I believe I said, that if the trend continues it would end reason as a force in American culture. Of course not merely if this one change was brought about. I'm referring to the trend represented by the 20 year plan of Dr. Johnsons' intelligent design movement.
Just like Phillip Johnson and his Intelligent Design Movement I support placing creationism over scientific theories in science classes. But I'm just being an agent provocateur.
If the trend continues, it will no doubt bring about the fall of reason in American culture, essentially the fall of Western(that's where it's derived from I guess, of course reason can be found in the cultures of various geographic locations, not just the West) culture in America. And then the fall of America itself, which is good in my provacative stance here. Maybe then the pendulum could swing back?
It seems now the American scene is populated only by orthodox Middle Eastern culturalists. A far cry from those triumphant moments of Western culture that ushered in the United States with a liberty-promising constitution. Evangelical Christians, political Zionists and political Islamists. All would-be revolutionaries trying to use the government to bring about the dominance of their values (with the implicit violence of the state). The same Abrahamic religions, the same fundamentalist mindset and, from that, the same theocracy-aiming politics. The Middle Eastern cultural movements like Christianity have great aspects, like all cultures. Their tendency to theonomic statism isn't one of the good ones, though.
Anyway, have fun with Sharia/Noahite/Whatever theonomy. Everyone deserves freedom, but, regardless of what you deserve, you won't get it if you can't, for the most part at least, accept enlightened culture and reject nihilistic culture. The concept of free-association is the greatest political development of Western and all culture. But the public seems to have eschewed enlightenment for they have bought the heavenly promises of the confidence game played by the Middle Eastern culturalists. Why wouldn't you take heaven? All you have to do is destroy this measly little finite world. 100% satisfaction guaranteed. No one has ever came back with a complaint though! We always deliver the goods upon death.
Perhaps the SEC just hasn't enforced it for their case? The law is on the books, let me find it for you right now.
Perhaps they complied with the law but decided in spite of it still stayed private?
It is Section XII(g) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Linky.
Good ol' "Interstate Commerce"-related laws.
I don't think I used the word "open" so I didn't really mean anything "by 'open'" because...I didn't use "open." It's the same thing that convinced Google(ooo, on topic) to make an IPO. Here's a quote from some article on the Google thing:
``It's a terrible place to be in because you get all the disadvantages of being a public company and none of the advantages,'' said Scott Spector, an attorney with Fenwick & West in Palo Alto. ``I can't imagine the company wanting to be in that situation.''
The law of the land states that when a company exceeds a certain size($10 million in assets and more than 500 shareholders) it must go public with all its finances. This kind of forces them to trade publicly unless they want to exist with all the disadvantages of publicity and none of the advantages.
The big-time financiers like the underwriters(who are get to underwrite them for their IPO) and the central-bankers like this law of course. Nice insurance too because you wouldn't want private individuals who may disagree with the status quo garnering too much power. Just sic the guys with the violence monopoly(the government, SEC in this case) on them when they get uppity.
Although the United States is probably the best country for protections of the freedom of speech, the US government does regularly suppress speech.
Take Miller vs. California, 1973. Activist supreme court ruled that any obscene speech is not to be protected and that the government may censor it.
Oddly, in the same breath, you also reference a site which documents infringements of freedom of speech in public institutions: those funded and sanctioned by the government? Aren't they infringing freedom of speech as agents of the government in these cases? How else could you infringe freedom of speech unless you were an agent of the government?
Yeah, but this "hijacker" sent a request for an IP from their wireless router. His request was granted and he was given access.
Say there is a computer at his entrance. It says "Welcome" when you walk up. You type into it: "Can I come in and take your hi-fi?" And it responds with "Yeah, sure" and it opens the door for you. That's pretty much what happened I'd say.
How's it a free economy when corporations are given power by the state to take from public property with no recourse for others who have a stake in this public property?
How is it a free economy when corporations are given power by the state to pollute the property of third persons with limited liability? When a corporations puts pollutants into the air and they enter my property and they hurt me when I breath them, I have no avenue of fair recourse because the government forces me through violence, and the threat of, to accept the damage without proper or any compensation.
How is it a free economy when people are forced by the state to accept corporate pollution of their properties? State interference is not part of a free market. If it was a free market, I would be able to find recompense from all of these polluters for their harm of my person and destruction of my properties.
I agree with you that "right wing" does not apply to this situation very well.
I've never, EVER head of the concept of asymmetrical war. I've heard of asymmetric warfare, so I'd imagine an asymmetrical war is a war where asymmetric warfare is used. I don't see how this applies to this situation, because there is no war at hand in which assymetric warfare could be used. I see only criminals who use what, I guess, could be called asymmetric warfare(terrorism). These people are to be arrested and charged with the crimes which they have committed. But go ahead and give me your view of this "concept" of "asymmetrical war."
If there is a war, then declare war. The people who are soldiers against you in that war that you capture are prisoners of war. If people you are fighting against are not following the rules of war, by not wearing proper uniform, etc. like most(all) terrorists, then they aren't soldiers: they are just criminals. You arrest them with the regular laws of the jurisdiction at hand; just like McVeigh, as was used as an example.
You seem to be suggesting an Orwellian world where we're always at "war," and not with any particular enemy. In this case a war on terrorism, which is a tactic. The government is fighting a "war" against a tactic which has been used for centuries. That is not acceptable.
Re:Just learned something new about Islam...
on
Google Moon Debuts
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
" Is it any wonder they're still living like the fucking Flintstones in predominantly Muslim countries?"
Yeah, Singapore is like the least advanced country of all time!
Interpol was made mainly to help in kidnapping and murdering producers and traffickers of certain drugs and substances that can be used to make those drugs. Drugs which lawmakers in the member countries have officially deemed to be something they don't want other people to use, because they just kicks out of being authoritarian statists I guess. Though its mandate has grown wider than that.
Don't vote. Once voter turnout lowers to a very, very low number, the whole system will snap. There'll just be a mass realization that something's very wrong. "Huh, vote turnout is only 5%? Man, something's wrong."
I would say that, chances are, at least, a man who can sincerely enjoy Xenakis for what it is is a man who understands art in general. No guarantees though. Try listening to Koji Asano or Webern, Lawrence Hayward(Felt/Denim), Daniel Johnston or Jad Fair(Half Japanese).
"I assure you, the cops in the game are not real. They are rendered animations displayed on the television. Kind of like a cartoon. No real cops are harmed."
You're talking about Nancy Grace and CNN. Their world is one big simulation. They don't know the difference between abstractions and real life anymore. No way they could with all that poor acting they call sincerity and after they played their nth computer simulation of a an F-1A bombing a radar installation or of Hurricane Charlene or some grizzly bear attack or whatever.
They seem to all honestly believe they're all very sincere people. And that Pantene Pro-V really does have advanced molecular microcells that bond your hair making it look 25 years younger. And buying that Ab-Buster will actually give you a sixpack like that person on the commercial has, as compared to just burning more calories than you intake to lower your body fat %. And that buying Manulife insurance will actually stop you from dying(the commercials actually suggest this -- the car won't even hit you if you get good life insurance!). If they can't tell the difference between something as integral to proper human functioning as sincerity and insincerity, then why should they be expected to know the difference between reality and simulation? The insincere can define their reality.
I'm only slightly exaggerating with such a suggestion.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe I said, that if the trend continues it would end reason as a force in American culture. Of course not merely if this one change was brought about. I'm referring to the trend represented by the 20 year plan of Dr. Johnsons' intelligent design movement.
Just like Phillip Johnson and his Intelligent Design Movement I support placing creationism over scientific theories in science classes. But I'm just being an agent provocateur.
If the trend continues, it will no doubt bring about the fall of reason in American culture, essentially the fall of Western(that's where it's derived from I guess, of course reason can be found in the cultures of various geographic locations, not just the West) culture in America. And then the fall of America itself, which is good in my provacative stance here. Maybe then the pendulum could swing back?
It seems now the American scene is populated only by orthodox Middle Eastern culturalists. A far cry from those triumphant moments of Western culture that ushered in the United States with a liberty-promising constitution. Evangelical Christians, political Zionists and political Islamists. All would-be revolutionaries trying to use the government to bring about the dominance of their values (with the implicit violence of the state). The same Abrahamic religions, the same fundamentalist mindset and, from that, the same theocracy-aiming politics. The Middle Eastern cultural movements like Christianity have great aspects, like all cultures. Their tendency to theonomic statism isn't one of the good ones, though.
Anyway, have fun with Sharia/Noahite/Whatever theonomy. Everyone deserves freedom, but, regardless of what you deserve, you won't get it if you can't, for the most part at least, accept enlightened culture and reject nihilistic culture. The concept of free-association is the greatest political development of Western and all culture. But the public seems to have eschewed enlightenment for they have bought the heavenly promises of the confidence game played by the Middle Eastern culturalists. Why wouldn't you take heaven? All you have to do is destroy this measly little finite world. 100% satisfaction guaranteed. No one has ever came back with a complaint though! We always deliver the goods upon death.
Perhaps the SEC just hasn't enforced it for their case? The law is on the books, let me find it for you right now.
Perhaps they complied with the law but decided in spite of it still stayed private?
It is Section XII(g) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Linky.
Good ol' "Interstate Commerce"-related laws.
I don't think I used the word "open" so I didn't really mean anything "by 'open'" because...I didn't use "open." It's the same thing that convinced Google(ooo, on topic) to make an IPO. Here's a quote from some article on the Google thing:
``It's a terrible place to be in because you get all the disadvantages of being a public company and none of the advantages,'' said Scott Spector, an attorney with Fenwick & West in Palo Alto. ``I can't imagine the company wanting to be in that situation.''
The law of the land states that when a company exceeds a certain size($10 million in assets and more than 500 shareholders) it must go public with all its finances. This kind of forces them to trade publicly unless they want to exist with all the disadvantages of publicity and none of the advantages.
The big-time financiers like the underwriters(who are get to underwrite them for their IPO) and the central-bankers like this law of course. Nice insurance too because you wouldn't want private individuals who may disagree with the status quo garnering too much power. Just sic the guys with the violence monopoly(the government, SEC in this case) on them when they get uppity.
Although the United States is probably the best country for protections of the freedom of speech, the US government does regularly suppress speech.
Take Miller vs. California, 1973. Activist supreme court ruled that any obscene speech is not to be protected and that the government may censor it.
Oddly, in the same breath, you also reference a site which documents infringements of freedom of speech in public institutions: those funded and sanctioned by the government? Aren't they infringing freedom of speech as agents of the government in these cases? How else could you infringe freedom of speech unless you were an agent of the government?
I was continuing his analogy. How else could I make it comparable?
Yeah, but this "hijacker" sent a request for an IP from their wireless router. His request was granted and he was given access.
Say there is a computer at his entrance. It says "Welcome" when you walk up. You type into it: "Can I come in and take your hi-fi?" And it responds with "Yeah, sure" and it opens the door for you. That's pretty much what happened I'd say.
If I was his father and he did that I would throw him in the shittiest orphanage I could find that wasn't too much effort to drive to.
I'd leave him with some parting words, "I'm getting a new kid now. I hope your life is hell because you're a terrible person and always will be."
What's the best open source(read: usable on Linux) replacement for Corel's Painter? The GIMP?
I'll have to say I agree with what you're getting at. Being overzealous is not a healthy thing to be.
Now if only there could be some set of trolls to remind the majority of trolls of this...
How's it a free economy when corporations are given power by the state to take from public property with no recourse for others who have a stake in this public property?
How is it a free economy when corporations are given power by the state to pollute the property of third persons with limited liability? When a corporations puts pollutants into the air and they enter my property and they hurt me when I breath them, I have no avenue of fair recourse because the government forces me through violence, and the threat of, to accept the damage without proper or any compensation.
How is it a free economy when people are forced by the state to accept corporate pollution of their properties? State interference is not part of a free market. If it was a free market, I would be able to find recompense from all of these polluters for their harm of my person and destruction of my properties.
I agree with you that "right wing" does not apply to this situation very well.
I've never, EVER head of the concept of asymmetrical war. I've heard of asymmetric warfare, so I'd imagine an asymmetrical war is a war where asymmetric warfare is used. I don't see how this applies to this situation, because there is no war at hand in which assymetric warfare could be used. I see only criminals who use what, I guess, could be called asymmetric warfare(terrorism). These people are to be arrested and charged with the crimes which they have committed. But go ahead and give me your view of this "concept" of "asymmetrical war."
What war? There is no declared war.
If there is a war, then declare war. The people who are soldiers against you in that war that you capture are prisoners of war. If people you are fighting against are not following the rules of war, by not wearing proper uniform, etc. like most(all) terrorists, then they aren't soldiers: they are just criminals. You arrest them with the regular laws of the jurisdiction at hand; just like McVeigh, as was used as an example.
You seem to be suggesting an Orwellian world where we're always at "war," and not with any particular enemy. In this case a war on terrorism, which is a tactic. The government is fighting a "war" against a tactic which has been used for centuries. That is not acceptable.
" Is it any wonder they're still living like the fucking Flintstones in predominantly Muslim countries?"
Yeah, Singapore is like the least advanced country of all time!
"something must first be created to eventually evolve."
Why couldn't something just have always been there and then evolution started from that?
Interpol was made mainly to help in kidnapping and murdering producers and traffickers of certain drugs and substances that can be used to make those drugs. Drugs which lawmakers in the member countries have officially deemed to be something they don't want other people to use, because they just kicks out of being authoritarian statists I guess. Though its mandate has grown wider than that.
I would call that a creepy enough agenda.
Don't vote. Once voter turnout lowers to a very, very low number, the whole system will snap. There'll just be a mass realization that something's very wrong. "Huh, vote turnout is only 5%? Man, something's wrong."
"Maybe they're researching how to divert a planetoid into the Earth, potentially more powerful than any nuclear weapon."
This was the first thing I thought when I read the first post in this discussion joking about diversion into Mongolia.
Think of the advantage of being able to cause inflictions of "natural" disasters on your competitors/enemies.
I'd imagine it would be very much in the reach of any monied country with the will to do it.
"2001 called... ...they want their 2.something Ghz CPUs back."
HAL was only 2 something GHz? Amazing.
Those two x's actually represent part of his chromosomal makeup, so the balls may actually be out of the question.
I would say that, chances are, at least, a man who can sincerely enjoy Xenakis for what it is is a man who understands art in general. No guarantees though. Try listening to Koji Asano or Webern, Lawrence Hayward(Felt/Denim), Daniel Johnston or Jad Fair(Half Japanese).
So you can hear just a part of a song? I say rather none than a part of one.
Yeah...paper, or ICBM?
"I assure you, the cops in the game are not real. They are rendered animations displayed on the television. Kind of like a cartoon. No real cops are harmed."
You're talking about Nancy Grace and CNN. Their world is one big simulation. They don't know the difference between abstractions and real life anymore. No way they could with all that poor acting they call sincerity and after they played their nth computer simulation of a an F-1A bombing a radar installation or of Hurricane Charlene or some grizzly bear attack or whatever.
They seem to all honestly believe they're all very sincere people. And that Pantene Pro-V really does have advanced molecular microcells that bond your hair making it look 25 years younger. And buying that Ab-Buster will actually give you a sixpack like that person on the commercial has, as compared to just burning more calories than you intake to lower your body fat %. And that buying Manulife insurance will actually stop you from dying(the commercials actually suggest this -- the car won't even hit you if you get good life insurance!). If they can't tell the difference between something as integral to proper human functioning as sincerity and insincerity, then why should they be expected to know the difference between reality and simulation? The insincere can define their reality.
I'm only slightly exaggerating with such a suggestion.
"What the fuck does that have to do with being in marketing?" asked the pilot.
"Uh, I'm sorry, I didn't want to say that, some idiot coerced me to," replied the passenger.
The pilot reassures him, "That's okay, I understand; I hate Piquan too."
And so ended the conversation.