Atheists have as much faith as any religious zealot. Only agnostics have an objectively honest belief.
Agnostics who fail to point out that the evidence for God is too thin to be taken seriously and that it is rationally absurd to assert the existence of God are cowardly, ignorant, or politically saavy. But that does make the agnostic/atheist dichotomy a little weak, no? Almost meaningless, perhaps?
You can't just win arguments by implicitly framing things like privacy into large, absolute categories.
If my blinds are open, I can claim no reasonable expectation of not being seen by some random guy on the street. Anything else, though - like widespread distribution of recorded personal information - is something we as a society can fight over. Don't be so eager to simplify things, and don't be so eager to win arguments.
The "liberalization" of Libertarianism is a recent phenomenon. Libertarianism got its popularity from the nigh-mathematical rigor of it's ability to give simple (bad) answers to hard questions. One of the biggest campaigns of the Libertarian party was Carla Howell running for Senate in my home state of Massachusetts. She was a "kook," as you might describe her. (I campaigned for her, but I was a stupid undergrad.)
That said, the recent developments in Libertarianism are promising. I wouldn't vote for him personally, but I invite you to look into Phillies' campaign for president.
Modern messaging is an incredibly effective. If too many people are requesting your time, that doesn't necessarily mean it's time to change your communications medium. You may have taken on too many responsibilities.
I find that people have a tendency to overestimate the volume of work they can handle. That said, there's definitely something to the notion that you shouldn't bother someone unless you have to. If you find yourself frequently disrupting someone's work (or find yourself frequently disrupted) out of necessity, however, then you need to reassign responsibilities, put those responsibilities on the chopping block, and/or get help.
Are we as a nation becoming stupider, or am I just now realizing how utterly RETARDED 95% of people really are?
Every one of us is that retarded. Some of us were privileged enough to learn the strategies to cope with our natural failings. We need to extend that privilege as far as possible... You needn't be an altruist to agree. The negative ramifications of a mentally underprivileged populace on our lives are clear enough.
Your cynicism does you a disservice. Most publications of any merit grant independence to the senior editorial staff, often in the form of tenure. That the sacking of Gerstmann was even possible is a reflection of the relative immaturity of game journalism, although the backlash against this event may improve matters.
This generally can't be done to any optimum criteria until the system designer gains familiarity with the systems and dataset... so it winds up being a subjective judgment of the designer rather than a rigorous examination of the possibilities... or else this process winds up being recursive;)
Heh, that one left me chuckling on the way to work. Thanks, N.
I feel the need to plug my favorite NPR show, On Point Radio with Tom Ashbrook. Each show is an interview of a variety of guests on a topic. He's a brilliant moderator, and the guests are amazing. Not long ago, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer surprised Tom by popping into his studio when they were discussing the Dred Scott case. When discussing Iraq, you'll always have some combination of generals, ambassadors, former secretaries of state, and Iraqi politicians. You owe yourself a listen; I recommend the podcast available in the iTunes store.
I don't have a problem with discrimination, period. Even it it's directed at me. This is an obvious and straightforward consequence of that most basic of right, freedom of association. You don't have to interact with me, and I don't have to interact with you.
Question: Say there was an organization that people voluntarily joined. The terms of membership in the organization is that you can only associate (i.e. do business) with people inside the organization. One of the rules of the organization says that people in the organization cannot engage in acts of racism or ageism in their hiring practices.
For the sake of argument, if you'll concede the assertions that: 1) The existence of that organization does not violate freedom of association. 2) Most people would want to be in that organization. 3) The current (unfree) political climate prevents that organization from existing.
In a free society, a majority of people would successfully reject ageism. As a consequence of our unfree society, the question becomes whether the minority or majority position dominates the whole population. Isn't it more just to let the majority rule in this context, even taking freedom of association into account?
Unhealthy lifestyle choices are only really frowned on because they result in poor health. Isn't it perverse to perpetuate that moralistic norm if the poor health consequence goes away? (There are some cases where poor health isn't the only negative consequence, but I'm not referring to those.)
Look, I hate conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but it's no secret that government agencies have been and continue to be interested in data mining mundane information to assess potential terror threats before they happen. Anybody who thinks society can't change quickly isn't a student of history.
Sure, I think you could call it vertical transmission. However, while the term captures the transmission of the "acquired" trait, it doesn't encapsulate the actual acquisition of the trait, which is pretty remarkable on its own.
How 'bout I/O prioritization? How 'bout the fact that application views render independently, increasing the apparent responsiveness of switching between applications? How 'bout the fact that the explorer no longer hangs when the system is busy? Vista feels like a major improvement in application and explorer responsiveness, which makes a really big difference.
On a related note, mitochondria and chloroplasts are thought to have been introduced when one cell devoured another, and the two cells formed a symbiotic relationship. Over time, their ability to replicate together became fine-tuned, and the inner cell lost abilities that were no longer necessary. This process is termed serial endosymbiosis.
There is only one reason why someone would pay $150 million to buy the adoption of a particular format: The HD DVD people realized their preferred format was inferior, and could not possibly win in the marketplace in a fair competition on the merits. Yeah, that *must* be the reason. Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.
The Peer to Patent project has gone live, and while it has its own problems, it's a simple, elegant solution that doesn't require something ridiculous like a massive database of ideas. Anyone can sign up and suggest prior art on submitted patents before they're approved. It's a good example of community self-policing.
If we were all peers, you'd have to worry about countries following that good-returns-for-marginally-despicable-behavior gradient, which snowballs as the low-hanging fruit is plucked and as nations progressively set bad examples for each other, in addition to the bad blood garnered over time. The existence of superpowers and nuclear deterrents has ended the brutal, organic relationships between countries. It may not last forever, and we should use this era of relative peace to consolidate power (a la the EU) and put institutions in place that will serve us better in a changing geopolitical climate and help us avoid old follies.
That one's easy. There's an always-on inhibitive output that you have to, in turn, explicitly inhibit to engage your action. It's thought that the brain works this way. It's also thought that this is how planning evolved in the brain -- a mechanism originally "intended" to restrain in emergencies actually allowed the brain to disable motor action entirely and use the motor coordination system for planning instead of action. It's weird but cool to think of mental mathematics and physical movement as being so closely related.
Yeah, because a hardware handshake is the same thing as a contractual meeting of minds between hardware owners. You know, bad sophistry is bad enough. Convenient bad sophistry is the worst possible kind.
In 99% of cases, it isn't, self interest takes care of it.
Congratulations, you've graduated from making blanket statements based on free market ideology to making blanket statements based on absolutely nothing. Have a cookie.
Slashdot Mirror
Agnostics who fail to point out that the evidence for God is too thin to be taken seriously and that it is rationally absurd to assert the existence of God are cowardly, ignorant, or politically saavy. But that does make the agnostic/atheist dichotomy a little weak, no? Almost meaningless, perhaps?
You can't just win arguments by implicitly framing things like privacy into large, absolute categories.
If my blinds are open, I can claim no reasonable expectation of not being seen by some random guy on the street. Anything else, though - like widespread distribution of recorded personal information - is something we as a society can fight over. Don't be so eager to simplify things, and don't be so eager to win arguments.
Holy crap, a third DROD installment! Thanks for the FYI. (No, I'm not going to pirate it.)
The "liberalization" of Libertarianism is a recent phenomenon. Libertarianism got its popularity from the nigh-mathematical rigor of it's ability to give simple (bad) answers to hard questions. One of the biggest campaigns of the Libertarian party was Carla Howell running for Senate in my home state of Massachusetts. She was a "kook," as you might describe her. (I campaigned for her, but I was a stupid undergrad.)
That said, the recent developments in Libertarianism are promising. I wouldn't vote for him personally, but I invite you to look into Phillies' campaign for president.
Modern messaging is an incredibly effective. If too many people are requesting your time, that doesn't necessarily mean it's time to change your communications medium. You may have taken on too many responsibilities.
I find that people have a tendency to overestimate the volume of work they can handle. That said, there's definitely something to the notion that you shouldn't bother someone unless you have to. If you find yourself frequently disrupting someone's work (or find yourself frequently disrupted) out of necessity, however, then you need to reassign responsibilities, put those responsibilities on the chopping block, and/or get help.
No, if we weren't pragmatic, it would be even easier for the establishment to game the vote.
Every one of us is that retarded. Some of us were privileged enough to learn the strategies to cope with our natural failings. We need to extend that privilege as far as possible... You needn't be an altruist to agree. The negative ramifications of a mentally underprivileged populace on our lives are clear enough.
Your cynicism does you a disservice. Most publications of any merit grant independence to the senior editorial staff, often in the form of tenure. That the sacking of Gerstmann was even possible is a reflection of the relative immaturity of game journalism, although the backlash against this event may improve matters.
Heh, that one left me chuckling on the way to work. Thanks, N.
I feel the need to plug my favorite NPR show, On Point Radio with Tom Ashbrook. Each show is an interview of a variety of guests on a topic. He's a brilliant moderator, and the guests are amazing. Not long ago, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer surprised Tom by popping into his studio when they were discussing the Dred Scott case. When discussing Iraq, you'll always have some combination of generals, ambassadors, former secretaries of state, and Iraqi politicians. You owe yourself a listen; I recommend the podcast available in the iTunes store.
Question: Say there was an organization that people voluntarily joined. The terms of membership in the organization is that you can only associate (i.e. do business) with people inside the organization. One of the rules of the organization says that people in the organization cannot engage in acts of racism or ageism in their hiring practices.
For the sake of argument, if you'll concede the assertions that:
1) The existence of that organization does not violate freedom of association.
2) Most people would want to be in that organization.
3) The current (unfree) political climate prevents that organization from existing.
In a free society, a majority of people would successfully reject ageism. As a consequence of our unfree society, the question becomes whether the minority or majority position dominates the whole population. Isn't it more just to let the majority rule in this context, even taking freedom of association into account?
Unhealthy lifestyle choices are only really frowned on because they result in poor health. Isn't it perverse to perpetuate that moralistic norm if the poor health consequence goes away? (There are some cases where poor health isn't the only negative consequence, but I'm not referring to those.)
The biggest selling point for me on Windows XP is the ability for me to Remote Desktop into my computer from anywhere.
Look, I hate conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but it's no secret that government agencies have been and continue to be interested in data mining mundane information to assess potential terror threats before they happen. Anybody who thinks society can't change quickly isn't a student of history.
That's not correct. Typical hard-line Baptist churches will discourage close friendships with non-believers.
Sure, I think you could call it vertical transmission. However, while the term captures the transmission of the "acquired" trait, it doesn't encapsulate the actual acquisition of the trait, which is pretty remarkable on its own.
How 'bout I/O prioritization? How 'bout the fact that application views render independently, increasing the apparent responsiveness of switching between applications? How 'bout the fact that the explorer no longer hangs when the system is busy? Vista feels like a major improvement in application and explorer responsiveness, which makes a really big difference.
On a related note, mitochondria and chloroplasts are thought to have been introduced when one cell devoured another, and the two cells formed a symbiotic relationship. Over time, their ability to replicate together became fine-tuned, and the inner cell lost abilities that were no longer necessary. This process is termed serial endosymbiosis.
There is only one reason why someone would pay $150 million to buy the adoption of a particular format: The HD DVD people realized their preferred format was inferior, and could not possibly win in the marketplace in a fair competition on the merits.
Yeah, that *must* be the reason. Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.
The Peer to Patent project has gone live, and while it has its own problems, it's a simple, elegant solution that doesn't require something ridiculous like a massive database of ideas. Anyone can sign up and suggest prior art on submitted patents before they're approved. It's a good example of community self-policing.
If we were all peers, you'd have to worry about countries following that good-returns-for-marginally-despicable-behavior gradient, which snowballs as the low-hanging fruit is plucked and as nations progressively set bad examples for each other, in addition to the bad blood garnered over time. The existence of superpowers and nuclear deterrents has ended the brutal, organic relationships between countries. It may not last forever, and we should use this era of relative peace to consolidate power (a la the EU) and put institutions in place that will serve us better in a changing geopolitical climate and help us avoid old follies.
That one's easy. There's an always-on inhibitive output that you have to, in turn, explicitly inhibit to engage your action. It's thought that the brain works this way. It's also thought that this is how planning evolved in the brain -- a mechanism originally "intended" to restrain in emergencies actually allowed the brain to disable motor action entirely and use the motor coordination system for planning instead of action. It's weird but cool to think of mental mathematics and physical movement as being so closely related.
Yeah, because a hardware handshake is the same thing as a contractual meeting of minds between hardware owners. You know, bad sophistry is bad enough. Convenient bad sophistry is the worst possible kind.
On Point had a fun little radio show about coffee recently.3 _b_main.asp
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/04/2007041
In 99% of cases, it isn't, self interest takes care of it.
Congratulations, you've graduated from making blanket statements based on free market ideology to making blanket statements based on absolutely nothing. Have a cookie.