He may have said that it wouldn't be easy, but he certainly thought that it wouldn't be as hard as his advisers said. Otherwise, he would have funded the invasion and occupation to the levels they suggested. He didn't. The entire operation was grossly underfunded from the start.
Or, here's another possibility. Bush may have agreed with his advisors, and underfunded the operation from the start to sell it to the American people and congressmen, knowing full well that he'd have to go back to Congress again and again asking for more money.
That is, of course, the fact of what happened. I guess you simply have to decide why it happened like that: was Bush incompetent, or was Bush a scheming liar?
One of my own credos is, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity." So I choose to believe that Bush is simply incompetent, rather than evil.
I don't see many kids out riding bikes like that these days, and I wonder if it is because of the popularity of video games.
I think the main reason is that they are useless in a big city, and painful anyplace with lots of hills. The real use of bikes is not to visit a friend, but to a) go somewhere without a car, and b) explore. Both those are too difficult in hilly, spread-out areas.
Do you really think that all those people are stupid because they disagree with you? People have their reasons and it's not necessarily based upon stupidity.
Yes. They have their reasons. Their reasons are not based on rationality and enlightened self-interest. Bush won through lies and religion.
Are the Bush supporters stupid? Well...they aren't intelligent.
Not yet, you ain't. Star Wars has hyperspace, in which communication doesn't work (though there is FTL comm in the form of the Holonet).
Hyperspace appears to have mass shadows, and there is very little correspondence between the length of a safe hyperspace route and the corresponding real-space distance. You need dedicated equipment to compute hyperspace routes. FYI, that is one of the main reasons for sticking an R2 unit in an X-Wing. R2 units can act as a navi-computer.
As an aside, did you know that Java has garbage-collection as a side-effect of using pure thoughts to hold its data structures together? And the kitten whiskers are what allows the JIT compiler to work so well.
On the other side of the fence, C++'s usage of magic pixie dust and moonbeams is what gives it its flexibility -- and by that I mean the ability to program in the procedural style or object-oriented style or template style, etc. The downside is that magic and moonbeams aren't really...reliable. So you end up shooting yourself in the foot, and every compiler is different.
I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature.
We aren't the only animals with a moral sense. Birds, other primates, basically any social animal knows that certain behaviors mean you get kicked out and/or beat down.
Morality alone does not separate us from nature; animals do morality. Nor does language or tool use, nor agriculture. Animals do those things, though on a smaller scale. Maybe religion does, but only if animals don't build mental models of how the unexplainable works, and I'm not so sure they don't.
A more useful distinction between natural and unnatural, if you are looking for a distinction, is the amount of technology and codified knowledge required to do something.
The reason is, the "natural order" is not static. Ecosystems rise and ecosystems fall, with the arrival of new species through migration or evolution, and with changes in plant life, geography, and weather.
When you move from state to state, you have 30 days to get a new driver's license. And, yes, people have been ticketed for this. A cop pulled me over the night I came into Washington State, though I didn't get a ticket.
Actually the other way around. The path is checked first, then the file id. It used to be the other way around, but they fixed that several versions ago.
Right, and fair means at the same cost, or burden to everyone, not the same relative dollar value. Ten percent of a lower middle class income is a huge burden which directly affects their quality of life. Ten percent on an upper middle class income, while more dollars, is hardly any burden. Progressive tax systems allow for a fair burden on everyone, regardless of class.
So you think a fair tax system is one in which you can't earn enough to gain relief from your burdens, because the tax goes up to match? What the hell kind of system is that? What's the point in trying to advance yourself?
Equality-before-the-law is the principle we want to encourage, not equality-in-fact. I mean, look at "Harrison Bergeron".
Or better, look at communism. Nice philosophy, but it didn't work in practice. You say that is because communist governments were corrupt, but I respond that a system where the government forcibly redistributes wealth is easy to corrupt. Heck, you can see that now. Look at all the tax exemptions the article talked about. You can't tell me that's fair!
Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be safety nets for the less fortunate. There should be. I am the less fortunate, and I was glad to have a safety net. But the mechanism should be separate from taxes. That way, if it goes wrong, it can be fixed easily. And it can be reasoned about separately.
C'mon, you guys are developers! You know this! Orthogonal functionality should be separated. In this case, the two orthogonal functions are a) government revenue, and b) social safety nets.
Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income. Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.
I don't see the problem here. It's fair. The word fair means that everyone plays by the same rules.
If they both buy a $20,000 car, then they both pay $21,000 total. If Poor Boy thinks that $21,000 is too much, then he shouldn't buy the car.
Is Poor Boy at a disadvantage compared to Rich Boy, who can afford $21,000 for a car? Yes, he is. That's because he's poor. If you want to remedy that, the proper solution is to give him money, rather than make the laws unfair.
I am having trouble understanding the moral framework here...
Slashdot Mirror
He said it wasn't going to be easy.
He may have said that it wouldn't be easy, but he certainly thought that it wouldn't be as hard as his advisers said. Otherwise, he would have funded the invasion and occupation to the levels they suggested. He didn't. The entire operation was grossly underfunded from the start.
Or, here's another possibility. Bush may have agreed with his advisors, and underfunded the operation from the start to sell it to the American people and congressmen, knowing full well that he'd have to go back to Congress again and again asking for more money.
That is, of course, the fact of what happened. I guess you simply have to decide why it happened like that: was Bush incompetent, or was Bush a scheming liar?
One of my own credos is, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity." So I choose to believe that Bush is simply incompetent, rather than evil.
I don't see many kids out riding bikes like that these days, and I wonder if it is because of the popularity of video games.
I think the main reason is that they are useless in a big city, and painful anyplace with lots of hills. The real use of bikes is not to visit a friend, but to a) go somewhere without a car, and b) explore. Both those are too difficult in hilly, spread-out areas.
This kind.
I think I speak for everyone in saying, "Congratulations, you bastard."
--Tom Tucker, Family Guy
You would need several minutes of downtime with the engine off before it actually becomes less pollutive that way.
:)
Exactly. Red lights suck.
The Condorcet method is regarded as the fairest voting system, actually.
anyone who has ever thought war is easy would be a fool
Bush thought it would be easy. He thought it would be easier than his knowledgable advisors said it would be.
Do you really think that all those people are stupid because they disagree with you? People have their reasons and it's not necessarily based upon stupidity.
Yes. They have their reasons. Their reasons are not based on rationality and enlightened self-interest. Bush won through lies and religion.
Are the Bush supporters stupid? Well...they aren't intelligent.
No, you're thinking of Lil John.
"Yeeeaaah!"
"Whaaat!"
"Okaaay!"
It's weird how often the current FoxTrot exactly matches a Slashdot discussion.
Oooh, where can I learn to speak African?! That would make my trip to Africa much easier...
Actually, Cthulu Kart Racing sounds like fun.
Seconded.
(god, I'm such a geek)
Not yet, you ain't. Star Wars has hyperspace, in which communication doesn't work (though there is FTL comm in the form of the Holonet).
Hyperspace appears to have mass shadows, and there is very little correspondence between the length of a safe hyperspace route and the corresponding real-space distance. You need dedicated equipment to compute hyperspace routes. FYI, that is one of the main reasons for sticking an R2 unit in an X-Wing. R2 units can act as a navi-computer.
As an aside, did you know that Java has garbage-collection as a side-effect of using pure thoughts to hold its data structures together? And the kitten whiskers are what allows the JIT compiler to work so well.
On the other side of the fence, C++'s usage of magic pixie dust and moonbeams is what gives it its flexibility -- and by that I mean the ability to program in the procedural style or object-oriented style or template style, etc. The downside is that magic and moonbeams aren't really...reliable. So you end up shooting yourself in the foot, and every compiler is different.
I have a girlfriend on my lap...top.
Hur hur hur!
Eeewww...
Does it look anything like this?
I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature.
We aren't the only animals with a moral sense. Birds, other primates, basically any social animal knows that certain behaviors mean you get kicked out and/or beat down.
Morality alone does not separate us from nature; animals do morality. Nor does language or tool use, nor agriculture. Animals do those things, though on a smaller scale. Maybe religion does, but only if animals don't build mental models of how the unexplainable works, and I'm not so sure they don't.
A more useful distinction between natural and unnatural, if you are looking for a distinction, is the amount of technology and codified knowledge required to do something.
The reason is, the "natural order" is not static. Ecosystems rise and ecosystems fall, with the arrival of new species through migration or evolution, and with changes in plant life, geography, and weather.
When you move from state to state, you have 30 days to get a new driver's license. And, yes, people have been ticketed for this. A cop pulled me over the night I came into Washington State, though I didn't get a ticket.
Actually the other way around. The path is checked first, then the file id. It used to be the other way around, but they fixed that several versions ago.
Among the behaviors noted in birds:
- Making hooks and combs, then carrying the tools around with them -- and sharing them with others.
- Using car traffic to crack nuts.
- Raiding mountaineer food caches marked with flags.
- Counting and expressing their desires in words.
- Playing around with speed dial buttons and speakerphones.
- Leading other birds to food.
- Commercial transactions with people.
Of course, not all birds do all these things. But, they must be considered in the same ballpark as chimps and dolphins.Good thing we've got two of them.
w00t!!
I conclude that we need to gather 20,000 geeks and move to North Dakota. Who's with me?
Don't you mean New Hampshire? If so, you've got about 6,000 with you so far.
Right, and fair means at the same cost, or burden to everyone, not the same relative dollar value. Ten percent of a lower middle class income is a huge burden which directly affects their quality of life. Ten percent on an upper middle class income, while more dollars, is hardly any burden. Progressive tax systems allow for a fair burden on everyone, regardless of class.
So you think a fair tax system is one in which you can't earn enough to gain relief from your burdens, because the tax goes up to match? What the hell kind of system is that? What's the point in trying to advance yourself?
Equality-before-the-law is the principle we want to encourage, not equality-in-fact. I mean, look at "Harrison Bergeron".
Or better, look at communism. Nice philosophy, but it didn't work in practice. You say that is because communist governments were corrupt, but I respond that a system where the government forcibly redistributes wealth is easy to corrupt. Heck, you can see that now. Look at all the tax exemptions the article talked about. You can't tell me that's fair!
Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be safety nets for the less fortunate. There should be. I am the less fortunate, and I was glad to have a safety net. But the mechanism should be separate from taxes. That way, if it goes wrong, it can be fixed easily. And it can be reasoned about separately.
C'mon, you guys are developers! You know this! Orthogonal functionality should be separated. In this case, the two orthogonal functions are a) government revenue, and b) social safety nets.
Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income.
Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.
I don't see the problem here. It's fair. The word fair means that everyone plays by the same rules.
If they both buy a $20,000 car, then they both pay $21,000 total. If Poor Boy thinks that $21,000 is too much, then he shouldn't buy the car.
Is Poor Boy at a disadvantage compared to Rich Boy, who can afford $21,000 for a car? Yes, he is. That's because he's poor. If you want to remedy that, the proper solution is to give him money, rather than make the laws unfair.
I am having trouble understanding the moral framework here...