[My wife's voice] Is the only sound that is more harsh than fingernails on a chalkboard.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sexism...
Too bad I posted so I cannot mod you down. C'est la vie. I'd rather try to reason with you anyway.
I guess we're all just a bunch of nasty, brutish men who hate women and want to keep them down. When in doubt, and there is no evidence at all either for or against any sort of bigotry, simply interpret everything this way. Right? Seriously, if that's your perception, it would make you the sexist.
How is the AC's comment sexist?
It appears that AC is married to someone with a harsh voice. The AC didn't claim that all women, or even all wives, have harsh voices. AC just claimed one person who AC likely spends a lot of time with has a harsh voice.
Although AC could have said "$WIFE_NAME's voice is the only sound more harsh...", that would not have conveyed that AC likely spent a lot of time with that person. For example, if AC had said "Jane's voice is the only sound more harsh...", for all we know 'Jane' could be a checker at the local Walmart and since, presumably, AC doesn't spend that much time with a particular checker at Walmart, the message would have reduced significance.
AC could have used the word spouse instead, but that's rather unnatural and unusual as most people refer to their 'wife' or 'husband' rather than their 'spouse' in normal conversation.
Not all observations or criticisms aimed at anyone but a straight white middle aged able-bodied mail is "racist" or "sexist" or "$GROUPphobic".
Hmm. This one isn't irrationally hypersensitive and doesn't make unfounded accusations against the character of others.
Clearly this one needs to be re-educated. You must cater to everyone's overly-emotional sensitivities no matter how irrational, psychotic, and baseless. If a bigot cannot be found, you must create one, Comrade!
No, it's just how context flows. If I ask about something, I expect a reply about that. It is because I want to know about what I asked. Period.
You asked about something without understanding that it was irrelevant. You received a reply about it explaining that it is irrelevant. You were, in fact, given knowledge pertaining to what you asked. You may not like that. You may have wanted to be humored concerning an irrelevancy. It doesn't change the reality.
Spelling out punctuation is cute and all and may fill you with a sense of conviction but at this point you're just being stubborn.
Think about why you would need a warning label. Oh yeah, because you want to put something into your body that you haven't taken the time to first research and learn about.
Seriously, what the hell.
When the doctor prescribes an antibiotic for my infant son, I remind him that he's also taking Prilosec for reflux and doesn't tolerate milk/soy, and ask if it's still the right thing to prescribe. When I pick up the prescription, I double check this with the pharmacist, and ask him whether I should give the medicines together or at different times, etc. When I get home, I read the labels and papers to see what I need to do for storing the medicine, what the right dosage is, etc.
You want to make this harder... so that "stupid" people will accidentally kill themselves and their children?
I'm good at math and programming. Do I deserve to die because I don't know foobarzacil + bazidrol = heart attack? For anyone who isn't a doctor/pharmacist/expert who has been trained about all of this stuff, having these discussions with experts and reading the labels is doing the research.
Man, this pattern is getting old. You make a reasonable point and then someone has to get all hyper-emotional and go off the deep end with it.
I'll just sigh and explain it this way: the moment you are hiring a doctor, you are supplying the expertise. You may not have the expertise yourself, but you are coming up with it all the same by hiring someone who does. Just like I don't know how to rebuild an engine. If mine needed to be rebuilt, I would hire a mechanic. That's because prescription drug interactions and engine rebuilds are non-trivial and require specialized knowledge.
I swear somebody has to do this in every conversation. Since what I said wouldn't be reasonable when talking about things that require specialized knowledge... that must not have been what I was talking about. Do you see how simple that is? Did you notice that others in this thread did understand me? You are capable of discerning that on your own. I know it's more fun to assume I'm a dumbass who didn't notice this "glaring omission" in my statements and you, being so clever, saw it instantly. But I'm not going to review every last possible interpretation of what I said and disclaim the ones you might happen to get hyperemotional about just to prevent you from assuming that. If you want that sort of help with your inability to remain reasonable and to recognize when you are dealing with someone who is reasonable, you're going to have to find it yourself.
Anyway, NONE of that has anything to do with warning labels, like the ones on bug spray telling you not to drink it. Wow, really? You mean something so poisonous it makes cockroaches drop dead on contact might be dangerous for me to ingest? I say we don't need to protect these people from themselves.
Of course it's not "fair". The word has a 100% subjective meaning. The current system isn't fair; no tax system is fair. So yeah, "fair tax" isn't fair either.
It has an objective meaning, i.e. one you can observe, measure, and verify. The objective meaning of "fair" is "treat all participants by the same standard". The Fair Tax does this. So does a flat (income) tax with no credits for anyone. Progressive and regressive tax systems fail this definition because there are multiple standards called tax brackets.
All income taxes fail this standard the moment there are tax credits for which some are eligible and others are not. The purpose of tax credits is to discriminate in some way, with all the carrot-and-stick tactics this allows. Otherwise you would simply adjust the tax rate. So those aren't fair either.
Sales taxes don't lend themselves to doing things this way. It's hard to assess special credits when you never file a return. Special rewards for particular behaviors would be within the realm of grants, not part of the tax code. Wouldn't that make more sense?
The problem with the word "fair" is that a bunch of immature whiners have associated the word with themselves. It's often used as an emotional appeal by those who cannot articulate a real argument. Most of them can't really tell the difference anyway between reason and emotion. They believe that if they really feel very strongly with all their heart about something then it just has to be true. They won't consider evidence against it. You're usually engaging in "hate" of some kind of you don't validate all of this.
Anyway, they have no clue what objectivity is and the way they use words reflects it. And they tend to be vocal. So, to use that word it in a serious, well-researched proposal like the Fair Tax is a refusal to let it be completely co-opted by these idiots.
It reminds me of the quote from Timothy Leary about LSD. He said it is a psychedelic drug that occasionally causes psychotic behavior in those who have never used it.
Besides which, so long as tobacco is legal and freely available, any claim that the addictive potential of a substance should have any bearing on its legal status is pure hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is also invalid, thus the question retains the status of irrelevancy.
Your other option is to continue accepting institutionalized insanity. And make no mistake, hypocrisy is a form of insanity. If it were otherwise, it would be self-correcting and we'd have something less obvious to debate than whether marijuana prohibition is justifiable.
Well, it's about that when I'm asking precisely about that because it was what the parent of my comment asked about.
You miss the scope of his point due to some kind of tunnelvision. The entire line of inquiry is irrelevant in the face of a larger issue concerning freedom and self-determination for adult people in a supposedly free nation.
It's irrelevant if it was you who was asking. It's irrelevant if it was me who was asking. It's irrelevant if it's the parent comment of your comment which was asking. It's irrelevant if aliens from Neptune arrive, land a UFO on your front lawn, and then ask the same question. It's irrelevant.
Why are you pretending that the person who asked or the order in which they commented has any bearing on it? Is that how you avoid looking at the way we love to talk a big game about how much we just love freedom, but then decide it's too scary and risky anytime there is a chance to put it into practice?
No. Leave the warning labels on. The stupid ones already ignore them and there are some people ignorant of the effects who *would* heed the labels.
If you're going to let the stupid remove themselves, you need to ensure those left aren't culpable.
Think about why you would need a warning label. Oh yeah, because you want to put something into your body that you haven't taken the time to first research and learn about. You think that's the mark of good decision-making?
No warning labels. It's not like information on the standard street drugs is difficult to find. If you can't be bothered, then you take a risk. I'm fine with that. Looking before you leap when it's so easy to do it is a cardinal sign of intelligence.
The only legitimate concern over labels is that the package really does contain what the label says it contains. Otherwise, let it work itself out.
So... choosing not to participate in something, without trying to stop anyone who wants to from participating in it... and wanting basic property rights to be respected in the form of being left alone by vandals, trespassers, and other criminals... that makes someone a jerk?
What a freedom-loving people we have become.
You have the freedom to be anti-social, your neighbours have the freedom to consider you anti-social.
There's no such thing as abstract total freedom except in your own head, as external actions have consequences.
This isn't the same kind of consequence as when you flip a light switch and the light comes on, or slam your own head into a brick wall and feel pain. Those are repeatable by experiment. They involve rudimentary cause and effect.
There's a difference when there is a choice of outcome. I could see that you don't celebrate Halloween and think you're just a big asshole who thinks you're better than the rest of us. Or I could see that you don't celebrate Halloween and enjoy those who do while respecting your choice, understanding that you had one as much as I did.
The difference is determined by what sort of person you are. You either respect the freedom of others even when they choose things for themselves that you would never choose for yourself... or deep down in your heart you think you can run their lives better than they would and feel justified in your judgment of them. I know where I stand. I love freedom. I love it so much, I will put up with all kinds of situations where I don't have a lot of people who agree with me and consider it a small price to pay, a bargain at any price. To hate them for not thinking as I do, and as a cause and effect consequence of hatred feeling a need to attach to them a label like "anti-social" when I have never genuinely seen them tested on any matter less frivolous than whether they celebrate Halloween doesn't even enter into it.
How about if things like "anti-social" are judged on the basis of something that matters? The next time you don't know where your next meal is going to come from, does he have compassion and cook for you a meal? The next time you face a huge expense but he has the skill to fix the problem without it, does he come to your aid? The next time you feel broken-hearted and need an understanding ear, does he shun you? To fucking judge this on whether you feel like conforming to a holiday... well, I think I have made my point.
Out of my area on this one. I probably am one of the converted masses, but at the same time I'm a very happy drone. Good job, no money problems, decent looking future. Really what is the alternative. It's pretty damn hard to abstain from the system.. and I don't think it's going to bring any more happiness (unless you are extremely annoyed by being a drone, in which case the happiness of not being one maybe.. ).
This is the most significant part of it, I believe.
The real question is one that only you can answer for yourself. Are you merely a clone of your environment? Or are you able to question what you were taught to believe, including the most sacred beliefs of your parents, community, school, etc, and really objectively look them and reject the ones that make no sense?
If you cannot, you are likely to be offended when you see someone else question those or find fault with them because mindlessness is a weakness, a sore spot that is very easily provoked by even reasonable inquiry. Trying to ridicule or put down or shut up the messenger starts looking attractive, though this is all automatic and not something you think through.
If you can, you have a certain security about who you are and what you believe that is not possible otherwise. You neither insist that others do as you do, nor are you surprised if what you do isn't right for them. You become well able to separate objective fact from subjective experience, and tend only to argue about the former in a way that is not irritable or easily offended.
As far as any question about human nature goes... I don't share this "fallen nature" theme that has been spoonfed to us from day one. I'm with folks like Terence McKenna. We are fantastic divine beings of light and love and reason who have not even remotely begun to explore our possibilities. The moment we start to see each other that way is the moment we can truly love our neighbor and stop looking for ways to control and exploit him. Where it goes from there is quite likely beyond our ability to imagine, as we have been so thoroughly conditioned to think in terms of political systems. It is more like what we had before and will have again.
Until then, we wallow in ignorance. Ignorance like this is manifest most undeniably as alienation. It's a big game of domination and by playing it, we deny humanity in ourselves and each other and make exploitable objects of each other. The game has gone on long enough that the psychic burden it imposes is building. A person who does not receive some kind of psychotherapy and/or take some kind of psychiatric medication is increasingly rare. That's because you have conflict with your own very beautiful nature when you accept such a dark and cynical method of life as some kind of fundamental inevitability.
Or they do understand it, and disagree with you. The old "if people wern't idiots and would only think about this stuff everyone would agree with me" argument is often applied to just about everything and is in most cases wrong. A large portion of people participating in Christmas are intelligent people, many of whome understand the modern reality of the holiday, yet participate anyway... because it's fun.
I was talking specifically about the deeply religious Christians who claim that a book is the unerring Word of God yet contradict some of its more basic premises in the name of that God. The business forces merely saw the weakness of mind this represents as an opportunity to capitalize and so they latched onto it and allied themselves in a secular way with this religious holiday. These are not people who are looking for fun or who have our best interests at heart.
You also have to understand that lots of intelligent people are also shallow, petty, childish, and would rather use their intelligence to advance themselves in a kind of perceived social pecking order rather than reason abstractly and think critically and achieve sanity. Knowledge does not imply understanding, nor does the ability to manipulate data imply an ability to perform introspection.
Having said that... you have to consider whether you believe consumerism and group-think is really giving us a world that is becoming more sane and more prosperous and more pleasant to live in. I would submit that it has done very much the opposite and is not even sustainable. The biggest reason for this is that a certain mindlessness goes along with being so willing and ready to respond to advertising/propaganda and to follow a crowd.
It's most clearly seen in those who don't really have the money and go into debt (usually with credit cards) just to participate. They are definitely being self-sacrificial, but for what? What do their kids need more: the latest Madden video game or quality time with their dad? Even when it is someone who is wealthy or at least quite comfortable, who does not struggle with money, you just can't escape one thing: it is not something they would come up with and do on their own. It is socially programmed from exterior economic and political forces. It is a kind of mindlessness. It is a bandwagon appeal. It is not sold on its merits to thinking individuals.
The really strange thing about hypnosis, propaganda, and other forms of manipulation is quite shocking when you really consider it: those who are swayed by it will defend the implanted suggestion as if it were their own original idea. They will defend and sometimes even fight passionately for it. It's not coercion, it's conversion. Just like politicians, businessmen long ago learned that this is an easier and more effective way to get the results you want than overt force.
So... choosing not to participate in something, without trying to stop anyone who wants to from participating in it... that makes someone a jerk?
Like it our not, one's membership in a community is based on little things such as participation in local traditions. If you live among a group of people but ignore something important to them, then it is completely understandable that they will hold it against you.
What a freedom-loving people we have become.
This isn't a matter of freedom. No one is proposing locking you up because you don't hand out candy. We are speaking of the opinions that others may form.
Listen carefully to what you are proposing.
Assume I participate in a tradition. Maybe you have a religious reason not to do so. Maybe you don't have the time. Maybe you simply don't like it. What you are saying is that I have the right to impose my will on you and try to coerce you, by using as leverage your good name in the community. That isn't merely an opinion, like when I say in my opinion Linux suits my needs better than Windows. It's pressure designed to get you to do something you clearly don't wish to do. It's manipulation. It's "do this thing even though you owe nothing and no one would be harmed if you didn't, or else I'll tarnish your name in the community". Your approval of it is monstrous. When you stop being a doormat for hollow people to live through because it's the only sort of pathetic life they have, you'll see that for yourself.
Most human interaction works this way. When people ask you for something, what they really mean is "or else I'll show you how nasty I can be." It's a real tragedy and it's the building block of why everything is so fucked up. Scale this up to something the size of a nation and you end up with fascism. You just give it your seal of approval when it's scaled down to the personal level. As above, so below.
You know what the alternative would be? Respecting your decision to not participate in something you don't like or disagree with. Then appreciating and welcoming those who do choose to participate, knowing that their decision to do so was free, genuine, and actually voluntary. And then actually enjoying and honoring each other's company. You know, a little something called loving your neighbor, perhaps you have heard of it? If you "ignore something important to them" but don't disparage them for doing it, it's "perfectly understandable" that they accept and respect that not everyone likes everything they like. I can't fathom having this be so hard to explain to someone.
I'll never understand two things: why people insist on being where they are not wanted, and why people insisting on including others who don't want to be there. I say "never understand" figuratively, of course, to indicate that it is not sane. It is always a veil for control. Otherwise, I understand it all too well.
That is the way your neighbors see you. Is it *really* that bad to hand out a few bits of candy? Oh I know you can make up your own injustices in the world and solve them from the comfort of your basement.
Want people to stop coming to your house? Its easy give out popcorn balls for 10 years straight. *NO* one will show up.
So... choosing not to participate in something, without trying to stop anyone who wants to from participating in it... and wanting basic property rights to be respected in the form of being left alone by vandals, trespassers, and other criminals... that makes someone a jerk?
I'm occupying my halloween, and not spending money on corporate nonsense.
The one they would really notice is Christmas.
Yeah, maybe getting up at 5am to get stuck in traffic and elbow your way past crowds to spend a lot of money on mostly frivolous tokens of participation that you don't really need appeals to some of you...but the way I see it, Black Friday and the mindless hysteria surrounding it is someone else's plan for my life. It isn't mine. As a self-aware thinking being I can tell the fucking difference and I'm sorry if the majority just go along because they can't. Those who make the profits by exploiting this hysteria are self-serving egotists; those who enable them by participating are insane. It deserves to fail.
What really amuses me is those Christians who like to display how pious they are. You know, the ones who insist you stop and pray before each meal, who frequently say "God bless you", etc. The ones who don't view their spiritual life as a personal decision and want it to operate in group-mode as much as possible. That's how they feel secure and that's how they justify telling other adults how they should live their lives.
When they participate in the corporate-sponsored mass materialism hysteria called "Chrismas" in the name of Jesus Christ, they don't seem aware of what that word "idolatry" means. I guess they thought it ended at that Golden Calf fiasco back in the Old Testament. They also seem to miss that part about taking their Lord's name in vain. Or maybe, being so narrow-minded and having such tunnel-vision, they think that means "don't say 'god dammit'" and can't find anything wrong with all the wars and the consumerism and the idiocy perpetrated in the name of "God". That's without getting into Saturnalia and why Chrismas is celebrated in late December (a month Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in), who Ishtar was, etc.
Idiots will accept nearly anything if you present it as "just the way things are". It's like the root password to their psyche. They just haven't the fortitude to look past that and question its foundation. Otherwise they'd understand what horseshit it really is and they'd reject the programming.
In the summary: "IE 10 cannot be uninstalled and is required to enable the new 'Metro'-style apps."
His reply: "And Linux does too, With Firefox"
How did he not say anything about any browser being required by the OS? It's right there!
I hope these two are drunk or otherwise suffering (enjoying?) some temporary impairment of their higher cognitive functions. I would rather believe that than believe that the school systems have so deeply failed them or that they are truly so dense.
To make an error is one thing... to still not see it after it's been pointed out is the part that blows my mind.
I read it just fine. He said most any modern OS should have a browser out of the box, and the next guy flipped out. The topic of MS making IE mandatory for use of metro is tangential.
And deep breaths man, nobody kicked your dog.
You don't seem to comprehend what you read. The guy was rude but he didn't "flip out". He explained why IE is not like Firefox. The topic of IE's "mandatory" status isn't tangential; it's the very point being made. Keep clicking "Parent" and see for yourself. If you were better able to follow a conversation you'd have realized that.
The part you don't seem to understand can be explained. The significance is that a blanket statement that is so general as to be irrelevant, like saying "a modern OS should have a browser", is useless for purposes of comparison (this subthread began because of a comparison if you recall). That's precisely because it is true regardless of which browser you're talking about. You might as well point out that the computer uses electricity or that it contains transistors. While true, it doesn't tell you anything about the browsers themselves or the problems with IE's particular arrangement.
Namely, the mentioned OS that comes with Firefox (Linux) does not require a browser or even a rendering engine and certanly doesn't consider either to be an essential non-installable component. It's right here in the comment you replied to but clearly didn't comprehend. At no point did he argue, imply, or even mention that a modern OS should *not* include some kind of browser or that modern distros don't. Yet you responded as though he had.
You're shocked that someone called you on it? Welcome to the Internet, man. I'll tell you what. If you want to shock me, or something close to that anyway... accept a goddamned correction now that it's been explained to you two different ways. You could also realize that there is a connection between refusing (deliberately or by default) to obtain a clue about what is going on and receiving impatient, rude responses that are nonetheless accurate.
At no point did I suggest they be demonized. To me, "Big Pharma" means they're "big" and they're into "pharmaceuticals". If others wish to read a meaning into that, let them. I will neither do that myself, nor assume without basis that the mere conjunction of these two words indicates some kind of ideology.
What I did say is that they have business interests that may at times conflict with the more humanitarian goals of relieving suffering by curing and treating as many diseases as possible. This is so obvious and recognizable and is found in so many other industries that to fail to understand its significance, or worse to be in denial by crying "demonizer" to anyone who works with this reality, is foolishness.
Every person I've ever spoken to who uses that term has ended up basing very little of their argument on real facts and research. (no hyperbole here)
And thus you climb up on your high horse and you feel justified when you pigeonhole everyone who uses a term without knowing what they really think. That kind of group identification by pigeonholing is how a narrow mind remains that way. I mean really, look at the defensive tone of your entire post there. If the term "big pharma" is so terribly offensive to you, make that statement by not using it yourself and trusting in your "superior understanding" to enlighten others like a secure person who is confident in what they believe.
You can write off everyone who uses diction you happen not to like if you think that will enhance your understanding or enrich your life, or otherwise serve any constructive purpose whatsoever, but I see it for what it is: an excuse to justify the putting down and belittling of others that you felt a need to do long before a story was posted about pharmaceutical companies. I know that petty little game. It is not good enough that you have a useful contribution to make; someone else must also be wrong. How much joy is that bringing to you?
Would you prefer pharmaceutical companies (you realize the phrase 'Big Pharma' instantly saps your credibility) spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develope and commercialize non-profitable drugs so they all go out of busines and no pharmaceuticals are available at all?
or
They can spend the money only on what is profitable because our nation of "I'm right, not my doctor" self-diagnosing idiots, and "If you don't fix me even though Im not telling you all my symptoms, or I'll sue the pants off you" assholes make it necessary for FDA approval to cost so much that treatments that only "sort of work", have severe possible side effects, or aren't patentable never get released because really: who is going to take a $200million/8 year loss simply for the good of mankind? If you want that to happen, better start pumping WAY more funding into government funded research.
So let us review. Recognizing that very large multibillion dollar industries generally have their own agendas which may not always serve the interests of those who are not members of said industries, and using a simple, succinct, well-understood term like "Big Pharma" to describe this situation destroys one's own credibility. But, suggesting that everyone suffering from a disease who seeks to remedy or treat that disease is a self-righteous idiot who works to sabotage the FDA's approval process does not damage one's credibility?
You sound like the people who take a matter of taste, such as whether to write "MS" or "M$", and fixate on that to the total exclusion of any point that is being made. It is as though they feel desparate to say something, especially something that puts down another, but having nothing substantive to say, they obsess with some triviality and make a mountain of a molehill in order to feel like they are making some useful point. It's about as useful as saying "hah, you misspelled that word, therefore your logic is invalid and your theory is wrong and the evidence on which it was based is not legitimate". And then congratulating yourself.
By the way, your tie doesn't match that shirt. Therefore, you're wrong.
whitelisting is a horrible workaround, and is taking steps to avoid recipients needing to whitelist (which we will not do).
Until a "cloud" manager or a big customer forces you to. Email is fucking broken, face it. And white listing is a valid way to help ensure two partner companies can communicate reliably. If you were one of our suppliers, we fucking require that you white list us because we don't want to fuck with your stupid spam filters and whatever email server monkey bullshit you have going on that day. Technology is a tool for businesses to use to make money, not to be used for personal power trips.
If you were my employee and you told me "we don't do that," you wouldn't last long.
That's strange... it's almost as though different organizations have different goals and different policies.
Here here. (does that qualify this as a "me too" post?)
Over the last few years I feel as if more and more "Violence is the answer" posts around the internet are popping up. Some may argue that freedom is only won with the blood of patriots, but I deeply hope that our republic is not so far gone that this is the only option left (and one that is, honestly, not likely to happen in any case). So, while I also do not condone illegal activity, I can say that I hope transparency and fairness can be reintroduced peacefully, that the sordid and the powerful can be humbled by whatever means is best for the most people.
Also, something about Tarkin, and a grasp, and slipping through fingers?
The following should be construed as my opinion. In this psychotic legal environment, I will add that it is to be interpreted as a hypothetical scenario. With that out of the way...
I'll be straight with you. For those who really run the show, I think violence is exactly what they are trying to provoke. They have been and are gearing up for it in many different ways. Power-hungry fevered egos would love nothing more than an excuse to clamp down and enforce perpetual martial law. I believe this is why they don't even try to hide their asshattery anymore. They want it in your face. They want you to react to it in a predictable way. They are saying "oh yeah, you don't like that, well wtf are you going to do about it?" Don't fall for that. You'd be a fool to let them provoke you. Anyone who does that is going to lose badly to a very well-prepared adversary. Don't do it.
I'll tell you what they don't want. The very last thing they want is peaceful, non-violent resistance like what Ghandi and Thoreau advocated. It doesn't give them anything to work with. They would have to drop all pretense of justification if they went heavy-handed against something like that, which would cost them the support of much of the military and police who would execute it. Those two forces are on their side if the real patriots can easily be portrayed as terrorists or rebels or whatever the evil of the day is. If they don't fall for that because they love peace, that's when the soldiers and cops stop being such myrmidons and start questioning their orders and who is really served by them.
Something like that also implies non-participation in their way of doing things, such as the monetary system, paying taxes, etc. It would amount to cutting the bottom out of the pyramid. They really do derive their power from the consent of the governed, it's just that the governed no longer understand what that means.
But in either case, violence is the biggest and worst mistake you can make with these "people". That would be playing their game by their rules. You are going to lose if you try it. I don't mind repeating myself: don't do it. Not only would you harm yourself, you also cause a guilt by association against anyone who also understands the problem but has sense enough to look for constructive solutions.
The idea of a secured system designed for the sole purpose of allowing executives and board members of the corporations to communicate in secret is profoundly disturbing on so many levels...
Actually, it makes an enormous amount of sense. Keep in mind that things like IPOs, discussion around delisting, and other decisions that involve both a stock exchange and a public-traded company don't just happen. There's a good bit of communication that has to happen first, and even a rumor about some events can have impact on that company's stock price. So just as it is with company-internal information about financials during a quiet period just before an official announcement, it makes sense for there to be a channel of communications whereby things can be kept quiet until they are deliberately (rather than accidentally) disclosed.
I believe what you have there is a self-fulfilling prophecy or maybe a Catch-22.
If these things were always done publically and transparently with no secrecy, rumors wouldn't cause people to bolt like frightened animals. Any rumor that is heard could be compared to the information that has accumulated thus far and a judgment could be made as to whether it is consistent with decisions that have already taken place. In fact it wouldn't be a rumor; it would be verified and documented or it would be bullshit.
The reason rumors are so powerful is precisely because those processes are such a "black box", so any information that leaks is regarded as some kind of special insider information that must be acted upon before someone else does. A process that is transparent from the beginning would remove this aura of exclusivity and secrecy that drives precisely the knee-jerk reactions you describe.
Not only would transparency bring stability to these markets and the financial decisions that affect them, it would also eliminate the notion of "insider trading". For all publically-traded corporations, why wouldn't this be desirable?
The idea of a secured system designed for the sole purpose of allowing executives and board members of the corporations to communicate in secret is profoundly disturbing on so many levels...
Yes. I'll say up-front that I don't advocate such a criminal activity and anything I say next should be interpreted in that context. I'll add that my reason for this isn't because I'm so sympathetic to the execs who were made to look stupid by this breach, nor do I blindly believe that everything which is legal is good and everything which is illegal is bad, but because I imagine it would be serious prison time if anyone doing it got caught. I'm tempted to say that if caught, they should receive a medal, not prison time.
Having said that... I smiled and felt a certain satisfaction when I read this news. They may have made the legal system and the financial system into their personal playgrounds, and established a revolving door between the two, but this finally is one arena where they are going to get humbled again and again. The hackers who perpetrate such attacks are idealistic and can do a great deal with little or no organization, making them quite difficult to include in the corruption represented by their targets of choice.
By contrast, we long ago gave up any serious notion of our politicians actually representing us and implementing some serious transparency and accountability in either system. I have said before and will reiterate again, you breed lawlessness when you systematically eliminate every legitimate "working through the system" method of effecting change or obtaining justice. Want to go through the court system? Well I hope you have lots of money and years of your life to invest in something you are likely to lose anyway. Want to run for office? I hope you don't cross the political and financial interests who can get you there, who are the gatekeepers much more than the voting booth has ever been. Most people are law-abiding and will stop there. Others, not so much.
The power brokers who will be humiliated and maybe even harmed by this are simply reaping what they have sown. This is one realm where they are not so untouchable. In my opinion, it's healthy for society that they be reminded of that from time to time, and any decent person with principles wants that to happen in this sort of nonviolent manner. If you haven't noticed, people are getting fed up with the status quo and the direction in which it is moving. Something has to change; this is an amicable way for it to happen.
No one sought to teach me to think about thinking either.
I'm simply not one of the passive sheeple who waits for someone else to hand out knowledge and understanding. I am my own person. By trying to understand myself, I understand the world around me. By trying to understand the world around me, I understand myself. Between the two, I discover things about how processes such as learning work and I pay attention as they unfold in front of me.
I know you didn't mean it this way, but the idea that I would be helplessly dependent on a teacher or a professor or a parent to figure this out is nearly insulting.
If others have a conception of themselves that is lower than this, and sell themselves short, that is up to them.
You say you are far from common. In a way, you're right. Just understand that this is not the natural order of things. A great many financial and political interests had to work for their mutual benefits in order to dumb the world down to where you and I are the oddballs. We're the ones on which the training in helplessness didn't take. But the human being as an organism does need to be trained to be that way. It is not how we otherwise would be.
It is a hard thing to be sure, but it falls under "tough love" to say that those who "lack the means to recognize how they might change that" merely haven't become tired enough of the way things are. They still dream of the path of least resistance, and so long as they entertain that notion, they invite and welcome with open arms that horrible "double damnation" you describe.
Self-awareness and a real love of truth and reason is not for the faint of heart. The faint of heart wouldn't remain that way on their own. It has to be inculcated and portrayed as normal.
No need to play word games with what "Darwinism" means, like some lawyer, to force the square peg into a round hole because it means you get your way.
Except that this is exactly what you're doing. Darwinism is about survival of the fittest for the propagation of the species. You are applying your own values on what you want to be selected for (intelligence, strength, focus, whatever). The sad reality is that the people who are breeding the most ARE the ones ensuring the continuation of the species and that fits perfectly with Darwinism, no matter how much you might want to twist it because you don't like the results.
I appreciate what you're saying but... there is a flaw here. The kind of society that will be built by those who are currently breeding the most is not long-term viable. It is not sustainable. It's a trade between having a few unwise individuals die early here and there, versus having lots of them accumulate until there is a large, widespread catastrophe. You can put off the one to have the other, but just like energy it does not just "go away", it changes form.
Look around you. Everywhere there is deficit spending, and I'm not just talking about money here. It is absolutely bound to collapse under its own weight. When that happens, this kind of imprudent person who does not consider long-term viability is not going to thrive anymore. They are living on borrowed time.
Because it is inevitable, and can be foreseen, I consider it an eventuality. I view it as such, not as some kind of "what if?" but simply the result of a long chain of cause and effect. It is so certain that it may as well have already fully unfolded, and I regard it as such like any other eventuality. We will be forced to change our ways in order to continue. It's a matter of time. Notice how everyting is going broke lately, on a regional and global scale? We're approaching the end of the grace period.
No matter how much some may hate it and try so hard to find ways around it, there is no substitute for prudence and good decision-making. Nor should there be.
Slashdot Mirror
[My wife's voice] Is the only sound that is more harsh than fingernails on a chalkboard.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sexism...
Too bad I posted so I cannot mod you down. C'est la vie. I'd rather try to reason with you anyway.
I guess we're all just a bunch of nasty, brutish men who hate women and want to keep them down. When in doubt, and there is no evidence at all either for or against any sort of bigotry, simply interpret everything this way. Right? Seriously, if that's your perception, it would make you the sexist.
Aren't you better than this?
How is the AC's comment sexist? It appears that AC is married to someone with a harsh voice. The AC didn't claim that all women, or even all wives, have harsh voices. AC just claimed one person who AC likely spends a lot of time with has a harsh voice. Although AC could have said "$WIFE_NAME's voice is the only sound more harsh...", that would not have conveyed that AC likely spent a lot of time with that person. For example, if AC had said "Jane's voice is the only sound more harsh...", for all we know 'Jane' could be a checker at the local Walmart and since, presumably, AC doesn't spend that much time with a particular checker at Walmart, the message would have reduced significance. AC could have used the word spouse instead, but that's rather unnatural and unusual as most people refer to their 'wife' or 'husband' rather than their 'spouse' in normal conversation. Not all observations or criticisms aimed at anyone but a straight white middle aged able-bodied mail is "racist" or "sexist" or "$GROUPphobic".
Hmm. This one isn't irrationally hypersensitive and doesn't make unfounded accusations against the character of others.
Clearly this one needs to be re-educated. You must cater to everyone's overly-emotional sensitivities no matter how irrational, psychotic, and baseless. If a bigot cannot be found, you must create one, Comrade!
No, it's just how context flows. If I ask about something, I expect a reply about that. It is because I want to know about what I asked. Period.
You asked about something without understanding that it was irrelevant. You received a reply about it explaining that it is irrelevant. You were, in fact, given knowledge pertaining to what you asked. You may not like that. You may have wanted to be humored concerning an irrelevancy. It doesn't change the reality.
Spelling out punctuation is cute and all and may fill you with a sense of conviction but at this point you're just being stubborn.
Seriously, what the hell.
When the doctor prescribes an antibiotic for my infant son, I remind him that he's also taking Prilosec for reflux and doesn't tolerate milk/soy, and ask if it's still the right thing to prescribe. When I pick up the prescription, I double check this with the pharmacist, and ask him whether I should give the medicines together or at different times, etc. When I get home, I read the labels and papers to see what I need to do for storing the medicine, what the right dosage is, etc.
You want to make this harder... so that "stupid" people will accidentally kill themselves and their children?
I'm good at math and programming. Do I deserve to die because I don't know foobarzacil + bazidrol = heart attack? For anyone who isn't a doctor/pharmacist/expert who has been trained about all of this stuff, having these discussions with experts and reading the labels is doing the research.
Man, this pattern is getting old. You make a reasonable point and then someone has to get all hyper-emotional and go off the deep end with it.
I'll just sigh and explain it this way: the moment you are hiring a doctor, you are supplying the expertise. You may not have the expertise yourself, but you are coming up with it all the same by hiring someone who does. Just like I don't know how to rebuild an engine. If mine needed to be rebuilt, I would hire a mechanic. That's because prescription drug interactions and engine rebuilds are non-trivial and require specialized knowledge.
I swear somebody has to do this in every conversation. Since what I said wouldn't be reasonable when talking about things that require specialized knowledge... that must not have been what I was talking about. Do you see how simple that is? Did you notice that others in this thread did understand me? You are capable of discerning that on your own. I know it's more fun to assume I'm a dumbass who didn't notice this "glaring omission" in my statements and you, being so clever, saw it instantly. But I'm not going to review every last possible interpretation of what I said and disclaim the ones you might happen to get hyperemotional about just to prevent you from assuming that. If you want that sort of help with your inability to remain reasonable and to recognize when you are dealing with someone who is reasonable, you're going to have to find it yourself.
Anyway, NONE of that has anything to do with warning labels, like the ones on bug spray telling you not to drink it. Wow, really? You mean something so poisonous it makes cockroaches drop dead on contact might be dangerous for me to ingest? I say we don't need to protect these people from themselves.
Of course it's not "fair". The word has a 100% subjective meaning. The current system isn't fair; no tax system is fair. So yeah, "fair tax" isn't fair either.
It has an objective meaning, i.e. one you can observe, measure, and verify. The objective meaning of "fair" is "treat all participants by the same standard". The Fair Tax does this. So does a flat (income) tax with no credits for anyone. Progressive and regressive tax systems fail this definition because there are multiple standards called tax brackets.
All income taxes fail this standard the moment there are tax credits for which some are eligible and others are not. The purpose of tax credits is to discriminate in some way, with all the carrot-and-stick tactics this allows. Otherwise you would simply adjust the tax rate. So those aren't fair either.
Sales taxes don't lend themselves to doing things this way. It's hard to assess special credits when you never file a return. Special rewards for particular behaviors would be within the realm of grants, not part of the tax code. Wouldn't that make more sense?
The problem with the word "fair" is that a bunch of immature whiners have associated the word with themselves. It's often used as an emotional appeal by those who cannot articulate a real argument. Most of them can't really tell the difference anyway between reason and emotion. They believe that if they really feel very strongly with all their heart about something then it just has to be true. They won't consider evidence against it. You're usually engaging in "hate" of some kind of you don't validate all of this.
Anyway, they have no clue what objectivity is and the way they use words reflects it. And they tend to be vocal. So, to use that word it in a serious, well-researched proposal like the Fair Tax is a refusal to let it be completely co-opted by these idiots.
It reminds me of the quote from Timothy Leary about LSD. He said it is a psychedelic drug that occasionally causes psychotic behavior in those who have never used it.
Besides which, so long as tobacco is legal and freely available, any claim that the addictive potential of a substance should have any bearing on its legal status is pure hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is also invalid, thus the question retains the status of irrelevancy.
Your other option is to continue accepting institutionalized insanity. And make no mistake, hypocrisy is a form of insanity. If it were otherwise, it would be self-correcting and we'd have something less obvious to debate than whether marijuana prohibition is justifiable.
Well, it's about that when I'm asking precisely about that because it was what the parent of my comment asked about.
You miss the scope of his point due to some kind of tunnelvision. The entire line of inquiry is irrelevant in the face of a larger issue concerning freedom and self-determination for adult people in a supposedly free nation.
It's irrelevant if it was you who was asking. It's irrelevant if it was me who was asking. It's irrelevant if it's the parent comment of your comment which was asking. It's irrelevant if aliens from Neptune arrive, land a UFO on your front lawn, and then ask the same question. It's irrelevant.
Why are you pretending that the person who asked or the order in which they commented has any bearing on it? Is that how you avoid looking at the way we love to talk a big game about how much we just love freedom, but then decide it's too scary and risky anytime there is a chance to put it into practice?
No. Leave the warning labels on. The stupid ones already ignore them and there are some people ignorant of the effects who *would* heed the labels. If you're going to let the stupid remove themselves, you need to ensure those left aren't culpable.
Think about why you would need a warning label. Oh yeah, because you want to put something into your body that you haven't taken the time to first research and learn about. You think that's the mark of good decision-making?
No warning labels. It's not like information on the standard street drugs is difficult to find. If you can't be bothered, then you take a risk. I'm fine with that. Looking before you leap when it's so easy to do it is a cardinal sign of intelligence.
The only legitimate concern over labels is that the package really does contain what the label says it contains. Otherwise, let it work itself out.
So ... choosing not to participate in something, without trying to stop anyone who wants to from participating in it ... and wanting basic property rights to be respected in the form of being left alone by vandals, trespassers, and other criminals ... that makes someone a jerk?
What a freedom-loving people we have become.
You have the freedom to be anti-social, your neighbours have the freedom to consider you anti-social. There's no such thing as abstract total freedom except in your own head, as external actions have consequences.
This isn't the same kind of consequence as when you flip a light switch and the light comes on, or slam your own head into a brick wall and feel pain. Those are repeatable by experiment. They involve rudimentary cause and effect.
... or deep down in your heart you think you can run their lives better than they would and feel justified in your judgment of them. I know where I stand. I love freedom. I love it so much, I will put up with all kinds of situations where I don't have a lot of people who agree with me and consider it a small price to pay, a bargain at any price. To hate them for not thinking as I do, and as a cause and effect consequence of hatred feeling a need to attach to them a label like "anti-social" when I have never genuinely seen them tested on any matter less frivolous than whether they celebrate Halloween doesn't even enter into it.
... well, I think I have made my point.
There's a difference when there is a choice of outcome. I could see that you don't celebrate Halloween and think you're just a big asshole who thinks you're better than the rest of us. Or I could see that you don't celebrate Halloween and enjoy those who do while respecting your choice, understanding that you had one as much as I did.
The difference is determined by what sort of person you are. You either respect the freedom of others even when they choose things for themselves that you would never choose for yourself
How about if things like "anti-social" are judged on the basis of something that matters? The next time you don't know where your next meal is going to come from, does he have compassion and cook for you a meal? The next time you face a huge expense but he has the skill to fix the problem without it, does he come to your aid? The next time you feel broken-hearted and need an understanding ear, does he shun you? To fucking judge this on whether you feel like conforming to a holiday
Out of my area on this one. I probably am one of the converted masses, but at the same time I'm a very happy drone. Good job, no money problems, decent looking future. Really what is the alternative. It's pretty damn hard to abstain from the system.. and I don't think it's going to bring any more happiness (unless you are extremely annoyed by being a drone, in which case the happiness of not being one maybe.. ).
This is the most significant part of it, I believe.
The real question is one that only you can answer for yourself. Are you merely a clone of your environment? Or are you able to question what you were taught to believe, including the most sacred beliefs of your parents, community, school, etc, and really objectively look them and reject the ones that make no sense?
If you cannot, you are likely to be offended when you see someone else question those or find fault with them because mindlessness is a weakness, a sore spot that is very easily provoked by even reasonable inquiry. Trying to ridicule or put down or shut up the messenger starts looking attractive, though this is all automatic and not something you think through.
If you can, you have a certain security about who you are and what you believe that is not possible otherwise. You neither insist that others do as you do, nor are you surprised if what you do isn't right for them. You become well able to separate objective fact from subjective experience, and tend only to argue about the former in a way that is not irritable or easily offended.
As far as any question about human nature goes... I don't share this "fallen nature" theme that has been spoonfed to us from day one. I'm with folks like Terence McKenna. We are fantastic divine beings of light and love and reason who have not even remotely begun to explore our possibilities. The moment we start to see each other that way is the moment we can truly love our neighbor and stop looking for ways to control and exploit him. Where it goes from there is quite likely beyond our ability to imagine, as we have been so thoroughly conditioned to think in terms of political systems. It is more like what we had before and will have again.
Until then, we wallow in ignorance. Ignorance like this is manifest most undeniably as alienation. It's a big game of domination and by playing it, we deny humanity in ourselves and each other and make exploitable objects of each other. The game has gone on long enough that the psychic burden it imposes is building. A person who does not receive some kind of psychotherapy and/or take some kind of psychiatric medication is increasingly rare. That's because you have conflict with your own very beautiful nature when you accept such a dark and cynical method of life as some kind of fundamental inevitability.
Or they do understand it, and disagree with you. The old "if people wern't idiots and would only think about this stuff everyone would agree with me" argument is often applied to just about everything and is in most cases wrong. A large portion of people participating in Christmas are intelligent people, many of whome understand the modern reality of the holiday, yet participate anyway... because it's fun.
I was talking specifically about the deeply religious Christians who claim that a book is the unerring Word of God yet contradict some of its more basic premises in the name of that God. The business forces merely saw the weakness of mind this represents as an opportunity to capitalize and so they latched onto it and allied themselves in a secular way with this religious holiday. These are not people who are looking for fun or who have our best interests at heart.
... you have to consider whether you believe consumerism and group-think is really giving us a world that is becoming more sane and more prosperous and more pleasant to live in. I would submit that it has done very much the opposite and is not even sustainable. The biggest reason for this is that a certain mindlessness goes along with being so willing and ready to respond to advertising/propaganda and to follow a crowd.
You also have to understand that lots of intelligent people are also shallow, petty, childish, and would rather use their intelligence to advance themselves in a kind of perceived social pecking order rather than reason abstractly and think critically and achieve sanity. Knowledge does not imply understanding, nor does the ability to manipulate data imply an ability to perform introspection.
Having said that
It's most clearly seen in those who don't really have the money and go into debt (usually with credit cards) just to participate. They are definitely being self-sacrificial, but for what? What do their kids need more: the latest Madden video game or quality time with their dad? Even when it is someone who is wealthy or at least quite comfortable, who does not struggle with money, you just can't escape one thing: it is not something they would come up with and do on their own. It is socially programmed from exterior economic and political forces. It is a kind of mindlessness. It is a bandwagon appeal. It is not sold on its merits to thinking individuals.
The really strange thing about hypnosis, propaganda, and other forms of manipulation is quite shocking when you really consider it: those who are swayed by it will defend the implanted suggestion as if it were their own original idea. They will defend and sometimes even fight passionately for it. It's not coercion, it's conversion. Just like politicians, businessmen long ago learned that this is an easier and more effective way to get the results you want than overt force.
Like it our not, one's membership in a community is based on little things such as participation in local traditions. If you live among a group of people but ignore something important to them, then it is completely understandable that they will hold it against you.
This isn't a matter of freedom. No one is proposing locking you up because you don't hand out candy. We are speaking of the opinions that others may form.
Listen carefully to what you are proposing.
Assume I participate in a tradition. Maybe you have a religious reason not to do so. Maybe you don't have the time. Maybe you simply don't like it. What you are saying is that I have the right to impose my will on you and try to coerce you, by using as leverage your good name in the community. That isn't merely an opinion, like when I say in my opinion Linux suits my needs better than Windows. It's pressure designed to get you to do something you clearly don't wish to do. It's manipulation. It's "do this thing even though you owe nothing and no one would be harmed if you didn't, or else I'll tarnish your name in the community". Your approval of it is monstrous. When you stop being a doormat for hollow people to live through because it's the only sort of pathetic life they have, you'll see that for yourself.
Most human interaction works this way. When people ask you for something, what they really mean is "or else I'll show you how nasty I can be." It's a real tragedy and it's the building block of why everything is so fucked up. Scale this up to something the size of a nation and you end up with fascism. You just give it your seal of approval when it's scaled down to the personal level. As above, so below.
You know what the alternative would be? Respecting your decision to not participate in something you don't like or disagree with. Then appreciating and welcoming those who do choose to participate, knowing that their decision to do so was free, genuine, and actually voluntary. And then actually enjoying and honoring each other's company. You know, a little something called loving your neighbor, perhaps you have heard of it? If you "ignore something important to them" but don't disparage them for doing it, it's "perfectly understandable" that they accept and respect that not everyone likes everything they like. I can't fathom having this be so hard to explain to someone.
I'll never understand two things: why people insist on being where they are not wanted, and why people insisting on including others who don't want to be there. I say "never understand" figuratively, of course, to indicate that it is not sane. It is always a veil for control. Otherwise, I understand it all too well.
Ah so your the 'jerk who lives in that house'.
That is the way your neighbors see you. Is it *really* that bad to hand out a few bits of candy? Oh I know you can make up your own injustices in the world and solve them from the comfort of your basement.
Want people to stop coming to your house? Its easy give out popcorn balls for 10 years straight. *NO* one will show up.
So ... choosing not to participate in something, without trying to stop anyone who wants to from participating in it ... and wanting basic property rights to be respected in the form of being left alone by vandals, trespassers, and other criminals ... that makes someone a jerk?
What a freedom-loving people we have become.
I'm occupying my halloween, and not spending money on corporate nonsense.
The one they would really notice is Christmas.
Yeah, maybe getting up at 5am to get stuck in traffic and elbow your way past crowds to spend a lot of money on mostly frivolous tokens of participation that you don't really need appeals to some of you...but the way I see it, Black Friday and the mindless hysteria surrounding it is someone else's plan for my life. It isn't mine. As a self-aware thinking being I can tell the fucking difference and I'm sorry if the majority just go along because they can't. Those who make the profits by exploiting this hysteria are self-serving egotists; those who enable them by participating are insane. It deserves to fail.
What really amuses me is those Christians who like to display how pious they are. You know, the ones who insist you stop and pray before each meal, who frequently say "God bless you", etc. The ones who don't view their spiritual life as a personal decision and want it to operate in group-mode as much as possible. That's how they feel secure and that's how they justify telling other adults how they should live their lives.
When they participate in the corporate-sponsored mass materialism hysteria called "Chrismas" in the name of Jesus Christ, they don't seem aware of what that word "idolatry" means. I guess they thought it ended at that Golden Calf fiasco back in the Old Testament. They also seem to miss that part about taking their Lord's name in vain. Or maybe, being so narrow-minded and having such tunnel-vision, they think that means "don't say 'god dammit'" and can't find anything wrong with all the wars and the consumerism and the idiocy perpetrated in the name of "God". That's without getting into Saturnalia and why Chrismas is celebrated in late December (a month Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in), who Ishtar was, etc.
Idiots will accept nearly anything if you present it as "just the way things are". It's like the root password to their psyche. They just haven't the fortitude to look past that and question its foundation. Otherwise they'd understand what horseshit it really is and they'd reject the programming.
In the summary: "IE 10 cannot be uninstalled and is required to enable the new 'Metro'-style apps."
His reply: "And Linux does too, With Firefox"
How did he not say anything about any browser being required by the OS? It's right there!
I hope these two are drunk or otherwise suffering (enjoying?) some temporary impairment of their higher cognitive functions. I would rather believe that than believe that the school systems have so deeply failed them or that they are truly so dense.
To make an error is one thing... to still not see it after it's been pointed out is the part that blows my mind.
I read it just fine. He said most any modern OS should have a browser out of the box, and the next guy flipped out. The topic of MS making IE mandatory for use of metro is tangential. And deep breaths man, nobody kicked your dog.
You don't seem to comprehend what you read. The guy was rude but he didn't "flip out". He explained why IE is not like Firefox. The topic of IE's "mandatory" status isn't tangential; it's the very point being made. Keep clicking "Parent" and see for yourself. If you were better able to follow a conversation you'd have realized that.
... accept a goddamned correction now that it's been explained to you two different ways. You could also realize that there is a connection between refusing (deliberately or by default) to obtain a clue about what is going on and receiving impatient, rude responses that are nonetheless accurate.
The part you don't seem to understand can be explained. The significance is that a blanket statement that is so general as to be irrelevant, like saying "a modern OS should have a browser", is useless for purposes of comparison (this subthread began because of a comparison if you recall). That's precisely because it is true regardless of which browser you're talking about. You might as well point out that the computer uses electricity or that it contains transistors. While true, it doesn't tell you anything about the browsers themselves or the problems with IE's particular arrangement.
Namely, the mentioned OS that comes with Firefox (Linux) does not require a browser or even a rendering engine and certanly doesn't consider either to be an essential non-installable component. It's right here in the comment you replied to but clearly didn't comprehend. At no point did he argue, imply, or even mention that a modern OS should *not* include some kind of browser or that modern distros don't. Yet you responded as though he had.
You're shocked that someone called you on it? Welcome to the Internet, man. I'll tell you what. If you want to shock me, or something close to that anyway
What I did say is that they have business interests that may at times conflict with the more humanitarian goals of relieving suffering by curing and treating as many diseases as possible. This is so obvious and recognizable and is found in so many other industries that to fail to understand its significance, or worse to be in denial by crying "demonizer" to anyone who works with this reality, is foolishness.
Every person I've ever spoken to who uses that term has ended up basing very little of their argument on real facts and research. (no hyperbole here)
And thus you climb up on your high horse and you feel justified when you pigeonhole everyone who uses a term without knowing what they really think. That kind of group identification by pigeonholing is how a narrow mind remains that way. I mean really, look at the defensive tone of your entire post there. If the term "big pharma" is so terribly offensive to you, make that statement by not using it yourself and trusting in your "superior understanding" to enlighten others like a secure person who is confident in what they believe.
You can write off everyone who uses diction you happen not to like if you think that will enhance your understanding or enrich your life, or otherwise serve any constructive purpose whatsoever, but I see it for what it is: an excuse to justify the putting down and belittling of others that you felt a need to do long before a story was posted about pharmaceutical companies. I know that petty little game. It is not good enough that you have a useful contribution to make; someone else must also be wrong. How much joy is that bringing to you?
Would you prefer pharmaceutical companies (you realize the phrase 'Big Pharma' instantly saps your credibility) spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develope and commercialize non-profitable drugs so they all go out of busines and no pharmaceuticals are available at all? or They can spend the money only on what is profitable because our nation of "I'm right, not my doctor" self-diagnosing idiots, and "If you don't fix me even though Im not telling you all my symptoms, or I'll sue the pants off you" assholes make it necessary for FDA approval to cost so much that treatments that only "sort of work", have severe possible side effects, or aren't patentable never get released because really: who is going to take a $200million/8 year loss simply for the good of mankind? If you want that to happen, better start pumping WAY more funding into government funded research.
So let us review. Recognizing that very large multibillion dollar industries generally have their own agendas which may not always serve the interests of those who are not members of said industries, and using a simple, succinct, well-understood term like "Big Pharma" to describe this situation destroys one's own credibility. But, suggesting that everyone suffering from a disease who seeks to remedy or treat that disease is a self-righteous idiot who works to sabotage the FDA's approval process does not damage one's credibility?
You sound like the people who take a matter of taste, such as whether to write "MS" or "M$", and fixate on that to the total exclusion of any point that is being made. It is as though they feel desparate to say something, especially something that puts down another, but having nothing substantive to say, they obsess with some triviality and make a mountain of a molehill in order to feel like they are making some useful point. It's about as useful as saying "hah, you misspelled that word, therefore your logic is invalid and your theory is wrong and the evidence on which it was based is not legitimate". And then congratulating yourself.
By the way, your tie doesn't match that shirt. Therefore, you're wrong.
whitelisting is a horrible workaround, and is taking steps to avoid recipients needing to whitelist (which we will not do).
Until a "cloud" manager or a big customer forces you to. Email is fucking broken, face it. And white listing is a valid way to help ensure two partner companies can communicate reliably. If you were one of our suppliers, we fucking require that you white list us because we don't want to fuck with your stupid spam filters and whatever email server monkey bullshit you have going on that day. Technology is a tool for businesses to use to make money, not to be used for personal power trips. If you were my employee and you told me "we don't do that," you wouldn't last long.
That's strange... it's almost as though different organizations have different goals and different policies.
You seem rather angry about this.
Here here. (does that qualify this as a "me too" post?)
Over the last few years I feel as if more and more "Violence is the answer" posts around the internet are popping up. Some may argue that freedom is only won with the blood of patriots, but I deeply hope that our republic is not so far gone that this is the only option left (and one that is, honestly, not likely to happen in any case). So, while I also do not condone illegal activity, I can say that I hope transparency and fairness can be reintroduced peacefully, that the sordid and the powerful can be humbled by whatever means is best for the most people.
Also, something about Tarkin, and a grasp, and slipping through fingers?
The following should be construed as my opinion. In this psychotic legal environment, I will add that it is to be interpreted as a hypothetical scenario. With that out of the way...
I'll be straight with you. For those who really run the show, I think violence is exactly what they are trying to provoke. They have been and are gearing up for it in many different ways. Power-hungry fevered egos would love nothing more than an excuse to clamp down and enforce perpetual martial law. I believe this is why they don't even try to hide their asshattery anymore. They want it in your face. They want you to react to it in a predictable way. They are saying "oh yeah, you don't like that, well wtf are you going to do about it?" Don't fall for that. You'd be a fool to let them provoke you. Anyone who does that is going to lose badly to a very well-prepared adversary. Don't do it.
I'll tell you what they don't want. The very last thing they want is peaceful, non-violent resistance like what Ghandi and Thoreau advocated. It doesn't give them anything to work with. They would have to drop all pretense of justification if they went heavy-handed against something like that, which would cost them the support of much of the military and police who would execute it. Those two forces are on their side if the real patriots can easily be portrayed as terrorists or rebels or whatever the evil of the day is. If they don't fall for that because they love peace, that's when the soldiers and cops stop being such myrmidons and start questioning their orders and who is really served by them.
Something like that also implies non-participation in their way of doing things, such as the monetary system, paying taxes, etc. It would amount to cutting the bottom out of the pyramid. They really do derive their power from the consent of the governed, it's just that the governed no longer understand what that means.
But in either case, violence is the biggest and worst mistake you can make with these "people". That would be playing their game by their rules. You are going to lose if you try it. I don't mind repeating myself: don't do it. Not only would you harm yourself, you also cause a guilt by association against anyone who also understands the problem but has sense enough to look for constructive solutions.
The idea of a secured system designed for the sole purpose of allowing executives and board members of the corporations to communicate in secret is profoundly disturbing on so many levels...
Actually, it makes an enormous amount of sense. Keep in mind that things like IPOs, discussion around delisting, and other decisions that involve both a stock exchange and a public-traded company don't just happen. There's a good bit of communication that has to happen first, and even a rumor about some events can have impact on that company's stock price. So just as it is with company-internal information about financials during a quiet period just before an official announcement, it makes sense for there to be a channel of communications whereby things can be kept quiet until they are deliberately (rather than accidentally) disclosed.
I believe what you have there is a self-fulfilling prophecy or maybe a Catch-22.
If these things were always done publically and transparently with no secrecy, rumors wouldn't cause people to bolt like frightened animals. Any rumor that is heard could be compared to the information that has accumulated thus far and a judgment could be made as to whether it is consistent with decisions that have already taken place. In fact it wouldn't be a rumor; it would be verified and documented or it would be bullshit.
The reason rumors are so powerful is precisely because those processes are such a "black box", so any information that leaks is regarded as some kind of special insider information that must be acted upon before someone else does. A process that is transparent from the beginning would remove this aura of exclusivity and secrecy that drives precisely the knee-jerk reactions you describe.
Not only would transparency bring stability to these markets and the financial decisions that affect them, it would also eliminate the notion of "insider trading". For all publically-traded corporations, why wouldn't this be desirable?
The idea of a secured system designed for the sole purpose of allowing executives and board members of the corporations to communicate in secret is profoundly disturbing on so many levels...
Yes. I'll say up-front that I don't advocate such a criminal activity and anything I say next should be interpreted in that context. I'll add that my reason for this isn't because I'm so sympathetic to the execs who were made to look stupid by this breach, nor do I blindly believe that everything which is legal is good and everything which is illegal is bad, but because I imagine it would be serious prison time if anyone doing it got caught. I'm tempted to say that if caught, they should receive a medal, not prison time.
... I smiled and felt a certain satisfaction when I read this news. They may have made the legal system and the financial system into their personal playgrounds, and established a revolving door between the two, but this finally is one arena where they are going to get humbled again and again. The hackers who perpetrate such attacks are idealistic and can do a great deal with little or no organization, making them quite difficult to include in the corruption represented by their targets of choice.
Having said that
By contrast, we long ago gave up any serious notion of our politicians actually representing us and implementing some serious transparency and accountability in either system. I have said before and will reiterate again, you breed lawlessness when you systematically eliminate every legitimate "working through the system" method of effecting change or obtaining justice. Want to go through the court system? Well I hope you have lots of money and years of your life to invest in something you are likely to lose anyway. Want to run for office? I hope you don't cross the political and financial interests who can get you there, who are the gatekeepers much more than the voting booth has ever been. Most people are law-abiding and will stop there. Others, not so much.
The power brokers who will be humiliated and maybe even harmed by this are simply reaping what they have sown. This is one realm where they are not so untouchable. In my opinion, it's healthy for society that they be reminded of that from time to time, and any decent person with principles wants that to happen in this sort of nonviolent manner. If you haven't noticed, people are getting fed up with the status quo and the direction in which it is moving. Something has to change; this is an amicable way for it to happen.
No one sought to teach me to think about thinking either.
I'm simply not one of the passive sheeple who waits for someone else to hand out knowledge and understanding. I am my own person. By trying to understand myself, I understand the world around me. By trying to understand the world around me, I understand myself. Between the two, I discover things about how processes such as learning work and I pay attention as they unfold in front of me.
I know you didn't mean it this way, but the idea that I would be helplessly dependent on a teacher or a professor or a parent to figure this out is nearly insulting.
If others have a conception of themselves that is lower than this, and sell themselves short, that is up to them.
You say you are far from common. In a way, you're right. Just understand that this is not the natural order of things. A great many financial and political interests had to work for their mutual benefits in order to dumb the world down to where you and I are the oddballs. We're the ones on which the training in helplessness didn't take. But the human being as an organism does need to be trained to be that way. It is not how we otherwise would be.
It is a hard thing to be sure, but it falls under "tough love" to say that those who "lack the means to recognize how they might change that" merely haven't become tired enough of the way things are. They still dream of the path of least resistance, and so long as they entertain that notion, they invite and welcome with open arms that horrible "double damnation" you describe.
Self-awareness and a real love of truth and reason is not for the faint of heart. The faint of heart wouldn't remain that way on their own. It has to be inculcated and portrayed as normal.
No need to play word games with what "Darwinism" means, like some lawyer, to force the square peg into a round hole because it means you get your way.
Except that this is exactly what you're doing. Darwinism is about survival of the fittest for the propagation of the species. You are applying your own values on what you want to be selected for (intelligence, strength, focus, whatever). The sad reality is that the people who are breeding the most ARE the ones ensuring the continuation of the species and that fits perfectly with Darwinism, no matter how much you might want to twist it because you don't like the results.
I appreciate what you're saying but ... there is a flaw here. The kind of society that will be built by those who are currently breeding the most is not long-term viable. It is not sustainable. It's a trade between having a few unwise individuals die early here and there, versus having lots of them accumulate until there is a large, widespread catastrophe. You can put off the one to have the other, but just like energy it does not just "go away", it changes form.
Look around you. Everywhere there is deficit spending, and I'm not just talking about money here. It is absolutely bound to collapse under its own weight. When that happens, this kind of imprudent person who does not consider long-term viability is not going to thrive anymore. They are living on borrowed time.
Because it is inevitable, and can be foreseen, I consider it an eventuality. I view it as such, not as some kind of "what if?" but simply the result of a long chain of cause and effect. It is so certain that it may as well have already fully unfolded, and I regard it as such like any other eventuality. We will be forced to change our ways in order to continue. It's a matter of time. Notice how everyting is going broke lately, on a regional and global scale? We're approaching the end of the grace period.
No matter how much some may hate it and try so hard to find ways around it, there is no substitute for prudence and good decision-making. Nor should there be.