Great, exactly why making up words is dumb. Now I'm not even sure whose interpretation of it was correct, mine or yours.
Yours is wrong. It's an industry specific term and there is precedent going back a couple of decades. We are currently at petascale levels (i.e. computers able to hit over 1 petaflop on the linpack benchmark) before that terascale. I don't think gigascale was ever a common term, even before the high end was able to do a gigalop.
If a cop asks me to to stop talking about something, and I agree to do that there is no violation.
And if a cop asks you to stop helping somebody then there is a violation.
This should be stupefyingly obvious - any request by the government to penalize a third party had better damn well be subject to the oversight process otherwise it is simple abuse of power.
If they decide to boot him without a court order it is NOT a violation of due process nor an abridgment of free speech nor any other fiction that you morons keep spinning. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, ONLY TO THE STATE!!!
If they did it at the request of the state - rather than a court order - then yes it is a violation of due process.
Abu Grhaib happened, was exposed, and this country had that internal dialog you so nonchalantly dismiss. People then went to jail for their abusive actions.
Note that was only some people, people with essentially no responsibility for the policies that enabled and even encouraged the actions. That the policy makers were not punished suggests that the internal dialog was meaningless. Whether that was because of a belief in american exceptionalism or some other rationalization of corruption, I dunno. I do know that many who do espouse the philosophy of american exceptionalism are content with the non-results of that internal dialog.
Then why didn't you just list them. It shouldn't be too hard.
You want me to produce a list of essentially infinite detail? If that's not what you want, then you need to be a helluva lot more precise. You also need to explain why I should even bother. Do you think nitpicking at a list is going to prove something?
Except that the definition you provided isn't very useful. In fact I would consider it worthless. Because natural rights would seem to be highly variable based on personal ability. An infant or invalid would have essentially none.
Yes all true. Your definition of "useful" is tangential to the discussion, see the post you were responding to.
And as soon as more than one person exists, then they seem to go away because they would always interact in some way.
No they don't "go away," they are just constrained.
Natural rights like natural law is a fiction. It may be a useful fiction. Humans ultimately determine their own rights whether they invoke a god, a creator or nature. I don't understand why that makes people so squeamish.
You contradict yourself. Of course humans determine their own rights. Our society is based on the collective belief that some rights have their basis in the simple fact of our existence.
My point was that the DOI is a flawed document, written by people who flagrantly trampled the rights that they said were self-evident.
And if every great insight was judged solely by the imperfections of the people who came up with it and try to implement it, we'd have no ideas at all. Your point is just as irrelevant the second time around.
Like unicorns and pixies? I see, please go on.
You consider the fact of your own existence to be a myth? Wow you are so out of sync with this discussion.
Oh, I get it. You are cognitively limited by the smug assumption that I am some sort of religious dumbass.
I'm pointing out that you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either you believe that the right to life is unalienable, or you think that capital punishment is acceptable.
No, you don't understand the meaning of the word inalienable. You might as well argue that prison "alienates" a person's right to freedom of movement. An inalienable right can be violated, restricted, limited, etc by others in society, but (a) that's an artifact of membership in society (b) the right is still there, by definition one can't violate a right that one no longer has
Do you have any other documents you'd like to cite as 'proof' of natural rights?
No need. All that was required was to prove that one side won the debate. That the founding principles of the US and consequently all democratic nations are rooted in the concept of inalienable rights is plenty. Disagree? Sounds like you need to move to a theocracy or one of those other fascist states built on the principle that people don't have any inherent rights, only those granted by the government.
Dude, have you been reading this discussion or are you just another idiot who jumps in after reading a couple of leaf post?
In this context a natural right is whatever a person is capable of without the interference, positive or negative, of any other person. It has nothing to do with absolute rights and ESPECFUCKINGFLOUTELY nothing to do with what society does or does not do.
All men are not created equal. Especially so when that quote was written by people who owned slaves.
Slavery is a construct of man, not a consequence of birth and puhlease don't play stupid and try to pretend that word play about being born into slavery is a meaningful point.
I do not recognise the term "Creator", please clarify.
The Creator is mere fact of existence.
If life is an unalienable right, then it cannot be taken away by the state.
Inalienable does not mean it can't be violated by the interference of other people.
Please explain how this meshes nicely with Gregg v. Georgia.
TL;DR doubt it is no more apropos to the point of what exists with and without the interference of other men than any of the rest of your obtuseness.
And what evidence do you have for that rather sweeping statement?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Even if this is true, it does not tell us anything useful about how to order society in the real world.
You are right, it doesn't tell us anything useful about how to order society - at least not in this case. So the OP should never had made the comparison in the first place.
Natural rights are not created by governments, we are born with them.
No, we are not. If I was a Jew in 1930s Germany, I basically had no rights, and if I was black in South Africa under Apartheid I had severely proscribed rights.
You seem to have confused violating rights with creating them.
Nobody is born with the right not to have their skull smashed in with an axe handle.
Yes you are born with that right. It is only through the actions of another person that you might get your skilled smashed in, just as it is only through the actions of another person that someone is legally prevented from smashing your skull in. Absent either of those you have a natural right to life.
The fact that you want to make some philosophical argument about natural rights is irrelevant to the reality that is the law in the united states.
I didn't start with the philosophical arguments, the OP did when he made the comparison.
That's your opinion, but it's someone else's rights you are talking about. If I said your rights should be abridged (not only copyright, but any rights) how would you respond?
To draw an equivalence between copyright and natural rights like freedom of expression, movement or association is to wholly misrepresent what copyright is. Just because the words are spelled the same does not mean they have the same meaning.
Copyright is nothing more than a legal fiction - manufactured by the consent of society to refrain from exercising their natural right of freedom of expression. Natural rights are not created by governments, we are born with them. Nobody is born with the right to restrict others from repeating what they said originally.
Or are you now trying to claim that both of those internal dialogs would lead to the same votes and other actions taken in the future?
Absolutely. When one believes that their own actions are inherently the best, even if it just the best of the worst, they come up with all sorts of rationalizations for not doing a good job. The debate on Abu Ghraib is full of people making exactly those sorts of justifications - just look at how it all played out - scapegoating of the rank and file and no significant consequences for the people responsible for the policies that enabled it.
One woman said Assange ignored her appeals to stop when the condom broke.
I'd like to hear a better explanation for that one. Maybe all the girls I've been with have been completely out of touch with their bodies, but there is no way any of them could tell if the condom broke until afterwards.
Then it is useless to continue this discussion. If you can't see a difference between "can do no wrong" and "not perfect", then we have no common ground upon which communications could profit.
Oh I see a semantic difference, I just don't see one in practice. When one believes that their actions and the outcomes thereof are always "better" than what anyone else could have done then one would have to actually be perfect in order to avoid the trap of abusing that authority for self interest or even just laziness.
Although ruthless arrogance may result in both cases, saying "exactly the same consequences" isn't even close to accurate.
Really? What is the difference between a perfunctory examination of one's morality and none at all? An innate belief that one is always "better than others" leads directly to the assumption that whatever one does will always be the preferred outcome. It may not be the best outcome, but no one else could be expected to do better which is just a more politically correct phrasing of ruthless arrogance.
3) Wikileaks only care about or chooses to publish secrets for US entities, not foreign. This is likely.
That's based on the entirely absurd predicate that all leaked information ends up at wikileaks. Maybe the people with the info don't want to give it to wikileaks, maybe they would prefer to sell it on the black market to someone who can use it for direct financial benefit (blackmail, market manipulation, etc).
Somalian assassination order Swiss Bank Julius Baer British National Party membership list British University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit Australian internet censorship list Peruvian Petrogate scandal Trafigura toxic dumping in the Ivory Coast Kaupthing Bank of Iceland British Joint Services Protocol Love Parade stampede in Duisburg, Germany
American Exceptionalism is the sadly more and more common belief that America, by its very nature, can do no wrong.
No. It is the belief that the US is better than other countries. Not perfect, just better.
I fail to see a meaningful distinction between your definition and the OPs. Mainly because such a belief inevitably leads to exactly the same consequences - ruthless arrogance.
Thanks, I've traveled outside the US, which helps to get some perspective.
Hell, just paying attention in high school civics class ought to be enough to come to the same conclusions -- unless you've got that new texan curriculum, then you probably do need to travel...
Furthermore, like most things in the current data dump, well informed observers were already aware of it. Hell, even casual observers knew something was going on. After N Korea launched that missile over japan a couple of years ago there was a LOT of talk about how the whole event had seriously strained relations with China and lots of speculation that China might even take direct action - like assassinating some of the power players in the N Korean government that may have been responsible (yes, even in a dictatorship there are plenty of internal power struggles and political games).
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing. Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
You ever want a nuke so much you thought your little centrifuge was gonna break in two? I didn't think so. You ever tried with all your heart and soul to get your uranium back to you? I wanna hope so. You ever pray with all your heart and soul just to watch it spin away?
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing. Baby did a bad bad thing, feel like crying, feel like crying.
You ever toss and turn your lying awake and thinking about the yellow cake you love? I don't think so. You ever close your eyes your making believe your holding the nuke your dreaming of? Well if you say so. I hurts so bad when you finally know just how low, low, low, low, low, Israel'll go.
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing. Baby did a bad bad thing, feel like crying, feel like crying.
Ohh. Feel like crying, feel like crying. Ohh, feel like crying, feel like crying.
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Ray is a hack that spouts inexact and mainly non-confirmable crap who deserves about as much respect as Nostradamus.
I was struck by how much the post you were responding to resembles the accusations of Kurzweil's own vague craptitude. I really thought it might have been a deliberate parody.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, exactly why making up words is dumb. Now I'm not even sure whose interpretation of it was correct, mine or yours.
Yours is wrong. It's an industry specific term and there is precedent going back a couple of decades. We are currently at petascale levels (i.e. computers able to hit over 1 petaflop on the linpack benchmark) before that terascale. I don't think gigascale was ever a common term, even before the high end was able to do a gigalop.
If a cop asks me to to stop talking about something, and I agree to do that there is no violation.
And if a cop asks you to stop helping somebody then there is a violation.
This should be stupefyingly obvious - any request by the government to penalize a third party had better damn well be subject to the oversight process otherwise it is simple abuse of power.
If they decide to boot him without a court order it is NOT a violation of due process nor an abridgment of free speech nor any other fiction that you morons keep spinning. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, ONLY TO THE STATE!!!
If they did it at the request of the state - rather than a court order - then yes it is a violation of due process.
Abu Grhaib happened, was exposed, and this country had that internal dialog you so nonchalantly dismiss. People then went to jail for their abusive actions.
Note that was only some people, people with essentially no responsibility for the policies that enabled and even encouraged the actions.
That the policy makers were not punished suggests that the internal dialog was meaningless. Whether that was because of a belief in american exceptionalism or some other rationalization of corruption, I dunno. I do know that many who do espouse the philosophy of american exceptionalism are content with the non-results of that internal dialog.
Then why didn't you just list them. It shouldn't be too hard.
You want me to produce a list of essentially infinite detail?
If that's not what you want, then you need to be a helluva lot more precise.
You also need to explain why I should even bother. Do you think nitpicking at a list is going to prove something?
Except that the definition you provided isn't very useful. In fact I would consider it worthless. Because natural rights would seem to be highly variable based on personal ability. An infant or invalid would have essentially none.
Yes all true. Your definition of "useful" is tangential to the discussion, see the post you were responding to.
And as soon as more than one person exists, then they seem to go away because they would always interact in some way.
No they don't "go away," they are just constrained.
Natural rights like natural law is a fiction. It may be a useful fiction. Humans ultimately determine their own rights whether they invoke a god, a creator or nature. I don't understand why that makes people so squeamish.
You contradict yourself. Of course humans determine their own rights. Our society is based on the collective belief that some rights have their basis in the simple fact of our existence.
My point was that the DOI is a flawed document, written by people who flagrantly trampled the rights that they said were self-evident.
And if every great insight was judged solely by the imperfections of the people who came up with it and try to implement it, we'd have no ideas at all.
Your point is just as irrelevant the second time around.
Like unicorns and pixies? I see, please go on.
You consider the fact of your own existence to be a myth?
Wow you are so out of sync with this discussion.
Oh, I get it. You are cognitively limited by the smug assumption that I am some sort of religious dumbass.
I'm pointing out that you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either you believe that the right to life is unalienable, or you think that capital punishment is acceptable.
No, you don't understand the meaning of the word inalienable.
You might as well argue that prison "alienates" a person's right to freedom of movement.
An inalienable right can be violated, restricted, limited, etc by others in society, but
(a) that's an artifact of membership in society
(b) the right is still there, by definition one can't violate a right that one no longer has
Do you have any other documents you'd like to cite as 'proof' of natural rights?
No need. All that was required was to prove that one side won the debate.
That the founding principles of the US and consequently all democratic nations are rooted in the concept of inalienable rights is plenty.
Disagree? Sounds like you need to move to a theocracy or one of those other fascist states built on the principle that people don't have any inherent rights, only those granted by the government.
Dude, have you been reading this discussion or are you just another idiot who jumps in after reading a couple of leaf post?
In this context a natural right is whatever a person is capable of without the interference, positive or negative, of any other person.
It has nothing to do with absolute rights and ESPECFUCKINGFLOUTELY nothing to do with what society does or does not do.
All men are not created equal. Especially so when that quote was written by people who owned slaves.
Slavery is a construct of man, not a consequence of birth and puhlease don't play stupid and try to pretend that word play about being born into slavery is a meaningful point.
I do not recognise the term "Creator", please clarify.
The Creator is mere fact of existence.
If life is an unalienable right, then it cannot be taken away by the state.
Inalienable does not mean it can't be violated by the interference of other people.
Please explain how this meshes nicely with Gregg v. Georgia.
TL;DR doubt it is no more apropos to the point of what exists with and without the interference of other men than any of the rest of your obtuseness.
And what evidence do you have for that rather sweeping statement?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sound familiar?
Even if this is true, it does not tell us anything useful about how to order society in the real world.
You are right, it doesn't tell us anything useful about how to order society - at least not in this case.
So the OP should never had made the comparison in the first place.
Natural rights are not created by governments, we are born with them.
No, we are not. If I was a Jew in 1930s Germany, I basically had no rights, and if I was black in South Africa under Apartheid I had severely proscribed rights.
You seem to have confused violating rights with creating them.
Tell that to the man who had an axe smash into his head through no fault of another man
Key phrase there. You can't spring board off of that to make claims about what society collectively agrees to.
Nobody is born with the right not to have their skull smashed in with an axe handle.
Yes you are born with that right. It is only through the actions of another person that you might get your skilled smashed in, just as it is only through the actions of another person that someone is legally prevented from smashing your skull in. Absent either of those you have a natural right to life.
The fact that you want to make some philosophical argument about natural rights is irrelevant to the reality that is the law in the united states.
I didn't start with the philosophical arguments, the OP did when he made the comparison.
That's your opinion, but it's someone else's rights you are talking about. If I said your rights should be abridged (not only copyright, but any rights) how would you respond?
To draw an equivalence between copyright and natural rights like freedom of expression, movement or association is to wholly misrepresent what copyright is.
Just because the words are spelled the same does not mean they have the same meaning.
Copyright is nothing more than a legal fiction - manufactured by the consent of society to refrain from exercising their natural right of freedom of expression.
Natural rights are not created by governments, we are born with them. Nobody is born with the right to restrict others from repeating what they said originally.
Or are you now trying to claim that both of those internal dialogs would lead to the same votes and other actions taken in the future?
Absolutely. When one believes that their own actions are inherently the best, even if it just the best of the worst, they come up with all sorts of rationalizations for not doing a good job. The debate on Abu Ghraib is full of people making exactly those sorts of justifications - just look at how it all played out - scapegoating of the rank and file and no significant consequences for the people responsible for the policies that enabled it.
One woman said Assange ignored her appeals to stop when the condom broke.
I'd like to hear a better explanation for that one. Maybe all the girls I've been with have been completely out of touch with their bodies, but there is no way any of them could tell if the condom broke until afterwards.
Or are you seriously going to try to tell me that both of those things represent an equivalent level of arrogance?
What counts is actions, not the internal dialog, and in either of your scenarios, Abu Grhaib still happened.
Then it is useless to continue this discussion. If you can't see a difference between "can do no wrong" and "not perfect", then we have no common ground upon which communications could profit.
Oh I see a semantic difference, I just don't see one in practice. When one believes that their actions and the outcomes thereof are always "better" than what anyone else could have done then one would have to actually be perfect in order to avoid the trap of abusing that authority for self interest or even just laziness.
Although ruthless arrogance may result in both cases, saying "exactly the same consequences" isn't even close to accurate.
Really? What is the difference between a perfunctory examination of one's morality and none at all? An innate belief that one is always "better than others" leads directly to the assumption that whatever one does will always be the preferred outcome. It may not be the best outcome, but no one else could be expected to do better which is just a more politically correct phrasing of ruthless arrogance.
3) Wikileaks only care about or chooses to publish secrets for US entities, not foreign. This is likely.
That's based on the entirely absurd predicate that all leaked information ends up at wikileaks. Maybe the people with the info don't want to give it to wikileaks, maybe they would prefer to sell it on the black market to someone who can use it for direct financial benefit (blackmail, market manipulation, etc).
All you need to do is look at a list of wikileaks highlights to see it's not true:
Somalian assassination order
Swiss Bank Julius Baer
British National Party membership list
British University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
Australian internet censorship list
Peruvian Petrogate scandal
Trafigura toxic dumping in the Ivory Coast
Kaupthing Bank of Iceland
British Joint Services Protocol
Love Parade stampede in Duisburg, Germany
American Exceptionalism is the sadly more and more common belief that America, by its very nature, can do no wrong.
No. It is the belief that the US is better than other countries. Not perfect, just better.
I fail to see a meaningful distinction between your definition and the OPs.
Mainly because such a belief inevitably leads to exactly the same consequences - ruthless arrogance.
Thanks, I've traveled outside the US, which helps to get some perspective.
Hell, just paying attention in high school civics class ought to be enough to come to the same conclusions -- unless you've got that new texan curriculum, then you probably do need to travel...
Furthermore, like most things in the current data dump, well informed observers were already aware of it. Hell, even casual observers knew something was going on. After N Korea launched that missile over japan a couple of years ago there was a LOT of talk about how the whole event had seriously strained relations with China and lots of speculation that China might even take direct action - like assassinating some of the power players in the N Korean government that may have been responsible (yes, even in a dictatorship there are plenty of internal power struggles and political games).
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
You ever want a nuke so much you thought your little centrifuge was gonna break in two?
I didn't think so.
You ever tried with all your heart and soul to get your uranium back to you?
I wanna hope so.
You ever pray with all your heart and soul just to watch it spin away?
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Baby did a bad bad thing, feel like crying, feel like crying.
You ever toss and turn your lying awake and thinking about the yellow cake you love?
I don't think so.
You ever close your eyes your making believe your holding the nuke your dreaming of?
Well if you say so.
I hurts so bad when you finally know just how low, low, low, low, low, Israel'll go.
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Baby did a bad bad thing, feel like crying, feel like crying.
Ohh. Feel like crying, feel like crying.
Ohh, feel like crying, feel like crying.
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Ray is a hack that spouts inexact and mainly non-confirmable crap who deserves about as much respect as Nostradamus.
I was struck by how much the post you were responding to resembles the accusations of Kurzweil's own vague craptitude. I really thought it might have been a deliberate parody.