It makes sense to have two social media profiles, one for your personal life which you share with friends, post your party pictures and aren't afraid to write whatever you want, and one for your professional life, where you add coworkers and talk about work.
It makes even more sense to have none, and simply register with different usernames at whatever forums you want to use. What possible use is a "social media profile" to anyone who isn't specifically trying to profile you, either to dig up dirt on you or to find out your psychological weaknesses to sell crap to you? Why would you want to make their job easier?
It's not your judgement so you don't get to judge whether it's allowed or not.
It is impossible to say whether a < b without knowing the values of a and b. This holds even if we choose a to represent the value of time spent playing petsville and b the amount of entertainment received. I don't get to judge whether something is allowed, but I do get to point out it's impossible.
True as it may be, teaching our children and teenagers (the main market for Zynga games), and to a lesser extent young adults, the harsh reality of capitalism by inflicting emotional pain is not socially acceptable.
The harsh reality of capitalism is that there are plenty of people who kill babies to make a quick buck and they often get away with it. How, exactly speaking, do you propose explaining this in a way that doesn't cause emotional pain?
Investment implies some form of return.. Sinking time into pointless games in't an investment, it's a waste.
Value is subjective, not objective. Someone who keeps playing petsville clearly values whatever he gets from it more than he does the time spent getting it. It's not your time so you don't get to judge whether it's wasted or not.
Maybe the next person will get the message that you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
You don't have to. It's quite sufficient to fool them the split-second their brain spend deciding whether to treat a discussion as a way to decide what's the best course of action or a tribal battle.
Think of it like Martial Arts Bullshitting: even if they're smarter than you, if you know their psychological weaknesses you can turn their own intelligence against them by having them rationalize your argument rather than pick it apart. Sidestep the charge, deliver a little tap on the right nerve to shut down critical thinking for a while, and twist their arm behind their back. Of course they could just break free anytime, but it hurts too much to do so. BSAikido, if you will.
Never think a politician is stupid just because he's saying stupid things. He's simply accepting appearing that way to you to put someone else under his spell.
The way to kill religion is to laugh and ridicule it to death. Violence just strengthens it.
Violence strengthens religion because it makes martyrs. However, laughter and ridicule also lets people feel they're martyrs, thus it also strenghtens religion. Anything that feeds an "us vs. them" mentality strenghtens people's desire to keep and exaggerate their cultural identity, and that includes religion.
The only way to kill a religion is to kill every last follower. If you can't or won't do that, then there's no way to kill it, because every attempt only increases their resolve (and gets them well-deserved sympathy from others because, after all, you're persecuting them).
Besides, this whole "kill religion" rethoric sounds suspiciously like a call to a holy war to me.
...note that in industrial civilization, riches accrue to those who best stimulate human ingenuity and productivity through peaceful trade and development, not to those who can enslave the most serfs, and that the entire basis of military arms races is basically a "caveman" mentality, obsolete since before WW1, really: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/09-6
And yet both the richest country in the world and the one most likely to depose it are both built on enslaving serfs for the benefit of the few.
I need to replace the old 60W bulb, since it uses more energy alone than the rest of the flat combined. (The typical evening power draw is about 150-350W.)
In and of itself, eugenics is a good thing. I would love to see it advanced. The research could lead to the cures for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, possibly even make our entire race stronger and smarter. The possibilities are endless.
The possibilities are almost nonexistent, actually. In order to alter a population significantly without it backfiring horribly (see dog breeding for a good example of backfiring), you need extremely advanced genetics to determine who can safely breed with whom, at which point it's a lot easier and safer both technically and ethically to just use gene therapy.
This is, of course, all ignoring the social framework needed for eugenics. After all, simply telling people not to breed is not going to be effective unless somehow enforced. Whether that force comes from outright violence or extortion ("no welfare for you unless you let us mutilate you"), it carries a horrible price even for those who are not themselves victimized.
So no, eugenics is not a good thing. It's inherently evil due to harming people and the entire society for empty promises. It would likely still be evil even if it could actually fulfil those promises, but it can't. And talking of it as "in and of itself" to avoid thinking of all it implies is downright dishonest.
Is it worth it to cure addiction if you utterly destroy everything that makes life worth living?
How could any rational person think this is a good idea?
Well, if the purpose is to punish the sinner and terrorize the potential sinners, then irreversible zombification certainly works better than mere prison sentences, and is thus rational. After all, it's not like locking up pot smokers is intended to help them, but to destroy their lives as thoroughly as possible.
Expect this to become a new weapon in the War on Drugs in the West, too.
Yep the rest of the world only stopped with the eugenics, forced sterilizations and routine lobotomies because Hitler made them uncool.
But even that's passing. Eugenics is slowly creeping back into vogue, this time paired with the idea that fitness equals your bank account balance. Combine that with the "hardness is cool" -meme and it wouldn't surprise me if we saw mass sterilization programs again in our lifetime.
Between that, energy crisis, climate change, surveillance society, supervolcanoes with overdue eruptions, the constant near-misses of large asteroids, globalization, etc. etc., we shouldn't perhaps be so surprised that end-of-the-world scenarios get ever more popular. Something's gotta give.
Libertarians do understand this, they just don't think that might-makes-right is a good organizing principle.
Libertarianism is the belief that only negative liberty (there is no law forbidding X) matters, and positive liberty (ensuring as many people as possibly actually have the means to X) is a waste of resources at best and actively detrimental to negative liberty at worst. Tied to this is hatred of government, worship of wealth, and the weird idea that you can upkeep a society - even the minimalist libertarian society - without taxes to pay for it. Also, a weird obsession on the gold standard as a cure-all for economic woes, never mind that countries gave it up in the first place because it was playing havoc on their economies.
So yes, libertarians very much believe that might makes right, they just focus on economic might.
These are legal guns and these maps allow prospective homeowners to know which neighborhoods are "safer" (one way or the other).
It lets criminals know exactly which homes to break into to get guns (or which to avoid). It won't let anyone draw any conclusions about the neighbourhood itself without doing statistical analysis. And frankly, I can't help but notice similarities with the sexual offender database, which is specifically meant to dish out indefinite punishment, thus I must conclude that the main purpose here is intimidation.
If your car kills someone because Sergey programmed it wrong, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you purchased the car and sent it off on it's own so don't bitch about it.
If you criticise the government, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you opened your mouth, so don't bitch about it.
Also, we don't hold the users of any other products to this standard. Not even cars: if you crash into someone because ECC suddenly applies brakes on one side due to programming error, you don't go to jail. Your idea is not only bad, but completely ridiculous - unless, of course, the idea is to ensure driverless cars will stay out of the roads. Are you a taxi driver, by any chance?
Why is it that in every other aspect of life I can accept prevailing (almost universal) scientific consensus and no one will bat an eye, and yet to accept same in regard to global warming is some sort of heinous act?
Why do alcoholics deny they have a problem? Because admitting it would imply that they'd need to give up the sweet, sweet booze. That doesn't mean that they still can't agree that drugs are bad, just not alcohol.
And of course they are completely correct in that giving up fossil fuels will be horribly painful and likely make us look back to the golden age of prosperity due to cheap energy. Who would want to accept a fact that would necessiate it besides the more radical eco-nuts - and I doubt even they really understand just how horribly miserable de-industrialization would make them. It's an impossible sell.
So we have large and rich oil corporations selling people lies they want to believe, versus scientists selling facts about a danger that can't be dodged without painful sacrifices (of the kind which will actually affect people personally, rather than the kind they wouldn't even notice if not for the evening news). Who will the people believe?
A game has to be fun to be relevant. If it isn't fun, it might still be a game, but it doesn't matter since no one's going to play it unless forced to, and if they are, they'll just go through the motions while daydreaming.
But of course the straightforward answer to your question is: it depends entirely on how you define a game, and thus varies depending on the context. Which, in this case, is "convenient scapegoat".
So having a page just work without drama is not a solution, while requiring the user to manually close it (hopefully before FF crashes) and not visit it in the future is?
When I was unemployed there were so many companies using New Deal to get basically slave labour.
Same here in Finland. And, I suspect, everywhere where such systems exist. It makes plenty of business sense to abuse an offer you can't refuse to get free labour, while those lucky enough to have jobs will naturally attribute them to their personal qualities rather than luck, thus prompting them to look down on "lazy bums".
Slashdot Mirror
It makes even more sense to have none, and simply register with different usernames at whatever forums you want to use. What possible use is a "social media profile" to anyone who isn't specifically trying to profile you, either to dig up dirt on you or to find out your psychological weaknesses to sell crap to you? Why would you want to make their job easier?
It is impossible to say whether a < b without knowing the values of a and b. This holds even if we choose a to represent the value of time spent playing petsville and b the amount of entertainment received. I don't get to judge whether something is allowed, but I do get to point out it's impossible.
Can't say the same about you, sorry.
The harsh reality of capitalism is that there are plenty of people who kill babies to make a quick buck and they often get away with it. How, exactly speaking, do you propose explaining this in a way that doesn't cause emotional pain?
Value is subjective, not objective. Someone who keeps playing petsville clearly values whatever he gets from it more than he does the time spent getting it. It's not your time so you don't get to judge whether it's wasted or not.
You don't have to. It's quite sufficient to fool them the split-second their brain spend deciding whether to treat a discussion as a way to decide what's the best course of action or a tribal battle.
Think of it like Martial Arts Bullshitting: even if they're smarter than you, if you know their psychological weaknesses you can turn their own intelligence against them by having them rationalize your argument rather than pick it apart. Sidestep the charge, deliver a little tap on the right nerve to shut down critical thinking for a while, and twist their arm behind their back. Of course they could just break free anytime, but it hurts too much to do so. BSAikido, if you will.
Never think a politician is stupid just because he's saying stupid things. He's simply accepting appearing that way to you to put someone else under his spell.
I wish I were shocked that a post saying nothing more than "I disagree" got modded Insightful, but I'm not.
"Wonderful" is not what I'd call a religious war fought with atomic age weapons, but I guess every god has crazy followers.
Violence strengthens religion because it makes martyrs. However, laughter and ridicule also lets people feel they're martyrs, thus it also strenghtens religion. Anything that feeds an "us vs. them" mentality strenghtens people's desire to keep and exaggerate their cultural identity, and that includes religion.
The only way to kill a religion is to kill every last follower. If you can't or won't do that, then there's no way to kill it, because every attempt only increases their resolve (and gets them well-deserved sympathy from others because, after all, you're persecuting them).
Besides, this whole "kill religion" rethoric sounds suspiciously like a call to a holy war to me.
And yet both the richest country in the world and the one most likely to depose it are both built on enslaving serfs for the benefit of the few.
So the 60W bulb is using at least 75W ?-)
That's probably the point.
The possibilities are almost nonexistent, actually. In order to alter a population significantly without it backfiring horribly (see dog breeding for a good example of backfiring), you need extremely advanced genetics to determine who can safely breed with whom, at which point it's a lot easier and safer both technically and ethically to just use gene therapy.
This is, of course, all ignoring the social framework needed for eugenics. After all, simply telling people not to breed is not going to be effective unless somehow enforced. Whether that force comes from outright violence or extortion ("no welfare for you unless you let us mutilate you"), it carries a horrible price even for those who are not themselves victimized.
So no, eugenics is not a good thing. It's inherently evil due to harming people and the entire society for empty promises. It would likely still be evil even if it could actually fulfil those promises, but it can't. And talking of it as "in and of itself" to avoid thinking of all it implies is downright dishonest.
Well, if the purpose is to punish the sinner and terrorize the potential sinners, then irreversible zombification certainly works better than mere prison sentences, and is thus rational. After all, it's not like locking up pot smokers is intended to help them, but to destroy their lives as thoroughly as possible.
Expect this to become a new weapon in the War on Drugs in the West, too.
But even that's passing. Eugenics is slowly creeping back into vogue, this time paired with the idea that fitness equals your bank account balance. Combine that with the "hardness is cool" -meme and it wouldn't surprise me if we saw mass sterilization programs again in our lifetime.
Between that, energy crisis, climate change, surveillance society, supervolcanoes with overdue eruptions, the constant near-misses of large asteroids, globalization, etc. etc., we shouldn't perhaps be so surprised that end-of-the-world scenarios get ever more popular. Something's gotta give.
And if proof matters, you don't yet know the real meaning of corruption.
Libertarianism is the belief that only negative liberty (there is no law forbidding X) matters, and positive liberty (ensuring as many people as possibly actually have the means to X) is a waste of resources at best and actively detrimental to negative liberty at worst. Tied to this is hatred of government, worship of wealth, and the weird idea that you can upkeep a society - even the minimalist libertarian society - without taxes to pay for it. Also, a weird obsession on the gold standard as a cure-all for economic woes, never mind that countries gave it up in the first place because it was playing havoc on their economies.
So yes, libertarians very much believe that might makes right, they just focus on economic might.
It lets criminals know exactly which homes to break into to get guns (or which to avoid). It won't let anyone draw any conclusions about the neighbourhood itself without doing statistical analysis. And frankly, I can't help but notice similarities with the sexual offender database, which is specifically meant to dish out indefinite punishment, thus I must conclude that the main purpose here is intimidation.
If you criticise the government, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you opened your mouth, so don't bitch about it.
Also, we don't hold the users of any other products to this standard. Not even cars: if you crash into someone because ECC suddenly applies brakes on one side due to programming error, you don't go to jail. Your idea is not only bad, but completely ridiculous - unless, of course, the idea is to ensure driverless cars will stay out of the roads. Are you a taxi driver, by any chance?
Why do alcoholics deny they have a problem? Because admitting it would imply that they'd need to give up the sweet, sweet booze. That doesn't mean that they still can't agree that drugs are bad, just not alcohol.
And of course they are completely correct in that giving up fossil fuels will be horribly painful and likely make us look back to the golden age of prosperity due to cheap energy. Who would want to accept a fact that would necessiate it besides the more radical eco-nuts - and I doubt even they really understand just how horribly miserable de-industrialization would make them. It's an impossible sell.
So we have large and rich oil corporations selling people lies they want to believe, versus scientists selling facts about a danger that can't be dodged without painful sacrifices (of the kind which will actually affect people personally, rather than the kind they wouldn't even notice if not for the evening news). Who will the people believe?
A game has to be fun to be relevant. If it isn't fun, it might still be a game, but it doesn't matter since no one's going to play it unless forced to, and if they are, they'll just go through the motions while daydreaming.
But of course the straightforward answer to your question is: it depends entirely on how you define a game, and thus varies depending on the context. Which, in this case, is "convenient scapegoat".
So having a page just work without drama is not a solution, while requiring the user to manually close it (hopefully before FF crashes) and not visit it in the future is?
The desire of the Chinese to sell more "traditional Chinese medicinal foods", I'd imagine.
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but this line screams "marketing scam" to me.
Not reincarnate. Isn't that the whole point?
100,000 cases of polio. "Cultural eradication" doesn't actually harm anyone, but polio does.
Same here in Finland. And, I suspect, everywhere where such systems exist. It makes plenty of business sense to abuse an offer you can't refuse to get free labour, while those lucky enough to have jobs will naturally attribute them to their personal qualities rather than luck, thus prompting them to look down on "lazy bums".