Good god, I need to populize the term "Christofascism" and get people to realize what pricks your type of people are. You know Jesus fasted for a month too, right?
The Crusades were 600-900 years after Christianity was officially declared state religion of Rome. Islam itself did not exist until about 200 years after said event. I don't think prejudices against early Christians had any bearing whatsoever on the Crusades.
This is unrelated, but Fibonacci brought the Arabic numerals to Europe, if it weren't for him we'd still be using friggen Roman Numerals, and we remember him for rabbits?
Thomas Jefferson invented a system for congressional appointment more fair than the modern US system? Every day I get more and more convinced that the founding fathers were actually time travelers.
I think that anonymous edits may be a necessary evil because without them the wiki would have stagnated. That being said, I think there are some simple checks that could be done on edits that would weed out at least a good chunk of "LOL PENIS" vandalism.
If it weren't for people who help other people, I probably would be in a much worse place than I am in right now. Several of my teachers have said that I am the smartest person they have ever known, and I'm not even making this up. But I have Asperger's Syndrome and it has lead to me being almost entirely emotionally inept. Things like this are the standard for smart people--one switch on, one switch off. Supporters of individual fanaticism like the majority of the Objectivist movement is predicated on the belief in a superman who is perfect everywhere and the false dichotomy between "the projection of an ideal man" and a man whose main goal is leeching off of society. Thinking in ones and zeroes may work when programming circuits but that's not how it works with people. There is no "ideal man" and most of those whom the Randian society sees as leeches aren't. Belief in the "ideal man" is just as illogical as belief in the Second Coming, but I can forgive the latter as it was invented in the Roman society when the nature of reality was not as well-defined as it was in the twentieth century when Rand lived.
Objectivism may be based off of logical reasoning from assumed premises, but all the reasoning in the world is for naught when it's based on false principles. The majority of Objectivists tend to ignore their weaknesses, considering that if they acknowledged both their weaknesses and Objectivism then they'd have to admit that they are a leech on society. Which leads to them considering those who are strong in their weaknesses as the leeches on society. This leads to the false belief in "I should only care about myself" and the delusions Objectivists get of being the intellectual equivalent of Superman. In other words, belief in Objectivist reality is like believing in Superman reality. Superman may make for a decent story but all-powerful people like Superman only exist in the comic books. No, wait, Superman used his powers to help people who obviously don't deserve to be helped because otherwise they'd be able to fly away from certain death themselves. And then there's Kryptonite which requires other people to oh my god help him. No wait, the Objectivist hero barely even makes a good story(only insomuch as Chuck Norris facts make a good story) considering that most Superman stories are chock full of kryptonite because of how boring and unrealistic somebody with absolutely no weaknesses is.
Well I say indirectly because IMHO doing altruistic things for other people encourages them to do altruistic things which will eventually benefit everybody including you, in a Prisoner's Dilemma kind of way. That's the evolutionary reason we even have individual altruism at all.
A link may not be a guarantee but stubborn refusal to provide a reference of any kind is suspicious and rightfully so, because the number one cause of that is if you're pulling it out of your ass.
I mean that it doesn't enter into what altruism means because if it does then there is no altruism and the term itself becomes meaningless ergo my definition.
Altruism is doing something that benefits other people when you only indirectly benefit from it. That describes 90% of Wikipedia contributions. Personal pleasure doesn't even enter into it, and can't, because unless you're under coercion you are always doing things for some sort of personal pleasure. Actually even if you're under coercion it's usually the pleasure of a lack of pain.
Actually in some unspecified time in the future when autopilot is perfected there would be no problem with flying cars. We're already working towards that end with things like the DARPA competition.
This is the Sci-Fi channel. You're talking about a channel famous for trying their hardest to find the worst place to cancel a series(see: SG-1, Farscape)
Slashdot Mirror
Good god, I need to populize the term "Christofascism" and get people to realize what pricks your type of people are. You know Jesus fasted for a month too, right?
Except for Scientology, which caters to the rich and ill-educated. Notice how few religions cater to the intelligent.
The Crusades were 600-900 years after Christianity was officially declared state religion of Rome. Islam itself did not exist until about 200 years after said event. I don't think prejudices against early Christians had any bearing whatsoever on the Crusades.
This is unrelated, but Fibonacci brought the Arabic numerals to Europe, if it weren't for him we'd still be using friggen Roman Numerals, and we remember him for rabbits?
Or as Confucius said: Man who stands on toilet is high on pot.
I don't think God has any official titles at any universities or corporations. ;)
No, don't do that, it would get the LCD monitors messy. Use the crappy My Chemical Romance CDs their parents bought for them.
Thomas Jefferson invented a system for congressional appointment more fair than the modern US system? Every day I get more and more convinced that the founding fathers were actually time travelers.
Well you clearly aren't doing anything to make it better, and you're taking advantage of the situation, so yeah, it's your fault.
I think that anonymous edits may be a necessary evil because without them the wiki would have stagnated. That being said, I think there are some simple checks that could be done on edits that would weed out at least a good chunk of "LOL PENIS" vandalism.
You missed one for BBC. DOCTOR FUCKING WHO!
i hate the lameness filter
The Doctor called and he wants people to stop using his TARDIS for making calls between years to request the return of jokes!
Linux: OH NO! I'M THE BOMB!
Can I talk about the TV show "Heroes"? They're just asking me to do so with that title.
Well actually I think Micah's the only one whose power involves technology.
They have to rationalize away the fact that they're *gasp* helping the evil societal leeches who deserve to be beneath us superman industrialists!
If it weren't for people who help other people, I probably would be in a much worse place than I am in right now. Several of my teachers have said that I am the smartest person they have ever known, and I'm not even making this up. But I have Asperger's Syndrome and it has lead to me being almost entirely emotionally inept. Things like this are the standard for smart people--one switch on, one switch off. Supporters of individual fanaticism like the majority of the Objectivist movement is predicated on the belief in a superman who is perfect everywhere and the false dichotomy between "the projection of an ideal man" and a man whose main goal is leeching off of society. Thinking in ones and zeroes may work when programming circuits but that's not how it works with people. There is no "ideal man" and most of those whom the Randian society sees as leeches aren't. Belief in the "ideal man" is just as illogical as belief in the Second Coming, but I can forgive the latter as it was invented in the Roman society when the nature of reality was not as well-defined as it was in the twentieth century when Rand lived.
Objectivism may be based off of logical reasoning from assumed premises, but all the reasoning in the world is for naught when it's based on false principles. The majority of Objectivists tend to ignore their weaknesses, considering that if they acknowledged both their weaknesses and Objectivism then they'd have to admit that they are a leech on society. Which leads to them considering those who are strong in their weaknesses as the leeches on society. This leads to the false belief in "I should only care about myself" and the delusions Objectivists get of being the intellectual equivalent of Superman. In other words, belief in Objectivist reality is like believing in Superman reality. Superman may make for a decent story but all-powerful people like Superman only exist in the comic books. No, wait, Superman used his powers to help people who obviously don't deserve to be helped because otherwise they'd be able to fly away from certain death themselves. And then there's Kryptonite which requires other people to oh my god help him. No wait, the Objectivist hero barely even makes a good story(only insomuch as Chuck Norris facts make a good story) considering that most Superman stories are chock full of kryptonite because of how boring and unrealistic somebody with absolutely no weaknesses is.
Well I say indirectly because IMHO doing altruistic things for other people encourages them to do altruistic things which will eventually benefit everybody including you, in a Prisoner's Dilemma kind of way. That's the evolutionary reason we even have individual altruism at all.
A link may not be a guarantee but stubborn refusal to provide a reference of any kind is suspicious and rightfully so, because the number one cause of that is if you're pulling it out of your ass.
I mean that it doesn't enter into what altruism means because if it does then there is no altruism and the term itself becomes meaningless ergo my definition.
Altruism is doing something that benefits other people when you only indirectly benefit from it. That describes 90% of Wikipedia contributions. Personal pleasure doesn't even enter into it, and can't, because unless you're under coercion you are always doing things for some sort of personal pleasure. Actually even if you're under coercion it's usually the pleasure of a lack of pain.
Actually in some unspecified time in the future when autopilot is perfected there would be no problem with flying cars. We're already working towards that end with things like the DARPA competition.
Even if he didn't say it, remember that he's the man who didn't mention the internet at all in his book the Road Ahead(he edited it in)
Doesn't the RIAA already do that for us?
This is the Sci-Fi channel. You're talking about a channel famous for trying their hardest to find the worst place to cancel a series(see: SG-1, Farscape)