I read about it in a Navy Safety magazine that I can not remember the name of now. Flightline? Regardless, the story is even more intense than what that web page shows.
One pilots radios in for an emergency landing and ATC grants permission. The second pilot radios in for emergency landing and ATC tells him he has to go to a different airfield because they are dealing with an emergency already... and the second pilot lands anyways because there is no way he is making it to another field. It is absolutely amazing that both pilots not merely lived, but landed their planes safely. Just wow.
The pilot of the plane that had half of a wing missing had no idea half of his wing was gone until he landed and saw the destruction (apparently, he was more interested in landing than surveying all of the damage while in flight). The avionics compensated for all of that damage. Amazing.
It is because humans appear to be pre-programmed to help innocent young children out. Predators realize this and play to it all the time. "Think of the children" is an attempt to short circuit logic on the victim by the predator. Sometimes, it is not a predator but someone who has been victimized by such a predator before and apes the behavior in the hopes of eliciting similar results... not realizing that it makes them a predator too.
Regardless, any time I see this crap. I tell myself, "burn them all". It is hard and it hurts but when I see the situation logically again, I understand that bending rules in one situation leads to bent rules everywhere and then everything is all fucked up again and even larger numbers of people, children included, get hurt or die.
Nonsense. There is not a fixed quota of crime in the world. Criminals exploit profitable opportunities, and more opportunities mean more crime, while fewer opportunities mean less crime. A secure operating system does not "push" people into phishing. Writing a virus and social engineering don't even use the same skill sets.
At first blush, I thought that I agreed with you. A moment of thought brought some nagging doubts to my mind...
Crime does not occur simply because there is opportunity. There are plenty of opportunities for crime that are never taken. Yes, opportunity does play a, significant I believe, role, but it is not a determining factor except that if there is no opportunity, there is no crime.
Whatever drives the need or desire for crime is the thing that makes criminals look for opportunities. Increasing the need or desire for crime, I suspect, would provide an incentive for a criminal to learn new techniques if their normal opportunities are not not available; therefore, a secure operating system along with a consistent need or desire for crime may indeed push a virus writer into learning social engineering as well.
A series of 5000 "high risk" transactions where you lose most of the time, but win big occasionally, is typically how money is laundered. The inputs are not traceable, and the earnings become legitimate.
Sounds like the stock market. Futures or Commodities.
Voluntary charity is fine. There is nothing wrong with it and even if there were something wrong with it, it is not up to me to decide what you do or do not do (generally speaking. I will stop you from actively hurting others and such).
I'm not necessarily a fan of everyone on the planet, but I'm not convinced "some should die" simply due to food allocation difficulties.
Interpret however you want. I do not care. Some will die. I know what you are trying to get at and I reject it in its entirety. Almost two years ago to the day, I was facing a situation to where I could not feed myself. Did I whine or complain or try to force others to help me? No. I was prepared to lay down in my living room and die. Your next argument will be, "see? someone must have helped you or you would be dead right now.", and my response is I owe nobody anything. I have, and do help people. It is purely at my discretion if I help, and if so, how much help I give. Again, I owe nothing to everyone/anyone.
To you, he is a criminal.
Not at all. Now if we had sufficient food and energy for all and Johnny Depp decided to hoard more than he could use simply to deprive others from having enough, then he would be a criminal. Why would Johnny Depp do that though? Why would anyone? Except a criminal or a nutcase.
You assume he is required to justify his hoarding. Who is requiring this justification? Clearly, it is YOU. I agree with you that if he is hoarding it only for the purpose of ensuring others suffer, he would be a very bad person. If he is hoarding it to maintain his security in this world, as long as he earned it or created it himself, then I see no problems with that... even if *I* am the one starving. Your or my suffering does not place any a priori obligations on anyone else. Your life is yours. It is up to you to maintain it or not. My life is mine. It is up to me to maintain it, or not. Nobody else is obliged in any way concerning these issues. Yes, it is nice to help others. No, it is NOT an obligation.
As a species we've continually generated more food and more energy with increasingly less effort. If the trend continues (and why shouldn't it?) then eventually the labour of one person working the equivalent of one day can through the magic of technology and science produce enough food and power for the world.
There is already enough food and power in the world to give to everyone. Why would anyone generate more? There is no incentive to do so. As soon as their is an incentive, more food and more power will be generated. Unfortunately for your ideals, incentive in this case generally means transfer of wealth. If you have nothing to offer, nobody is willing to give anything. It sucks for the starving people in Africa who live under a dictator who steal all of the food aid, but what are you going to do? March in with an Army and steal money from Johnny Depp to feed them?
You keep circling around to it being something that you are going to be making, with sweat pouring from your brow, and god forbid anyone else touch the fruits of your labor. Jeebus, let it go, nobody wants your sweaty food. I'm not even sure why you want it so badly. In a world where enough is produced by autmated labor that it can be consumed the way we consume oxygen now -- what is the point of getting worked up over ownership. If someone takes "your food" just get some more, but why would anyone take "your food" in the first place, when they can get their own, in as large a quantity they like, just as easily?
When it gets to that level of food availability then sure. However, even with an overabundance of food, if you take food directly from someone's plate instead of getting up and walking over to the food dispenser yourself, I strongly suspect you will still end up suffering. Even when food is free, the effort to
Define "inappropriately rewarded". Because without context you just wrote that sharing and charity are both negative personality traits.
Forced charity is not charity.
Finite yes. But is there less then enough? What if there was enough.
It depends on your definition of enough. There is enough food in the world right now to feed everyone. Does that mean everyone should eat? No. Some should die. It sucks, but there you have it. While that food is edible, it has value. That value belongs to someone. Taking that value from someone and giving it to someone else is wrong. On a personal level, I would give some of it away, but, I would have to limit the amounts that I gave away because then it would cut into the value of what I have already harvested. Remember, I harvest for ME. If you expect me to harvest for you, you are sadly mistaken. If you can force me to harvest for you, you can expect the crappiest possible work while still maintaining the image that I am harvesting.
Insult me at this point if you want, but you can clearly see it in human behavior all around you. It is why service is so crappy EVERYWHERE. Even the prostitutes barely provide any customer service and their whole business revolves around good customer service.
That's a good example, of something that there currently IS enough of. Nobody has to pay for it. Do you think people who work harder should get more? Do you think layabouts should get less? Do you really have any objection to there being enough clean oxygen for everyone to breath as much they like?
Soon (geologically speaking), there will NOT be enough clean air full of oxygen to breathe, at that point, it becomes a scarce resource.
Do you go around carving oxygen out for yourself? Imagine food and energy were available like that. Would you begrudge other people food and energy if you had all you wanted?
I do not begrudge anyone anything they have earned for themselves. Johnny Depp has made more money in the past few years than I will in several lifetimes. He looks better than me. He is more talented than me. He was in the right place at the right time. To you, he is a criminal. To me, he is just fortunate on numerous accounts. I am happy for him.
Do you go around carving oxygen out for yourself? Imagine food and energy were available like that. Would you begrudge other people food and energy if you had all you wanted?
If you can make food and energy available like that, more power to you. Somehow or another, I expect that you want to make food and energy available like that by taking from others instead of coming up with a system that will make it available yourself.
Which is why I took the left turn at the end of my last reply. Long story short, even if food, shelter, and clothing were freely available due to some unforeseen technological advance, I would be totally happy with that. If you think that just because there is enough food, shelter, and clothing existing in this world to feed everybody that you can take it from those who made it and own it to give to everyone else, I would say you are smoking crack.
If you want help with someone or something that is artificially keeping you down, I am the man to call on to help you. If you want to steal what others have created, I am your worst nightmare. If you know how to create a free energy machine, I will be there right next to you helping to build it, after all, I benefit too. If you think that just because I am more fortunate than the average man that I will give up everything I own (to the average man hopefully, but that is not true historically) until I am at the same level of reward as the average man, you are smoking some bad dope.
It is normally a waste of time to respond to anonymous cowards...
But can you explain to me how removing a safety feature (clear glass that someone can see out of) actually IMPROVES safety? I think these new video screens are awesome, I just do not see the need to remove the actual window. I also do not see why the new video screens REQUIRE the removal of said windows.
Last time Airbus allowed an actual pilot to control one of their planes they crashed it into the south atlantic.
Not true... or at least poorly worded: Last time Airbus computers gave up because they had no idea what to do the pilot took control of their plane and crashed it into the south atlantic almost as quickly as the computer was about to.
The lesson there was better trained pilots might have saved some lives. *might* It was a very bad situation.
presuming of course you wash the exterior of the vacuum sealed container and possibly double-bagged it.
That is the real trick. Removing all traces is next to impossible. Proper handling procedures say that the deployed container should NEVER have been in contact with whatever is inside of it, making cleaning an unnecessary exercise.
Google's Android phones flat out REFUSE to uninstall Facebook, for example.
Pardon? I do not think that I have heard you correctly. I have owned almost every single model of phone branded by Google and none of them came with Facebook installed. Facebook was installed on one of them and uninstalled just fine.
Perhaps you purchased your Google phone through a carrier? American carriers are NOTORIOUS for preinstalling crapware and trying to make it non-removable. Pay for your phone outright and do not buy it through a carrier and you will not have those problems.
(BTW, the battery life on all of the Nexus phones until the 4 were just reasonable. With the Nexus 4, the battery life was outstanding. With Nexus 5, the battery life is Oh My Fucking God, is this an old Nokia nothing but number buttons phone? Seriously, 24 hours and 87% battery still left. Not stock Android).
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
And what does that Ocean sit on top of? (sorry, had to.)
You have fallen victim to judging things by their shallow surface appearance. How many miles deep does the ocean go? I guarantee you it is less than 10 miles. Compared to how many miles of Earth?;)
I've noticed that immigrants to the US always complain about the cost of healthcare. Until they start noticing those subtle differences, the extra effort American doctors put into patient care, prompt treatment and a general sense that everything is handled more thoroughly.
Wow! You have been part of a medical system that I have NEVER seen... and I am an American. The doctors are only semi-qualified most of the time. They just fucking guess at what the problem might be. There is no such thing as prompt treatment (really? You really said prompt treatment?!).
The medical system is an absolute mess in America. I would rather go visit the "fire and forget" doctors in Asia. At least there, everything that is normal for a doctor to see is handle expeditiously. God forbid you see an American doctor for headaches that have been mysteriously happening once a week every week for several months in a row. They will have absolutely no clue what to do, suggest, or even consider... except maybe that you are looking for pills.
Just in case you were wondering, it was a preservative used in cereals. At least the Asian doctors thought to point out that it might be an allergic reaction so I could do my own legwork (stop eating what I was eating one by one until the headaches went away. Then, when they went away, try the thing that might have been causing them. POW. Instant headache. Take the package into the doctor and ask what it is in it: sugar and flour, nothing else. Liars. Preservatives.).
Firstly, you cherry picked your friend out of the teeming masses of people who work hard and said "hey this guys doing really great and he works really hard, why doesn't he deserve it!?" Of course he deserves it. I'm not saying he doesn't.
Cherry picked? Hm. I have several other friends who have quite a few resources gathered. The one I picked was my closest friend. But cherry picked or not is irrelevant. He (a mere plumber BTW, which is why I said most people could have done what he does) is a valid example of gathering more resources based on hard work.
Now go back to that teeming mass of humanity and look at all the people who work just as hard and are living in a one bedroom apartment trying to make ends meet. Do they not also deserve better? Why does your friend deserve 200k per year and they don't?
Because hard work is not all of it. Yes, luck plays a role. I have had my share of hard luck and it sucks. Badly. Being ethical. Being trustworthy. Not being greedy. All of these are traits that have helped him to near the top of heap that he participates in. Does everyone who works hard deserve better? That is a hard question to answer. Does the assembly line worker deserve more despite how hard they might work? We are getting into the discussion of what a basic income should be if that is what you are asking. Does one assembly line worker deserve more than another assembly line worker if one works harder than the other? You bet. I have been there and done that. I definitely deserved more... and, I got more.
For just one example of thousands, your friend could have randomly contracted cancer at a young age and it would have completely changed the direction of his life. Lets assume he's still be the same motivated hard working guy today... the years in treatment would have taken their toll, lost opportunities... time away from work and school for treatment, etc...would he have ended up precisely where he is today if he'd had a 7 year struggle with cancer in his early 20s? Its doubtful.
Doubtful? Not at all. Impossible... with the caveat that in seven more years he might be where is today. Or maybe, he would have went into a different line of business. Reality is hard to predict. Furthermore, this whole line of discussion is utterly pointless. "What if" does not count in reality. The world is the way it is. We can seek to change it, but will our efforts change it in the ways that we desire? Life is full of "bad luck" but it is also full of bad decisions. We can try to minimize the negative impacts of bad luck but if we try to make everything fair despite the bad luck, have we really made everything fair? No. Reality is the final arbiter and it has no space for concepts such as fair.
Secondly, the way you've phrased the question, it seems that its not merely sufficient that your friend be satisfied with the quality of his life for its own sake, but that its especially important that he get MORE than most other people?
I think you are beginning to project your own biases here but I will respond nevertheless because I am curious: Are you saying that the only reason he works hard is so that he can keep other people poor? Are you saying the he wants to keep other people in poverty so he can enjoy his resources more? Honestly, I am unsure what you are implying but it seems that you are aiming for a VERY dark area.
Can you explain to me why you feel its so important that everyone else not have the things your friend has?
And you step deeply into it. It is not important that everyone else not have what he has. Reality says that there are limited resources. There is only so much food, only so much energy, only so much oxygen. I am perfectly fine with people carving resources out for themselves. I am not okay with people taking resources from the people who are gathering those resources because those people feel that they deserve somethi
We would have had a chance if it hadn't been for the systematic dismantling of organized labor starting in the late 70s/early 80s.
Ah yes. The hope and savior for the working class. The corrupted, mafia controlled, unions. Woot! They were really gonna save the helpless workers. Until... Until...
The canary in the coal mine there, I think, was Reagan firing the air traffic controllers.
Until that? WTF? Are you trying to say that the unions lost all their power shortly after that incident and for the same reasons? What are you trying to say here?
Oh, tell Jimmy Hoffa that I said hello. Go union, go strong!;)
If you disagree, kindly tell me what you do with people in your ideal communist society who want to put in above-average effort, and reap the extra rewards.
How are those *fundamentally* different from the people in my current society who want to take more than their allocated reward? Pretty sure we don't MURDER them.
Exiling the motivated will simply rapidly impoverish those that remain.
Calling them "the motivated" is a fallacy out of the gate. It has naught to do with motivation, and everything to do with them being criminals by the standards of the society.
I sincerely hope that you two are talking about two totally different kinds of people.
I know someone who is very motivated. He earns over $200k a year. That is far above average. Many different people COULD do what he does, but they do not. He does it. He does it better.
Now explain to me why he should be rewarded the same as someone who does not do what he does. Explain to me why he would keep doing what he does if can not reap the rewards of his hard work.
I really really really am hoping that you are talking about those people who inherited their money and use their position of power to reap more power rather than talking about my friend who is actually working... because if you are talking about both types of people when you say they are criminals, then you are SERIOUSLY fucked in the head.
Honestly, I am expecting that you just have no idea what you are talking about and are just wanting to "stick it to the man". +4 insightful my ass. You have no idea about the real world.
In general I applaud the EU ruling *if* it really gets implemented fairly. But there's all sorts of wiggles to mess around with.
Erm, how can you possibly, in good conscience, support the EU ruling?
Google is just indexing what is there. If the EU is going to try and implement a "Right to be Forgotten" law, then it should be the responsibility of the web site hosting the material to remove it. It will then fall out of all search engine indexes. As it stands now, I can STILL access whatever Google removes from their indexes.
I suspect it was "easier" to go after Google than the "right" of free speech. It just does not make sense.
I can not speak for the NSA (and if I could, I would have to kill you after I tell you) but my understanding is they collect the data. They only analyze what they are told to analyze. The world wanted Washington out of Iraq so Washington got out of Iraq; therefore, no analysis even though the data was collected.
I am sure they are going through all of that collected data now though. We shall soon see how disciplined ISIL's signals practices are.
I'm sick of this inane, uninformed argument. 1. It shouldn't be. That's why we're having this debate. It would be one thing if our government found evidence of something shifty going on... spied to confirm or refute that, and then took action. That's not what they are doing though. They're bugging every world leader, tapping the phones of damned near every citizen, reading our mail... this is Orwellian blanket surveillance which is a far cry from "Spying" This isn't "Spying" it's totalitarianism and it's wrong.
You may be conflating two issues here, it is hard to tell with your grammar. Specifically the part about citizens.
The NSA is supposed to be doing everything it can to see everything it can outside of the USA. One would, and should, assume other countries have similar agencies doing similar things.
Should a country find itself spying on its own citizens, then yes, it is totalitarianism.
Should a country find itself using the "fruits" of such espionage for economic gain then, well, it is the law of the jungle at the national level. At the citizen's level, we are more civilized than that and the law of the jungle only applies at the social level... and to some extent, the business level, which is why so many people think the law of the jungle is "wrong". At the national level, it applies in every way. The law of the jungle is what exists. Deal with it.
2. Comparing what the rest of the world does to what the NSA does is a joke. Yes, they spy on us, but they're not intercepting ALL of our phone calls. How many countries do you think have the US presidents phone tapped? I bet it's just one... take a guess who I think that is.
Hm. Who cares what the rest of the world can do when trying to make moral judgements? The only thing that needs to be known is that every single one of them would be doing it if they could. And they should. There is no telling what another country will do. I hate to bring up Hitler but I can not seem to get that fucker out of my mind. If we had SIGINT showing us that he was implementing the Final Solution, perhaps the war would have happened differently...
In relation to the President's phone, well, the NSA is also responsible for defense. Considering how good they are at signals offense, I am willing to be that there are very very few countries who have the President's phone tapped. There is no reason to believe that more than about 4 countries could possibly pull off some limited signals intelligence from the President's phone.
WE are better than that. We don't need to do this. It's wrong, we all know it. It should stop immediately.
Erm... the only reason that you have the luxury to even think of this idea is because governments are doing things that at a societal level are considered "immoral". I am sure you cry like a little girl every time a wolf catches a baby dear and eats it, just like you cry when governments do things that would be immoral for an individual to do.
No. The real problem is when governments turn such tools on to their masters, the citizens. This is not a problem for the UK since the masters of the UK and many other European nations are Royalty, not the citizens; however, in the United States, the citizen is the explicit owner and master of the government. The administration is explicitly declaring independence from the United States of America when it continuously and knowingly goes against the Constitution.
Sounds good in theory. In practice, what really happens is that some code is shown to you. You are not given a compilation environment. You are specifically prohibited from compiling at all actually. So even if you wanted to build it, you can not. If you think grabbing source files and compiling them without the same options and libs that were used in the distributed binary will get you a binary that can be md5'ed, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.
I have seen the source for Windows before (NT4 and 2000). That is how it worked then and there is no reason to believe it will be any different now.
In Ca, it's a ticket if a car enters a crosswalk while a pedestrian is using it, no matter if they're on the other side of the intersection or not.
Huh?! If I am on a major street, how am I supposed to keep track of a pedestrian possibly 8 lanes (major streets have right and left turn lanes plus 2 to 3 straight lanes) over deciding to enter a crosswalk and still pay attention to what is in front of me while traveling at 40 or more miles per hour?
This may be showing my age, but when I was taught how to drive, staying stopped for the pedestrian to leave the crosswalk entirely was what yellow crosswalks were for. White crosswalks are as soon as they are out of your side of the street.
Methinks that a lot of traffic education will need to be performed if what you say is true. There are literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of drivers with the same understanding that I have.
That is three victims, one fatally injured, at a single crosswalk with flashing lights in the Sunset. The description matches what I see in my little New England town where I'll slow because I see a deer stepping into the road and the car behind me thinks they need to pass me on a two lane road so as not to slow down at all
Unfortunately, no amount of engineering willing fix this problem until humans and vehicles do not need to exist in the same space. Harsh penalties for the offender will help a bit because it removes the offender from the pool of drivers, but there are new impatient drivers being created all of the time.
Long story short, pedestrians, you take your life in your own hands every time you cross a street. Drivers, you can expect to never drive again for the rest of your life if you hit someone who is legally in a crosswalk. Expect 2nd degree murder charges if they die.
That electricity is used because of global warming.
LOL. Instant and easy +5, but meaningless. Do you have any evidence to show that global warming is affecting Americans more than... say Australians?
Honestly, the American household uses a lot of energy based on "always on" wall warts and other appliances, and the minimum required insulation (most do not get a choice in how their house is built),
Now, the reason why America uses more energy is because it does more manufacturing. That is why figuring out energy use for the country and then dividing it by population is not merely meaningless, but actively misleading.
But yeah, enjoy your free and pointless +5 that others are now "forced" to read merely because it mentions global warming.
You have failed to establish a compelling rationale for why employers' beliefs need to be suppressed simply in order to provide birth control to people.
I am not the person you were responding to. I would say that the employer only needs to pay cash for services rendered by the employee. What the employee spends that cash on is none of the employers business.
Since medical care is part of the remuneration, it is again, none of the employers business what medical services the employee receives. Employers should be fighting being required to provide health insurance, not what types of health services employees seek.
We all want our friends and neighbors to have religious freedom. But when they become our employers, shouldn't there be a limit to their expression of it when it affects our access to health care?
You can thank the "Protestant Work Ethic" for this insanity. Healthcare should not be tied to employment or your employer. This insanity must stop. Yes, I fully understand the steps that led to this... but sometimes, you just gotta let people die from their choices (Social Security?).
Slashdot Mirror
This fricken plane is airworthy with half a wing and an engine missing. Could the F-35 do that?
I have no idea but an F18 can. I found this link that essentially backs up what I remember.
http://www.aircraftresourcecen...
I read about it in a Navy Safety magazine that I can not remember the name of now. Flightline? Regardless, the story is even more intense than what that web page shows.
One pilots radios in for an emergency landing and ATC grants permission. The second pilot radios in for emergency landing and ATC tells him he has to go to a different airfield because they are dealing with an emergency already... and the second pilot lands anyways because there is no way he is making it to another field. It is absolutely amazing that both pilots not merely lived, but landed their planes safely. Just wow.
The pilot of the plane that had half of a wing missing had no idea half of his wing was gone until he landed and saw the destruction (apparently, he was more interested in landing than surveying all of the damage while in flight). The avionics compensated for all of that damage. Amazing.
Great. More "for the children" bullshit.
It is because humans appear to be pre-programmed to help innocent young children out. Predators realize this and play to it all the time. "Think of the children" is an attempt to short circuit logic on the victim by the predator. Sometimes, it is not a predator but someone who has been victimized by such a predator before and apes the behavior in the hopes of eliciting similar results... not realizing that it makes them a predator too.
Regardless, any time I see this crap. I tell myself, "burn them all". It is hard and it hurts but when I see the situation logically again, I understand that bending rules in one situation leads to bent rules everywhere and then everything is all fucked up again and even larger numbers of people, children included, get hurt or die.
Nonsense. There is not a fixed quota of crime in the world. Criminals exploit profitable opportunities, and more opportunities mean more crime, while fewer opportunities mean less crime. A secure operating system does not "push" people into phishing. Writing a virus and social engineering don't even use the same skill sets.
At first blush, I thought that I agreed with you. A moment of thought brought some nagging doubts to my mind...
Crime does not occur simply because there is opportunity. There are plenty of opportunities for crime that are never taken. Yes, opportunity does play a, significant I believe, role, but it is not a determining factor except that if there is no opportunity, there is no crime.
Whatever drives the need or desire for crime is the thing that makes criminals look for opportunities. Increasing the need or desire for crime, I suspect, would provide an incentive for a criminal to learn new techniques if their normal opportunities are not not available; therefore, a secure operating system along with a consistent need or desire for crime may indeed push a virus writer into learning social engineering as well.
Weird.
A series of 5000 "high risk" transactions where you lose most of the time, but win big occasionally, is typically how money is laundered. The inputs are not traceable, and the earnings become legitimate.
Sounds like the stock market. Futures or Commodities.
That doesn't answer the question.
Voluntary charity is fine. There is nothing wrong with it and even if there were something wrong with it, it is not up to me to decide what you do or do not do (generally speaking. I will stop you from actively hurting others and such).
I'm not necessarily a fan of everyone on the planet, but I'm not convinced "some should die" simply due to food allocation difficulties.
Interpret however you want. I do not care. Some will die. I know what you are trying to get at and I reject it in its entirety. Almost two years ago to the day, I was facing a situation to where I could not feed myself. Did I whine or complain or try to force others to help me? No. I was prepared to lay down in my living room and die. Your next argument will be, "see? someone must have helped you or you would be dead right now.", and my response is I owe nobody anything. I have, and do help people. It is purely at my discretion if I help, and if so, how much help I give. Again, I owe nothing to everyone/anyone.
To you, he is a criminal.
Not at all. Now if we had sufficient food and energy for all and Johnny Depp decided to hoard more than he could use simply to deprive others from having enough, then he would be a criminal. Why would Johnny Depp do that though? Why would anyone? Except a criminal or a nutcase.
You assume he is required to justify his hoarding. Who is requiring this justification? Clearly, it is YOU. I agree with you that if he is hoarding it only for the purpose of ensuring others suffer, he would be a very bad person. If he is hoarding it to maintain his security in this world, as long as he earned it or created it himself, then I see no problems with that... even if *I* am the one starving. Your or my suffering does not place any a priori obligations on anyone else. Your life is yours. It is up to you to maintain it or not. My life is mine. It is up to me to maintain it, or not. Nobody else is obliged in any way concerning these issues. Yes, it is nice to help others. No, it is NOT an obligation.
As a species we've continually generated more food and more energy with increasingly less effort. If the trend continues (and why shouldn't it?) then eventually the labour of one person working the equivalent of one day can through the magic of technology and science produce enough food and power for the world.
There is already enough food and power in the world to give to everyone. Why would anyone generate more? There is no incentive to do so. As soon as their is an incentive, more food and more power will be generated. Unfortunately for your ideals, incentive in this case generally means transfer of wealth. If you have nothing to offer, nobody is willing to give anything. It sucks for the starving people in Africa who live under a dictator who steal all of the food aid, but what are you going to do? March in with an Army and steal money from Johnny Depp to feed them?
You keep circling around to it being something that you are going to be making, with sweat pouring from your brow, and god forbid anyone else touch the fruits of your labor. Jeebus, let it go, nobody wants your sweaty food. I'm not even sure why you want it so badly. In a world where enough is produced by autmated labor that it can be consumed the way we consume oxygen now -- what is the point of getting worked up over ownership. If someone takes "your food" just get some more, but why would anyone take "your food" in the first place, when they can get their own, in as large a quantity they like, just as easily?
When it gets to that level of food availability then sure. However, even with an overabundance of food, if you take food directly from someone's plate instead of getting up and walking over to the food dispenser yourself, I strongly suspect you will still end up suffering. Even when food is free, the effort to
Define "inappropriately rewarded". Because without context you just wrote that sharing and charity are both negative personality traits.
Forced charity is not charity.
Finite yes. But is there less then enough? What if there was enough.
It depends on your definition of enough. There is enough food in the world right now to feed everyone. Does that mean everyone should eat? No. Some should die. It sucks, but there you have it. While that food is edible, it has value. That value belongs to someone. Taking that value from someone and giving it to someone else is wrong. On a personal level, I would give some of it away, but, I would have to limit the amounts that I gave away because then it would cut into the value of what I have already harvested. Remember, I harvest for ME. If you expect me to harvest for you, you are sadly mistaken. If you can force me to harvest for you, you can expect the crappiest possible work while still maintaining the image that I am harvesting.
Insult me at this point if you want, but you can clearly see it in human behavior all around you. It is why service is so crappy EVERYWHERE. Even the prostitutes barely provide any customer service and their whole business revolves around good customer service.
That's a good example, of something that there currently IS enough of. Nobody has to pay for it. Do you think people who work harder should get more? Do you think layabouts should get less? Do you really have any objection to there being enough clean oxygen for everyone to breath as much they like?
Soon (geologically speaking), there will NOT be enough clean air full of oxygen to breathe, at that point, it becomes a scarce resource.
Do you go around carving oxygen out for yourself? Imagine food and energy were available like that. Would you begrudge other people food and energy if you had all you wanted?
I do not begrudge anyone anything they have earned for themselves. Johnny Depp has made more money in the past few years than I will in several lifetimes. He looks better than me. He is more talented than me. He was in the right place at the right time. To you, he is a criminal. To me, he is just fortunate on numerous accounts. I am happy for him.
Do you go around carving oxygen out for yourself? Imagine food and energy were available like that. Would you begrudge other people food and energy if you had all you wanted?
If you can make food and energy available like that, more power to you. Somehow or another, I expect that you want to make food and energy available like that by taking from others instead of coming up with a system that will make it available yourself.
Which is why I took the left turn at the end of my last reply. Long story short, even if food, shelter, and clothing were freely available due to some unforeseen technological advance, I would be totally happy with that. If you think that just because there is enough food, shelter, and clothing existing in this world to feed everybody that you can take it from those who made it and own it to give to everyone else, I would say you are smoking crack.
If you want help with someone or something that is artificially keeping you down, I am the man to call on to help you. If you want to steal what others have created, I am your worst nightmare. If you know how to create a free energy machine, I will be there right next to you helping to build it, after all, I benefit too. If you think that just because I am more fortunate than the average man that I will give up everything I own (to the average man hopefully, but that is not true historically) until I am at the same level of reward as the average man, you are smoking some bad dope.
It is normally a waste of time to respond to anonymous cowards...
But can you explain to me how removing a safety feature (clear glass that someone can see out of) actually IMPROVES safety? I think these new video screens are awesome, I just do not see the need to remove the actual window. I also do not see why the new video screens REQUIRE the removal of said windows.
Last time Airbus allowed an actual pilot to control one of their planes they crashed it into the south atlantic.
Not true... or at least poorly worded: Last time Airbus computers gave up because they had no idea what to do the pilot took control of their plane and crashed it into the south atlantic almost as quickly as the computer was about to.
The lesson there was better trained pilots might have saved some lives. *might* It was a very bad situation.
I wonder if vacuum sealing works
Of course it works.
presuming of course you wash the exterior of the vacuum sealed container and possibly double-bagged it.
That is the real trick. Removing all traces is next to impossible. Proper handling procedures say that the deployed container should NEVER have been in contact with whatever is inside of it, making cleaning an unnecessary exercise.
Google's Android phones flat out REFUSE to uninstall Facebook, for example.
Pardon? I do not think that I have heard you correctly. I have owned almost every single model of phone branded by Google and none of them came with Facebook installed. Facebook was installed on one of them and uninstalled just fine.
Perhaps you purchased your Google phone through a carrier? American carriers are NOTORIOUS for preinstalling crapware and trying to make it non-removable. Pay for your phone outright and do not buy it through a carrier and you will not have those problems.
(BTW, the battery life on all of the Nexus phones until the 4 were just reasonable. With the Nexus 4, the battery life was outstanding. With Nexus 5, the battery life is Oh My Fucking God, is this an old Nokia nothing but number buttons phone? Seriously, 24 hours and 87% battery still left. Not stock Android).
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
And what does that Ocean sit on top of? (sorry, had to.)
You have fallen victim to judging things by their shallow surface appearance. How many miles deep does the ocean go? I guarantee you it is less than 10 miles. Compared to how many miles of Earth? ;)
I've noticed that immigrants to the US always complain about the cost of healthcare. Until they start noticing those subtle differences, the extra effort American doctors put into patient care, prompt treatment and a general sense that everything is handled more thoroughly.
Wow! You have been part of a medical system that I have NEVER seen... and I am an American. The doctors are only semi-qualified most of the time. They just fucking guess at what the problem might be. There is no such thing as prompt treatment (really? You really said prompt treatment?!).
The medical system is an absolute mess in America. I would rather go visit the "fire and forget" doctors in Asia. At least there, everything that is normal for a doctor to see is handle expeditiously. God forbid you see an American doctor for headaches that have been mysteriously happening once a week every week for several months in a row. They will have absolutely no clue what to do, suggest, or even consider... except maybe that you are looking for pills.
Just in case you were wondering, it was a preservative used in cereals. At least the Asian doctors thought to point out that it might be an allergic reaction so I could do my own legwork (stop eating what I was eating one by one until the headaches went away. Then, when they went away, try the thing that might have been causing them. POW. Instant headache. Take the package into the doctor and ask what it is in it: sugar and flour, nothing else. Liars. Preservatives.).
Firstly, you cherry picked your friend out of the teeming masses of people who work hard and said "hey this guys doing really great and he works really hard, why doesn't he deserve it!?" Of course he deserves it. I'm not saying he doesn't.
Cherry picked? Hm. I have several other friends who have quite a few resources gathered. The one I picked was my closest friend. But cherry picked or not is irrelevant. He (a mere plumber BTW, which is why I said most people could have done what he does) is a valid example of gathering more resources based on hard work.
Now go back to that teeming mass of humanity and look at all the people who work just as hard and are living in a one bedroom apartment trying to make ends meet. Do they not also deserve better? Why does your friend deserve 200k per year and they don't?
Because hard work is not all of it. Yes, luck plays a role. I have had my share of hard luck and it sucks. Badly. Being ethical. Being trustworthy. Not being greedy. All of these are traits that have helped him to near the top of heap that he participates in. Does everyone who works hard deserve better? That is a hard question to answer. Does the assembly line worker deserve more despite how hard they might work? We are getting into the discussion of what a basic income should be if that is what you are asking. Does one assembly line worker deserve more than another assembly line worker if one works harder than the other? You bet. I have been there and done that. I definitely deserved more... and, I got more.
For just one example of thousands, your friend could have randomly contracted cancer at a young age and it would have completely changed the direction of his life. Lets assume he's still be the same motivated hard working guy today... the years in treatment would have taken their toll, lost opportunities... time away from work and school for treatment, etc...would he have ended up precisely where he is today if he'd had a 7 year struggle with cancer in his early 20s? Its doubtful.
Doubtful? Not at all. Impossible... with the caveat that in seven more years he might be where is today. Or maybe, he would have went into a different line of business. Reality is hard to predict. Furthermore, this whole line of discussion is utterly pointless. "What if" does not count in reality. The world is the way it is. We can seek to change it, but will our efforts change it in the ways that we desire? Life is full of "bad luck" but it is also full of bad decisions. We can try to minimize the negative impacts of bad luck but if we try to make everything fair despite the bad luck, have we really made everything fair? No. Reality is the final arbiter and it has no space for concepts such as fair.
Secondly, the way you've phrased the question, it seems that its not merely sufficient that your friend be satisfied with the quality of his life for its own sake, but that its especially important that he get MORE than most other people?
I think you are beginning to project your own biases here but I will respond nevertheless because I am curious: Are you saying that the only reason he works hard is so that he can keep other people poor? Are you saying the he wants to keep other people in poverty so he can enjoy his resources more? Honestly, I am unsure what you are implying but it seems that you are aiming for a VERY dark area.
Can you explain to me why you feel its so important that everyone else not have the things your friend has?
And you step deeply into it. It is not important that everyone else not have what he has. Reality says that there are limited resources. There is only so much food, only so much energy, only so much oxygen. I am perfectly fine with people carving resources out for themselves. I am not okay with people taking resources from the people who are gathering those resources because those people feel that they deserve somethi
We would have had a chance if it hadn't been for the systematic dismantling of organized labor starting in the late 70s/early 80s.
Ah yes. The hope and savior for the working class. The corrupted, mafia controlled, unions. Woot! They were really gonna save the helpless workers. Until... Until...
The canary in the coal mine there, I think, was Reagan firing the air traffic controllers.
Until that? WTF? Are you trying to say that the unions lost all their power shortly after that incident and for the same reasons? What are you trying to say here?
Oh, tell Jimmy Hoffa that I said hello. Go union, go strong! ;)
If you disagree, kindly tell me what you do with people in your ideal communist society who want to put in above-average effort, and reap the extra rewards.
How are those *fundamentally* different from the people in my current society who want to take more than their allocated reward? Pretty sure we don't MURDER them.
Exiling the motivated will simply rapidly impoverish those that remain.
Calling them "the motivated" is a fallacy out of the gate. It has naught to do with motivation, and everything to do with them being criminals by the standards of the society.
I sincerely hope that you two are talking about two totally different kinds of people.
I know someone who is very motivated. He earns over $200k a year. That is far above average. Many different people COULD do what he does, but they do not. He does it. He does it better.
Now explain to me why he should be rewarded the same as someone who does not do what he does. Explain to me why he would keep doing what he does if can not reap the rewards of his hard work.
I really really really am hoping that you are talking about those people who inherited their money and use their position of power to reap more power rather than talking about my friend who is actually working... because if you are talking about both types of people when you say they are criminals, then you are SERIOUSLY fucked in the head.
Honestly, I am expecting that you just have no idea what you are talking about and are just wanting to "stick it to the man". +4 insightful my ass. You have no idea about the real world.
In general I applaud the EU ruling *if* it really gets implemented fairly. But there's all sorts of wiggles to mess around with.
Erm, how can you possibly, in good conscience, support the EU ruling?
Google is just indexing what is there. If the EU is going to try and implement a "Right to be Forgotten" law, then it should be the responsibility of the web site hosting the material to remove it. It will then fall out of all search engine indexes. As it stands now, I can STILL access whatever Google removes from their indexes.
I suspect it was "easier" to go after Google than the "right" of free speech. It just does not make sense.
Car companies need to make sure the car lasts for years
Erm... kind of. They make sure their cars are built for years of large maintenance fees.
I can not speak for the NSA (and if I could, I would have to kill you after I tell you) but my understanding is they collect the data. They only analyze what they are told to analyze. The world wanted Washington out of Iraq so Washington got out of Iraq; therefore, no analysis even though the data was collected.
I am sure they are going through all of that collected data now though. We shall soon see how disciplined ISIL's signals practices are.
I'm sick of this inane, uninformed argument. 1. It shouldn't be. That's why we're having this debate. It would be one thing if our government found evidence of something shifty going on... spied to confirm or refute that, and then took action. That's not what they are doing though. They're bugging every world leader, tapping the phones of damned near every citizen, reading our mail... this is Orwellian blanket surveillance which is a far cry from "Spying" This isn't "Spying" it's totalitarianism and it's wrong.
You may be conflating two issues here, it is hard to tell with your grammar. Specifically the part about citizens.
The NSA is supposed to be doing everything it can to see everything it can outside of the USA. One would, and should, assume other countries have similar agencies doing similar things.
Should a country find itself spying on its own citizens, then yes, it is totalitarianism.
Should a country find itself using the "fruits" of such espionage for economic gain then, well, it is the law of the jungle at the national level. At the citizen's level, we are more civilized than that and the law of the jungle only applies at the social level... and to some extent, the business level, which is why so many people think the law of the jungle is "wrong". At the national level, it applies in every way. The law of the jungle is what exists. Deal with it.
2. Comparing what the rest of the world does to what the NSA does is a joke. Yes, they spy on us, but they're not intercepting ALL of our phone calls. How many countries do you think have the US presidents phone tapped? I bet it's just one... take a guess who I think that is.
Hm. Who cares what the rest of the world can do when trying to make moral judgements? The only thing that needs to be known is that every single one of them would be doing it if they could. And they should. There is no telling what another country will do. I hate to bring up Hitler but I can not seem to get that fucker out of my mind. If we had SIGINT showing us that he was implementing the Final Solution, perhaps the war would have happened differently...
In relation to the President's phone, well, the NSA is also responsible for defense. Considering how good they are at signals offense, I am willing to be that there are very very few countries who have the President's phone tapped. There is no reason to believe that more than about 4 countries could possibly pull off some limited signals intelligence from the President's phone.
WE are better than that. We don't need to do this. It's wrong, we all know it. It should stop immediately.
Erm... the only reason that you have the luxury to even think of this idea is because governments are doing things that at a societal level are considered "immoral". I am sure you cry like a little girl every time a wolf catches a baby dear and eats it, just like you cry when governments do things that would be immoral for an individual to do.
No. The real problem is when governments turn such tools on to their masters, the citizens. This is not a problem for the UK since the masters of the UK and many other European nations are Royalty, not the citizens; however, in the United States, the citizen is the explicit owner and master of the government. The administration is explicitly declaring independence from the United States of America when it continuously and knowingly goes against the Constitution.
These are very interesting times indeed.
Sounds good in theory. In practice, what really happens is that some code is shown to you. You are not given a compilation environment. You are specifically prohibited from compiling at all actually. So even if you wanted to build it, you can not. If you think grabbing source files and compiling them without the same options and libs that were used in the distributed binary will get you a binary that can be md5'ed, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.
I have seen the source for Windows before (NT4 and 2000). That is how it worked then and there is no reason to believe it will be any different now.
In Ca, it's a ticket if a car enters a crosswalk while a pedestrian is using it, no matter if they're on the other side of the intersection or not.
Huh?! If I am on a major street, how am I supposed to keep track of a pedestrian possibly 8 lanes (major streets have right and left turn lanes plus 2 to 3 straight lanes) over deciding to enter a crosswalk and still pay attention to what is in front of me while traveling at 40 or more miles per hour?
This may be showing my age, but when I was taught how to drive, staying stopped for the pedestrian to leave the crosswalk entirely was what yellow crosswalks were for. White crosswalks are as soon as they are out of your side of the street.
Methinks that a lot of traffic education will need to be performed if what you say is true. There are literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of drivers with the same understanding that I have.
That is three victims, one fatally injured, at a single crosswalk with flashing lights in the Sunset. The description matches what I see in my little New England town where I'll slow because I see a deer stepping into the road and the car behind me thinks they need to pass me on a two lane road so as not to slow down at all
Unfortunately, no amount of engineering willing fix this problem until humans and vehicles do not need to exist in the same space. Harsh penalties for the offender will help a bit because it removes the offender from the pool of drivers, but there are new impatient drivers being created all of the time.
Long story short, pedestrians, you take your life in your own hands every time you cross a street. Drivers, you can expect to never drive again for the rest of your life if you hit someone who is legally in a crosswalk. Expect 2nd degree murder charges if they die.
That electricity is used because of global warming.
LOL. Instant and easy +5, but meaningless. Do you have any evidence to show that global warming is affecting Americans more than ... say Australians?
Honestly, the American household uses a lot of energy based on "always on" wall warts and other appliances, and the minimum required insulation (most do not get a choice in how their house is built),
Now, the reason why America uses more energy is because it does more manufacturing. That is why figuring out energy use for the country and then dividing it by population is not merely meaningless, but actively misleading.
But yeah, enjoy your free and pointless +5 that others are now "forced" to read merely because it mentions global warming.
You have failed to establish a compelling rationale for why employers' beliefs need to be suppressed simply in order to provide birth control to people.
I am not the person you were responding to. I would say that the employer only needs to pay cash for services rendered by the employee. What the employee spends that cash on is none of the employers business.
Since medical care is part of the remuneration, it is again, none of the employers business what medical services the employee receives. Employers should be fighting being required to provide health insurance, not what types of health services employees seek.
We all want our friends and neighbors to have religious freedom. But when they become our employers, shouldn't there be a limit to their expression of it when it affects our access to health care?
You can thank the "Protestant Work Ethic" for this insanity. Healthcare should not be tied to employment or your employer. This insanity must stop. Yes, I fully understand the steps that led to this... but sometimes, you just gotta let people die from their choices (Social Security?).