The problem with the social security system is that there is NO fair way to stop it. Once set in motion, it has to continue to churn forever or else someone gets screwed by it. The current generation of old people drawing social security checks have already paid their dues into the system. In order for them to get what what they rightly say the government owes them, money has to come out of MY income to do it, and later on in order for me to get what's owed me, money will have to come out of the next generation's income to do it. So there just is no way to STOP the system without giving a big "Ha Ha! sucks to be you!" to whatever generation happens to be drawing on it at the time you turn the system off.
But you were lying, not about the plans being from Bush, but about what your opinions were. You pretended to hold opinions you didn't, and did so to attempt to incite flames. You succeeded. Sounds like they banned you for exactly the right reason - pretending to hold opinions you dont, with the intent of causing flames. That's what trolling is all about.
Truth is not consensus. The premise that we can't tell what's real does NOT lead to the conclusion that whatever consensus says is the truth. "We don't know what's true" is, in fact, the exact opposite of "What consensus says is the truth, is." They are mutually exclusive claims.
Make up your mind.
if we have established that we cannot possibly know things about the actual universe, it is pointless to believe in it. Since there is no real evidence for it.
Then why are you wasting your time talking to a figment of your own imagination?
This "government can't compete with business" rule leads to a lot of really stupid things - like the fact that you can't file taxes electronicly without using a commercial service to do it - simply because the government isn't allowed to put tax companies like H&R Block out of business (when they exist solely BECAUSE of the government's serpentine tax system in the first place, that's a rather dumb rule with the opposite of the intended effect.)
And whenever the people pushing for a "get the government out of the business" ruling are the COMPANIES that engage in that business, rather than the CUSTOMERS of those companies, that's a sign that something sinister is happeing.
This imaginary world you live in sounds like a nice place where the private infrastructure is cheaper and doing the job well. But here on planet Earth, there are places where the companies are doing a poor enough job that individual communities are turning to civil projects to replace them. They wouldn't resort to that if the private infrastructure was working as well as you think. And the people telling them they have to stop are the companies that were failing to provide good enough service in the first palce.
Yeah, people should be allowed to ban black people from their own property on which they run a restaurant! Or refuse to hire women to work in their company! Damn those corrupt fascists, socialists, and communists for making rules about what businesses are required to do to remain open!
Smoking forces everyone else in the vacinity to participate with you or leave the area. It's not like Alchohol. I can sit next to a drinker and not get drunk.
The environmental impact of entire cities full of people with a sudden loss of infrastructure is far worse than the ongoing day-to-day problems that prevent that from happening.
If you want the US to go back to a more primitive technology where environmental impact was less, that is entirely possible - but only after about 100 million people die during the transition, because that style of technology cannot support the current population.
And that makes perfect sence given the geography differences. We need cheap physical transport more than South Korea does. If it suddenly became twice as expensive to transport a load of cargo 1000 miles as it is today, our economy would choke.
something to be said for a manufacturer locking out shitty peripherals
But that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. What's going on HERE is that any non-approved peripherals are locked out, without regard to their shittiness. The reasons for non-approval have nothing to do with quality. Any card manufactured in the future, for example, is automatically locked out. (So if your card came out AFTER your laptop did - it won't work.)
(Even non-coding projects like Wikipedia is starting to get brickbats from "established" editors and writers for not being "professional" enough.)
That's an entirely different issue altogether. Wikipedia is trying to present itself as truth when in fact it is merely presenting a gestalt consensus of the users (No, they are not the same thing. Reality is not subject to a democratic vote.)
I think you're viewing the brain's muscle control like dedicated hardware ports in a PC - this parellel port is only for printers, that ps/2 port is only for keyboards, this ps/2 port is only for mice, etc. But that's not how the brain's controls function. It's more like USB - here's some ports. Learn what they're connected to, and then in software decide how to manipulate them.
The brain's control of muscles is mostly learned. There is some pre-configured default settings at "the factory", but they are maleable. If you look at two different individual creatures (of the same type), and the way they control the same appendage, it's really cool how it works. Out toward the extremities the wiring is the same. (For example, every human being has the pinkie and the outer half of the ring finger wired up so they share the same nerve path and "tingle" together when they "fall asleep".) But closer to the brain, you see individual variation. Once inside the brain, it's no longer hardwired. Two individuals may have learned to do the same task with slightly different paths.
In humans this is especially so, since most muscle control is learned after birth through practice. The human brain has less instinctive motor control and more generic user-definable motor control.
So I think you probably COULD train your brain to control a third arm. But it would definately take longer if you did it later in life.
The tricky thing with that question is that the research cannot be known to benefit humans until the decision to harm the monkeys is alredy made. If a technique was KNOWN to work, it wouldn't be necessary to test it on monkeys. The way research works, it tends to fail more often than it succeeds (that's normal), and so there are many cases where the monkey harm had no human benefit. Short-sighted people can look at those individual cases and try to make the argument that in those cases it was wrong. But they ignore the bigger picture, which is the total monkeys harmed compared to the total humans benefitted, globally across all reasearch on the planet. That's the only fair way to do it. If you have to decide in advance whether it will benefit humans before being allowed to do it, then no tests could ever be carried out, because you never really know for sure until the experiment is finished.
Destroying the wine installation by accident in some way that doesn't also destroy a real windows installation is something with a nearly infinitessimally small likelyhood of success.
If the defense against this is that the Blizzard EULA is not binding because it's a EULA, that has...good consequences for the entire software industry.
The industry can't have it both ways. If they want to claim that EULAs are binding, then they have to deal with it when they screw it up on their end. They're the ones claiming this shit is binding, not the customers.
They made the claim in writing that you can resell the used product. They have a system in place that makes the product useless after the first sale. Therefore they comitted fraud. Don't apologise for them.
3.1 and earlier didn't have a TCP/IP stack - you had to add on a third-party program for that, and it really sucked. 3.11 added tcp/ip. That was the biggest difference.
I'm not saying you're lying when you say they deliberately broke OS/2 - that would be consistent with their behavior in the past. I'm just saying you're lying when you say that's the ONLY difference between 3.1 and 3.11.
"Unsupported configuration" merely means "I'm not going out of my way to make it work for this configuration. If it happens to work, it works, if it happens to fail, it fails. Too bad. I'm not going out of my way to do anything about it." But what Microsoft actually does when they misuse the word "unsupported" is to deliberately cripple the configuration, adding EXTRA code to look for that configuration and deliberately fail on it. (As they did in this case) They go out of their way to ensure it fails.
That means "unsupported" is not telling the whole story. It's deliberate deception.
The article compares the window of times of vulnerability between reports of security flaws and available fixes to them. Based on that, Linux should come out WAAY ahead, and yet it didn't... And then I noticed the one importat detail - they were comparing Redhat to Windows, and thus the window of vulnerabilty counts from when the vulnerability is reported to when REDHAT gets the fix packaged up and pushed out through *their* channels, which is signifigantly after the fix is available if you didn't go through redhat to get it.
So, the research is very true - a straight redhat install with no outside packages does have longer windows of vulnerability than a straight Windows install with no outside packages. But the person writing the article told a MAJOR LIE when summarizing it for the article, by attributing the long windows of time to linux in general, when really it's a problem with just redhat.
Slashdot Mirror
But if the government stops the program because it's too costly, it ends up defrauding individuals who already paid into it.
The whole point is that the "until you've caught up" is a condition that cannot ever be met.
You can't catch up to a ponzi scheme.
The problem with the social security system is that there is NO fair way to stop it. Once set in motion, it has to continue to churn forever or else someone gets screwed by it. The current generation of old people drawing social security checks have already paid their dues into the system. In order for them to get what what they rightly say the government owes them, money has to come out of MY income to do it, and later on in order for me to get what's owed me, money will have to come out of the next generation's income to do it. So there just is no way to STOP the system without giving a big "Ha Ha! sucks to be you!" to whatever generation happens to be drawing on it at the time you turn the system off.
But you were lying, not about the plans being from Bush, but about what your opinions were. You pretended to hold opinions you didn't, and did so to attempt to incite flames. You succeeded. Sounds like they banned you for exactly the right reason - pretending to hold opinions you dont, with the intent of causing flames. That's what trolling is all about.
Truth is not consensus. The premise that we can't tell what's real does NOT lead to the conclusion that whatever consensus says is the truth. "We don't know what's true" is, in fact, the exact opposite of "What consensus says is the truth, is." They are mutually exclusive claims.
Make up your mind.
if we have established that we cannot possibly know things about the actual universe, it is pointless to believe in it. Since there is no real evidence for it.
Then why are you wasting your time talking to a figment of your own imagination?
Ah, so long as I've shown your bigoted colors for what they are. my work here is done.
So what does the OAS, the Organization of American States, mean? Hint: it's not the 50 states of the USA.
"American" is a word with two entirely different definitions, both used.
This "government can't compete with business" rule leads to a lot of really stupid things - like the fact that you can't file taxes electronicly without using a commercial service to do it - simply because the government isn't allowed to put tax companies like H&R Block out of business (when they exist solely BECAUSE of the government's serpentine tax system in the first place, that's a rather dumb rule with the opposite of the intended effect.)
And whenever the people pushing for a "get the government out of the business" ruling are the COMPANIES that engage in that business, rather than the CUSTOMERS of those companies, that's a sign that something sinister is happeing.
This imaginary world you live in sounds like a nice place where the private infrastructure is cheaper and doing the job well. But here on planet Earth, there are places where the companies are doing a poor enough job that individual communities are turning to civil projects to replace them. They wouldn't resort to that if the private infrastructure was working as well as you think. And the people telling them they have to stop are the companies that were failing to provide good enough service in the first palce.
Yeah, people should be allowed to ban black people from their own property on which they run a restaurant! Or refuse to hire women to work in their company! Damn those corrupt fascists, socialists, and communists for making rules about what businesses are required to do to remain open!
Smoking forces everyone else in the vacinity to participate with you or leave the area. It's not like Alchohol. I can sit next to a drinker and not get drunk.
In Europe the fuel prices are NOT more expensive than what the US pays. It's the TAXES that are more expensive.
And I didn't say doubling of fuel prices. I said doubling of transportation costs. Fuel is only one small component of that.
This black-and-white thinking is typical for American people
What black-and-white thinking? Oh, you meant the bullshit strawman claim you put in my mouth. Right. Got it.
The environmental impact of entire cities full of people with a sudden loss of infrastructure is far worse than the ongoing day-to-day problems that prevent that from happening.
If you want the US to go back to a more primitive technology where environmental impact was less, that is entirely possible - but only after about 100 million people die during the transition, because that style of technology cannot support the current population.
How can you tell the difference between consensus and truth?
Test against the real world.
There are many people out there who call our world "consensual reality."
And those people are wrong. The universe actually exists, and it is not subjective.
And that makes perfect sence given the geography differences. We need cheap physical transport more than South Korea does. If it suddenly became twice as expensive to transport a load of cargo 1000 miles as it is today, our economy would choke.
something to be said for a manufacturer locking out shitty peripherals
But that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. What's going on HERE is that any non-approved peripherals are locked out, without regard to their shittiness. The reasons for non-approval have nothing to do with quality. Any card manufactured in the future, for example, is automatically locked out. (So if your card came out AFTER your laptop did - it won't work.)
(Even non-coding projects like Wikipedia is starting to get brickbats from "established" editors and writers for not being "professional" enough.)
That's an entirely different issue altogether. Wikipedia is trying to present itself as truth when in fact it is merely presenting a gestalt consensus of the users (No, they are not the same thing. Reality is not subject to a democratic vote.)
Well, that's the reason you may have been TOLD by your company, but ....do you believe them?
I think you're viewing the brain's muscle control like dedicated hardware ports in a PC - this parellel port is only for printers, that ps/2 port is only for keyboards, this ps/2 port is only for mice, etc. But that's not how the brain's controls function. It's more like USB - here's some ports. Learn what they're connected to, and then in software decide how to manipulate them.
The brain's control of muscles is mostly learned. There is some pre-configured default settings at "the factory", but they are maleable. If you look at two different individual creatures (of the same type), and the way they control the same appendage, it's really cool how it works. Out toward the extremities the wiring is the same. (For example, every human being has the pinkie and the outer half of the ring finger wired up so they share the same nerve path and "tingle" together when they "fall asleep".) But closer to the brain, you see individual variation. Once inside the brain, it's no longer hardwired. Two individuals may have learned to do the same task with slightly different paths.
In humans this is especially so, since most muscle control is learned after birth through practice. The human brain has less instinctive motor control and more generic user-definable motor control.
So I think you probably COULD train your brain to control a third arm. But it would definately take longer if you did it later in life.
The tricky thing with that question is that the research cannot be known to benefit humans until the decision to harm the monkeys is alredy made. If a technique was KNOWN to work, it wouldn't be necessary to test it on monkeys. The way research works, it tends to fail more often than it succeeds (that's normal), and so there are many cases where the monkey harm had no human benefit. Short-sighted people can look at those individual cases and try to make the argument that in those cases it was wrong. But they ignore the bigger picture, which is the total monkeys harmed compared to the total humans benefitted, globally across all reasearch on the planet. That's the only fair way to do it. If you have to decide in advance whether it will benefit humans before being allowed to do it, then no tests could ever be carried out, because you never really know for sure until the experiment is finished.
The UELA's are never binding
Damn - that was supposed to say "Then EULA's are never...", not "The EULAs are never..." One typo totally changed the meaning.
The version I installed definately had tcp/ip - but it wasn't the first release of it. It might have been an updated service pack version.
Destroying the wine installation by accident in some way that doesn't also destroy a real windows installation is something with a nearly infinitessimally small likelyhood of success.
The UELA's are never binding.
If the defense against this is that the Blizzard EULA is not binding because it's a EULA, that has...good consequences for the entire software industry.
The industry can't have it both ways. If they want to claim that EULAs are binding, then they have to deal with it when they screw it up on their end. They're the ones claiming this shit is binding, not the customers.
They made the claim in writing that you can resell the used product.
They have a system in place that makes the product useless after the first sale.
Therefore they comitted fraud.
Don't apologise for them.
3.1 and earlier didn't have a TCP/IP stack - you had to add on a third-party program for that, and it really sucked. 3.11 added tcp/ip.
That was the biggest difference.
I'm not saying you're lying when you say they deliberately broke OS/2 - that would be consistent with their behavior in the past. I'm just saying you're lying when you say that's the ONLY difference between 3.1 and 3.11.
"Unsupported configuration" merely means "I'm not going out of my way to make it work for this configuration. If it happens to work, it works, if it happens to fail, it fails. Too bad. I'm not going out of my way to do anything about it." But what Microsoft actually does when they misuse the word "unsupported" is to deliberately cripple the configuration, adding EXTRA code to look for that configuration and deliberately fail on it. (As they did in this case) They go out of their way to ensure it fails.
That means "unsupported" is not telling the whole story. It's deliberate deception.
The article compares the window of times of vulnerability between reports of security flaws and available fixes to them. Based on that, Linux should come out WAAY ahead, and yet it didn't... And then I noticed the one importat detail - they were comparing Redhat to Windows, and thus the window of vulnerabilty counts from when the vulnerability is reported to when REDHAT gets the fix packaged up and pushed out through *their* channels, which is signifigantly after the fix is available if you didn't go through redhat to get it.
So, the research is very true - a straight redhat install with no outside packages does have longer windows of vulnerability than a straight Windows install with no outside packages. But the person writing the article told a MAJOR LIE when summarizing it for the article, by attributing the long windows of time to linux in general, when really it's a problem with just redhat.