It isn't the demonstrations. And I don't even think it is specific to the themes.
The thing is that we humans still think in tribal structures. When people bond together strongly over something, they quickly split the world into "us" and "them". That is true of families, religions, political views, even music styles and hobbies. Almost all of us search for partners within those groups that we feel a part of. We are looking for someone who is sufficiently like us. When some idea dominates your live, those who follow the same idea become the primary group you look for partnership, both in the sense of friends and the sense of sex, love, etc. When the group is small, you will find this promiscuity within it, no matter what the topic that binds it together. That is because everyone knows everyone else, so nobody is really strangers with each other, which lowers the barriers - because bonds, familiarity and, most importantly, trust already exist. Which is why mostly women are protesting this very strongly, as trust is very important for most women before they become intimate with someone else.
It's not the case that these parties are Christian in name but liberal at heart;
I never claimed they are liberal at heart. They are the conservatives, the right-wing party. Their is a strong overlap between so-called christian values and conservative values, mostly because christianity is a backwards-oriented, conservative religion.
Until a couple of decades ago, all parties other than the CDU/CSU had stronger separation of church and state in their programs (after all, it's mandated by the German constitution);
Actually, it isn't. We have freedom of religion in the constitution, but no constitutional seperation. If we had, it would be trivial to get rid of all the special laws that give the church so many benefits.
The CDU/CSU have been very active and vocal in promoting Christianity at the EU level. They even invited the pope to speak in front of German parliament, and I don't see a groundswell of protest.
That is true. And the day the pope spoke was one of those days were I was deeply ashamed of our so-called representatives. Only one of them walked out. Well, at least now I can clearly say that none of those guys who remained seated should make any claims whatsoever of representing me.
Yes, we already have established that you're living in a German media and educational bubble.
No, you have come to that belief. Simply because I'm not a fanatic who attributes every fuckup to religion, even though I'm militant in my atheism doesn't mean I've been brainwashed into compliance. We live in a complicated world and, as the saying goes, to every complicated problem there is usually a solution that is simple, straightforward and false.
Well, so we agree then: Germany just doesn't function well as a democratic society.
We absolutely do agree on that, yes.
Once you admit that, what you do about Christianity is really like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Not at all. Democracy has been around in Germany for (depending on who you ask, or what date you take) 65, 90 or 160 years. Christianity has been around a lot longer. If you want to get rid of the dangerous parasite of religion, attacking the current political system is the ridiculous approach. Do you really think the church will bow to political pressure? We're talking of an international organisation that believes it has the rights to meddle in national and international politics whether asked to or not, at times openly claims to be superior to national governments, and - to its credit - has been around a whole lot longer than any of them.
Putting a leash on the church via politics? Got any better jokes?
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of democracies and it needs to be implemented in Germany. Ridiculing Christianity out of existence is at best treating one symptom, it isn't fixing the real problem.
This is where we will have to agree to disagree. The seperation of church and state is at best a hurdle that the church has much experience working around. Does it really work all that well in the US? How many of US presidents have not sworn on the bible? Where are all the legal gay marriages and abortions? Sure, the church has some legal priviledges in Germany. But that is merely the means by which it excerts its influence on society. Where it doesn't have those means, it uses others.
But putting the religion out of existence - whether by ridicule or some other means - would cure the disease. Because it is religion influencing politics that is the symptom, and religion itself that is the disease. It simply makes no sense of speaking about these two in the other order. How could religion be a symptom of a missing seperation between church and state? That's ridiculous, and obviously false to facts, because if it were true we would have a str
And the German legal system is influenced by what churches currently say God wants, including restrictions on biomedical research, gay marriage, abortion, and many other areas. Your supposedly oh-so-liberal Germany is one of the more conservative Wester nations because of church influence.
I must have missed a lot of memos. Stem cell research is a lot more open here than in the US, gay marriage is not yet there but again Germany is with the majority in Europe here. Abortion isn't a problem at all, I've never once heard about someone who wanted an abortion and couldn't get it.
No, Germany is not a top-dog liberal country, but we (the people who don't live in the middle ages anymore) have had quite a bit of success over the past decades.
It's just a fact that the CDU and CSU are officially two different parties. "Dropping the plural" as you suggest is wrong. Please learn something about your own political system before you criticize others.
Even within Germany, they are regularily referred to as one entity: "CDU/CSU" - and for good reasons. Yes, legally they are two seperate entities. As I said, this gives them a couple of advantages. In reality, they're not, and are quite correctly treated as one entity that's a bit strange, not two entities by political commentators, journalists, and common people.
Here too you're trying to redefine terms to fit your bizarre world view. Fact is that the CDU and CSU are actual Christian parties, with Christianity spelled out in their party program, with their leaders promoting Christianity, re-Christianization, and government support for Christian organizations.
All that is true. However, at the same time a good share of the CDU/CSU doesn't really care all that much. The leader of their coalition partner is openly gay. Don't tell me that political and power aspects didn't trump religious fanatism on that decision. Yes, they carry the religion in their name. My argument has never been that they're not religious. My argument is that they use religion largely as a banner, and only in so far as it doesn't cost them too many votes.
The correct approach is not to ridicule churches, it is to convince everybody that it is in their own best interest to separate church and state.
Which is a fools errand, because it isn't. It is definitely not in the best interest of the church, and those who profit from the church and its influence. Convincing regular people that this is important won't do squat because people don't vote on topics, they vote on parties in our fucked-up Partyocracy.
I seriously do believe that ridicule is the best way towards seperation of church and state. Only when christianity is something you're ashamed of admitting you belong to will the influence and political promotion of it cease. When being a christian is (correctly) identified with being insane, politicials will stop to use it as a banner, because it costs them more votes than it brings.
And you don't get there by rational debate, because quite honestly, there is nothing to debate. There is not one rational argument for religion or not seperating church and state. You're trying to win an argument that doesn't exist. Convincing people in this case means emotional and sub-conscious convincing. Good luck with that. People who have been religiously abused their whole life, from their baby days, can't be convinced without something that equals brainwashing.
I disagree. A theocracy actually takes its religion seriously, both on the government and on the people level. Christianity is an alibi religion for most people over here, and I as a militant atheist know a lot more about it than almost everyone who considers himself a christian. It's just something you happen to be, not something you really care about. There's maybe 10% who really care, but if you were to go down the road of a real theocracy, say modelling the legal system after what the bible says, you'd be in for a surprise.
And that is different from the German situation... how? Why do you think West Germany became dominated by Christian parties after WWII?
It didn't. Also, drop the plural, there really is one christian party. The CDU and CSU are the same, the CSU is simply a local branch of the CDU and keeping them as two seperate parties is for purely power reasons (it gives advantages). The actual christian parties, such as the Zentrum were important prior to WW2, in the Weimar Republic, but by the time post-WW2 West Germany had its first election, they were already down to single-digit percentages of the vote, and after that they went into obscurity. I think they're still around, with zero-dot-something percent of the votes.
However, there was church influence for a decade or two after WW2 that was independent of the political party you belonged to. We know today that you couldn't get a major political position without the church's approval during that time. So yes, you are right in that regard. Don't forget that the church got something for its troubles - the acceptance of all those contracts that give them their special position today.
And that's the risk today as well: German intellectuals (like you) don't take the churches and their parties seriously enough, and falsely assume that Germany is basically a liberal country.
This is where you are mistaken. The church is the single greatest threat to all modern values, from freedom to education, knowledge, enlightenment if you will down to pure survival (because it is, at its core, a death cult).
However, you can't fight it by taking it seriously. Religions thrive on opposition. It makes them stronger. Ridicule and laughter are the most potent weapons against religion, and exposure of their lies and showing their true face is the most potent weapon against the church. Every time another child-abusing priest makes headlines, the church loses trust and influence, way more than any rational debate, even on national TV, could ever accomplish.
You are absolutely right that the tax payers pay for it, but that doesn't make them the employer. The church is the employer: they hire, they fire, they set the working conditions. And they are exempt from regular non-discrimination laws and unionization.
Indeed, and if it were any other institution, this would be a massive scandal with immediate and strong consequences.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. When Merkel and Wulff speak of "re-Christianiziation" of Germany and Europe, what do you think they mean?
They mean something along the lines of: "Please elect us again, we can't make a living outside of politics."
These guys are not only politicians, they're from the worst-ever pool of them. They'd convert to any other religion tomorrow if it would help them stay in power. If eating babies were suddenly the hot thing to do, they'd start right away and claim they'd been doing it for years already.
Unfortunately, these corrupt assholes will bring us something that is even worse than a theocracy - an unhealthy mix of religion, powermongering, bureaucracy and pseudo-democracy.
But all of that doesn't give the words of some bishops on a technical topic any importance. They're the same kind, except that they'd rather fuck than eat babies.
And you only have to look to nations like Iran to see that having a proud culture and an educated middle class don't protect you from theocracy.
Actually, the situation in Iran was a bit different, they were basically trying to get rid of a dictator that was oppressing them, and if some UFO cult had been there at the right time with the right words, Iran would be a large alien embassy today. Much like the Afghans turned to the Taliban because they offered to bring order into the chaos that the country was in after the failed russian invasion.
"percentage" is a term commonly used to describe a share of something, as per the direct translation "out of one hundred" (per cent). I'm not so anal that I'd require you to have a sample size of at least one hundred before you're allowed to speak of percentages, but expressing "one of one" in percentage terms is at the very least unusual, and at worst dishonest because using percentage terms commonly implies that a fairly large sample size exists.
Except that if the driver is reading the paper or watching TV instead of paying attention to the car, they are less likely to notice their level of gas.
And ways to alert the driver to some situation even though he is reading the paper and watching TV at the same time while getting a blowjob from his girlfriend is absolutely not a problem that they will have to solve anyways during the development of this system?
Be honest, you're a control freak and it makes you nervous to hand over control of your vehicle. That's the real reason, and all the arguments are a screen for that. I'm not saying it's not an understandable reason, I'd certainly feel uncomfortable the first few times.
Do you disagree that letting drivers become more passive could introduce more situations like this?
On the contrary. When a situation does come up, I'd rather have a rested and relaxed driver than a tired and exhausted one because he's been concentrating on traffic for hours already. Humans are really horrible at keeping concentration on the same thing for extended periods of time. People regularily "phase out" during driving.
You are arguing as if this would entirely replace private transportation. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever made that claim. It is an option you can take. If you get on the Autobahn at A and want to get off 20 km down the road at B, you'll probably not use it, even if it is available. But when you go 500 or 700 km, you might want to hook up for the majority of the trip.
As far as Germany is concerned, that is totally wrong. The churches are the biggest employers in the nation and they are the main health care providers.
That's one of the lies we are being fed. If you dig just a tiny bit deeper, you find out that most of the "church-run" institutions like kindergardens, hospitals and the like are actually paid for by the government. The church is the on-paper provider of the facilities, but the taxpayers are actually paying for 99% of the bills. In many places throughout Germany, the church does not even pay the clergy in these places, even they are paid by taxes.
The German churches also have a massive presence in both government and the media. [...]
True, that is what I mean by "overblown". Almost all of this influence is motivated politically, not religiously. Even the justification for the continuation of the scam is usually along the lines of "it is part of our culture". Even those pushing the religious agenda have realized that they would be the laughing stock of the nation if their justification would be religious (aka "because it is what god would want us to do").
And, yet, every German, you included, pays a lot of money to these churches and gives up a lot of power to them.
I know, and I use every opportunity I get to oppose and change that. But as I wrote: The motivation is largely power, not belief, so a lot of people have a lot to loose simply by admitting the truth.
creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
Because a simple, straightforward, clear and strict rule is less certain than a jungle of individual, impenetrable, constantly changing ISP "innovations" ?
I don't remember it saying anywhere that road trains would become mandatory.
I've driven the whole of Germany several times. Some of the times, arriving is my goal and I take the Autobahn, and if there were road trains available, I would have gladly taken them. Especially driving at night (which I prefer for the long trips because the roads are less crowded) is extremely boring.
Other times, you are right that the trip is more important than arriving at the destination. I've driven through Germany from south to north with maybe 20 km of Autobahn in total (to cross a major river). It was a three-day trip, it was very interesting, and I enjoyed the driving and the sights.
In the one case, the existence of road trains would have been a boon. In the other case, it wouldn't have made a difference. So in sum total, it would have been a boon.
Which is probably why this system is being developed in Europe, where the term "ambulance-chasing lawyer" is strongly associated with american lawyers, because we don't have the same kind of liability craze over here.
You are being ridiculous. There is no reason for the probability of someone driving in a road train running out of gas being any higher than the same for someone driving normally. With the system in place as described in the video, this would result in one car slowing down, those behind if following suit (distance sensors!) until the link to the lead car gets lost. At which point you are in the common situation of dissolving/leaving the road train, which there will have to be a solution for anyways.
Suppose that a car in the convoy has a failure, a blown tire, anything that makes it slow down or change trajectory (maybe some bump or hole in the road). How do following cars avoid it if their drivers are sleeping, reading a book, having lunch?
RTFA. It's even embedded. They do say that they have a system in place monitoring the road, the distance to the car in front, etc. They are not just blindly sending instructions from the lead car and executing them.
but I wonder if road trains are really safer than an equivalent number of cars each with its own driver.
Statistically speaking, if the average chance of a driver having an accident is 1% (it isn't, but it's easier to calculate with simple numbers), then 10 individual cars will have a total probability of 9.562% of at least one car having an accident. The road train will have a probability of 1%. The risks associated with driving in a road train (failure of the system, etc.) would have to raise the accident probability by a full order of magnitude to make it more risky.
If you want to take 10-20 others with you, there are easier ways to do that, today. Becoming a road train conductor, which will probably be accompanied by some training and a test or two, would certainly be a very long-winded way. Like joining the NRA and becoming an experienced game hunter just so you can shoot yourself.
It happens, but it is the exception, not the rule. In 20 years of driving experience, I have not once experienced a mechanical failure that would've resulted in an accident. I have seen a lot, and I mean several orders of magnitude, more driver errors than car failures. So while switching the human driver for an automated system only exchanges one source of errors for the other, yes, it does exchange one source with a fairly high rate of errors against one with a fairly low rate of errors.
I'd love to have this. I don't drive very much, but a few times I year I need to take fairly long trips. That is lost time to me. If I could kick back and read a book, or work on a notebook, that would be many hours of personal time gained.
I'd say that official stances from an organization that has approximately 1/5th of the world's population as members certainly matters.
At least over here in Europe, most "members" of the church are members for two reasons and two reasons alone: Marriage and funeral. The number of people actually active in any sense is maybe 10% of that. The influence of the church is massive, but overblown. Most of its presence in organisations and political structures (Europe is a lot less segregated in this than the US, with the church having official presence in many government groups, like the local equivalents of the FCC and the likes) is historical.
The church certainly matters. But its opinion on anything modern does not, because everyone with half a brain, even those who are on paper members of it, realizes they know nothing about these things that is worth listening to. That is from what I gather a very, very widespread opinion. My own is in fact less neutral, I actually think they are corrosive and their opinions and actions are dangerous.
You may not care of the random guy from the shopping mall has to say about an issue, but you might care more about what the general manager of the mall might say, and you certainly would care what the Board of Directors of Westfield Shopping Centers Inc. might say,
Actually, no. Unless it is on matters of shopping malls, of course. But being director of a shopping mall does not confer any authority on unrelated matters. When it comes to, say, high-energy physics, I will take the opinion of any unknown actualy physicist active in that field over the shopping mall director, the pope or the president any day.
It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!"
No, it isn't. The catholic church has an opinion on everything, it goes with their pretension of being the spiritual, how-to-live-your-life authority. No matter what the topic, you will easily find someone from the church who makes a statement about it.
And, like with everything else, those of us who've discarded that pretension and the rest of the nonsense, I couldn't care less. It's a random opinion from someone who may or may not know anything about it, but the title "Bishop" is in no way a qualifier. If he happens to have some other qualifications, I may care, but in the context of net neutrality, bishop or random guy from the shopping mall is essentially the same thing.
So can we stop making those medieval dinosaurs more important than they are, and concentrate on opinions from people who matter?
As long as someone else can share this information about you, your own so-called "privacy settings" are nothing of that sort. And I don't think it's an accident that there is no setting to control what others can share about you. So we're back at the web-of-trust thing where you'd really need two settings, one saying "I know that person" and one saying "I trust that person to be truthful about her friends". And you're not given that 2nd option.
The problem with the Facebook permission structure is largely that a) you must give the application access if you want to use it and b) the application regularily has to ask for access to much more than it really needs, due to the way permissions are structured.
You are arguing idealistically. The current use of the word in this context is exactly as I described. You can dislike it and wish for a change, that's fine. But you need to be truthful and accept that it makes you the one who is doing a re-definition.
I'm not saying your ideals are wrong. But if you want to change the world, do say that you want to change the world, and not that your vision of its future is reality already.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't the demonstrations. And I don't even think it is specific to the themes.
The thing is that we humans still think in tribal structures. When people bond together strongly over something, they quickly split the world into "us" and "them". That is true of families, religions, political views, even music styles and hobbies. Almost all of us search for partners within those groups that we feel a part of. We are looking for someone who is sufficiently like us. When some idea dominates your live, those who follow the same idea become the primary group you look for partnership, both in the sense of friends and the sense of sex, love, etc. When the group is small, you will find this promiscuity within it, no matter what the topic that binds it together. That is because everyone knows everyone else, so nobody is really strangers with each other, which lowers the barriers - because bonds, familiarity and, most importantly, trust already exist. Which is why mostly women are protesting this very strongly, as trust is very important for most women before they become intimate with someone else.
It's not the case that these parties are Christian in name but liberal at heart;
I never claimed they are liberal at heart. They are the conservatives, the right-wing party. Their is a strong overlap between so-called christian values and conservative values, mostly because christianity is a backwards-oriented, conservative religion.
Until a couple of decades ago, all parties other than the CDU/CSU had stronger separation of church and state in their programs (after all, it's mandated by the German constitution);
Actually, it isn't. We have freedom of religion in the constitution, but no constitutional seperation. If we had, it would be trivial to get rid of all the special laws that give the church so many benefits.
The CDU/CSU have been very active and vocal in promoting Christianity at the EU level. They even invited the pope to speak in front of German parliament, and I don't see a groundswell of protest.
That is true. And the day the pope spoke was one of those days were I was deeply ashamed of our so-called representatives. Only one of them walked out. Well, at least now I can clearly say that none of those guys who remained seated should make any claims whatsoever of representing me.
Yes, we already have established that you're living in a German media and educational bubble.
No, you have come to that belief. Simply because I'm not a fanatic who attributes every fuckup to religion, even though I'm militant in my atheism doesn't mean I've been brainwashed into compliance. We live in a complicated world and, as the saying goes, to every complicated problem there is usually a solution that is simple, straightforward and false.
Well, so we agree then: Germany just doesn't function well as a democratic society.
We absolutely do agree on that, yes.
Once you admit that, what you do about Christianity is really like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Not at all. Democracy has been around in Germany for (depending on who you ask, or what date you take) 65, 90 or 160 years. Christianity has been around a lot longer. If you want to get rid of the dangerous parasite of religion, attacking the current political system is the ridiculous approach. Do you really think the church will bow to political pressure? We're talking of an international organisation that believes it has the rights to meddle in national and international politics whether asked to or not, at times openly claims to be superior to national governments, and - to its credit - has been around a whole lot longer than any of them.
Putting a leash on the church via politics? Got any better jokes?
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of democracies and it needs to be implemented in Germany. Ridiculing Christianity out of existence is at best treating one symptom, it isn't fixing the real problem.
This is where we will have to agree to disagree. The seperation of church and state is at best a hurdle that the church has much experience working around. Does it really work all that well in the US? How many of US presidents have not sworn on the bible? Where are all the legal gay marriages and abortions? Sure, the church has some legal priviledges in Germany. But that is merely the means by which it excerts its influence on society. Where it doesn't have those means, it uses others.
But putting the religion out of existence - whether by ridicule or some other means - would cure the disease. Because it is religion influencing politics that is the symptom, and religion itself that is the disease. It simply makes no sense of speaking about these two in the other order. How could religion be a symptom of a missing seperation between church and state? That's ridiculous, and obviously false to facts, because if it were true we would have a str
And the German legal system is influenced by what churches currently say God wants, including restrictions on biomedical research, gay marriage, abortion, and many other areas. Your supposedly oh-so-liberal Germany is one of the more conservative Wester nations because of church influence.
I must have missed a lot of memos. Stem cell research is a lot more open here than in the US, gay marriage is not yet there but again Germany is with the majority in Europe here. Abortion isn't a problem at all, I've never once heard about someone who wanted an abortion and couldn't get it.
No, Germany is not a top-dog liberal country, but we (the people who don't live in the middle ages anymore) have had quite a bit of success over the past decades.
It's just a fact that the CDU and CSU are officially two different parties. "Dropping the plural" as you suggest is wrong. Please learn something about your own political system before you criticize others.
Even within Germany, they are regularily referred to as one entity: "CDU/CSU" - and for good reasons. Yes, legally they are two seperate entities. As I said, this gives them a couple of advantages. In reality, they're not, and are quite correctly treated as one entity that's a bit strange, not two entities by political commentators, journalists, and common people.
Here too you're trying to redefine terms to fit your bizarre world view. Fact is that the CDU and CSU are actual Christian parties, with Christianity spelled out in their party program, with their leaders promoting Christianity, re-Christianization, and government support for Christian organizations.
All that is true. However, at the same time a good share of the CDU/CSU doesn't really care all that much. The leader of their coalition partner is openly gay. Don't tell me that political and power aspects didn't trump religious fanatism on that decision. Yes, they carry the religion in their name. My argument has never been that they're not religious. My argument is that they use religion largely as a banner, and only in so far as it doesn't cost them too many votes.
The correct approach is not to ridicule churches, it is to convince everybody that it is in their own best interest to separate church and state.
Which is a fools errand, because it isn't. It is definitely not in the best interest of the church, and those who profit from the church and its influence. Convincing regular people that this is important won't do squat because people don't vote on topics, they vote on parties in our fucked-up Partyocracy.
I seriously do believe that ridicule is the best way towards seperation of church and state. Only when christianity is something you're ashamed of admitting you belong to will the influence and political promotion of it cease. When being a christian is (correctly) identified with being insane, politicials will stop to use it as a banner, because it costs them more votes than it brings.
And you don't get there by rational debate, because quite honestly, there is nothing to debate. There is not one rational argument for religion or not seperating church and state. You're trying to win an argument that doesn't exist. Convincing people in this case means emotional and sub-conscious convincing. Good luck with that. People who have been religiously abused their whole life, from their baby days, can't be convinced without something that equals brainwashing.
That is what a theocracy is.
I disagree. A theocracy actually takes its religion seriously, both on the government and on the people level. Christianity is an alibi religion for most people over here, and I as a militant atheist know a lot more about it than almost everyone who considers himself a christian. It's just something you happen to be, not something you really care about. There's maybe 10% who really care, but if you were to go down the road of a real theocracy, say modelling the legal system after what the bible says, you'd be in for a surprise.
And that is different from the German situation... how? Why do you think West Germany became dominated by Christian parties after WWII?
It didn't. Also, drop the plural, there really is one christian party. The CDU and CSU are the same, the CSU is simply a local branch of the CDU and keeping them as two seperate parties is for purely power reasons (it gives advantages).
The actual christian parties, such as the Zentrum were important prior to WW2, in the Weimar Republic, but by the time post-WW2 West Germany had its first election, they were already down to single-digit percentages of the vote, and after that they went into obscurity. I think they're still around, with zero-dot-something percent of the votes.
However, there was church influence for a decade or two after WW2 that was independent of the political party you belonged to. We know today that you couldn't get a major political position without the church's approval during that time. So yes, you are right in that regard. Don't forget that the church got something for its troubles - the acceptance of all those contracts that give them their special position today.
And that's the risk today as well: German intellectuals (like you) don't take the churches and their parties seriously enough, and falsely assume that Germany is basically a liberal country.
This is where you are mistaken. The church is the single greatest threat to all modern values, from freedom to education, knowledge, enlightenment if you will down to pure survival (because it is, at its core, a death cult).
However, you can't fight it by taking it seriously. Religions thrive on opposition. It makes them stronger. Ridicule and laughter are the most potent weapons against religion, and exposure of their lies and showing their true face is the most potent weapon against the church. Every time another child-abusing priest makes headlines, the church loses trust and influence, way more than any rational debate, even on national TV, could ever accomplish.
You are absolutely right that the tax payers pay for it, but that doesn't make them the employer. The church is the employer: they hire, they fire, they set the working conditions. And they are exempt from regular non-discrimination laws and unionization.
Indeed, and if it were any other institution, this would be a massive scandal with immediate and strong consequences.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. When Merkel and Wulff speak of "re-Christianiziation" of Germany and Europe, what do you think they mean?
They mean something along the lines of: "Please elect us again, we can't make a living outside of politics."
These guys are not only politicians, they're from the worst-ever pool of them. They'd convert to any other religion tomorrow if it would help them stay in power. If eating babies were suddenly the hot thing to do, they'd start right away and claim they'd been doing it for years already.
Unfortunately, these corrupt assholes will bring us something that is even worse than a theocracy - an unhealthy mix of religion, powermongering, bureaucracy and pseudo-democracy.
But all of that doesn't give the words of some bishops on a technical topic any importance. They're the same kind, except that they'd rather fuck than eat babies.
And you only have to look to nations like Iran to see that having a proud culture and an educated middle class don't protect you from theocracy.
Actually, the situation in Iran was a bit different, they were basically trying to get rid of a dictator that was oppressing them, and if some UFO cult had been there at the right time with the right words, Iran would be a large alien embassy today. Much like the Afghans turned to the Taliban because they offered to bring order into the chaos that the country was in after the failed russian invasion.
"percentage" is a term commonly used to describe a share of something, as per the direct translation "out of one hundred" (per cent). I'm not so anal that I'd require you to have a sample size of at least one hundred before you're allowed to speak of percentages, but expressing "one of one" in percentage terms is at the very least unusual, and at worst dishonest because using percentage terms commonly implies that a fairly large sample size exists.
Except that if the driver is reading the paper or watching TV instead of paying attention to the car, they are less likely to notice their level of gas.
And ways to alert the driver to some situation even though he is reading the paper and watching TV at the same time while getting a blowjob from his girlfriend is absolutely not a problem that they will have to solve anyways during the development of this system?
Be honest, you're a control freak and it makes you nervous to hand over control of your vehicle. That's the real reason, and all the arguments are a screen for that. I'm not saying it's not an understandable reason, I'd certainly feel uncomfortable the first few times.
Do you disagree that letting drivers become more passive could introduce more situations like this?
On the contrary. When a situation does come up, I'd rather have a rested and relaxed driver than a tired and exhausted one because he's been concentrating on traffic for hours already. Humans are really horrible at keeping concentration on the same thing for extended periods of time. People regularily "phase out" during driving.
So?
You are arguing as if this would entirely replace private transportation. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever made that claim. It is an option you can take. If you get on the Autobahn at A and want to get off 20 km down the road at B, you'll probably not use it, even if it is available. But when you go 500 or 700 km, you might want to hook up for the majority of the trip.
As far as Germany is concerned, that is totally wrong. The churches are the biggest employers in the nation and they are the main health care providers.
That's one of the lies we are being fed. If you dig just a tiny bit deeper, you find out that most of the "church-run" institutions like kindergardens, hospitals and the like are actually paid for by the government. The church is the on-paper provider of the facilities, but the taxpayers are actually paying for 99% of the bills. In many places throughout Germany, the church does not even pay the clergy in these places, even they are paid by taxes.
The German churches also have a massive presence in both government and the media. [...]
True, that is what I mean by "overblown". Almost all of this influence is motivated politically, not religiously. Even the justification for the continuation of the scam is usually along the lines of "it is part of our culture". Even those pushing the religious agenda have realized that they would be the laughing stock of the nation if their justification would be religious (aka "because it is what god would want us to do").
And, yet, every German, you included, pays a lot of money to these churches and gives up a lot of power to them.
I know, and I use every opportunity I get to oppose and change that. But as I wrote: The motivation is largely power, not belief, so a lot of people have a lot to loose simply by admitting the truth.
creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
Because a simple, straightforward, clear and strict rule is less certain than a jungle of individual, impenetrable, constantly changing ISP "innovations" ?
Suuuure...
I don't remember it saying anywhere that road trains would become mandatory.
I've driven the whole of Germany several times. Some of the times, arriving is my goal and I take the Autobahn, and if there were road trains available, I would have gladly taken them. Especially driving at night (which I prefer for the long trips because the roads are less crowded) is extremely boring.
Other times, you are right that the trip is more important than arriving at the destination. I've driven through Germany from south to north with maybe 20 km of Autobahn in total (to cross a major river). It was a three-day trip, it was very interesting, and I enjoyed the driving and the sights.
In the one case, the existence of road trains would have been a boon. In the other case, it wouldn't have made a difference. So in sum total, it would have been a boon.
I cant say for sure, but for me its 100%.
Calculating a percentage value for a single data point is slightly bonkers.
Which is probably why this system is being developed in Europe, where the term "ambulance-chasing lawyer" is strongly associated with american lawyers, because we don't have the same kind of liability craze over here.
You are being ridiculous. There is no reason for the probability of someone driving in a road train running out of gas being any higher than the same for someone driving normally. With the system in place as described in the video, this would result in one car slowing down, those behind if following suit (distance sensors!) until the link to the lead car gets lost. At which point you are in the common situation of dissolving/leaving the road train, which there will have to be a solution for anyways.
Suppose that a car in the convoy has a failure, a blown tire, anything that makes it slow down or change trajectory (maybe some bump or hole in the road). How do following cars avoid it if their drivers are sleeping, reading a book, having lunch?
RTFA. It's even embedded. They do say that they have a system in place monitoring the road, the distance to the car in front, etc. They are not just blindly sending instructions from the lead car and executing them.
but I wonder if road trains are really safer than an equivalent number of cars each with its own driver.
Statistically speaking, if the average chance of a driver having an accident is 1% (it isn't, but it's easier to calculate with simple numbers), then 10 individual cars will have a total probability of 9.562% of at least one car having an accident. The road train will have a probability of 1%. The risks associated with driving in a road train (failure of the system, etc.) would have to raise the accident probability by a full order of magnitude to make it more risky.
For about a week, yes.
If you want to take 10-20 others with you, there are easier ways to do that, today. Becoming a road train conductor, which will probably be accompanied by some training and a test or two, would certainly be a very long-winded way. Like joining the NRA and becoming an experienced game hunter just so you can shoot yourself.
It happens, but it is the exception, not the rule. In 20 years of driving experience, I have not once experienced a mechanical failure that would've resulted in an accident. I have seen a lot, and I mean several orders of magnitude, more driver errors than car failures. So while switching the human driver for an automated system only exchanges one source of errors for the other, yes, it does exchange one source with a fairly high rate of errors against one with a fairly low rate of errors.
I'd love to have this. I don't drive very much, but a few times I year I need to take fairly long trips. That is lost time to me. If I could kick back and read a book, or work on a notebook, that would be many hours of personal time gained.
I'd say that official stances from an organization that has approximately 1/5th of the world's population as members certainly matters.
At least over here in Europe, most "members" of the church are members for two reasons and two reasons alone: Marriage and funeral. The number of people actually active in any sense is maybe 10% of that. The influence of the church is massive, but overblown. Most of its presence in organisations and political structures (Europe is a lot less segregated in this than the US, with the church having official presence in many government groups, like the local equivalents of the FCC and the likes) is historical.
The church certainly matters. But its opinion on anything modern does not, because everyone with half a brain, even those who are on paper members of it, realizes they know nothing about these things that is worth listening to. That is from what I gather a very, very widespread opinion. My own is in fact less neutral, I actually think they are corrosive and their opinions and actions are dangerous.
You may not care of the random guy from the shopping mall has to say about an issue, but you might care more about what the general manager of the mall might say, and you certainly would care what the Board of Directors of Westfield Shopping Centers Inc. might say,
Actually, no. Unless it is on matters of shopping malls, of course. But being director of a shopping mall does not confer any authority on unrelated matters. When it comes to, say, high-energy physics, I will take the opinion of any unknown actualy physicist active in that field over the shopping mall director, the pope or the president any day.
It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!"
No, it isn't. The catholic church has an opinion on everything, it goes with their pretension of being the spiritual, how-to-live-your-life authority. No matter what the topic, you will easily find someone from the church who makes a statement about it.
And, like with everything else, those of us who've discarded that pretension and the rest of the nonsense, I couldn't care less. It's a random opinion from someone who may or may not know anything about it, but the title "Bishop" is in no way a qualifier. If he happens to have some other qualifications, I may care, but in the context of net neutrality, bishop or random guy from the shopping mall is essentially the same thing.
So can we stop making those medieval dinosaurs more important than they are, and concentrate on opinions from people who matter?
No, the real point is:
As long as someone else can share this information about you, your own so-called "privacy settings" are nothing of that sort. And I don't think it's an accident that there is no setting to control what others can share about you. So we're back at the web-of-trust thing where you'd really need two settings, one saying "I know that person" and one saying "I trust that person to be truthful about her friends". And you're not given that 2nd option.
The problem with the Facebook permission structure is largely that a) you must give the application access if you want to use it and b) the application regularily has to ask for access to much more than it really needs, due to the way permissions are structured.
You are arguing idealistically. The current use of the word in this context is exactly as I described. You can dislike it and wish for a change, that's fine. But you need to be truthful and accept that it makes you the one who is doing a re-definition.
I'm not saying your ideals are wrong. But if you want to change the world, do say that you want to change the world, and not that your vision of its future is reality already.
btw - did she get any punishment for that? AFAIK it was also a violation of the law.
Due to the ways the US "justice" system works, judges don't get to decide freely. It was all done in the name of fairness and equality...