Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable.
No, not just cable. Usually, you have to buy premium channels to get your profanity fix.
Just remember, nudity and profanity are considered vices, and you pay extra for your vices. Getting profanity for free just reduces the value proposition of HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax.
And you're right about Tipper. People forget that she was in lockstep with Jack Thompson, trying to censor music in the 80's with the PMRC. Of course, that doesn't excuse the censorship currently going on.
Why on earth would you choose Java as a language/platform for doing anything with graphics? If you want something Java-like, and you're interested in experimentation, for god's sake go with Proce55ing, which is much better suited for graphics work, both in terms of instant-gratification and supporting library/community.
Perhaps Processing is "Java-like" because it's written in Java? Maybe you should ask the Processing dev team why they chose Java to produce their graphics? I admit that it looks like it simplifies experimentation, but it's a bad example to use to claim that Java does graphics poorly.
The "Singularity" is at its heart a religious idea. Not a traditional kind of theology, but a new and radical one. It's based on complete optimism in humanity and its science, our ability to adapt the world to our will, and that we will expand before we self-destruct. But it's based on a belief that cannot be supported with evidence. It is semi-plausible, as long as you accept the idea that mankind will continue to create ever more clever solutions to their problems (heat and energy, as you describe) in order to continue exponential growth. However, no one knows just how, or if, these problems will be solved. It's hard to predict the future. So those people who posit the idea of a singularity are just affirming their faith in humanity and science. As religious belief goes, I support it far more than ancient superstition and mythology.
Is not empiricism based upon the fact that there are laws that do not change? Science rests of the belief that what we saw and observed will continue to behave the same way today; that once we understand and know all of these laws, we will be able to predict future events based on current observations (i.e. an airplane will fly if designed properly)
This is mostly correct. The default assumption is that the laws will not change, and if they are changing, there is a more fundamental process to be understood. For example, it was once assumed that orbits were based on epicycles, however, as more planets were discovered, this theory had to change and multiply the necessary number of epicycles to explain more eccentric orbits. This pointed to a deeper theory, Newton's laws of gravitation, which remained to be discovered.
However, I don't think that most scientists believe that we will discover all the laws, at least, not for several lifetimes. By the time we have reconciled all of the forces in the universe we have observed so far, our improved instruments will have detected even more basic phenomena. They haven't found the bottom of the rabbit hole yet.
For these improvements in understanding to occur, science must never become unchanging. The ability to accommodate change is what has made science such a powerful tool. So unless science finally accounts for all observable entities and processes in the universe, which is a very tall order, it will never become a Truth I have inferred from your post.
The idea of a Truth is not foreign to such a world, but it is possible that simply relying on the empirical realm will not allow you to discover all Truths. In other words, there are some things that may not be able to be explained by empirical means.
The closest thing that science has to such a Truth, is a theory that has been challenged many times over and never been found to be contradictory to observation. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about as close as it gets.
I admit that science cannot account for all of human experience, at least on a subjective level. Our minds are complex and unpredictable, and neuroscience is still in its infancy. So explanations of love, trust, and jealousy are still a ways off. However, if these "truths" involve metaphysical layers of reality which cannot be demonstrated, but only revealed to initiates by a higher power, then I am quite sure that science will never account for them. I think that they are far more likely to be stories that mankind likes to tell itself, rather than any true external entity. Mankind has a truly exceptional ability to fool itself.
For what it's worth, I was raised Christian, and became an atheist over time. I have no antagonism towards religious people, I believe all people have the right to think and believe as they wish. I see value in the social cohesion, public rituals, and artworks that have come from belief. (I love pipe organs) Unfortunately, recently the churches (mostly evangelical) in the US have decided to become the dominant force in politics, starting in the 80's with the "Moral Majority", instead of "rendering to Caesar what is Caesars", and eschewing worldly matters. Now they wish to push their beliefs on everyone in the US through the blunt weapon of law. These "culture warriors" are dragging the country into an ugly and pointless conflict, and then they wonder why nonbelievers like myself (around 10% of the population) are angry?
Why couldn't it have been created 6000 years ago, but created *old*? With all the dinosaur fossils and everything intact?
Imagine everyone around are just simulations in a big computer. The creator could have run the simulation forward, stopped and tweaked it, and started it up again. The people inside the simulation wouldn't know that they've been messed with. Remember, an omniscient being could retroactively install a patch, and tweek everyone's memories so that they thought that that was the way it has always been.
Or, much more likely, couldn't it be really, really old, just as it seems? Couldn't the Bible be a collection of mythological tales written, copied, translated and compiled by men that has survived because people find meaning and value in it? Couldn't God just be an ancient label for things that we don't yet understand?
I swear, that's why the Fundies are so down on Harry Potter. They know that in 2000 years there it'll be a full blown religion, with J.K. Rowling as His prophet. Of course, the Tolkien mother church will never allow such heresy.
But wait a minute -- who decides what is absurd or contradictory? To say that any idea is absurd or wrong means that you believe that there must in fact be ideas that are right and ideas that are wrong. This in turn implies that there may in fact be such a thing as a Truth. I capitalize Truth to emphasize the idea of a fact that is inalienable and unquestionable.
Humans all have the capacity for reason, and ultimately, each of us is responsible for determining the truth of matters for ourselves to our own satisfaction. No one is responsible for their thoughts but themselves. Fortunately, because of our capacity for language, we have access to the thoughts of both our ancestors and our contemporaries. This gives us access to oceans of information, but also complicates the task of determining the truth about ourselves and the world.
However, it is not neccessary for there to be an ultimate, immutable Truth in order for us to determine that an idea is absurd or contradictory. Provided that you accept logic as a valid means of determining truth, and most people agree that this is the case, a logical contradiction inherent in an idea is enough to disqualify it without reference to an ideal Truth. If I claim that the Earth orbits the sun, and that the Sun also orbits the Earth, you can disqualify that idea without any external referent. Also, one can consider an idea absurd if acceptance of that idea violates much of what one already knows to be true. If you claim to have a perpetual motion machine, I will consider the idea absurd based on physical principles that I have found to be true.
This is not to say that I may not be making a mistake in reasoning. Quantum Mechanics violates much of what science has previously indicated to be true, and many (including Einstein) considered the idea to be absurd ("God does not play dice"). Therefore, the most rational way to ascertain the truth is through Empiricism. If an experiment can demonstrate that previous assumptions were incorrect, then it is irrational not to revise our assumptions. This is the basis on which science rests. Science is not a "Truth", immutable and perfect, but a constantly changing set of models and evidence. It is also incomplete, as we are unable to account for all for forces in the universe in a single set of equations. It also has shown itself to be the most sure route to knowledge about the world. As Einstein said, "All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike-and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
This is an anathema to today's thinking that truth is relative to the individual. By what standards do you measure truth? What is the criteria you would use? Once you have established this criteria (let us call it dogma - a system of principles or tenets), you now have made yourself intolerant of anyone who does not agree with your criteria for determining Truth or, perhaps more accurately, the Truth that your criteria points towards.
The rational, scientific world does not accept the idea that truth is relative to the individual. That idea comes out of the humanities, especially postmodern literary analysis, and the "soft" sciences such as sociology. Nearly all scientists accept that we share a single universe where there is an objective reality that we all access through imperfect senses.
There have been many attempts to establish truth based on different criteria. The religious measure truth based on revelation. They believe that certain people throughout history have been contacted by dieties who have transmitted to them the actual truth about the universe. Since this "truth" presumably comes from God, it must therefore be more correct than anything that man can devise. That's why there are blatantly apologetic institutions, like this creation museum, which attempt to revise new information that has come to light into a scriptural framework. Also, since they have survived as ideas for so long
Right and wrong only exist in the application of our actions according to our beliefs at the time. The shepards of the Bible would have thought nothing of taking a 13 year old bride; today, that is child rape. In the middle ages, the church supported the death penalty for stealing, a stance unthinkable today. The ten commandments explicity admits the existence of other gods, but modern Christians consider that idea heresy.
I think that the ten commandments are a remarkably concise statement of morality, and worthy of study and consideration (for the record, I am an atheist/humanist). However, like any set of rules, they fail to capture the vast majority of concrete situations that we encounter in daily life. They must be reinterpreted for every novel situation that we find, and as often as not, we can justify or condemn the same action based on the same rules. Therefore, they are useful as a general guide, but impotent in the face of our rapidly changing world.
If our morality is not relative, then it is useless. Now, moral relativity does not imply that "anything goes". That would indeed be nihilism. It means that our actions must be considered relative to our environment and the beliefs of society.
1) The make a larger profit, and the people who earn that profit spend it on other things.
The executives only, not the workers.
2) They invest that saved money in more production or more production efficiency (buy technology, spend on research, build another factory)
Long-term thinking like this is passe'. The stockholders would not approve.
3) They lower the price of the product, so the consumer then spends their money on something else.
Only once too few people can afford their product becuase they've lost their jobs.
Outsourcing turns a guy in India who wasn't doing shit into a guy in India who makes, say, $100 worth of stuff, and keeps $80 of it and we get $20 'for free'. That's good for him and good for us.
Good for him. So now 80% of that money is going into the Indian local economies, instead of our own. The other 20% will become executive bonuses for such visionary thinking.
That does eliminate a job in the US that may have paid $200 for the same stuff. But that's OK, because the stuff costs $100 less, and the person who would have had that job can now work on something else.
Even $100 is a lot to afford when your previously high-paying job is now a low-paying unskilled job.
Also keep in mind that depressed wages are the only way that the free market can move around workers. Just because we all want high paid jobs in a certain field doesn't mean the economy can support allocating workers that way.
Of course, your workers are also your customers, who suddenly can't afford what you're selling. And are you saying that workers shouldn't have any leverage against management? It used to be a negoation between labor and management, where management tries to keep wages low, and workers try to make as much as possible. Now, you're competing against workers around the globe, many of whom have a rock-bottom cost of living. It's a very efficient way to reduce the standard of living in this country. Who is going to invest in a decent education if you have to move overseas to see any benefit?
But in the end, we want to export as many jobs as we can and replace as many workers as possible with machines. If we do this to perfection, none of us will have to work anymore, because machines and people in India will be doing all our work for us, and we'll still have the same amount of stuff.
This is, of course, utopian bullshit. You think that the Indians won't take advantage of the fact that our entire economy and way of life is supported by machines that they're the only ones qualified to maintain? Maybe they'll send us some unskilled manufacturing jobs, and the cycle will be complete.
FYI, the DoD has no classified information connected to the Internet. They have a completely separate network called the SIPRNET for that. It's possible that some classified information was mishandled, but I doubt that's what he saw. The US wants to lock him up because he embarrassed them publicly by disclosing how weak the security is on the non-classified side.
Of course, you're absolutely right about the process of leveraging debt to make money. I'm currently doing the same thing with my home. I was oversimplifying to make a point. But, at the end of your working life, I still feel that a home that you own free and clear is a vital part of real security. Thanks for your comment.
It's my opinion that the so-called american dream is mostly a myth implanted in people's minds early on in their lives to make them work harder for the same wage, constantly hoping for better days. The reality of America today is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class finds the "middle" slowly drifting to the bottom.
The "American Dream"(tm) is both a myth and a branding strategy. Most of the components, a big house, a nice car, fancy clothes, are strictly materialistic. Every corporation that has something to sell desperately wants to have their product be part of your vision of the American Dream. Ford and Chevy trucks have been pulling this for years. The iPod is now de rigeur for Americans who want to be percieved as cool. It is important to the commercial sector that people believe that they can just go out and buy the lifestyle that they want.
Aiding them in this is the banking industry, which has been extending credit to people whether they can pay or not. Need $20k rims for your whip? Just sign here. Why wear generic blue jeans when you can have some Guess jeans? Buy now, pay later! Need a 20 room house to show the neighbors just how much status you have? We'd be happy to loan you the money. And, in the time it takes for you to sign your name, you've just enslaved yourself for the time it will take to repay that loan. Want to travel? You only get a week of vacation (if that). Want to go to school and improve your lot? Can't afford to be away from work for that long. Can your family barely remember your face becuase you're working double shifts? Sorry, that mortgage can't wait. I'm not saying that loans can't be made responsibly, or that they're not a useful tool. I'm saying that if you are going into debt in order to appear wealthy, you're a fool.
My American Dream is to invest enough money for my family's security, then use every other cent to buy back my time and freedom. Your children only grow up once, and if you're not there, you can never get that time back. Relationships need care and maintenance, and this takes time. If you want to control your own life, you have to make careful financial decisions, forego status symbols, avoid debt, and invest in yourself. A paid-off trailer is a castle, a McMansion with a mortgage is the bank's.
You're absolutely right. Conservapedia appears to be run by theocratic paleo-conservatives who think that science is a tool of the devil, not neoconservatives who think that democracy can be spread at gunpoint. My mistake.
Nope. It's not satire. It was created by Andrew Schlafly, son of arch-conservative anti-femininst Phillys Schlafly, and is used by her Eagle Forum.
If the ideas presented on that site induce laughter, it is because neoconservative ideas are completely ridiculous. Really, Mark Twain couldn't produce satire so deep. I honestly hope that the GOP uses that site as their definitive reference. Within two generations, they'll be too stupid to breed.
Have you actually read the book, or any of his other books, especially Time Enough for Love? If you had, you'd realize that Heinlein's "ideal society" consists of immortality on your own space ship with your incestuous clone offspring and occasionally travelling through time to have sex with your mother.
Okay, seriously, Heinlein's "ideal society" consists of 3-4 ridiculously talented, highly educated, implausibly beautiful, relentlessly motivated, doctor/architect/survivalist/engineer/artists of all genders and sexual proclivities vs. anyone who abridges their rights. He seemed to be libertarian to a fault, and had very little good to say about governments in general. With the exception of Starship Troopers.
Starship Troopers on the other hand was about voluntarily putting the needs of society ahead of your own safety, in order to have a stake in the government. This was primarily through military service (as several cities had been destroyed), but also included safety testing for drugs and equipment. In addition, everyone was allowed to serve however they could: men, women, the disabled, and every race. In the book, suffrage was the only benefit from service; in the film, there were other perks, like advanced schooling and jobs. It makes the "class stratification" argument easier to make, but it wasn't in the original.
I'm not arguing in favor of that kind of politics by any means. I don't really think that Heinlein was either. He said he was inspired by the government of Switzerland, as males were obligated to serve in the military for their citizenship. I think he was making a point that many who vote, do so solely for their own gain, without making any sacrifice of themselves. The book is far more about ideas of citizenship and duty to society than the movie presents.
Plus, you're giving Paul Verhoeven too much credit as a filmmaker. The movie seemed "off" because originally it was supposed to be "Bug Hunt on Planet 9" until the optioned the book well into pre-production (according to wikipedia anyway). He didn't even finish reading the (short) book he was satirizing. While I thought it was a funny, entertaining, and obvious take on America's militaristic culture, it didn't bear much resemblance to the book.
My wife and I used to be DINKS (dual-income, no kids) two short years ago. Both with nice, cushy, high-paying contracting jobs. When we had our first child, my wife insisted on quitting her job to stay at home with the child. It was a very good decision for us. We save on gas and day-care, and she has constant attention from a parent. Now that our second recently arrived, it's even more important to have a parent at home.
Sure, we've had to budget more wisely, and there were some tough adjustments to start with, but we've managed to make it work. I don't get as many toys as I used to, but I also don't have the time that I once had to fritter away. However, we can pull it off because the housing market in Montgomery AL has some of the lowest property taxes in the country (to the detriment of the public schools).
Okay, I'm rambling at this point, but what I'm trying to say is, don't judge families with two working parents unless you've been in their place. Some need the money to make ends meet, and that's their decision to make. Save your venom for those parents who are working two jobs to chase status symbols instead of investing in their children. If you are going into debt to acquire items to make you appear wealthy, you are a damned fool.
No he's not, he's thinking of his own ego. I can safely say that he doesn't represent *real* Christians.
Oh, how I wish that you were right, but if you'd look around you'd see that a great many Christians agree with him. It's Southern Baptists mostly, but there are "culture warriors" in most other denominations as well. They have decided that the mere existence of things that they disapprove of is intolerable, and are going to great lengths to have them eradicated. I wish more Christian sects were like the Quakers and the Amish, peaceful and inward looking, rather than the new evangelical goon squad. Now, you may not consider them "real Christians(tm)", but they most assuredly consider themselves the most real christians ever. It sounds like you are falling prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
For the record, I'm an atheist, brought up Episcopalian, and I have no problem with people of faith as long as they recognize that others do not share their beliefs, and act accordingly. These Christians are seemingly scarce. As are moderate atheists.
And truthfuly, there is more scientific evidence supporting the bubble theory then darwin's big bang everything came from one cell theory.
If you mean, this Bubble Theory, then you've mixed up cosmology and biology. Darwin never wrote about cosmology. Since the Big Bang theory was only initially conceived in 1927 (by a Catholic priest no less) and Charles Darwin died in 1882, he would have been a very early adopter indeed.
Also, Darwin never wrote that all life came from one cell. He wrote on how existing life changed, not how it came to be.
I wonder if this means I should start calling all popular evolutionist liars and idiots and such like they do with christians?
So, since you've gotten your facts completely wrong, I have to ask. Did you do so intentionally (making you a liar), or unintentionally (making you an idiot)?
Slashdot Mirror
No, not just cable. Usually, you have to buy premium channels to get your profanity fix.
Just remember, nudity and profanity are considered vices, and you pay extra for your vices. Getting profanity for free just reduces the value proposition of HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax.
And you're right about Tipper. People forget that she was in lockstep with Jack Thompson, trying to censor music in the 80's with the PMRC. Of course, that doesn't excuse the censorship currently going on.
Just remember, Anglo-Saxon words == BAD :: Norman words == ACCEPTABLE
SHIT == BAD :: FECES == ACCEPTABLE
ARSE == BAD :: DERRIERE == ACCEPTABLE
COCK == BAD :: PENIS == ACCEPTABLE
It's only due to the forces of capitalism that computers have become affordable for personal ownership. Arguably sad, but most definitely true.
Perhaps Processing is "Java-like" because it's written in Java? Maybe you should ask the Processing dev team why they chose Java to produce their graphics? I admit that it looks like it simplifies experimentation, but it's a bad example to use to claim that Java does graphics poorly.
Racial purity? Is ethnic homogeneity now considered a good thing?
Ah, but GWB says that having to disclose the contents of his conversations with God would compromise his ability to get candid advice.
The "Singularity" is at its heart a religious idea. Not a traditional kind of theology, but a new and radical one. It's based on complete optimism in humanity and its science, our ability to adapt the world to our will, and that we will expand before we self-destruct. But it's based on a belief that cannot be supported with evidence. It is semi-plausible, as long as you accept the idea that mankind will continue to create ever more clever solutions to their problems (heat and energy, as you describe) in order to continue exponential growth. However, no one knows just how, or if, these problems will be solved. It's hard to predict the future. So those people who posit the idea of a singularity are just affirming their faith in humanity and science. As religious belief goes, I support it far more than ancient superstition and mythology.
Cthulhu is most certainly in the Pacific Ocean.
You're thinking of the Mi-Go.
This is mostly correct. The default assumption is that the laws will not change, and if they are changing, there is a more fundamental process to be understood. For example, it was once assumed that orbits were based on epicycles, however, as more planets were discovered, this theory had to change and multiply the necessary number of epicycles to explain more eccentric orbits. This pointed to a deeper theory, Newton's laws of gravitation, which remained to be discovered.
However, I don't think that most scientists believe that we will discover all the laws, at least, not for several lifetimes. By the time we have reconciled all of the forces in the universe we have observed so far, our improved instruments will have detected even more basic phenomena. They haven't found the bottom of the rabbit hole yet.
For these improvements in understanding to occur, science must never become unchanging. The ability to accommodate change is what has made science such a powerful tool. So unless science finally accounts for all observable entities and processes in the universe, which is a very tall order, it will never become a Truth I have inferred from your post.
The closest thing that science has to such a Truth, is a theory that has been challenged many times over and never been found to be contradictory to observation. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about as close as it gets.
I admit that science cannot account for all of human experience, at least on a subjective level. Our minds are complex and unpredictable, and neuroscience is still in its infancy. So explanations of love, trust, and jealousy are still a ways off. However, if these "truths" involve metaphysical layers of reality which cannot be demonstrated, but only revealed to initiates by a higher power, then I am quite sure that science will never account for them. I think that they are far more likely to be stories that mankind likes to tell itself, rather than any true external entity. Mankind has a truly exceptional ability to fool itself.
For what it's worth, I was raised Christian, and became an atheist over time. I have no antagonism towards religious people, I believe all people have the right to think and believe as they wish. I see value in the social cohesion, public rituals, and artworks that have come from belief. (I love pipe organs) Unfortunately, recently the churches (mostly evangelical) in the US have decided to become the dominant force in politics, starting in the 80's with the "Moral Majority", instead of "rendering to Caesar what is Caesars", and eschewing worldly matters. Now they wish to push their beliefs on everyone in the US through the blunt weapon of law. These "culture warriors" are dragging the country into an ugly and pointless conflict, and then they wonder why nonbelievers like myself (around 10% of the population) are angry?
Or, much more likely, couldn't it be really, really old, just as it seems? Couldn't the Bible be a collection of mythological tales written, copied, translated and compiled by men that has survived because people find meaning and value in it? Couldn't God just be an ancient label for things that we don't yet understand?
I swear, that's why the Fundies are so down on Harry Potter. They know that in 2000 years there it'll be a full blown religion, with J.K. Rowling as His prophet. Of course, the Tolkien mother church will never allow such heresy.
Humans all have the capacity for reason, and ultimately, each of us is responsible for determining the truth of matters for ourselves to our own satisfaction. No one is responsible for their thoughts but themselves. Fortunately, because of our capacity for language, we have access to the thoughts of both our ancestors and our contemporaries. This gives us access to oceans of information, but also complicates the task of determining the truth about ourselves and the world.
However, it is not neccessary for there to be an ultimate, immutable Truth in order for us to determine that an idea is absurd or contradictory. Provided that you accept logic as a valid means of determining truth, and most people agree that this is the case, a logical contradiction inherent in an idea is enough to disqualify it without reference to an ideal Truth. If I claim that the Earth orbits the sun, and that the Sun also orbits the Earth, you can disqualify that idea without any external referent. Also, one can consider an idea absurd if acceptance of that idea violates much of what one already knows to be true. If you claim to have a perpetual motion machine, I will consider the idea absurd based on physical principles that I have found to be true.
This is not to say that I may not be making a mistake in reasoning. Quantum Mechanics violates much of what science has previously indicated to be true, and many (including Einstein) considered the idea to be absurd ("God does not play dice"). Therefore, the most rational way to ascertain the truth is through Empiricism. If an experiment can demonstrate that previous assumptions were incorrect, then it is irrational not to revise our assumptions. This is the basis on which science rests. Science is not a "Truth", immutable and perfect, but a constantly changing set of models and evidence. It is also incomplete, as we are unable to account for all for forces in the universe in a single set of equations. It also has shown itself to be the most sure route to knowledge about the world. As Einstein said, "All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike-and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
The rational, scientific world does not accept the idea that truth is relative to the individual. That idea comes out of the humanities, especially postmodern literary analysis, and the "soft" sciences such as sociology. Nearly all scientists accept that we share a single universe where there is an objective reality that we all access through imperfect senses.
There have been many attempts to establish truth based on different criteria. The religious measure truth based on revelation. They believe that certain people throughout history have been contacted by dieties who have transmitted to them the actual truth about the universe. Since this "truth" presumably comes from God, it must therefore be more correct than anything that man can devise. That's why there are blatantly apologetic institutions, like this creation museum, which attempt to revise new information that has come to light into a scriptural framework. Also, since they have survived as ideas for so long
Right and wrong only exist in the application of our actions according to our beliefs at the time. The shepards of the Bible would have thought nothing of taking a 13 year old bride; today, that is child rape. In the middle ages, the church supported the death penalty for stealing, a stance unthinkable today. The ten commandments explicity admits the existence of other gods, but modern Christians consider that idea heresy.
I think that the ten commandments are a remarkably concise statement of morality, and worthy of study and consideration (for the record, I am an atheist/humanist). However, like any set of rules, they fail to capture the vast majority of concrete situations that we encounter in daily life. They must be reinterpreted for every novel situation that we find, and as often as not, we can justify or condemn the same action based on the same rules. Therefore, they are useful as a general guide, but impotent in the face of our rapidly changing world.
If our morality is not relative, then it is useless. Now, moral relativity does not imply that "anything goes". That would indeed be nihilism. It means that our actions must be considered relative to our environment and the beliefs of society.
"Pulls plug on cancer patient living in delirious agony."
Good or evil?
"Builds nuclear weapon to figh WWII."
Good or evil?
"Allows birthing mother to bleed to death to save baby."
Good or evil?
"Beheads monarchy to establish democracy in France."
Good or evil?
"Creates strawman to win argument on Slashdot."
Good or evil?
The rules are signposts, not walls, and all morality is relative. Deal with it.
The executives only, not the workers.
Long-term thinking like this is passe'. The stockholders would not approve.
Only once too few people can afford their product becuase they've lost their jobs.
Good for him. So now 80% of that money is going into the Indian local economies, instead of our own. The other 20% will become executive bonuses for such visionary thinking.
Even $100 is a lot to afford when your previously high-paying job is now a low-paying unskilled job.
Of course, your workers are also your customers, who suddenly can't afford what you're selling. And are you saying that workers shouldn't have any leverage against management? It used to be a negoation between labor and management, where management tries to keep wages low, and workers try to make as much as possible. Now, you're competing against workers around the globe, many of whom have a rock-bottom cost of living. It's a very efficient way to reduce the standard of living in this country. Who is going to invest in a decent education if you have to move overseas to see any benefit?
This is, of course, utopian bullshit. You think that the Indians won't take advantage of the fact that our entire economy and way of life is supported by machines that they're the only ones qualified to maintain? Maybe they'll send us some unskilled manufacturing jobs, and the cycle will be complete.
FYI, the DoD has no classified information connected to the Internet. They have a completely separate network called the SIPRNET for that. It's possible that some classified information was mishandled, but I doubt that's what he saw. The US wants to lock him up because he embarrassed them publicly by disclosing how weak the security is on the non-classified side.
If you're in the U.S., your main busybody theocratic nitwits are Christian. If he was posting from Riyadh, your criticism may apply.
Of course, you're absolutely right about the process of leveraging debt to make money. I'm currently doing the same thing with my home. I was oversimplifying to make a point. But, at the end of your working life, I still feel that a home that you own free and clear is a vital part of real security. Thanks for your comment.
The "American Dream"(tm) is both a myth and a branding strategy. Most of the components, a big house, a nice car, fancy clothes, are strictly materialistic. Every corporation that has something to sell desperately wants to have their product be part of your vision of the American Dream. Ford and Chevy trucks have been pulling this for years. The iPod is now de rigeur for Americans who want to be percieved as cool. It is important to the commercial sector that people believe that they can just go out and buy the lifestyle that they want.
Aiding them in this is the banking industry, which has been extending credit to people whether they can pay or not. Need $20k rims for your whip? Just sign here. Why wear generic blue jeans when you can have some Guess jeans? Buy now, pay later! Need a 20 room house to show the neighbors just how much status you have? We'd be happy to loan you the money. And, in the time it takes for you to sign your name, you've just enslaved yourself for the time it will take to repay that loan. Want to travel? You only get a week of vacation (if that). Want to go to school and improve your lot? Can't afford to be away from work for that long. Can your family barely remember your face becuase you're working double shifts? Sorry, that mortgage can't wait. I'm not saying that loans can't be made responsibly, or that they're not a useful tool. I'm saying that if you are going into debt in order to appear wealthy, you're a fool.
My American Dream is to invest enough money for my family's security, then use every other cent to buy back my time and freedom. Your children only grow up once, and if you're not there, you can never get that time back. Relationships need care and maintenance, and this takes time. If you want to control your own life, you have to make careful financial decisions, forego status symbols, avoid debt, and invest in yourself. A paid-off trailer is a castle, a McMansion with a mortgage is the bank's.
You're absolutely right. Conservapedia appears to be run by theocratic paleo-conservatives who think that science is a tool of the devil, not neoconservatives who think that democracy can be spread at gunpoint. My mistake.
Nope. It's not satire. It was created by Andrew Schlafly, son of arch-conservative anti-femininst Phillys Schlafly, and is used by her Eagle Forum.
If the ideas presented on that site induce laughter, it is because neoconservative ideas are completely ridiculous. Really, Mark Twain couldn't produce satire so deep. I honestly hope that the GOP uses that site as their definitive reference. Within two generations, they'll be too stupid to breed.
Have you actually read the book, or any of his other books, especially Time Enough for Love? If you had, you'd realize that Heinlein's "ideal society" consists of immortality on your own space ship with your incestuous clone offspring and occasionally travelling through time to have sex with your mother.
Okay, seriously, Heinlein's "ideal society" consists of 3-4 ridiculously talented, highly educated, implausibly beautiful, relentlessly motivated, doctor/architect/survivalist/engineer/artists of all genders and sexual proclivities vs. anyone who abridges their rights. He seemed to be libertarian to a fault, and had very little good to say about governments in general. With the exception of Starship Troopers.
Starship Troopers on the other hand was about voluntarily putting the needs of society ahead of your own safety, in order to have a stake in the government. This was primarily through military service (as several cities had been destroyed), but also included safety testing for drugs and equipment. In addition, everyone was allowed to serve however they could: men, women, the disabled, and every race. In the book, suffrage was the only benefit from service; in the film, there were other perks, like advanced schooling and jobs. It makes the "class stratification" argument easier to make, but it wasn't in the original.
I'm not arguing in favor of that kind of politics by any means. I don't really think that Heinlein was either. He said he was inspired by the government of Switzerland, as males were obligated to serve in the military for their citizenship. I think he was making a point that many who vote, do so solely for their own gain, without making any sacrifice of themselves. The book is far more about ideas of citizenship and duty to society than the movie presents.
Plus, you're giving Paul Verhoeven too much credit as a filmmaker. The movie seemed "off" because originally it was supposed to be "Bug Hunt on Planet 9" until the optioned the book well into pre-production (according to wikipedia anyway). He didn't even finish reading the (short) book he was satirizing. While I thought it was a funny, entertaining, and obvious take on America's militaristic culture, it didn't bear much resemblance to the book.
You, sir, underestimate the power of Jack Daniels.
Indeed! In fact, simply by listening to Iron Maiden, you can receive a complete education.
My wife and I used to be DINKS (dual-income, no kids) two short years ago. Both with nice, cushy, high-paying contracting jobs. When we had our first child, my wife insisted on quitting her job to stay at home with the child. It was a very good decision for us. We save on gas and day-care, and she has constant attention from a parent. Now that our second recently arrived, it's even more important to have a parent at home.
Sure, we've had to budget more wisely, and there were some tough adjustments to start with, but we've managed to make it work. I don't get as many toys as I used to, but I also don't have the time that I once had to fritter away. However, we can pull it off because the housing market in Montgomery AL has some of the lowest property taxes in the country (to the detriment of the public schools).
Okay, I'm rambling at this point, but what I'm trying to say is, don't judge families with two working parents unless you've been in their place. Some need the money to make ends meet, and that's their decision to make. Save your venom for those parents who are working two jobs to chase status symbols instead of investing in their children. If you are going into debt to acquire items to make you appear wealthy, you are a damned fool.
Oh, how I wish that you were right, but if you'd look around you'd see that a great many Christians agree with him. It's Southern Baptists mostly, but there are "culture warriors" in most other denominations as well. They have decided that the mere existence of things that they disapprove of is intolerable, and are going to great lengths to have them eradicated. I wish more Christian sects were like the Quakers and the Amish, peaceful and inward looking, rather than the new evangelical goon squad. Now, you may not consider them "real Christians(tm)", but they most assuredly consider themselves the most real christians ever. It sounds like you are falling prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
For the record, I'm an atheist, brought up Episcopalian, and I have no problem with people of faith as long as they recognize that others do not share their beliefs, and act accordingly. These Christians are seemingly scarce. As are moderate atheists.
If you mean, this Bubble Theory, then you've mixed up cosmology and biology. Darwin never wrote about cosmology. Since the Big Bang theory was only initially conceived in 1927 (by a Catholic priest no less) and Charles Darwin died in 1882, he would have been a very early adopter indeed.
Also, Darwin never wrote that all life came from one cell. He wrote on how existing life changed, not how it came to be.
So, since you've gotten your facts completely wrong, I have to ask. Did you do so intentionally (making you a liar), or unintentionally (making you an idiot)?