel comfortable doing what he thinks is right, he should step down.
In that case, feel free to try to vote him out next time and let democracy work instead of whining.
"My favorite, so oft forgotten dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged". " Exactly. I'm sick of being pigeon-holed because of people manipulating the text and extrapolating to extremes, and not living up to their selective standards.
Cancer is less preventable than malaria? That's just laughable. It's just not always possible for little African children to always have a can of DEET repellent, or a mosquito suit, and at the same time people in first world countries are abusing their bodies more and more. Lets see... people lead increasingly unhealthy lifestyles, and cancer, heart disease et al are on the rise! (not that ALL cancers are preventable, but a lot are)
He just wanted an excuse to substitute "nigger" for human. ("he parasite, a single-cell organism known as a protozoan, goes through different phases in both its mosquito and ***nigger*** hosts.") http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/health/12MALA.ht ml?ex=1061265600&en=cbb7f9d4a0084265&ei=5040&partn er=MOREOVER
Oh come on now. Haven't you ever played deus ex? You don't need genetic engineering for super human strength! :)
"Oddly, eventual wide acceptance of that information did not lead to the fall of the Church." Oddly, not everything has to be taken absolutely literally. Have you ever heard of a metaphor? While I don't want to get into a long debate about the veracity of my beliefs, suffice it to say that I doubt that stone age people would've understood a literal account of creation. "The first thing moralist do is attack any new science." That's right, generalize! I can be punished for another person's actions simply because I subscribe to a similar set of beliefs! "Our Fearless Leader told us stem-cell research and human cloning would be morally wrong. (Dropping bombs on Afgan and Iraqii civilians, well, that's okay.)" I for one want a leader with the balls to stand up for what s/he thinks is right. Whether or not the people decide to keep himm/her in office is up to them. I'll just leave the Afghanistan/Iraq issue. Nothing good will come out of that argument.
FYI, cellophane is not a self adhesive phone :)
No, no, no. It's supposed to say you've sacrificed personal rewards to make them happy. Although it's still stupid in my opinion :)
Who would be content to let somebody else live while they die, just because that other person has their memories? Unless your consciousness just magically warps over to that other person (your backup) when they body that it happens to be inhabiting dies.
What age group gets in the most reckless accidents? (~20) Who has a larger amount of time left to live, on average, an 18 year old or a 40 year old? On the other hand, maybe growing up with no concept of death will only most people much more reckless.
I'm no economist, but how many people living off of interest could the economy support?
Surely in science your skills won't all become obsolete (ok so stuff gets automated, etc), especially general thinking and logic skills. Unless we start using computers to think for us :(
El Ron: a Spanish counterpart to Elrond? :)
Hrmm. Didn't read carefully, disregard the second paragraph there.
What makes you think it won't just fuel the problem and make it worse? I'd think it would just make it less wrong in their minds, over time. Then they head down a slippery slope...
Besides, child pornography is wrong because it exploits vulnerable children to produce it, as well as (probably, I'm no psychiatrist) endangering more for the same reason as I listed above.
" She doesn't get prettier over the years..." Neither do you, and you're gonna start regretting it when you haven't had sex in 40 years. And then there's this thing called "love" that you seem to have no concept of.
Do you honestly think most people haven't heard those numbers? I'd say that it's more likely that they consider the cost in human lives to be worth the gains in freedom (for the Iraqi people) and (to many people, debatably) security.
You say it won't reduce any collateral damage since most of it comes from human error. Notice the word "most". That means not all. That means that at least some is caused by shrapnel and such. Which means that this would be at least a slight improvement. Who wouldn't agree that even a slight improvement is better than no improvement when it comes to saving innocent lives? And if a wrong target is selected, well guess what! There's *still* less shrapnel to kill civilians!
If you make yourself totally unable to defend yourself, it makes you a much less desirable target and makes people like you more.
Wait, never mind. It makes the peaceloving people that you don't have to defend yourself against in the first place love you more. It also makes you unable to defend yourself against the people who want you dead with no comprimises.
Nature abhors a vacuum... but there are people out there who would love a power vacuum.
However, if you design weapons that can kill your enemies with extremely little collateral damage, you can let your enemies know that hiding behind civilians won't work any more. They'll be that much more hesitant to attack you in the future if they know that the threat of bad PR isn't going to save them any more.
That would be *with* six easy pieces :)
What an odd coincidence. I just got back from the library six easy pieces by Feynman...
Nope, don't even live in Quebec :)
Unless you mean western seperatist, in which case nope, I'm sane :)
I think there are international human rights groups that would probably see to it that the code gets checked. Even if not, I didn't see it saying that it had to be the one solution that is perfect in every country. Or maybe it did, I just skimmed the article :)