8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I'll get modded to oblivion, but I'm leaving others to answer the question actually asked
The answer is a sound education from ages 3 to 10, not a good text. There's so much of a push-- personally and in our educational systems, to train ourselves in whatever the hot job is for today rather than securing an education that matures one into the kind of person that can span any discipline with ease.
Looking back to Stroustroup's(sp) article yesterday, the reason there are fewer good programmers is because fewer and fewer are actually -educated- in how to think, much less higher math.
If you want to teach your kid(s) useful/fun skills, teach them the liberal arts (in the classical sense); once well understood, picking up a computer language (grammar + math) will be as easy as anything else.
I freely grant that a good text will eventually be necessary, but if your child is not chewing your arm off for some kind of resource on their own-- be it chemistry, astronomy, CS, mechanics, or what have you, you've missed something in their earlier education
/rant
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
I see your assertion and raise you a "no amount of fines will keep your personal data from becoming available."
We can try all day, but there are too many holes. It's better policy and practice to make sure the responsible parties are punished for whichever hole they don't plug, rather than trying (and failing) to make everyone plug every hole.
Yes, it is. The answer is to create penalties for losing personal data just like there could be penalties for losing my car at a mechanic's shop. The answer is not to force every mechanic to build a bank vault around his parking lot, and it is stupid to think that this will do anything except a) make nearly every business a "criminal" with spotty, whimsical enforcement or b) shut things down and so be repealed el fasto
I can't speak to the Mayan stuff, but Galileo was an ass. He happened to be a correct ass, but his discipline was as much political as anything else.
To put a point on it, suppose that someone showed up with solid evidence that disproved anthropogenic climate change and instead pointed conclusively to sunspots or cattle by-products. See the comparison? Two competing theories, one carrying the day (for good or ill) in contemporary considerations. So this guy shows up with evidence, but is a pompous ass and tells the UNCC, et al to get bent and mocks them in the academic papers it publishes with the perfectly good data.
I'm not saying that it justifies ignoring his conclusions or anything, but to sit here 450 years later and pretend that he didn't have something to do with his situation is just plain special pleading.
Speaking as an American, the lack of historical context in the use of our words is probably the major problem in American politics. I don't say this as a pedantic grammarian (which I am-- don't call me out!), but rather as a key to understanding the flow of history (including economics and cultural morays).
The fact that we don't know how classical liberals (small government) relate to social liberals (small morality)-- and how they don't, means we confuse the two and get the worst of both.
Fascism is a specific econo-political structure where the means of production are "privately owned" but production targets are managed by the state. Therefore, the proper range is (eliding some):
The issue here is not "greed." The issue is "whose greed." So yes, we are becoming more and more Fascistic in the US (read their platform [or the NDSP] and compare/contrast with the current Democratic platform), but this is precisely because we're moving away from capitalism
I'm the guy that doesn't even think Mr. Wanna B. Truant should have to go to school if he doesn't care to do so (subject to parental authority).
That said, what is the inherent advantage of putting an obvious I-don't-want-to-be-here in a class "dragging everyone else down" (generality used on purpose, relax)? I mean, really?
I only see three options
He's self-taught way ahead of the class. Not likely, but possible. So why should he be there?
He hates everything about stoopid skool and would rather play video games Does anyone really believe that forcing him to get a diploma does anything except drain resources from the "education system" and water down the value of a diploma? (I'm assuming that there's some value left beyond becoming-questionable "getting into college")
Likened to #1, he's an entrepreneur and can make his living already Even if he's dealing drugs, why does the educational S.S. have to be involved?
And it should. If some Klansman or Rev. Wright follower kills somebody of their preferred hated group the odds are very high that they would do it again. That's why it is proper to take mental state into account at that point. You got that part right.
I'll applaud you for staying on track with Rev. Wright vs Sharpton, but we part after that: by "mental state," I just have to take you to mean "intent." Yes, intent should be taken into account for sentencing because it is the difference between first and second degree murder. It should not matter whether I hate him because he's white or because he's encroaching on my 'hood, merely that I hated him beforehand.
The idea of "what about next time" is the problem with "rehabilitative justice". Justice (without silly adjectival phrases to neuter it) only regards the current crime or other unpaid debts/crimes.
Knowing that most will disagree and granting that it's ultimately imperfect, crimes such as this (murder) were historically capital offenses for a reason. Eye-for-eye is justice, generally speaking.
Yes, I live in NC and yes, I benefit from the things that are built with state tax money. This "should" language you keep using is anathema to me, though. What should happen is that they don't take money from me except for what I elect to do. Yes, they have the authority to do it otherwise, but not robbing me for things I don't use is the should.
Greed is wanting more when you have enough; I grant that this is subjective, but "enough" is not determined by well-intentioned tax assessors. Keeping what is already mine is not greed, my friend. That you (and others) have accepted that way of thinking is why the only solid economic progress happens in spite of you
I see the thermisol argument as a red herring. Let's suppose that you can show that thermisol is actually expensive, distilled water. The fact that I still have to take it is the issue.
To what end? If it works, your kid had it and won't get Pluto's Spotted Canker Sores. If it doesn't, why do I have to take it anyway?
While approving the general purpose and achievements of vaccination as a medical technology, why should I, my children, or anyone else be forced to X "for their own good" [where X = { lose weight, not smoke, get vaccinated... } ]?
Parent should research Mises and Hayek on the Socialist Calculation Problem (brief history). The sum of it is that, in a perfect world, a managed (which is to say, "un-free") economy should be able to do as well as a free-market economy (in a perfect world).
In one sense you're right; in another, you're wrong.
The fact that we have a fiat currency is no more a cause of inflation than the fact that we have food means people are fat. In both cases, it's what you do with them that matters.
The GP's point is that you inflation with a fiat currency is all-but-inevitable historically due to its management by humans. With tangible currency, you cannot have inflation without massive capital investment to, for example, excavate it from the ground.
All of the examples to the contrary, historically speaking, are the pillaging of the New World (in which someone dug it out of the ground, but the massive influx of wealth into the European economy inflated the currency resulting in, among other things, Tulip speculation) and government-/monarch-initiated debasement of the currency.
So, to answer your question: our fiat currency is the enabler of our stupidity, and our stupidity is the cause of our inflation; here "our inflation" is "the crapping out of the dollar" and "our stupidity" is "printing* money like campaign flyers"
* I realize that most of the growth in the money supply is in M3 and not in printed dollars, but that does nothing to change the facts
What kind of heartless asshole forces people to have to go to a hospital for treatment they could get elsewhere?
There, fixed that for you.
The problem is that we've artificially restricted supply and driven up costs to support the AMA monopoly. Yes, it is different to talk about "necessary procedures", but someone should have to choose between their lifetime of debt vs losing their leg and using a prosthesis; or not (diabetes treatments). They should not get to choose between my lifetime of debt and losing their leg. Are you serious?
This practicality of this question is no different than "What kind of heartless asshole thinks only people who have unicorns should get unicorn saddles?" This just happens to highlight the inherent problem: there is no unicorn supply. There is a health-care supply, but it is limited. Government plans do nothing to increase the supply (quite the opposite!), and only increase the demand. Economics says things get worse before they get better.
And before anyone picks up with the chorus of "Damned Heartless Capitalists", I invite you to argue with gravity about why everyone can't fly. This is not the way I'd prefer it, but ignoring that which is seems far more insane.
... the "problem" (which I don't know to be true) is exactly what the GGP said: Edison stole his ideas
Capitalism isn't the problem; thievery is.
If you're point had been that Tesla would be the rich, fat cat and that would be bad, then your moral compass would be off but at least your logic would be sound.
The majority of Western values do not trace their roots to any of the Middle Eastern religions. They come from other places, such as Greek philosophers.
In fact, the philosophical foundations of the US are in many ways opposite to the so-called Christian values. Cruel and unusual punishment, for example, is condoned--actually commanded--by the Christian god. Slavery, and the belief that all men are NOT created equal, is a common theme in the Bible.
The values you're thinking of as coming from the "Greek philosophers" were actually "Calvinist theologians who also happened to have been well-read their Latin, Greek, and Hebrew forebears."
In short, there's a reason that this kind of thing blossomed only in Protestant Europe/America, and the "Western" aspect was uniform throughout Latin Christianity so that's not it.
(I'll leave aside your obvious lack of contextual knowledge with regard to "torture" and slavery)
I only read the GP (of this very post) and the siblings of the parent (of this post). FWIW.
The GP is a troll based upon tone, but the point is sound. Generally speaking, atheists want what flows from Calvinist-Christianity about the rights of man, but they wish to remove the epistemological supports for the arguments.
It's a matter of authority. For an expansion of this argument, see the written debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.
Sigh. I really don't want to troll, but I'll see if anyone wants to make it a fight.
The GP just asked you "what's wrong with B1?" You answered, "It's right up there with [in the same category as] B2." Ergo, you didn't answer his question.
What you consider to be self-evident is that keeping blacks out of your restaurant is either a) poor morally (agreed, but on what authority?) or b) bad business sense (why? Perhaps it is not bad for profit in your Idaho compound).
To avoid the near-Gresham's(sp) Law pole of racism, let's turn it to sexism. If you know (assume it as an axiom for this argument) that a young lady is planning to work for you and then take extended amounts of time away for a child, it is not good business sense to hire her unless her skill set more than compensates for the coming downtime. Our laws, as another poster has pointed out, say that you can't make that decision; but if legality settles the question for you, then I will invoke the National Socialists: it was legally and (following the "cultural meme" view) moral to conduct the Judenhassen.
Government is the only remaining bullwark between the thugs who run industry and the people they use up as labour resource and then destroy as a product. It is the only safeguard the environment has: if governments do not constrain industry, then industry will always look at the quarterly report and continue to crap all over the planet.
Look, people are evil. If you don't believe it, you're naive. Governments and companies alike (can) share this malady. However, companies aren't able to pull off that crap without government permission. Putting the government in charge of restraining these abuses is the ol' "fox in charge of the hen-house" problem. You think Haliburton could be in Iraq now-- under any pretense, had not the US government taken the steps that they did? Could they "exploit" (I'll even grant you the usage of the word as I didn't read your linkage) a small, resource-rich nation without the complicity of the local/regional government? One might object that the corporations "put 'em up to it," but that is kind like complaining about sunlight and menstrual cycles: it's gonna happen. The avoidable problem is when you give government the power to do these silly things. The right thing is to give government the ability to punish evil and stop there. I'll leave the rest of the thread below for people that still think government is a good nanny to "tear me up."
Maybe the OP didn't also rip corrupt companies, but he didn't posit a myopic view of human government, either. Lightweight.
Slashdot Mirror
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New International Version)
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
EoM
I'll get modded to oblivion, but I'm leaving others to answer the question actually asked
/rant
The answer is a sound education from ages 3 to 10, not a good text. There's so much of a push-- personally and in our educational systems, to train ourselves in whatever the hot job is for today rather than securing an education that matures one into the kind of person that can span any discipline with ease.
Looking back to Stroustroup's(sp) article yesterday, the reason there are fewer good programmers is because fewer and fewer are actually -educated- in how to think, much less higher math. If you want to teach your kid(s) useful/fun skills, teach them the liberal arts (in the classical sense); once well understood, picking up a computer language (grammar + math) will be as easy as anything else. I freely grant that a good text will eventually be necessary, but if your child is not chewing your arm off for some kind of resource on their own-- be it chemistry, astronomy, CS, mechanics, or what have you, you've missed something in their earlier education
Mod parent up and informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homecoming_Saga
We can try all day, but there are too many holes. It's better policy and practice to make sure the responsible parties are punished for whichever hole they don't plug, rather than trying (and failing) to make everyone plug every hole.
Yes, it is. The answer is to create penalties for losing personal data just like there could be penalties for losing my car at a mechanic's shop. The answer is not to force every mechanic to build a bank vault around his parking lot, and it is stupid to think that this will do anything except a) make nearly every business a "criminal" with spotty, whimsical enforcement or b) shut things down and so be repealed el fasto
Hibernation would leave stuff that is in memory open to inspection.
I can't speak to the Mayan stuff, but Galileo was an ass. He happened to be a correct ass, but his discipline was as much political as anything else.
To put a point on it, suppose that someone showed up with solid evidence that disproved anthropogenic climate change and instead pointed conclusively to sunspots or cattle by-products. See the comparison? Two competing theories, one carrying the day (for good or ill) in contemporary considerations. So this guy shows up with evidence, but is a pompous ass and tells the UNCC, et al to get bent and mocks them in the academic papers it publishes with the perfectly good data.
I'm not saying that it justifies ignoring his conclusions or anything, but to sit here 450 years later and pretend that he didn't have something to do with his situation is just plain special pleading.
Speaking as an American, the lack of historical context in the use of our words is probably the major problem in American politics. I don't say this as a pedantic grammarian (which I am-- don't call me out!), but rather as a key to understanding the flow of history (including economics and cultural morays).
The fact that we don't know how classical liberals (small government) relate to social liberals (small morality)-- and how they don't , means we confuse the two and get the worst of both.
Capitalism --> Fascism --> Socialism --> Communism
The issue here is not "greed." The issue is "whose greed." So yes, we are becoming more and more Fascistic in the US (read their platform [or the NDSP] and compare/contrast with the current Democratic platform), but this is precisely because we're moving away from capitalism
WITH (NOLOCK) will get around that, with a suitable sacrifice of consistency for long queries.
That said, what is the inherent advantage of putting an obvious I-don't-want-to-be-here in a class "dragging everyone else down" (generality used on purpose, relax)? I mean, really?
I only see three options
These are serious questions
I'll applaud you for staying on track with Rev. Wright vs Sharpton, but we part after that: by "mental state," I just have to take you to mean "intent." Yes, intent should be taken into account for sentencing because it is the difference between first and second degree murder. It should not matter whether I hate him because he's white or because he's encroaching on my 'hood, merely that I hated him beforehand.
The idea of "what about next time" is the problem with "rehabilitative justice". Justice (without silly adjectival phrases to neuter it) only regards the current crime or other unpaid debts/crimes.
Knowing that most will disagree and granting that it's ultimately imperfect, crimes such as this (murder) were historically capital offenses for a reason. Eye-for-eye is justice, generally speaking.
Yes, I live in NC and yes, I benefit from the things that are built with state tax money. This "should" language you keep using is anathema to me, though. What should happen is that they don't take money from me except for what I elect to do. Yes, they have the authority to do it otherwise, but not robbing me for things I don't use is the should.
Greed is wanting more when you have enough; I grant that this is subjective, but "enough" is not determined by well-intentioned tax assessors. Keeping what is already mine is not greed, my friend. That you (and others) have accepted that way of thinking is why the only solid economic progress happens in spite of you
No, the counter-espionage division are all pyros.
'cause we know how well those pan out.
I see the thermisol argument as a red herring. Let's suppose that you can show that thermisol is actually expensive, distilled water. The fact that I still have to take it is the issue.
To what end? If it works, your kid had it and won't get Pluto's Spotted Canker Sores. If it doesn't, why do I have to take it anyway? While approving the general purpose and achievements of vaccination as a medical technology, why should I, my children, or anyone else be forced to X "for their own good" [where X = { lose weight, not smoke, get vaccinated ... } ]?
Did I mention that depends upon a perfect world?
The GP's point is that you inflation with a fiat currency is all-but-inevitable historically due to its management by humans. With tangible currency, you cannot have inflation without massive capital investment to, for example, excavate it from the ground.
All of the examples to the contrary, historically speaking, are the pillaging of the New World (in which someone dug it out of the ground, but the massive influx of wealth into the European economy inflated the currency resulting in, among other things, Tulip speculation) and government-/monarch-initiated debasement of the currency.
So, to answer your question: our fiat currency is the enabler of our stupidity, and our stupidity is the cause of our inflation; here "our inflation" is "the crapping out of the dollar" and "our stupidity" is "printing* money like campaign flyers"
* I realize that most of the growth in the money supply is in M3 and not in printed dollars, but that does nothing to change the facts
Minimum wage-- being a cause more than a measure, is not a good way to make that case, but his intention is likely still valid.
There, fixed that for you.
The problem is that we've artificially restricted supply and driven up costs to support the AMA monopoly. Yes, it is different to talk about "necessary procedures", but someone should have to choose between their lifetime of debt vs losing their leg and using a prosthesis; or not (diabetes treatments). They should not get to choose between my lifetime of debt and losing their leg. Are you serious?
This practicality of this question is no different than "What kind of heartless asshole thinks only people who have unicorns should get unicorn saddles?" This just happens to highlight the inherent problem: there is no unicorn supply. There is a health-care supply, but it is limited. Government plans do nothing to increase the supply (quite the opposite!), and only increase the demand. Economics says things get worse before they get better.
And before anyone picks up with the chorus of "Damned Heartless Capitalists", I invite you to argue with gravity about why everyone can't fly. This is not the way I'd prefer it, but ignoring that which is seems far more insane.
Capitalism isn't the problem; thievery is.
If you're point had been that Tesla would be the rich, fat cat and that would be bad, then your moral compass would be off but at least your logic would be sound.
The majority of Western values do not trace their roots to any of the Middle Eastern religions. They come from other places, such as Greek philosophers.
In fact, the philosophical foundations of the US are in many ways opposite to the so-called Christian values. Cruel and unusual punishment, for example, is condoned--actually commanded--by the Christian god. Slavery, and the belief that all men are NOT created equal, is a common theme in the Bible.
The values you're thinking of as coming from the "Greek philosophers" were actually "Calvinist theologians who also happened to have been well-read their Latin, Greek, and Hebrew forebears."
In short, there's a reason that this kind of thing blossomed only in Protestant Europe/America, and the "Western" aspect was uniform throughout Latin Christianity so that's not it.
(I'll leave aside your obvious lack of contextual knowledge with regard to "torture" and slavery)
The GP is a troll based upon tone, but the point is sound. Generally speaking, atheists want what flows from Calvinist-Christianity about the rights of man, but they wish to remove the epistemological supports for the arguments.
It's a matter of authority. For an expansion of this argument, see the written debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.
Sigh. I really don't want to troll, but I'll see if anyone wants to make it a fight.
The GP just asked you "what's wrong with B1?" You answered, "It's right up there with [in the same category as] B2." Ergo, you didn't answer his question.
What you consider to be self-evident is that keeping blacks out of your restaurant is either a) poor morally (agreed, but on what authority?) or b) bad business sense (why? Perhaps it is not bad for profit in your Idaho compound).
To avoid the near-Gresham's(sp) Law pole of racism, let's turn it to sexism. If you know (assume it as an axiom for this argument) that a young lady is planning to work for you and then take extended amounts of time away for a child, it is not good business sense to hire her unless her skill set more than compensates for the coming downtime. Our laws, as another poster has pointed out, say that you can't make that decision; but if legality settles the question for you, then I will invoke the National Socialists: it was legally and (following the "cultural meme" view) moral to conduct the Judenhassen.
In short, answer his question.
Look, people are evil. If you don't believe it, you're naive. Governments and companies alike (can) share this malady. However, companies aren't able to pull off that crap without government permission. Putting the government in charge of restraining these abuses is the ol' "fox in charge of the hen-house" problem. You think Haliburton could be in Iraq now-- under any pretense, had not the US government taken the steps that they did? Could they "exploit" (I'll even grant you the usage of the word as I didn't read your linkage) a small, resource-rich nation without the complicity of the local/regional government? One might object that the corporations "put 'em up to it," but that is kind like complaining about sunlight and menstrual cycles: it's gonna happen. The avoidable problem is when you give government the power to do these silly things. The right thing is to give government the ability to punish evil and stop there. I'll leave the rest of the thread below for people that still think government is a good nanny to "tear me up."
Maybe the OP didn't also rip corrupt companies, but he didn't posit a myopic view of human government, either. Lightweight.
DC