"Ultimate cause" has a specific meaning in philosophy. It doesn't have the same meaning as "create" or "conceive". A man is not the "ultimate cause" of a child. But a man is the ultimate cause of a machine.
And as I pointed out in another post the ultimate cause of humans is evolution and DNA. Not a specific individual creator but a creator of sorts nonetheless. We have a cause but you seem to claim we are separate from it, why?
Your point being? Everything has risk in it and it's always a question of where the failure prone human is. At a desk writing a program is one of the safer places.
The alternative in this case is to give more power to human pilots who historically are the leading cause of plane crashes. So yeah, the engineered solution may occasionally fail horribly but all the times it doesn't it prevents an even larger number of horrible failures.
So if your local newspaper (or popular website like say yahoo news) printed a giant first page story saying " is a pedophile" you'd be perfectly fine with that?
If there's no one at the reactor to tend it and there's no way to get people to the reactor than it doesn't matter what happens to it. Everyone who could possibly be effected is already dead or dying.
Don't agree, then please tell me what would destroy the massive containment systems around a reactor, kill most everyone at the power station and do enough damage to cause a failure without doing the same to everyone in the vicinity.
Satellites don't die because they get hit by a micrometeorites, they die because they run out of fuel to keep them from combating atmospheric drag and general maneuvering. Moving more mass takes more energy for the same effect so heavy satellites will be a bitch. Not to mention the difficultly in properly de-orbiting them and the horror if one of them does hit something solid. Or hits anything period, like a micrometeorite. Congratulations, you've not create fifty new micrometeorites from the concrete chipping. As if space debris wasn't a problem already.
On top of all that, it's not even that difficult to stop micrometeorites from hitting the guts of a satellite with very little mass. Look up a whipple shield.
What the offended buttoneer should have done is to contact a lawyer of appropriate skill and jurisdiction and obtained a reasoned judgment as to their options.
And go bankrupt in the process you mean?
Babbling on the Internet, while cathartic, isn't terribly useful.
Of course it is, public opinion is a very valid method to achieve ones goals. It is much more useful than going bankrupt and is likely to cost the offender much more than a lawsuit.
Furthermore, in a free market system such public displays are vital to prevent abuses since the public cannot act (ie: avoid certain products) if they don't know about them.
After you are trained up and prove to me that you can be useful I'll give you your 40-50k.
Of course you won't, stop lying. You'll keep paying them the least you can till they finally get annoyed enough to quit. After all why pay them more when they're already doing the same job for less.
The idea that they might not want a victim to identify them never seems to occur to them.
Sure it does however police actually give a damn about murders so it's likely more risky to kill someone. Humans are also apparently rather bad at cold blooded murder, assuming a sane social structure (ie: don't try this in Mexico), so odds are good they don't particularly want to kill you.
Also, the idea that predators will be nice if we treat them nice is easily disproved watching a bit of nature TV shows. No matter how nice the gazelle is, the lion still eats the gazelle.
Humans aren't lions or gazelles.
A bully that encounters someone taught not to be a victim at all may rethink the whole "bully" mindset.
Or more likely get four friends and a lead pipe for the next time they meet the victim. That's the thing about teaching bullies a lesson, they can dish it out as well as anyone else.
Predatory people are often capable of learning, at least for a while. If they are deterred at an early enough age from being a predator, this may be a win for society in general as well as the potential predatory. Unfortunately, if you have someone that has found nothing but willing an nice victims until they are 20 or so it is probably too late to change them.
That's just going to make everyone a predator. That's the thing about teaching kids that violence is the best solution to problems.
Of course, the alternative fails just as badly. So, I guess, welcome to reality where we're all bastards who will fuck up any system we exist in.
First of all, the unemployment rate in the US is 9% or so while Germany is 6.5% or so. The employment rates also seem to vary by 3% or so (just in case you were going to use the idiotic "it's being measured wrong" argument).
Germany exports most of it's products to other EU countries. I'm sure if you counted inter-state transport in the US as exports you'd get a very large number as well.
Most everything in science is wrong or incomplete, it has never mattered and it never will matter. If you do not understand that then you fundamentally do not understand modern science.
You work with what you've got, both existing tools and existing science, and when that changes you update your results. If the tools and science are insufficient then, congratulations, you've discovered something new. You do not assume there's some magical thing just past the rainbow which will explain things unless what you have now doesn't work. The alternative is madness.
A scientists looks at the facts and goes from there. The simplest and only usable assumption is that what you have works till you learn that it doesn't. Until then you do not have the facts to say otherwise.
You on the other hand are assuming that it doesn't work without providing evidence to that affect. You are assuming something magical is needed without showing that something mundane is not enough.
You are not following the facts. You are not being scientific. You are attempting to justify your pre-existing philosophical beliefs which cannot accept a brain that runs on classic mechanics. You are bending facts to fit your beliefs. That is not science. That is religion.
Why not? What makes neurons so magical that a brain composed of them no longer counts as computer?
How very 19th century of you. Given what you've written, I'm going to assume that you're a hard determinist. You're more than 100 years out of date in both physics and philosophy.
You are aware that just because your desktop is conveniently designed as such a computer need not be strictly deterministic, right? Neither does your desktop, by the way, but it takes more effort to code in random noise and you may need some extra hardware if you want true randomness. Of course, no one has yet shown that quantum effects actually matter in a human brain much less that they're vital to it's function.
You're magically thinking has lead to believe things without evidence. You sound very religious.
Says the person making claims without providing evidence.
All your posts seem little more than regurgitations of sounds bits you've heard in some crappy philosophy classes without any actual understanding of the underlying material.
That argument assumes that humans are more than a self-modifying horribly large Chinese box. The rules in question would probably be very complex statistical learning machines but that's details.
I don't see why we're anything more than that personally.
Keep thinking that if it makes you happier but reality doesn't change just because it makes you sad. When you're wondering why the corporations are raping you up the ass, look back upon this. Unlike you they have no qualms about understanding the flawed nature of humans and exploiting it for all they can. The same goes for the Stalins of the world although they're not as systematic about it.
For better or worse, the flaws are what makes us human. To remove that, to make it possible for us to make a Utopia would turn us into something else. Machines or ants. It could never survive the sheer chaos that is humanity.
But you do not understand that because you do not fundamentally understand humans. You believe we can be trivially explained when in reality we are flawed but absurdly complex. Selfish, altruistic, loving, hating, sadistic, caring and so on and so on. Rational, irrational, emotional, short sighted, long sighted and so on and so on. And most of us think we're the only ones who are right.
So, basically you and your friends are all idiots incapable of dealing with mature relationships logically so you blame the websites. After all, picking up random people in a bar is so much more reliable of method and never leads to problems.
You know the truth? Many relationships suck period. That's life. You keep trying and dating till you find one that doesn't. Historically you simply married someone quickly and then resented them for the rest of your life while social stigma kept you from divorcing. But we're in more enlightened times nowadays.
Dating sites aren't some magical black box that gives you a perfect match. They do however give you people who are similar to you and are more likely to meet your criteria. Beyond that it's up to you. You get people, you date, you see and then you try again if they're not right.
My friends and me have had great success with them. Then again we're all generally rational, know what we want, have experience in what we want and aren't utter wastes of human flesh.
Your real problem it seems is that you've got the whole puritan mindset drilled into your head. You want to get married, period. Nothing else is of any value. That's going to fail pretty much every time. Look at the divorce and infidelity rates out there. My friends, they were all after relationships. If it didn't work out they'd break up and try again. If it did then after many years they might get married.
Just because you suck at dating and being an attractive human being doesn't mean it's the site's faults.
Online dating is a field with a decent amount of competition, as a result any site that did what you claim would be bankrupt very quickly. Why? Because people will try five sites and never recommend the ones that are shit. Then when they're single again, welcome to life, they'll avoid those sites as well.
OKCupid went one step further and made it so that even if you're not single there's a reason to stay on their site. Tests, finding friends, forums and so on.
temporary mobilization does not mean full mobilization. not mobilizing when needed, and not taking control of private industry in the most critical phase of the war in between 42-44, is an important reason why war lasted as long as it is, and not longer.
I'd doubt it. A mature economy like Germany's is a massive and complex interlocking framework. Attempting to take it over in a few years during a war is how you make it lose productivity rather than gain it. I'd actually assume off hand that the German industry was raw material limited by then and probably couldn't produce any more than it did since there was nothing to produce it from. Like the US where they were making planes out of wood and ships out of concrete because all the metal produced was already in use. The infrastructure increases needed for more materials were likely too long term and most were probably already done before the war where possible. Then again I doubt you've ever studies economics.
and as another poster so aptly put - nazis only were an over arching government for warfare efficiency, just like how bolsheviks were. there wasnt anything that reflected on the well being of the individual citizen - basically, socialization was not about the economy, but politics of how the country was run.
No, socialism in a general sense was always about the economy. It was not however about the good of the citizens. I'm not sure why you can't understand why those two are very different beasts. The Marxist claims were that one causes the other but that never really materialized since they're so separate.
in socialism, goods and resources are controlled by the people. they decide the production through democratic process. NOT an overarching government.
That's one form of socialism and the least likely one in practice. Democracy itself never exists but only more practical forms of it like representative democracy with complicated built in constraints (courts, constitutions, branches of government, etc.). Pure democracy gives you tyranny of the majority. A free market is, btw, in many ways a democracy where you vote with your money.
a common misconception the american far right spread around to entire world is 'government means left'. no, government, means government. its nothing related to left or right. an overcontrolling government may be any kind of government, and people may still not get a dime.
Understanding the economy is a complicated matter and understanding the people's desires is an even more complicated matter. The soviets never managed the latter while a free market does it rather well. In fact, the soviets would have likely done even worse if not for the various black markets that fixed their various mistakes (alcohol rations, the universal currency). Socialism requires a massive government bureaucracy because it has to understand, manage and predict the economy which is no trivial feat. The control it exerts must also mean it have massive power over the economy and thus everything.
in practice, their 'socialism' was a political control of everything. there was nothing socialist in regard to economic aspects, other than a few shows of sending workers on an overseas cruise a few times with a state cruiser as propaganda.
No you're picking and choosing the definition of socialism that fits your arguments. That's not how it works. Government control over all industries and economic matters is socialism. It generally doesn't end well for the workers but the decisions are made by the government (which "represents" the population). This is close to the classical Marx socialism although as you noted reality is a bitch compared to his Utopian vision.
moreover, ussr had openly stated that they have adopted a 'socialist' method until true communism was possible. not surprisingly, their 'socialism' was also only political, meaning for the sake of efficient government control over economy for warfare, instead of PEOPLE controlling the economy and decision making for their own well being.
The people controlling the economy is not required for socialism and the stepping stone socialism envisioned by Marx explicitly rejects it.
it is moronically ignorant to propose that either of these outfits were socialist, just because there was the word 'socialist' in their name.
No, they're socialist because they meet the definition of the term or at least attempted to. Just because you associate fluffy fuzzy wuzzy views with that term doesn't discredit reality where socialism merely defined one aspect of a society. The rest of that society need not be pleasant nor does it's uses of socialism need to be pleasant.
see, united states of america claims democracy, freedom, yet, we daily discuss on violations of these as a common practice, which the government and corporations dont even bother to deny anymore, but instead justify. so, does that make what is taking place 'democratic' ?
Everything is an imperfect monster that we choose because it's superior to another imperfect monster. That said the US is a representative democracy in most senses of the word So where do you claim it fails and what freedoms necessary for a democracy does it not have?
really. im tired up fixing the propaganda/conditioning american right has put in a lot of you people.
You're the one who seems to be filled with propaganda, unlike you I have no illusions of magical Utopian societies that we somehow always fail to build. We're all a bunch of flawed pathetic bastards who often forget that in the end we're just a bunch of monkeys with slightly better brains.
Nazis did not subscribe to the fascist views but instead supported a socialist system. Not communism, mind you, which they venomously hated. Hitler himself has stated this as being "socialism" and viewed capitalism as a great evil. They did believe in "private property" however in the end the government owned everything. I don't believe they had time to really implement their views but they did have major control over industries during the war. Attempting to replace nation wide capitalism in 5 years is how you cause massive famines (or industrial collapse as the case may be).
Fascism was, btw, also not a capitalistic system but did not go all the way to "socialism." The goal was to have capitalism but keep it under the control and management of the government so it'd work toward the state's goals (ideological and economic). They were both anti-communism and anti-capitalism. Personally I can't make much sense of what this really meant since it seems an ideological cluster fuck to me.
If something wanted to kill life in the galaxy we'd already be dead. It's not that hard really. Von Neumann probe with a decent AI or uploaded alien. With nothing more than light sails you can probably have one around every every single star in the galaxy in under a million years. If it detects something it doesn't like than it dumps a relativistic rock at it. Or maybe it constructs a rocket inside a gas giant and make the local sun go nova just to be sure. Or just covers the planet with fusion powered gray goo till waste heats turns the whole surface into slag.
No, the truly frightening thing is that we're still here. A Von Neumann sterilizer is easy to make, you'd figure some species or faction of a species in this galaxy would have made one in the billions of years the Earth has existed for. I can easily imagine a nut job human launching one covertly in the next few centuries. Maybe just to see if it's possible. Yet we're still and so maybe something has allowed that to happen by stopping any such galactic menaces.
So I don't think it matters what we do. There's likely something lurking and watching us already which no species before us has managed to overcome.
The one that doesn't require me to work 80 hours a week under insane stress levels. Money per hour factoring in living expenses is a much better metric to use.
The real problem is that the question you're asking when choosing jobs is the wrong one. Personally I'd aim for the job that is most likely to make me happy. In case you're wondering studies have noted that money does not correlate with happiness (assuming one's above the poverty line). Work satisfaction on the other hand is heavily correlated. So is health, relationship satisfaction/love and social life satisfaction. In other words all things that an intense high stress high hour job makes very difficult to keep up.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ultimate cause" has a specific meaning in philosophy. It doesn't have the same meaning as "create" or "conceive". A man is not the "ultimate cause" of a child. But a man is the ultimate cause of a machine.
And as I pointed out in another post the ultimate cause of humans is evolution and DNA. Not a specific individual creator but a creator of sorts nonetheless. We have a cause but you seem to claim we are separate from it, why?
By that logic the human didn't do anything either. Humans are after all in the end just some DNA. No different from that AI.
They'll simply make machines that buy their products.
Your point being? Everything has risk in it and it's always a question of where the failure prone human is. At a desk writing a program is one of the safer places.
The alternative in this case is to give more power to human pilots who historically are the leading cause of plane crashes. So yeah, the engineered solution may occasionally fail horribly but all the times it doesn't it prevents an even larger number of horrible failures.
And then seeing no more need for humans, they'll optimize the whole process by just removing us from existence.
Given that Hulu is literally owned by a number of cable networks the chance of that is roughly zero.
So if your local newspaper (or popular website like say yahoo news) printed a giant first page story saying " is a pedophile" you'd be perfectly fine with that?
If there's no one at the reactor to tend it and there's no way to get people to the reactor than it doesn't matter what happens to it. Everyone who could possibly be effected is already dead or dying.
Don't agree, then please tell me what would destroy the massive containment systems around a reactor, kill most everyone at the power station and do enough damage to cause a failure without doing the same to everyone in the vicinity.
Satellites don't die because they get hit by a micrometeorites, they die because they run out of fuel to keep them from combating atmospheric drag and general maneuvering. Moving more mass takes more energy for the same effect so heavy satellites will be a bitch. Not to mention the difficultly in properly de-orbiting them and the horror if one of them does hit something solid. Or hits anything period, like a micrometeorite. Congratulations, you've not create fifty new micrometeorites from the concrete chipping. As if space debris wasn't a problem already.
On top of all that, it's not even that difficult to stop micrometeorites from hitting the guts of a satellite with very little mass. Look up a whipple shield.
It literally falls from the sky.
Except the 30 days of continuous nighttime when it doesn't.
What the offended buttoneer should have done is to contact a lawyer of appropriate skill and jurisdiction and obtained a reasoned judgment as to their options.
And go bankrupt in the process you mean?
Babbling on the Internet, while cathartic, isn't terribly useful.
Of course it is, public opinion is a very valid method to achieve ones goals. It is much more useful than going bankrupt and is likely to cost the offender much more than a lawsuit.
Furthermore, in a free market system such public displays are vital to prevent abuses since the public cannot act (ie: avoid certain products) if they don't know about them.
After you are trained up and prove to me that you can be useful I'll give you your 40-50k.
Of course you won't, stop lying. You'll keep paying them the least you can till they finally get annoyed enough to quit. After all why pay them more when they're already doing the same job for less.
The idea that they might not want a victim to identify them never seems to occur to them.
Sure it does however police actually give a damn about murders so it's likely more risky to kill someone. Humans are also apparently rather bad at cold blooded murder, assuming a sane social structure (ie: don't try this in Mexico), so odds are good they don't particularly want to kill you.
Also, the idea that predators will be nice if we treat them nice is easily disproved watching a bit of nature TV shows. No matter how nice the gazelle is, the lion still eats the gazelle.
Humans aren't lions or gazelles.
A bully that encounters someone taught not to be a victim at all may rethink the whole "bully" mindset.
Or more likely get four friends and a lead pipe for the next time they meet the victim. That's the thing about teaching bullies a lesson, they can dish it out as well as anyone else.
Predatory people are often capable of learning, at least for a while. If they are deterred at an early enough age from being a predator, this may be a win for society in general as well as the potential predatory. Unfortunately, if you have someone that has found nothing but willing an nice victims until they are 20 or so it is probably too late to change them.
That's just going to make everyone a predator. That's the thing about teaching kids that violence is the best solution to problems.
Of course, the alternative fails just as badly. So, I guess, welcome to reality where we're all bastards who will fuck up any system we exist in.
First of all, the unemployment rate in the US is 9% or so while Germany is 6.5% or so. The employment rates also seem to vary by 3% or so (just in case you were going to use the idiotic "it's being measured wrong" argument).
Germany exports most of it's products to other EU countries. I'm sure if you counted inter-state transport in the US as exports you'd get a very large number as well.
Most everything in science is wrong or incomplete, it has never mattered and it never will matter. If you do not understand that then you fundamentally do not understand modern science.
You work with what you've got, both existing tools and existing science, and when that changes you update your results. If the tools and science are insufficient then, congratulations, you've discovered something new. You do not assume there's some magical thing just past the rainbow which will explain things unless what you have now doesn't work. The alternative is madness.
A scientists looks at the facts and goes from there. The simplest and only usable assumption is that what you have works till you learn that it doesn't. Until then you do not have the facts to say otherwise.
You on the other hand are assuming that it doesn't work without providing evidence to that affect. You are assuming something magical is needed without showing that something mundane is not enough.
You are not following the facts. You are not being scientific. You are attempting to justify your pre-existing philosophical beliefs which cannot accept a brain that runs on classic mechanics. You are bending facts to fit your beliefs. That is not science. That is religion.
The brain is a computer? Bullshit.
Why not? What makes neurons so magical that a brain composed of them no longer counts as computer?
How very 19th century of you. Given what you've written, I'm going to assume that you're a hard determinist. You're more than 100 years out of date in both physics and philosophy.
You are aware that just because your desktop is conveniently designed as such a computer need not be strictly deterministic, right? Neither does your desktop, by the way, but it takes more effort to code in random noise and you may need some extra hardware if you want true randomness. Of course, no one has yet shown that quantum effects actually matter in a human brain much less that they're vital to it's function.
You're magically thinking has lead to believe things without evidence. You sound very religious.
Says the person making claims without providing evidence.
All your posts seem little more than regurgitations of sounds bits you've heard in some crappy philosophy classes without any actual understanding of the underlying material.
That argument assumes that humans are more than a self-modifying horribly large Chinese box. The rules in question would probably be very complex statistical learning machines but that's details.
I don't see why we're anything more than that personally.
Keep thinking that if it makes you happier but reality doesn't change just because it makes you sad. When you're wondering why the corporations are raping you up the ass, look back upon this. Unlike you they have no qualms about understanding the flawed nature of humans and exploiting it for all they can. The same goes for the Stalins of the world although they're not as systematic about it.
For better or worse, the flaws are what makes us human. To remove that, to make it possible for us to make a Utopia would turn us into something else. Machines or ants. It could never survive the sheer chaos that is humanity.
But you do not understand that because you do not fundamentally understand humans. You believe we can be trivially explained when in reality we are flawed but absurdly complex. Selfish, altruistic, loving, hating, sadistic, caring and so on and so on. Rational, irrational, emotional, short sighted, long sighted and so on and so on. And most of us think we're the only ones who are right.
So, basically you and your friends are all idiots incapable of dealing with mature relationships logically so you blame the websites. After all, picking up random people in a bar is so much more reliable of method and never leads to problems.
You know the truth? Many relationships suck period. That's life. You keep trying and dating till you find one that doesn't. Historically you simply married someone quickly and then resented them for the rest of your life while social stigma kept you from divorcing. But we're in more enlightened times nowadays.
Dating sites aren't some magical black box that gives you a perfect match. They do however give you people who are similar to you and are more likely to meet your criteria. Beyond that it's up to you. You get people, you date, you see and then you try again if they're not right.
My friends and me have had great success with them. Then again we're all generally rational, know what we want, have experience in what we want and aren't utter wastes of human flesh.
Your real problem it seems is that you've got the whole puritan mindset drilled into your head. You want to get married, period. Nothing else is of any value. That's going to fail pretty much every time. Look at the divorce and infidelity rates out there. My friends, they were all after relationships. If it didn't work out they'd break up and try again. If it did then after many years they might get married.
Just because you suck at dating and being an attractive human being doesn't mean it's the site's faults.
Online dating is a field with a decent amount of competition, as a result any site that did what you claim would be bankrupt very quickly. Why? Because people will try five sites and never recommend the ones that are shit. Then when they're single again, welcome to life, they'll avoid those sites as well.
OKCupid went one step further and made it so that even if you're not single there's a reason to stay on their site. Tests, finding friends, forums and so on.
temporary mobilization does not mean full mobilization. not mobilizing when needed, and not taking control of private industry in the most critical phase of the war in between 42-44, is an important reason why war lasted as long as it is, and not longer.
I'd doubt it. A mature economy like Germany's is a massive and complex interlocking framework. Attempting to take it over in a few years during a war is how you make it lose productivity rather than gain it. I'd actually assume off hand that the German industry was raw material limited by then and probably couldn't produce any more than it did since there was nothing to produce it from. Like the US where they were making planes out of wood and ships out of concrete because all the metal produced was already in use. The infrastructure increases needed for more materials were likely too long term and most were probably already done before the war where possible. Then again I doubt you've ever studies economics.
and as another poster so aptly put - nazis only were an over arching government for warfare efficiency, just like how bolsheviks were. there wasnt anything that reflected on the well being of the individual citizen - basically, socialization was not about the economy, but politics of how the country was run.
No, socialism in a general sense was always about the economy. It was not however about the good of the citizens. I'm not sure why you can't understand why those two are very different beasts. The Marxist claims were that one causes the other but that never really materialized since they're so separate.
in socialism, goods and resources are controlled by the people. they decide the production through democratic process. NOT an overarching government.
That's one form of socialism and the least likely one in practice. Democracy itself never exists but only more practical forms of it like representative democracy with complicated built in constraints (courts, constitutions, branches of government, etc.). Pure democracy gives you tyranny of the majority. A free market is, btw, in many ways a democracy where you vote with your money.
a common misconception the american far right spread around to entire world is 'government means left'. no, government, means government. its nothing related to left or right. an overcontrolling government may be any kind of government, and people may still not get a dime.
Understanding the economy is a complicated matter and understanding the people's desires is an even more complicated matter. The soviets never managed the latter while a free market does it rather well. In fact, the soviets would have likely done even worse if not for the various black markets that fixed their various mistakes (alcohol rations, the universal currency). Socialism requires a massive government bureaucracy because it has to understand, manage and predict the economy which is no trivial feat. The control it exerts must also mean it have massive power over the economy and thus everything.
in practice, their 'socialism' was a political control of everything. there was nothing socialist in regard to economic aspects, other than a few shows of sending workers on an overseas cruise a few times with a state cruiser as propaganda.
No you're picking and choosing the definition of socialism that fits your arguments. That's not how it works. Government control over all industries and economic matters is socialism. It generally doesn't end well for the workers but the decisions are made by the government (which "represents" the population). This is close to the classical Marx socialism although as you noted reality is a bitch compared to his Utopian vision.
moreover, ussr had openly stated that they have adopted a 'socialist' method until true communism was possible. not surprisingly, their 'socialism' was also only political, meaning for the sake of efficient government control over economy for warfare, instead of PEOPLE controlling the economy and decision making for their own well being.
The people controlling the economy is not required for socialism and the stepping stone socialism envisioned by Marx explicitly rejects it.
it is moronically ignorant to propose that either of these outfits were socialist, just because there was the word 'socialist' in their name.
No, they're socialist because they meet the definition of the term or at least attempted to. Just because you associate fluffy fuzzy wuzzy views with that term doesn't discredit reality where socialism merely defined one aspect of a society. The rest of that society need not be pleasant nor does it's uses of socialism need to be pleasant.
see, united states of america claims democracy, freedom, yet, we daily discuss on violations of these as a common practice, which the government and corporations dont even bother to deny anymore, but instead justify. so, does that make what is taking place 'democratic' ?
Everything is an imperfect monster that we choose because it's superior to another imperfect monster. That said the US is a representative democracy in most senses of the word So where do you claim it fails and what freedoms necessary for a democracy does it not have?
really. im tired up fixing the propaganda/conditioning american right has put in a lot of you people.
You're the one who seems to be filled with propaganda, unlike you I have no illusions of magical Utopian societies that we somehow always fail to build. We're all a bunch of flawed pathetic bastards who often forget that in the end we're just a bunch of monkeys with slightly better brains.
Nazis did not subscribe to the fascist views but instead supported a socialist system. Not communism, mind you, which they venomously hated. Hitler himself has stated this as being "socialism" and viewed capitalism as a great evil. They did believe in "private property" however in the end the government owned everything. I don't believe they had time to really implement their views but they did have major control over industries during the war. Attempting to replace nation wide capitalism in 5 years is how you cause massive famines (or industrial collapse as the case may be).
Fascism was, btw, also not a capitalistic system but did not go all the way to "socialism." The goal was to have capitalism but keep it under the control and management of the government so it'd work toward the state's goals (ideological and economic). They were both anti-communism and anti-capitalism. Personally I can't make much sense of what this really meant since it seems an ideological cluster fuck to me.
If something wanted to kill life in the galaxy we'd already be dead. It's not that hard really. Von Neumann probe with a decent AI or uploaded alien. With nothing more than light sails you can probably have one around every every single star in the galaxy in under a million years. If it detects something it doesn't like than it dumps a relativistic rock at it. Or maybe it constructs a rocket inside a gas giant and make the local sun go nova just to be sure. Or just covers the planet with fusion powered gray goo till waste heats turns the whole surface into slag.
No, the truly frightening thing is that we're still here. A Von Neumann sterilizer is easy to make, you'd figure some species or faction of a species in this galaxy would have made one in the billions of years the Earth has existed for. I can easily imagine a nut job human launching one covertly in the next few centuries. Maybe just to see if it's possible. Yet we're still and so maybe something has allowed that to happen by stopping any such galactic menaces.
So I don't think it matters what we do. There's likely something lurking and watching us already which no species before us has managed to overcome.
The one that doesn't require me to work 80 hours a week under insane stress levels. Money per hour factoring in living expenses is a much better metric to use.
The real problem is that the question you're asking when choosing jobs is the wrong one. Personally I'd aim for the job that is most likely to make me happy. In case you're wondering studies have noted that money does not correlate with happiness (assuming one's above the poverty line). Work satisfaction on the other hand is heavily correlated. So is health, relationship satisfaction/love and social life satisfaction. In other words all things that an intense high stress high hour job makes very difficult to keep up.