No, it is not a matter of being "seen as selfish".
Hell of a claim to make. Granted my claim is just as grand, but I have to ask; do you really understand this culture? Quite bluntly, it's a non event. In that context you do NOT become the centre of events, ever (it happens far too often). The only attention you would get is a judgment amongst your peers. The only decision of that judgment is whether your actions are honorable or not in the circumstances surrounding your death based on the actions taken and the reasons behind them.
Uselessness, as stated is a very loaded word. I urge you to understand what is meant by it in this specific context. I recommend that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure. It is quite revealing. Think about it, what we're doing on this forum is, for the most part, quite useless. The chances of you and I actually gaining something from this conversation are practically none. It is more likely that we will continue to exist and live out our live the exact same way as if this conversation never happened. In this sense, it is beneficial to understand the meaning of uselessness.
I would wager that the view you're holding had been indoctrinated by the Judeo-Christian view of suicide. I find that it is not universal.
Ultimately, the fundamental view is this: No one deserves the right to live any more than anyone deserves the right to take life. The fact that you're alive does not warrant respect of it. It is about both freedom and freedom to choose. Choices have consequences.
I do take a position. That position is "the question is not relevant, therefore the answers are meaningless". I do know that this is hardly ever stated in any dictionary, and I suspect it has more to do with people's personal expectations than the word itself. Take the second definition you've provided: "a disbelief in the existence of deity, the doctrine that there is no deity". The first part of the sentence hits the nail on it's head. The addition of the second part after the comma literally kills the concept! Like yourself, being unfamiliar with such a position, the writer probably never even IMAGINED that you can have one without the other. It is unfortunate. It's really right there in that definition, but made completely pointless by a blathering imbecile (personal opinion).
It could be seen as selfish if you have expectation that the person must survive (for whatever ideological reason you may have). But I think that that onus then is on yourself for expecting such things, and therefore the selfishness is with yourself. It is selfless to realize your own uselessness. (Uselessness is a very loaded word in this case).
If it was taken for granted, as you say, then why did Alexander do what he did? You see, the ancient world is as just wonderfully fucked up as the current one, and such generalization don't mean a whole lot.
Seek not the end itself, but that which brings the end to you. It seems that you've reduced life to "existing without the ability to perish", which hangs on the wishes of others. (That they're your family is not lost on me). Also, since there is nothing to suggest that you're living your current life one way or the other, certain assumptions are made based on generality.
I'm not sympathetic simply because I know nothing about you, so this is NOT advice.
I do not respect any argument of "tediousness". That is insulting to the rest of the human race. Even the rich, while they drown in their own riches, must survive the pettiness of their peers. Life is a deadly game any way you slice it.
Why are you not a fire-fighter?
Why are you not a cop
Why are you not a soldier?
etc...
Any one of these can bring death to you, while you're standing on your own two feet.
I say this as someone who is trying to morph my life around this very concept (I am far from successful).
All I can see from what you said is: You seek to tell others that you did not succeed. You seek to tell them that you haven't bothered trying to. You see, if you were to perish by doing the impossible, then you get to die for something, rather than some lame wallowing in your own sorrow.
I wonder how this argument sounds to say... a samurai. A real one that is. How do you explain that philosophy away? It is a path that seeks death. Death is the ultimate goal. Death not being a negative, simply a place of "final state". I mention them because suicide, to this culture, is an honorable act, and to fail to commit it (out of fear) is an insult, is selfish, and is cowardly. Though this thought is not mainstream -- that culture is still alive. It is composed of people you come across every day (not that you'd see it). I really do wonder, what is the argument for someone of that conviction, to call them selfish?
More to the point, if death is seen as a negative, then it is logical for anyone that considers it so to be repulsed by it. This does not, however, speak for people that have accepted a different conviction of the subject matter.
I don't think so. Strictly speaking, I lack belief, in the very real sense. I do not hold a belief that there is no god any more than I do that there is. Yet you cannot call me agnostic. The most accurate description of where I stand is: "That question makes no sense." What stretch of the imagination could call that a religion? Though this is an atheistic position, because it presumes that questions of god-ness to be irrelevant.
A-theist = Lack of theism. One does not have to believe ANYTHING to lack theism. Therefore it does not follow that an atheist must hold a belief that there is no god. It is enough that he/she does not hold a belief that there is.
Actually, it's far more likely that this particular person failed to learn the most glaringly obvious principals behind the OS. The choice of switching one GUI for another is most definitely one that can be handled by newbs, as it is literally a click away. I suggest you're trolling, on purpose. If not, you're just a hired goon, AC.
So the responsibility of an app being cross platform is with the OS?
Let me ask you this: as each of these apps were developed with the specific design for a single platform, behind closed doors, with the intended purpose of keeping a tight control over that code, please explain how these applications can then be ported in the manner in which you specify (perfect function).
I'm very curious to know your technical solution to this political problem.
In my experience the OSX GUI model is still too clickity click oriented. Main pet peeve is the insistence on having cmd-c cmd-v style of copy paste, where as in linux is simply highlight and middle click.
I don't see why bacteria insertion could not be the cause though
I think it's because these types of people (I know I'm generalizing here) have a very active but very poor imagination.
Re:It's not just what you say, but how
on
The RMS Tour Rider
·
· Score: 0
I've actually met a "narcissistic man-child with grandiosity problems". RMS is not one. Not even close. Perhaps you should read up about the definition of the word before you start foaming at the mouth.
Very similar experience. I simply do not comprehend the prohibitive tendencies, though, it seems to me, that these manifest themselves, more often than not, in the minds of ignorant people. Not necessarily stupid. For instance, my wife could not watch "The Simpsons" as a child, where as I could. The only difference between us was that she ended up watching it in secret anyway, and the whole thing was just pointless theatrics of "responsibility".
Augh... you are actually quite frustrating. Granted I shouldn't have even followed this thread to this point, but it seems that the others are right. You were simply called out on your mistake, and then you denied it. They called you out for your denial, and now you're saying "take it easy". I'm not going to tell you what to do. Just that you seem exactly as your described. I'm assuming that if you're still responding you're somewhat motivated to clarify... The problem is that what you're saying validates others, not yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell of a claim to make. Granted my claim is just as grand, but I have to ask; do you really understand this culture? Quite bluntly, it's a non event. In that context you do NOT become the centre of events, ever (it happens far too often). The only attention you would get is a judgment amongst your peers. The only decision of that judgment is whether your actions are honorable or not in the circumstances surrounding your death based on the actions taken and the reasons behind them.
Uselessness, as stated is a very loaded word. I urge you to understand what is meant by it in this specific context. I recommend that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure. It is quite revealing. Think about it, what we're doing on this forum is, for the most part, quite useless. The chances of you and I actually gaining something from this conversation are practically none. It is more likely that we will continue to exist and live out our live the exact same way as if this conversation never happened. In this sense, it is beneficial to understand the meaning of uselessness.
I would wager that the view you're holding had been indoctrinated by the Judeo-Christian view of suicide. I find that it is not universal.
Ultimately, the fundamental view is this: No one deserves the right to live any more than anyone deserves the right to take life. The fact that you're alive does not warrant respect of it. It is about both freedom and freedom to choose. Choices have consequences.
Keep the politics out of it, obviously... but then that's a social problem, and no, I wont be offering solutions to that.
I do take a position. That position is "the question is not relevant, therefore the answers are meaningless". I do know that this is hardly ever stated in any dictionary, and I suspect it has more to do with people's personal expectations than the word itself. Take the second definition you've provided: "a disbelief in the existence of deity, the doctrine that there is no deity". The first part of the sentence hits the nail on it's head. The addition of the second part after the comma literally kills the concept! Like yourself, being unfamiliar with such a position, the writer probably never even IMAGINED that you can have one without the other. It is unfortunate. It's really right there in that definition, but made completely pointless by a blathering imbecile (personal opinion).
It could be seen as selfish if you have expectation that the person must survive (for whatever ideological reason you may have). But I think that that onus then is on yourself for expecting such things, and therefore the selfishness is with yourself. It is selfless to realize your own uselessness. (Uselessness is a very loaded word in this case).
If it was taken for granted, as you say, then why did Alexander do what he did? You see, the ancient world is as just wonderfully fucked up as the current one, and such generalization don't mean a whole lot.
Hmmm, as a point of curiousity, what would you say the main "not to do" points were?
I'm not sympathetic simply because I know nothing about you, so this is NOT advice.
I do not respect any argument of "tediousness". That is insulting to the rest of the human race. Even the rich, while they drown in their own riches, must survive the pettiness of their peers. Life is a deadly game any way you slice it.
Why are you not a fire-fighter?
Why are you not a cop
Why are you not a soldier?
etc...
Any one of these can bring death to you, while you're standing on your own two feet.
I say this as someone who is trying to morph my life around this very concept (I am far from successful).
All I can see from what you said is: You seek to tell others that you did not succeed. You seek to tell them that you haven't bothered trying to. You see, if you were to perish by doing the impossible, then you get to die for something, rather than some lame wallowing in your own sorrow.
You are not ready nor worthy of death.
I wonder how this argument sounds to say... a samurai. A real one that is. How do you explain that philosophy away? It is a path that seeks death. Death is the ultimate goal. Death not being a negative, simply a place of "final state". I mention them because suicide, to this culture, is an honorable act, and to fail to commit it (out of fear) is an insult, is selfish, and is cowardly. Though this thought is not mainstream -- that culture is still alive. It is composed of people you come across every day (not that you'd see it). I really do wonder, what is the argument for someone of that conviction, to call them selfish?
More to the point, if death is seen as a negative, then it is logical for anyone that considers it so to be repulsed by it. This does not, however, speak for people that have accepted a different conviction of the subject matter.
I don't think so. Strictly speaking, I lack belief, in the very real sense. I do not hold a belief that there is no god any more than I do that there is. Yet you cannot call me agnostic. The most accurate description of where I stand is: "That question makes no sense." What stretch of the imagination could call that a religion? Though this is an atheistic position, because it presumes that questions of god-ness to be irrelevant.
A-theist = Lack of theism. One does not have to believe ANYTHING to lack theism. Therefore it does not follow that an atheist must hold a belief that there is no god. It is enough that he/she does not hold a belief that there is.
Actually, it's far more likely that this particular person failed to learn the most glaringly obvious principals behind the OS. The choice of switching one GUI for another is most definitely one that can be handled by newbs, as it is literally a click away. I suggest you're trolling, on purpose. If not, you're just a hired goon, AC.
I think your sig is infinite.
The burden of proof sits squarely with you. That's how.
What does this actually get you? Sure, you'll piss someone off in the moment. This does nothing to deter the COMPANY.
And... we don't actually care. Any word in one language is bound to be stupid in another. That's why we use contexts.
So the responsibility of an app being cross platform is with the OS?
Let me ask you this: as each of these apps were developed with the specific design for a single platform, behind closed doors, with the intended purpose of keeping a tight control over that code, please explain how these applications can then be ported in the manner in which you specify (perfect function).
I'm very curious to know your technical solution to this political problem.
In my experience the OSX GUI model is still too clickity click oriented. Main pet peeve is the insistence on having cmd-c cmd-v style of copy paste, where as in linux is simply highlight and middle click.
I concur. Hilariously ironic. Everyone *else* is the hater, of course.
I think it's because these types of people (I know I'm generalizing here) have a very active but very poor imagination.
I've actually met a "narcissistic man-child with grandiosity problems". RMS is not one. Not even close. Perhaps you should read up about the definition of the word before you start foaming at the mouth.
Not to mention that at the end of the day, it has its uses too.
You honestly think that THAT's what's he's saying?
Very similar experience. I simply do not comprehend the prohibitive tendencies, though, it seems to me, that these manifest themselves, more often than not, in the minds of ignorant people. Not necessarily stupid. For instance, my wife could not watch "The Simpsons" as a child, where as I could. The only difference between us was that she ended up watching it in secret anyway, and the whole thing was just pointless theatrics of "responsibility".
I think my own comment was a bit on the fruitless side too. Cheers.
Augh... you are actually quite frustrating. Granted I shouldn't have even followed this thread to this point, but it seems that the others are right. You were simply called out on your mistake, and then you denied it. They called you out for your denial, and now you're saying "take it easy". I'm not going to tell you what to do. Just that you seem exactly as your described. I'm assuming that if you're still responding you're somewhat motivated to clarify... The problem is that what you're saying validates others, not yourself.