That's right idiot. The only way to save the country is to destroy it. Take one of the basic tenets of the founding of American culture and rip it out.
That's the hard part of the fight. Once it's done, the ideological void provides ideal conditions for mass conversion. As it happens, ISIS seems almost custom tailored to be attractive in such conditions: it is, after all, first and foremost an armed gang.
Wha West is up against is ruthlessness. ISIS doesn't have any chance whatsoever to defeat us militarily, but if they can make us internalize their ruthless ethos their goal - end of the world - comes that much closer. Hence the terror attacks that are specifically designed to outrage. Hate leads to the dark side, after all.
The quantum for the threading is set for server loads at the expense of faster performance with fewer threads.
Does that actually matter anymore? If there's lots of cores and few threads, then chances are that there's an idle core ready to start executing a task that becomes runnable right away, and each task will effectively have a dedicated core.
That's a bit like saying "I've gotten pretty good at riding a bicycle 5-6 times over the years." Once you learn how to ride a bike, if you go back to it after 20 years of not riding it, you still remember how to ride it.
You still remember how to ride it. That's far from actually being good or even okay at it. The same goes to all skills: use them or lose them.
This is even more true when the design of the tool in question has gone over six major iterations in those 20 years.
Society needs both and the ants are always exploited.
Greedy assholes abusing other people certainly like to pretend their deliberate choice to do evil to be both a necessary evil and an eternal law of nature that happens on its own. It's neither. Humanity advances as it moves from regarding actions as something that "happen" to something that's "done", because the former implies helplessness while the latter implies potential for control.
You're citing a government man whose specialty was slaughtering capitalists, even small farmers who traded their goods in marketplaces, not promoting them. Care to come up with a better example?
Stalin's specialty was killing, terrorizing and oppressing everyone who were in the way of his grand vision, just like the robber barons you admired. So any defence of them will also apply equally well for him. The only thing different is the excuse used.
The problem is the recent habit of giving them multiple tax breaks means they create fewer and fewer jobs to feed the 'trickle-down' fallacy that Reagonomics invented.
Problem? The less jobs there are, the lower the wages will get, and the less the remaining employees can do to defend themselves against abuse. That's wonderful for the aristocracy, at least until the whole mess collapses, and since when have serfs mattered?
As the summary says:
"He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money," writes Eisinger. "That's what America is all about.
Or you do all that on the moon and beam it back via microwave accepting that the massive losses from using microwave transmission are still far better than the massive losses associated with moving mass.
That's gonna be one heck of a nuclear plant to outshine the Sun at 400,000 kilometers.
Hawaii is AMERICAN soil, not native Hawaiian soil. Every American alive has just as much claim to Hawaii as any 'native'. Its not 'their' culture anymore, its 'ours'. You know, melting pot and all that.
"Melting pot" refers to the idea that people come and bring their cultural heritage to form something new. Claiming someone else's land for yourself is conquest, not melting pot. Stop smearing a good idea just to defend an obsolete one.
I've developed negatives and developed prints from negatives, it's a smelly, messy task that is beyond most people.
You know, I went to children's photography club as a kid, and I can't recall any of us having any trouble developing our photos. It's just a projector followed by two chemical bathes with rinsing with water between. Anyone who can use tweezers shouldn't have any problems.
Basically atheist and nontheist mean exactly the same thing.
In the pages of dictionary, perhaps. In life, there are nontheists and atheists, just like there are men and Real Men. One means you have a particular characteristic, the other that you have a burning need to have others acknowledge it.
On the Internet, "atheism" is just another banner crusaders gather under.
The expected moral indignation of those in our population who believe prostitution is just bad. I don't think there's much constructive discussion to be had here one way or the other.
And yet this discussion - to what extent do you have a right to force your moral standards on me - is the important one.
2. Prostitution is *heavily* associated with human trafficking, along with other behaviors that boil down to a girl being forced to sell her body, rather than wanting to. This is the reason that really matters.
Right, so the same people who consistently vote conservative positions because justice is something to be had only on the other side suddenly become concerned about human suffering when sex is involved. I call bullshit.
If I had gotten that blood poisioning in the east, I would have been screwed - but: I didn't, and the odds of contracting that kind of disease were probably a thousand times lower outside the "big modern city."
Believing capitalism should be regulated doesn't make you a socialist
Wanting to alter capitalism into a more "humane" form through regulation is pretty much the definition of socialist, at least as commonly used today. "Communism" is the hypothetical ultimate evolved form of economy where all the internal contradictions of capitalism have been corrected and all its alienating elements removed. As these "alienating elements" include first and foremost hierarchies of power those sitting on top of them tend to see the mere idea a deadly threat, whether it's achievable in practice or not.
I may not believe in all the Christianity/God stuff but "believing themselves to be wise they became fools" comes to mind when you Climate zealots hop on your hobby horses.
So what conclusion am I supposed to draw from your best counter-argument being an unrelated religious quote you don't even believe?
Both sides are guilty of atrocities, but this being Slashdot... I'd rather the side that has an industry of designing CPUs for Intel beat the side that has a bizarre totalitarian religion that routinely generates suicide bombers.
One has a totalitarian martyrhood culture, and the other is using them as substitute culprits to avenge the Holocaust on. Why side with either? Unless, of course, your apocalyptic cult sees Israel as a key to its end-of-the-world prophecies, which seems to be the case for alarmingly many people.
As evidence piles up there comes a point when you're simply using "scepticism" as an excuse to refuse to believe a conclusion you don't like. For climate change, that point went a long time ago. What ever reasons drive climate change "sceptics", they have nothing to do with science.
To be heard, you now have to shout louder and 10x more irrationally than everyone else.
Is the current issue so important that you have to win, even at the cost of making the world a less rational place? No? Then don't shout. Instead, calmly explain your viewpoint. That way you advance the cause of solving disputes through rational discourse rather than shouting the loudest, which should result in the world becoming a better place overall since being rational helps us make decisions that get us what we want and avoid things we don't.
You can't win a war if you obsess over individual battles.
We have elections because they are meaningless. Show me one country where there is a party that actually has a chance to become part of a government that would change the status quo.
Show me a single democratic country where the voters agree which way the status quo should be changed. It seems to me that status quo rarely changes a lot in a single election because it already reflects a decent compromise between the interests of various people, organizations and ideals that make up a nation.
It's not the mirror's fault that what it reveals leaves a lot to be desired.
So, thinking of this as a phone specifically enabled with spying capabilities as a feature you're right, the logical customer for such a phone is an oppressive government.
Or a company. Having everything done with the phone recorded could easily become a hit amongst the control freak wing of the HR.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the hard part of the fight. Once it's done, the ideological void provides ideal conditions for mass conversion. As it happens, ISIS seems almost custom tailored to be attractive in such conditions: it is, after all, first and foremost an armed gang.
Wha West is up against is ruthlessness. ISIS doesn't have any chance whatsoever to defeat us militarily, but if they can make us internalize their ruthless ethos their goal - end of the world - comes that much closer. Hence the terror attacks that are specifically designed to outrage. Hate leads to the dark side, after all.
But they would have a lot harder time finding funding and reinforcements.
Unfortunately, US is already settled.
Does that actually matter anymore? If there's lots of cores and few threads, then chances are that there's an idle core ready to start executing a task that becomes runnable right away, and each task will effectively have a dedicated core.
You still remember how to ride it. That's far from actually being good or even okay at it. The same goes to all skills: use them or lose them.
This is even more true when the design of the tool in question has gone over six major iterations in those 20 years.
Greedy assholes abusing other people certainly like to pretend their deliberate choice to do evil to be both a necessary evil and an eternal law of nature that happens on its own. It's neither. Humanity advances as it moves from regarding actions as something that "happen" to something that's "done", because the former implies helplessness while the latter implies potential for control.
Stalin's specialty was killing, terrorizing and oppressing everyone who were in the way of his grand vision, just like the robber barons you admired. So any defence of them will also apply equally well for him. The only thing different is the excuse used.
Or, as another hard man who built a great empire and broke a few eggs along the way put it: "Who's going to remember all this riff-raff in ten or twenty years' time?"
Problem? The less jobs there are, the lower the wages will get, and the less the remaining employees can do to defend themselves against abuse. That's wonderful for the aristocracy, at least until the whole mess collapses, and since when have serfs mattered?
As the summary says:
That's gonna be one heck of a nuclear plant to outshine the Sun at 400,000 kilometers.
"Melting pot" refers to the idea that people come and bring their cultural heritage to form something new. Claiming someone else's land for yourself is conquest, not melting pot. Stop smearing a good idea just to defend an obsolete one.
You know, I went to children's photography club as a kid, and I can't recall any of us having any trouble developing our photos. It's just a projector followed by two chemical bathes with rinsing with water between. Anyone who can use tweezers shouldn't have any problems.
Some questions really are dumb, Anon.
In the pages of dictionary, perhaps. In life, there are nontheists and atheists, just like there are men and Real Men. One means you have a particular characteristic, the other that you have a burning need to have others acknowledge it.
On the Internet, "atheism" is just another banner crusaders gather under.
And yet this discussion - to what extent do you have a right to force your moral standards on me - is the important one.
Right, so the same people who consistently vote conservative positions because justice is something to be had only on the other side suddenly become concerned about human suffering when sex is involved. I call bullshit.
"Probably" based on what?
Wanting to alter capitalism into a more "humane" form through regulation is pretty much the definition of socialist, at least as commonly used today. "Communism" is the hypothetical ultimate evolved form of economy where all the internal contradictions of capitalism have been corrected and all its alienating elements removed. As these "alienating elements" include first and foremost hierarchies of power those sitting on top of them tend to see the mere idea a deadly threat, whether it's achievable in practice or not.
So what conclusion am I supposed to draw from your best counter-argument being an unrelated religious quote you don't even believe?
One has a totalitarian martyrhood culture, and the other is using them as substitute culprits to avenge the Holocaust on. Why side with either? Unless, of course, your apocalyptic cult sees Israel as a key to its end-of-the-world prophecies, which seems to be the case for alarmingly many people.
But comrade, through technology we can achieve a true hive-mind.
As evidence piles up there comes a point when you're simply using "scepticism" as an excuse to refuse to believe a conclusion you don't like. For climate change, that point went a long time ago. What ever reasons drive climate change "sceptics", they have nothing to do with science.
Is the current issue so important that you have to win, even at the cost of making the world a less rational place? No? Then don't shout. Instead, calmly explain your viewpoint. That way you advance the cause of solving disputes through rational discourse rather than shouting the loudest, which should result in the world becoming a better place overall since being rational helps us make decisions that get us what we want and avoid things we don't.
You can't win a war if you obsess over individual battles.
Show me a single democratic country where the voters agree which way the status quo should be changed. It seems to me that status quo rarely changes a lot in a single election because it already reflects a decent compromise between the interests of various people, organizations and ideals that make up a nation.
It's not the mirror's fault that what it reveals leaves a lot to be desired.
"Event" is a fancy term for state terrorism.
Or a company. Having everything done with the phone recorded could easily become a hit amongst the control freak wing of the HR.