I didn't say that the Soviet Union was marxism. I said that Marx's don't work, or can you show me real long term examples where they have?
I was not referring to US meddling in external politics. The US was extremely influential immediately after the revolution was over, because people all over the world now had a working example of something that had previously been imagined to be impossible. The the fact that the French Revolution(s) happened is directly dependent (though not solely dependent) on the American Revolution.
Similarly, I believe, all world powers since 1800 have had to take into account the fact of the American Revolution and its suggestion that it coule happen in their own country. I would even suggest that the various communist revolutions wouldn't have happened without a successful American Revolution before them to look at.
Some of the last three months: first 5 foundation books (in order of publication) Washington: The Indispensable Man (very interesting) All of Horatio Hornblower except the West Indies one (the local library doesn't have that one) All the Honor Harrington books by David Weber (Horatio Hornblower is better, I think) Several Keith Laumer and Murray Leinster books (from the Baen Free Library at baen.com) Edenborn (Nick Sagan) A Man Called Intrepid by William Stephenson (part) A couple of Louis L'amour A couple of Georgette Heyer Several years of BOFH A few Roger Zelazny The Tripod Trilogy, and a couple of others by the same author All of User Friendly, up to end of Jan 05 The Darksword Trilogy (Weis and Hickman) David Copperfield (the one by Dickens)
Perhaps the difference is that Franklin was a doer, not merely a thinker. His, and the other founding fathers' ideas, worked, unlike Marx's.
The US has been the single most powerful political influence in the world for the last two centuries, whether you think the influence is good or bad. The US influence on the world's politics has been powerful enough that Marx's primary importance is as a contrast to the political ideologies represented by the US and the the monarchies it supplanted.
"One of the toughest things (pause) in anyone's life (pause) is when you have to murder a loved one (pause) because they're the Devil. (pause) Other than that, though, (pause) it's been a good day."
- Emo Phillips
1. If you will notice your parent to my previoius post, you may see that I was merely pointing out that a scientist can be inaccurate without being fradulent. Notice that something as non-immediate as global warming seldom has the same unconcious effect as the prospect of more funding and media attention, even on an honest person.
2. Look around a little more. Meet more people. I have heard of scientists that gamble at casinos, met doctors that smoke (a kind of scientist, and a different kind of gambling), spoken with english professors that don't read books that aren't directly professionally required, known computer professionals that don't backup, etc.
People don't always behave rationally, no matter their job.
Consider how MS was working with IBM in developing OS/2. The reality may be a little murky, but the appearance is that once MS had enough to go it on its own, IBM was "betrayed".
Consider the agreement that MS had with Novel that Novell would keep out of OS and MS would keep out of networking. I'm not making this up, but read it in a computer magazine, just before NT got big. (market-wise, not bloat-wise, I believe that it was always bloated)
Consider MS's development of hard drive compression technology that they built into MSDOS 6? Of course, some people consider that "information was meant to be free" and may not think that Stacker had a right to beef about the theft of their software.
MS may not be evil, but some some individuals that have substantial control over actions of the corporation make decisions that I regard as evil.
I thought that the article was interesting until two things caused me to lose all trust in Dr Barnett.
The first was: "They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable." So, we are to believe his conclusions based on data that even he thinks is unrealistic in some way.
The second was: "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," Now, whether or not the Kyoto protocols are good, and whether or not the US joining this agreement would be good, the fact that he is mixing his research with his political opinions is a big warning flag to me.
The increase in earthquakes and volcano eruptions also correlates with increased human activities, yet most of us don't confuse correlation with cause there, I hope.
Not that I think that we (humanity) don't affect our environments in many ways.
1. That MS (or whoever) gets to search my private property without evidence -- or even probable cause -- even though there's no illegal software on my computer.
2. That if MS can do it, so can any fly-by-night company that is set up purely for the purpose of spying on me through my computer, once I install their software.
See? More evidence of the Great Conspiracy! Once we get non-government space flight we'll be able to see the missing chunk of the island for ourselves.
The Welsh, long known for their insularity, didn't tell the atlas publishers where Wales has been moved to, so the atlases will keep showing Wales where it always was.
That is an excellent example of making baseless assumptions, that might even be true, whough there's no evidence. (Where did I state my religion?)
Although the above did give an example of an argument tangentially related to my previous post it doesn't seem to directly answer the assertion that there may be a religion that encourages independent thinking.
And my last point, about whether we make many decisions of any kind not based on fear and hope of some kind was entirely unanswered.
Would you like to try again? If you have a real response to my actual previous post, I truly would like to read it, whether I agree with you, or not.
If you favor people because of their beliefs that is another method of censorship.
I apologize if my use of "censored" has confused anyone. Though the word has very strong connotations of depriving people of their agency, that is not its only appropriate use. Censorship is not always bad, and not always the same as untruth. I often censor myself, seldom regret it, and try to be as honest as I can.
It seems you're suggesting that just because people watch what they say doesn't mean that their first concern is always marketing. If I understand you, I agree.
My experience, from several industries, is that executive speeches (or blogs, or whatever) to employees, while different than those made for outside consumption, are not less carefully constructed to give a specific, not necessarily true, impression.
Moreover, especially with the ever-increasing threat of lawsuits, people are more and more careful what they put in writing in any context at all, and companies have learned that digital words are more dangerous than words on paper.
Now, if there were transcripts of a converstion between two executives that were good friends, and not rivals in any way, completely trusted each other, and were slightly drunk, they would be interesting transcripts.
Most interesting would be words written where the guy thought that NO ONE else would EVER see them.
I think that tall skyscrapers are extremely monumental. Just think, the climate at the top of the building is different than it is at the bottom, because of the 1000+ feet elevation change. Buildings taller than some mountains are certainly monumental to me.
Quotes: "Religion requires one to ignore certain observable and empirically testable and confirmable realities." "all religions -- are based on nothing more than faith in an unsubstantiated, and unverifiable, 'Higher Power'"
As I am religious and my religion strongly engourages checking and verifying any purported truth in any circumstance, including official church statements; I would like to let people know that the parent poster is either dishonest or uninformed. I would prefer to believe the latter, since it's eaiser to correct.
Another Quote: "It's all based on fear and hope" Religion aside, what do people run their lives on that isn't based on fear and hope?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that the Soviet Union was marxism. I said that Marx's don't work, or can you show me real long term examples where they have?
I was not referring to US meddling in external politics. The US was extremely influential immediately after the revolution was over, because people all over the world now had a working example of something that had previously been imagined to be impossible. The the fact that the French Revolution(s) happened is directly dependent (though not solely dependent) on the American Revolution.
Similarly, I believe, all world powers since 1800 have had to take into account the fact of the American Revolution and its suggestion that it coule happen in their own country. I would even suggest that the various communist revolutions wouldn't have happened without a successful American Revolution before them to look at.
Some of the last three months:
first 5 foundation books (in order of publication)
Washington: The Indispensable Man (very interesting)
All of Horatio Hornblower except the West Indies one (the local library doesn't have that one)
All the Honor Harrington books by David Weber (Horatio Hornblower is better, I think)
Several Keith Laumer and Murray Leinster books (from the Baen Free Library at baen.com)
Edenborn (Nick Sagan)
A Man Called Intrepid by William Stephenson (part)
A couple of Louis L'amour
A couple of Georgette Heyer
Several years of BOFH
A few Roger Zelazny
The Tripod Trilogy, and a couple of others by the same author
All of User Friendly, up to end of Jan 05
The Darksword Trilogy (Weis and Hickman)
David Copperfield (the one by Dickens)
I've been trying, but that's all I can remember
Perhaps the difference is that Franklin was a doer, not merely a thinker. His, and the other founding fathers' ideas, worked, unlike Marx's.
The US has been the single most powerful political influence in the world for the last two centuries, whether you think the influence is good or bad. The US influence on the world's politics has been powerful enough that Marx's primary importance is as a contrast to the political ideologies represented by the US and the the monarchies it supplanted.
I disagree, her fiction is entertaining, if you skip things the 25 pages of John Galt's monologe, and remember that it is fiction.
How about grazing, instead of gathering. Too bad someone has patented the use of stomachs for digestion.
Then we could just lay around and starve, if no one has patented starving.
You forget. Farmers are technologists. Non-technology would be gathering. (Hunting uses technology in terms of clubs or something.)
"One of the toughest things (pause) in anyone's life (pause) is when you have to murder a loved one (pause) because they're the Devil.
(pause) Other than that, though, (pause) it's been a good day."
- Emo Phillips
1. If you will notice your parent to my previoius post, you may see that I was merely pointing out that a scientist can be inaccurate without being fradulent. Notice that something as non-immediate as global warming seldom has the same unconcious effect as the prospect of more funding and media attention, even on an honest person.
2. Look around a little more. Meet more people. I have heard of scientists that gamble at casinos, met doctors that smoke (a kind of scientist, and a different kind of gambling), spoken with english professors that don't read books that aren't directly professionally required, known computer professionals that don't backup, etc.
People don't always behave rationally, no matter their job.
Consider how MS was working with IBM in developing OS/2. The reality may be a little murky, but the appearance is that once MS had enough to go it on its own, IBM was "betrayed".
Consider the agreement that MS had with Novel that Novell would keep out of OS and MS would keep out of networking. I'm not making this up, but read it in a computer magazine, just before NT got big. (market-wise, not bloat-wise, I believe that it was always bloated)
Consider MS's development of hard drive compression technology that they built into MSDOS 6? Of course, some people consider that "information was meant to be free" and may not think that Stacker had a right to beef about the theft of their software.
MS may not be evil, but some some individuals that have substantial control over actions of the corporation make decisions that I regard as evil.
I thought that the article was interesting until two things caused me to lose all trust in Dr Barnett.
The first was: "They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."
So, we are to believe his conclusions based on data that even he thinks is unrealistic in some way.
The second was: "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join,"
Now, whether or not the Kyoto protocols are good, and whether or not the US joining this agreement would be good, the fact that he is mixing his research with his political opinions is a big warning flag to me.
Not fraud, just basic human nature to (often unconciously) interpret data in a way that will give us the results that we want.
We like to think that scientists are immune to this, but do you really think that no scientist gambles at casinos?
Science is a Sacred Cow is a very enjoyable read.
The increase in earthquakes and volcano eruptions also correlates with increased human activities, yet most of us don't confuse correlation with cause there, I hope.
Not that I think that we (humanity) don't affect our environments in many ways.
The trouble seems to be:
1. That MS (or whoever) gets to search my private property without evidence -- or even probable cause -- even though there's no illegal software on my computer.
2. That if MS can do it, so can any fly-by-night company that is set up purely for the purpose of spying on me through my computer, once I install their software.
See? More evidence of the Great Conspiracy! Once we get non-government space flight we'll be able to see the missing chunk of the island for ourselves.
The Welsh, long known for their insularity, didn't tell the atlas publishers where Wales has been moved to, so the atlases will keep showing Wales where it always was.
It's all a big conspiracy.
You probably believe in North Dakota, too.
No, but it did move off of the island of Great Britain.
Ah, but very flexible.
Any curve shape you like can be made to pass through all the point(s), if you only have one.
I agree.
If you pay for a product with a multi-billion-dollar initial marketing plan, you get a highly marketed product.
Sometimes what we pay for isn't what we think we're paying for.
And money isn't the only way we pay.
That is an excellent example of making baseless assumptions, that might even be true, whough there's no evidence. (Where did I state my religion?)
Although the above did give an example of an argument tangentially related to my previous post it doesn't seem to directly answer the assertion that there may be a religion that encourages independent thinking.
And my last point, about whether we make many decisions of any kind not based on fear and hope of some kind was entirely unanswered.
Would you like to try again? If you have a real response to my actual previous post, I truly would like to read it, whether I agree with you, or not.
Although I agree that ornamentation usually gets more attention than substance, Henry Ford is not, IMO, a good example.
." - Will Rogers (I think)
He, more than any other single person, is the reason why I can own my own car.
Perhaps more importantly, and counterintuitive, he made cars cheaply in part by paying his workers more.
"Henry Ford has made more money by paying more and charging less . .
I don't know what kind of a buddy Ford would have been, but I think it's unreasonable to think that he didn't change the automobile industry.
You're paying that much in car expenses?
All of my car payments, gas, insurance, car repairs, all car-related expenses, might be as much as $200 - $250/month, if the car broke down more.
(this is assuming the car's paid for, but $100 of the $200 - $250 goes into a fund to replace the car when it's time.)
If you favor people because of their beliefs that is another method of censorship.
I apologize if my use of "censored" has confused anyone. Though the word has very strong connotations of depriving people of their agency, that is not its only appropriate use. Censorship is not always bad, and not always the same as untruth. I often censor myself, seldom regret it, and try to be as honest as I can.
It seems you're suggesting that just because people watch what they say doesn't mean that their first concern is always marketing. If I understand you, I agree.
My experience, from several industries, is that executive speeches (or blogs, or whatever) to employees, while different than those made for outside consumption, are not less carefully constructed to give a specific, not necessarily true, impression.
Moreover, especially with the ever-increasing threat of lawsuits, people are more and more careful what they put in writing in any context at all, and companies have learned that digital words are more dangerous than words on paper.
Now, if there were transcripts of a converstion between two executives that were good friends, and not rivals in any way, completely trusted each other, and were slightly drunk, they would be interesting transcripts.
Most interesting would be words written where the guy thought that NO ONE else would EVER see them.
I think that tall skyscrapers are extremely monumental. Just think, the climate at the top of the building is different than it is at the bottom, because of the 1000+ feet elevation change. Buildings taller than some mountains are certainly monumental to me.
Quotes:
"Religion requires one to ignore certain observable and empirically testable and confirmable realities."
"all religions -- are based on nothing more than faith in an unsubstantiated, and unverifiable, 'Higher Power'"
As I am religious and my religion strongly engourages checking and verifying any purported truth in any circumstance, including official church statements; I would like to let people know that the parent poster is either dishonest or uninformed. I would prefer to believe the latter, since it's eaiser to correct.
Another Quote: "It's all based on fear and hope"
Religion aside, what do people run their lives on that isn't based on fear and hope?