Yes, because Palin did so much to bankrupt the freaking country!
Alaska is the Queen of the welfare states and Palin was a major proponent of the bridge to nowhere. So yes, you nailed it exactly but you're too deeply ignorant to understand that simple fact.
Because there is heavy left lean amongst the boards operators, let alone some who feel threatened by people don't think like them.
No. There is a *Liberal* leaning. This is distinct from the left or the right.
It is really humorous to see stories like this bring out the viciousness of some who go out of their way to put down those on the right - either by direct attack or inference.
This is known as "Patriotism". The right is the enemy of Liberalism and therefore the enemy of America. This was very much the intention of the authors of the Constitution. Do you really think they did it all accidentally?!?
This country was made great because we are open to all ideas. We move left and right and try to maintain a balance.
Look, you're obviously deeply ignorant. This country was great because the entirety of the political right was banned from day 1. You do understand that we don't have a king, an aristocracy or any role for religion in government, right? That's the Right. It's banned because it's fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
There is nothing at all of right wing ideology that's in any way compatible with the US Constitution.
We specifically rejected Hereditary Monarchy and police state governments. That's what the political right is. Rule by the elites for the elites. That's the definition of the word and always has been. Are you that fucking dense that you don't even know where these terms came from? They are not arbitrary terms to be applied to any seemingly opposing positions. America is a *Liberal* country to the core. This is somewhat compatible with the very moderate Left, but it is fundamentally incompatible with the Right in every detail.
Please learn what the *3* fundamentally distinct political leanings of Left, Liberal, and Right are before you spout more idiotic bullshit.
If a law is unconstitutional, you are irrational (possibly out of smallmindedness, possibly out of fear) if you attack the guy with a blue uniform rather than the less visible but entirely more powerful branch responsible for passing legislation or the branch responsible for striking down unconstitutional legislation.
That's a false dichotomy. I hold it against *both*. You are arguing that only one can be held responsible for their actions which is stupid.
Drug laws are the primary cause of violent crime in our society. without anything else even in the running. If the laws were not there, then this wouldn't be the case. If police were ethical people and refused to enforce laws which are so purely damaging to our society, then we likewise would not have he incredibly high levels of violent crime which we do.
Politicians created a system in which *if enforced* our society would inevitably become overridden with violent crime, gang violence turf wars and the like. This was known with 100% certainty to be the case when Nixon initiated this reign of terror as we'd already done the experiment known as prohibition.
So what the politicians did was an unforgivable act of maliciousness.
The police are on the ground doing the day to day business of making sure that the violence continues and increases in an actual hands on manner.
This is likewise unforgivable and malicious, but it is millions of separate acts of maliciousness carried out daily while staring right at the violence and destroyed neighborhoods that they have created. The politicians at least have the piss poor excuse that they wouldn't be seen in those sorts of neighborhoods. The cops don't. They look right at the results of their actions every day and continue to do the same damn thing.
I will attack both sides. The masters and their willing lapdogs.
completely removing any mentioning of the end of the Vietnam war, the removal of troops, the fact that the US lost that war
Or even the much more important fact that Ho Chi Minh was America's #1 fan, repeatedly begged us to help him free his people from France so he could set Vietnam up as a model of the American system. Here's a nice collection.
Only after we repeatedly told him to go fuck himself did he go to the USSR for help.
This demonstrates absolutely that the Vietnam War didn't have shit to do with stopping communism or any of the other lies that are spouted. It was a purely malicious act.
What about a Libertarian Canadian? Where do they fit? Right or left? Or maybe up?
Depends. Libertarianism was essentially just a renaming of Liberalism in America after the Left coopted the meaning off the term while the right was demonizing it. Ever since Liberalism arose out of the Enlightnement the left and the right have fought to destroy it. Liberalism is the political philosophy that the rights of the individual are paramount. This is a fundamentally different philosophy than that of either the left or the right. Liberalism can be loosely summed up in a sentence "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". The left is in philosophical agreement with this statement but feels the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote or in extreme cases enforce that equality. The right fundamentally opposes the very idea of equality and feels the power of the state should be used against the individual for the benefit of the elite. This is easily evident when you look at where the terms came from. The representatives of the Crown, Aristocracy, and Church sat on the right. The representatives of the people sat on the left. Liberalism came later, and it was in opposition to both. This is why it makes the most sense to look at Liberalism as what you are right or left *of*.
Libertarians in America went off the deep end a while ago and are mostly a fringe right wing party because while they espouse an ideology of liberty, they completely fail to take into account facts like free markets are an idealised abstraction which can't possibly exist in the real world. Additionally, they completely confuse a free market with an unregulated market. An unregulated market will always deteriorate to totalitarianism. Proper regulation allows real world markets to approximate free markets...regulations like anti-fraud laws, laws against murdering your competition etc. Libertarians take it as an article of faith that free markets are a magical fix all ignoring all relevant facts as well as the entirety of human history. Their ideas if put into action will inevitable lead to a neo-feudal type of state. It's very sad that Adam Smith clearly pointed out that (and other) flaws but Libertarians don't read and understand Smith (or they'd understand the glaring flaws in their philosophy) they merely excerpt him out of context. Plus as you can see in the last election, they've been taken over by religious extremists just like the Republican party.
So, in theory, Libertarians aren't Left *or* Right, but Liberal. In practice through a failure to think things through and apply the lessons of history they generally end up being on the lunatic fringe of the Right.
This is why the CIA is routinely in bed with horrible people -- these horrible people run the horrible countries where they need to get things done.
Wow, talk about naive. Typically the CIA assassinates good leaders in order to install the horrible people who will help a few corporations profit.
You're not seriously that ignorant of history are you?!? Hell, Saddam was one of *our* installations. One among many.
People like *you* who refuse to ever pull your head out of your ass to take even the most cursory glance around at the real world around you are the reason the whole world is going to hell. Please go kill yourself. It's the only way somebody as stupid and ignorant as you've absolutely proven yourself to be could ever be anything but a liability to everyone around you.
You mean the personal army of the elite without whom they would be unable to pull half the shit they do?
The elite at the top of the pyramid are precisely the people who put those soldiers in danger.
Yes, they signed up to be used as weapons against their nation for the benefit of the elite. That's what the job *is*.
You're correct as far as you go, but refusing to hold soldiers accountable for what they are will only ensure that it continues. What they are is the willing weapons of the elite and therefore the enemies of America.
So adopting the tactics of your enemies is okay then?
"Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb."
Thinking you can win by playing fair against a cheater is *dumb*. It's not ethical, moral, taking the high ground or any of that other crap the same people fucking us try to sell us.
Thinking back through most of the textbooks I had through primary school and college, very few would need more than minor updates during a 20 year lifespan.
Try this if you get an opportunity and feel inclined: Look through some older textbooks...30-40 years old or so. Math will likely be your best bet... and see which you think constitutes an update of the other apart from "ooooh shiny picture" and "wow graphing calculators have been invented" type things.
I moved around between a few universities over the ten year plan, and always majored in various hard sciences until I ended up adding up what I needed to get to get out and it all added up to Math. I had a few different lower division Calculus books (that's a nice extra expense with switching schools...if you go to school, try and stay there kids) over my stretch, and they went progressively downhill. I kept most of my math books from college with the intentional exception being any of the calculus texts I'd had. I still have my dad's old college calculus text. It's night and day. That is a university level text book. The new ones are mostly playing with calculators and learning how to kind of sort of squeak out answers to simplified problems. They don't teach mathematics, they teach calculation.
Almost no new mathematics at that level have been discovered/invented since long before my text was printed, so there is no need at all for updating of the material. Water pressure against a dam is still a function of depth, rates are still related, and holy poop what do you know but integration and disintegration (how the heck they failed to name these this way instead of the retarded sounding differentiation/anti-differentiation thing they do is beyond me) are still inverse operations. For the most part, the updates are for the worse IMO.
So, I agree with you but would even take it a step farther.
Governments breed waste, inefficiency and tyranny and can never lead to a net gain for society when compared to a private institution.
This is nothing but your religious delusion which it's a trivial joke to demonstrate to be false.
Look at the private prison industry. It's funded the same exact way as government, that is to say by your tax dollars. The difference is that with a private prison industry is that now you have a new cost. The private profit from the public funding. That's not even close to the worst part. In order to increase profits, they will take some of that public money which they are profiting off of and use it to bribe legislators to make more things crimes requiring prison time and increase sentences. This continues in a cycle leading inevitably to a tyrannical society. The only difference is the profit motive. It is not a positive motivator in this case. It's necessarily a negative one.
Ditto for private defense contractors. We get wars instead of prisons, but the analysis is exactly the same. Ditto for private health insurance. We get people being refused care and the bribes are to suppress a free market in drugs.
So, there you go. It's really really easy to demonstrate examples where a granting a private institution power will necessarily lead to a worse society than otherwise.
The truth is that the world is a lot more complicated than you are willing to deal with. This is why you come across as a fringe lunatic who isn't even capable of grasping simple concepts like this on your own.
Believing in String theory is a bit like searching for the Aether in 1900, or assuming the correctness of math before Godel (who proved math is not consistent, whoops)
Gödel didn't prove anything of the sort. He showed that arithmetic and similarly complicated systems are incomplete no matter how many axioms you throw at them. So you might not be able to tell from within that system whether an arbitrary statement is true or false it doesn't say anything about whether or not any given set of axioms yields a consistent system. Even with his incompleteness theorems, it's still happened that a statement shown to be inconsistent under some system has been proven another a different one.
A lot of people seem to make more of a boogie man of Gödel's work than they should. He just said we're never going to have a finite set of axioms from which we can prove all of mathematics He didn't say the sky was falling or math fell apart or OMGWTFBBQ math is inconsistent or anything like that. Whoops;-)
Most christians, even in the USA, aren't nearly as nutty and rabidly religious as you imply.
Dude, they believe that the 14+ billion year old universe was created by a fairy tale demon that wasn't even invented until the Iron Age. Further they think he tortured and murdered his own kid in order to allow himself to forgive us for *his* failures and that after doing all that he hid *all* evidence that any of that ever happened and decided that the only thing he cares about regarding us is that we believe this retarded, contradictory story in spite of zero evidence for and a ton against.
That is nutty and rabidly religious any way you choose to look at it. It isn't possible for Christian beliefs to be made sane by any conceivable stretch since what I laid out are the core defining principles all Christians have in common. Just because there are a lot of insane nutters doesn't do a thing to make them any less nutters. It's their defining quality after all. It's the difference between the religious and the sane.
This hasn't happened to any of mine so far but I keep my equipment clean.
Happened to one of my bottles...Luckily I waited until that part of the process to screw something up;-) That one bottle though? You could see the slime growing in the bottle without opening it. It was pretty nasty all in all.
Except it hasn't been overnight... if you follow some of the Microsoft guys on Twitter you'll see that they are actively trying to change Microsoft's way of thinking.
But I'm an ethical person. I don't care that some deeply unethical scum are playing like they're trying to act nice. If they were worthy of anything but contempt from their fellow man, then they wouldn't be working there. You don't get to collect a paycheck from sleazy criminal activity and then expect society to treat you as anything but scum. So, whatever twats at MS babble about is utterly meaningless if you're actually capable of thinking abstractly and understanding the big picture. Sorry you're falling for idiotic bullshit propaganda. Try harder not to be that silly, you owe that to all the people around you. The company is how it had always been. If those dipshits didn't like it, they wouldn't have signed on. This is called basic common sense.
As a side note, personally I don't think there is an ulterior motive to Microsoft's change of heart with Open Source.
Then quite frankly and obviously you're a deeply stupid, ignorant fool without even the most basic understanding of history, human nature, or even the most basic critical thinking skills. Seriously, there is nothing in the history of this company that could provide any support for your position. *Every* fact from their history of criminal and otherwise unethical behaviour argues directly against your position even having the most tangential relationship to reality. They've never demonstrated anything but ulterior motives and they've always tried to do things by undermining and breaking functionality rather than competing on quality.
Seriously, be as stupid ignorant and lazy as you want, but keep it to yourself. Why do you think it benefits you to present yourself as a deluded fool? WTF makes you think it's ok to spout such blatantly stupid lies? Seriously, do you not have any self respect at all?!? Wow.
To make your analogy more accurate, you have to include the fact that the roads were built using public funds and that the companies in question have already failed to live up to their obligations therefore have stolen billions in public funds and now are attempting to triple dip when they are not at all a private company and have no right to even single dip.
The very idea that they should be allowed even the delusion of being in the private sphere is utterly retarded and the overwhelming cause of the problem in the first place. They are a public utility and are owned by the public, since we've paid for them. So nationalising them is the only appropriate or rational solution as we've already paid for it. The only thing stopping us is the lies of that same industry spewed over the networks they also generally own.
Nothing like paying for something and then having the profits privatized, or rather "stolen".
It's also the State whose previous Governor is still incarcerated. We're really hoping Blago and Ryan get to share a cell and Ryan pimps Blago's ass for a pack of smokes on his first day;-)
You really shouldn't use words you don't understand. I fact, if you're so clueless you might want to avoid engaging in conversations with adults. you're not capable of doing so without coming across as a deluded fool.
You don't want people attacking you personally for your beliefs,
If I ever start believing in retarded nonsense which is known absolutely to be nonsense, then I'd hope my friends and family would have the decency to do confront me about it and get me the help I'd so clearly need. If they failed me so utterly, I'd hope some decent person out there would help.
yet you attack this guy.
He's proven himself to be accurately described as I did. Just because some arbitrary generic idea of god can't be logically falsified, doesn't mean your god shares that quality. It is a trivial joke to prove that his god (and yours given your retarded attempt at a defense ) is a fairy tale that only a deeply dishonest liar could possibly buy into.
We *know* your god was invented by the Hebrews. He didn't exist in any form prior to the Hebrew tribe *and* he only likes the Hebrews. He's a racist shit who only ever had any message for the Hebrews. So given the fact we know that your god was invented by the Hebrews for the Hebrews, and given the fact that we know that the Hebrew tribe didn't even exist until the iron age, this is a real problem for your retarded god. We know absolutely that people were building pyramids 1000 years before your god was invented. This means there was a planet and a universe long before your pathetic false god was ever made up.
Since the douchebag guy in question is going around claiming to believe in such an obviously bullshit fairy tale, and further given how easy it would be for him to know it was a bullshit fairy tale if he actually gave a shit about his own god and that he clearly is lying every time in his life he's ever claimed to give a rat's about his loser god. Try to think about it, Sparky. You can't really be said to care for what somebody has to say if you can't be bothered to take 5 minutes out of your life to check if it's even possible that you're being presented with the words of the entity you claim to be. Knowing that the bible is garbage unrelated to any divine being is the #1 responsibility of every Jew Muslim and Christian who has any real faith. The fact that there are so many of the vile fuckers claiming to be one of those, proves that they aren't, otherwise they'd know it was bullshit. It's not like it isn't really easy to know the truth. The religious fail as always at the integrity step because the religious have none by definition. That's why there are no honest Jews, Christians or Muslims. If they'll lie to their own fucking god, why would they ever tell the truth to anybody else?
So nothing hatemongering. No personal attacks. Sure, I've totally destroyed the basis of your faiths, but there's no value in being a deluded liar. Since you have no integrity and are happy lying to your god every time you claim to give a shit about it, there's no worry that you'll even honestly address that, so no need to be so snippy, Sparky.
He's gone well out of his way to demonstrate absolutely convincingly that he has nothing of any value to do with his time. Instead he chooses to go around spreading loony lies about a fairy tale monster which wasn't even invented until 1000 years after the pyramids were built yet who he claims magically invented the whole 14+ *billion* year old universe.
Sad, pathetic, dumb as a post and insane: Yes.
A person with better things to do than engage in retarded nonsense? Clearly not.
I got a degree in mathematics. My employers (and co workers) are all pretty impressed...at least as soon as I start talking about what I learned (and I did learn a lot) they all totally get inspired and find other things to do.
Aside from a few universally hated people like Hitler, we have a tendency to focus on the good in people when they die. I think there are a couple of reasons why we do this:
Except Ted Stevens *is* universally hated by everyone in America with the exception of those Americans who avidly supported Hitler during his reign (or who clearly would have had they been around), which is to say Republicans. They share Hitler's philosophy and world view which is defined as "rabid opposition to the Left and Liberalism,". Right wing ideology is 100% fundamentally incompatible with a free society and specifically the American Constitution by the very definition of the Right.
So, you're entirely missing the point. Stevens deserves nothing but to be reviled at this point as the rabidly anti-American piece of shit Nazi thief that he worked so hard to be. You, by denying him the just culmination of his life's work, are disgracing his memory. If he didn't want his death to be a cause for celebration among all patriotic Americans, then he would have lived his life in pretty much the exact opposite of the manner in which he did. Anybody mourning his death is celebrating the death of America as Stevens and his vile ilk were the primary cause of its demise.
No. ...errrr...well wait, the other thing that's not lying;-).
It does make me think that whatever proof Fermat had was flawed though. The idea that the proof we now know came down to 2 different areas of research that seemed to have no relation and that the proof came down to them ending up being kind of the same thing and finally that neither area was researched in Fermat's time more or less constitutes my hand waving on that point.
just look at anything in algebraic geometry involving schemes
I only did my BS, but I did take a few graduate series while doing it (Real Analysis and Diff Eqs). I only had the basic one quarter undergrad class in topology, but the Prof used, "A First Course in Algebraic Topology" by Czes Kosniowski. That's about as far into algebraic this and that...let alone schemes or categories or anything like that that I worked with, but it's enough to know it goes up a notch as soon as you mention it;-)
It doesn't mean anything about the actual proof, but FLT is easy as pie for damn near anybody above a pretty young age to understand. a^n + b^n = c^n is pre high school mathematics.
The simplest currently known (only) proof of FLT required damn near every scrap of mathematics that's been invented since it was stated which is counter intuitive to people who haven't done much math. In spite of this, the simplicity of the concept allows damn near anybody to get interested in it and make an attempt to solve it.
P ?= NP is more complicated to state and understand meaning that fewer people will even try to find a solution to the question. On top of this, it doesn't have anything like an obvious place to start trying. The one is a simple mathematical equation and a question as to which values for one of the variables allows a solution. The other is an abstract question as to the relative complexity of various algorithms. Night and day as far as the actual nature of the problem.
There are more than enough cases where a simple seeming problem yields an immensely complicated solution ( see Galois Theory and how it solved problems that were around since before Euclid for one cool example) to put that forward as anything like a proof that simple statement implies simple solution, but when the statement is so complicated relative to so many others, it's intuitive to conclude that the proof will take some doing.
Certainly you're fine being skeptical of the OP's statement, but it's not entirely unjustified to suspect although far from justified to conclude what he did.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because Palin did so much to bankrupt the freaking country!
Alaska is the Queen of the welfare states and Palin was a major proponent of the bridge to nowhere. So yes, you nailed it exactly but you're too deeply ignorant to understand that simple fact.
Because there is heavy left lean amongst the boards operators, let alone some who feel threatened by people don't think like them.
No. There is a *Liberal* leaning. This is distinct from the left or the right.
It is really humorous to see stories like this bring out the viciousness of some who go out of their way to put down those on the right - either by direct attack or inference.
This is known as "Patriotism". The right is the enemy of Liberalism and therefore the enemy of America. This was very much the intention of the authors of the Constitution. Do you really think they did it all accidentally?!?
This country was made great because we are open to all ideas. We move left and right and try to maintain a balance.
Look, you're obviously deeply ignorant.
This country was great because the entirety of the political right was banned from day 1. You do understand that we don't have a king, an aristocracy or any role for religion in government, right? That's the Right. It's banned because it's fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
There is nothing at all of right wing ideology that's in any way compatible with the US Constitution.
We specifically rejected Hereditary Monarchy and police state governments. That's what the political right is. Rule by the elites for the elites. That's the definition of the word and always has been. Are you that fucking dense that you don't even know where these terms came from? They are not arbitrary terms to be applied to any seemingly opposing positions. America is a *Liberal* country to the core. This is somewhat compatible with the very moderate Left, but it is fundamentally incompatible with the Right in every detail.
Please learn what the *3* fundamentally distinct political leanings of Left, Liberal, and Right are before you spout more idiotic bullshit.
If a law is unconstitutional, you are irrational (possibly out of smallmindedness, possibly out of fear) if you attack the guy with a blue uniform rather than the less visible but entirely more powerful branch responsible for passing legislation or the branch responsible for striking down unconstitutional legislation.
That's a false dichotomy. I hold it against *both*. You are arguing that only one can be held responsible for their actions which is stupid.
Drug laws are the primary cause of violent crime in our society. without anything else even in the running. If the laws were not there, then this wouldn't be the case. If police were ethical people and refused to enforce laws which are so purely damaging to our society, then we likewise would not have he incredibly high levels of violent crime which we do.
Politicians created a system in which *if enforced* our society would inevitably become overridden with violent crime, gang violence turf wars and the like. This was known with 100% certainty to be the case when Nixon initiated this reign of terror as we'd already done the experiment known as prohibition.
So what the politicians did was an unforgivable act of maliciousness.
The police are on the ground doing the day to day business of making sure that the violence continues and increases in an actual hands on manner.
This is likewise unforgivable and malicious, but it is millions of separate acts of maliciousness carried out daily while staring right at the violence and destroyed neighborhoods that they have created. The politicians at least have the piss poor excuse that they wouldn't be seen in those sorts of neighborhoods. The cops don't. They look right at the results of their actions every day and continue to do the same damn thing.
I will attack both sides. The masters and their willing lapdogs.
Damn, Dude... I mean I know you warned me and all but don't you think you could have warned me?!?!
Ouch.
completely removing any mentioning of the end of the Vietnam war, the removal of troops, the fact that the US lost that war
Or even the much more important fact that Ho Chi Minh was America's #1 fan, repeatedly begged us to help him free his people from France so he could set Vietnam up as a model of the American system.
Here's a nice collection.
Only after we repeatedly told him to go fuck himself did he go to the USSR for help.
This demonstrates absolutely that the Vietnam War didn't have shit to do with stopping communism or any of the other lies that are spouted. It was a purely malicious act.
What about a Libertarian Canadian? Where do they fit? Right or left? Or maybe up?
Depends. Libertarianism was essentially just a renaming of Liberalism in America after the Left coopted the meaning off the term while the right was demonizing it. Ever since Liberalism arose out of the Enlightnement the left and the right have fought to destroy it.
Liberalism is the political philosophy that the rights of the individual are paramount. This is a fundamentally different philosophy than that of either the left or the right.
Liberalism can be loosely summed up in a sentence "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". The left is in philosophical agreement with this statement but feels the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote or in extreme cases enforce that equality.
The right fundamentally opposes the very idea of equality and feels the power of the state should be used against the individual for the benefit of the elite. This is easily evident when you look at where the terms came from. The representatives of the Crown, Aristocracy, and Church sat on the right. The representatives of the people sat on the left. Liberalism came later, and it was in opposition to both. This is why it makes the most sense to look at Liberalism as what you are right or left *of*.
Libertarians in America went off the deep end a while ago and are mostly a fringe right wing party because while they espouse an ideology of liberty, they completely fail to take into account facts like free markets are an idealised abstraction which can't possibly exist in the real world. Additionally, they completely confuse a free market with an unregulated market. An unregulated market will always deteriorate to totalitarianism. Proper regulation allows real world markets to approximate free markets...regulations like anti-fraud laws, laws against murdering your competition etc. Libertarians take it as an article of faith that free markets are a magical fix all ignoring all relevant facts as well as the entirety of human history. Their ideas if put into action will inevitable lead to a neo-feudal type of state. It's very sad that Adam Smith clearly pointed out that (and other) flaws but Libertarians don't read and understand Smith (or they'd understand the glaring flaws in their philosophy) they merely excerpt him out of context. Plus as you can see in the last election, they've been taken over by religious extremists just like the Republican party.
So, in theory, Libertarians aren't Left *or* Right, but Liberal. In practice through a failure to think things through and apply the lessons of history they generally end up being on the lunatic fringe of the Right.
This is why the CIA is routinely in bed with horrible people -- these horrible people run the horrible countries where they need to get things done.
Wow, talk about naive.
Typically the CIA assassinates good leaders in order to install the horrible people who will help a few corporations profit.
You're not seriously that ignorant of history are you?!? Hell, Saddam was one of *our* installations. One among many.
People like *you* who refuse to ever pull your head out of your ass to take even the most cursory glance around at the real world around you are the reason the whole world is going to hell. Please go kill yourself. It's the only way somebody as stupid and ignorant as you've absolutely proven yourself to be could ever be anything but a liability to everyone around you.
Like first Zune
No offense, but you're either amazingly ignorant or very young ;-)
First was QDOS Quick and dirty operating system...which they bought. Then Windows 1...then the rest of their history.
Seriously, if you think they just started riding the "me, too" train (sic), then damn, Dude,... just wow.
Of course. Think of the soldiers
You mean the personal army of the elite without whom they would be unable to pull half the shit they do?
The elite at the top of the pyramid are precisely the people who put those soldiers in danger.
Yes, they signed up to be used as weapons against their nation for the benefit of the elite. That's what the job *is*.
You're correct as far as you go, but refusing to hold soldiers accountable for what they are will only ensure that it continues. What they are is the willing weapons of the elite and therefore the enemies of America.
So adopting the tactics of your enemies is okay then?
"Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb."
Thinking you can win by playing fair against a cheater is *dumb*. It's not ethical, moral, taking the high ground or any of that other crap the same people fucking us try to sell us.
It is just stupid.
Thinking back through most of the textbooks I had through primary school and college, very few would need more than minor updates during a 20 year lifespan.
Try this if you get an opportunity and feel inclined: Look through some older textbooks...30-40 years old or so. Math will likely be your best bet... and see which you think constitutes an update of the other apart from "ooooh shiny picture" and "wow graphing calculators have been invented" type things.
I moved around between a few universities over the ten year plan, and always majored in various hard sciences until I ended up adding up what I needed to get to get out and it all added up to Math. I had a few different lower division Calculus books (that's a nice extra expense with switching schools...if you go to school, try and stay there kids) over my stretch, and they went progressively downhill. I kept most of my math books from college with the intentional exception being any of the calculus texts I'd had. I still have my dad's old college calculus text. It's night and day. That is a university level text book. The new ones are mostly playing with calculators and learning how to kind of sort of squeak out answers to simplified problems. They don't teach mathematics, they teach calculation.
Almost no new mathematics at that level have been discovered/invented since long before my text was printed, so there is no need at all for updating of the material. Water pressure against a dam is still a function of depth, rates are still related, and holy poop what do you know but integration and disintegration (how the heck they failed to name these this way instead of the retarded sounding differentiation/anti-differentiation thing they do is beyond me) are still inverse operations.
For the most part, the updates are for the worse IMO.
So, I agree with you but would even take it a step farther.
Governments breed waste, inefficiency and tyranny and can never lead to a net gain for society when compared to a private institution.
This is nothing but your religious delusion which it's a trivial joke to demonstrate to be false.
Look at the private prison industry. It's funded the same exact way as government, that is to say by your tax dollars. The difference is that with a private prison industry is that now you have a new cost. The private profit from the public funding.
That's not even close to the worst part. In order to increase profits, they will take some of that public money which they are profiting off of and use it to bribe legislators to make more things crimes requiring prison time and increase sentences. This continues in a cycle leading inevitably to a tyrannical society. The only difference is the profit motive. It is not a positive motivator in this case. It's necessarily a negative one.
Ditto for private defense contractors. We get wars instead of prisons, but the analysis is exactly the same.
Ditto for private health insurance. We get people being refused care and the bribes are to suppress a free market in drugs.
So, there you go. It's really really easy to demonstrate examples where a granting a private institution power will necessarily lead to a worse society than otherwise.
The truth is that the world is a lot more complicated than you are willing to deal with. This is why you come across as a fringe lunatic who isn't even capable of grasping simple concepts like this on your own.
The answer is right in front of us!
Oh come now, the answer is always all around us. ;-)
Now what's the question then, smart guy
Believing in String theory is a bit like searching for the Aether in 1900, or assuming the correctness of math before Godel (who proved math is not consistent, whoops)
Gödel didn't prove anything of the sort. He showed that arithmetic and similarly complicated systems are incomplete no matter how many axioms you throw at them. So you might not be able to tell from within that system whether an arbitrary statement is true or false it doesn't say anything about whether or not any given set of axioms yields a consistent system. Even with his incompleteness theorems, it's still happened that a statement shown to be inconsistent under some system has been proven another a different one.
A lot of people seem to make more of a boogie man of Gödel's work than they should. He just said we're never going to have a finite set of axioms from which we can prove all of mathematics He didn't say the sky was falling or math fell apart or OMGWTFBBQ math is inconsistent or anything like that. Whoops ;-)
Most christians, even in the USA, aren't nearly as nutty and rabidly religious as you imply.
Dude, they believe that the 14+ billion year old universe was created by a fairy tale demon that wasn't even invented until the Iron Age. Further they think he tortured and murdered his own kid in order to allow himself to forgive us for *his* failures and that after doing all that he hid *all* evidence that any of that ever happened and decided that the only thing he cares about regarding us is that we believe this retarded, contradictory story in spite of zero evidence for and a ton against.
That is nutty and rabidly religious any way you choose to look at it. It isn't possible for Christian beliefs to be made sane by any conceivable stretch since what I laid out are the core defining principles all Christians have in common. Just because there are a lot of insane nutters doesn't do a thing to make them any less nutters. It's their defining quality after all. It's the difference between the religious and the sane.
This hasn't happened to any of mine so far but I keep my equipment clean.
Happened to one of my bottles...Luckily I waited until that part of the process to screw something up ;-)
That one bottle though? You could see the slime growing in the bottle without opening it. It was pretty nasty all in all.
Except it hasn't been overnight... if you follow some of the Microsoft guys on Twitter you'll see that they are actively trying to change Microsoft's way of thinking.
But I'm an ethical person. I don't care that some deeply unethical scum are playing like they're trying to act nice.
If they were worthy of anything but contempt from their fellow man, then they wouldn't be working there. You don't get to collect a paycheck from sleazy criminal activity and then expect society to treat you as anything but scum.
So, whatever twats at MS babble about is utterly meaningless if you're actually capable of thinking abstractly and understanding the big picture. Sorry you're falling for idiotic bullshit propaganda. Try harder not to be that silly, you owe that to all the people around you. The company is how it had always been. If those dipshits didn't like it, they wouldn't have signed on. This is called basic common sense.
As a side note, personally I don't think there is an ulterior motive to Microsoft's change of heart with Open Source.
Then quite frankly and obviously you're a deeply stupid, ignorant fool without even the most basic understanding of history, human nature, or even the most basic critical thinking skills.
Seriously, there is nothing in the history of this company that could provide any support for your position. *Every* fact from their history of criminal and otherwise unethical behaviour argues directly against your position even having the most tangential relationship to reality. They've never demonstrated anything but ulterior motives and they've always tried to do things by undermining and breaking functionality rather than competing on quality.
Seriously, be as stupid ignorant and lazy as you want, but keep it to yourself. Why do you think it benefits you to present yourself as a deluded fool? WTF makes you think it's ok to spout such blatantly stupid lies? Seriously, do you not have any self respect at all?!?
Wow.
To make your analogy more accurate, you have to include the fact that the roads were built using public funds and that the companies in question have already failed to live up to their obligations therefore have stolen billions in public funds and now are attempting to triple dip when they are not at all a private company and have no right to even single dip.
The very idea that they should be allowed even the delusion of being in the private sphere is utterly retarded and the overwhelming cause of the problem in the first place.
They are a public utility and are owned by the public, since we've paid for them. So nationalising them is the only appropriate or rational solution as we've already paid for it. The only thing stopping us is the lies of that same industry spewed over the networks they also generally own.
Nothing like paying for something and then having the profits privatized, or rather "stolen".
It's also the State whose previous Governor is still incarcerated. We're really hoping Blago and Ryan get to share a cell and Ryan pimps Blago's ass for a pack of smokes on his first day ;-)
Hatemonger
You really shouldn't use words you don't understand. I fact, if you're so clueless you might want to avoid engaging in conversations with adults. you're not capable of doing so without coming across as a deluded fool.
You don't want people attacking you personally for your beliefs,
If I ever start believing in retarded nonsense which is known absolutely to be nonsense, then I'd hope my friends and family would have the decency to do confront me about it and get me the help I'd so clearly need.
If they failed me so utterly, I'd hope some decent person out there would help.
yet you attack this guy.
He's proven himself to be accurately described as I did. Just because some arbitrary generic idea of god can't be logically falsified, doesn't mean your god shares that quality.
It is a trivial joke to prove that his god (and yours given your retarded attempt at a defense ) is a fairy tale that only a deeply dishonest liar could possibly buy into.
We *know* your god was invented by the Hebrews. He didn't exist in any form prior to the Hebrew tribe *and* he only likes the Hebrews. He's a racist shit who only ever had any message for the Hebrews.
So given the fact we know that your god was invented by the Hebrews for the Hebrews, and given the fact that we know that the Hebrew tribe didn't even exist until the iron age, this is a real problem for your retarded god.
We know absolutely that people were building pyramids 1000 years before your god was invented. This means there was a planet and a universe long before your pathetic false god was ever made up.
Since the douchebag guy in question is going around claiming to believe in such an obviously bullshit fairy tale, and further given how easy it would be for him to know it was a bullshit fairy tale if he actually gave a shit about his own god and that he clearly is lying every time in his life he's ever claimed to give a rat's about his loser god. Try to think about it, Sparky. You can't really be said to care for what somebody has to say if you can't be bothered to take 5 minutes out of your life to check if it's even possible that you're being presented with the words of the entity you claim to be. Knowing that the bible is garbage unrelated to any divine being is the #1 responsibility of every Jew Muslim and Christian who has any real faith. The fact that there are so many of the vile fuckers claiming to be one of those, proves that they aren't, otherwise they'd know it was bullshit.
It's not like it isn't really easy to know the truth. The religious fail as always at the integrity step because the religious have none by definition. That's why there are no honest Jews, Christians or Muslims. If they'll lie to their own fucking god, why would they ever tell the truth to anybody else?
So nothing hatemongering. No personal attacks. Sure, I've totally destroyed the basis of your faiths, but there's no value in being a deluded liar. Since you have no integrity and are happy lying to your god every time you claim to give a shit about it, there's no worry that you'll even honestly address that, so no need to be so snippy, Sparky.
I'm sure he has better things to do.
Uhhh... No.
He's gone well out of his way to demonstrate absolutely convincingly that he has nothing of any value to do with his time.
Instead he chooses to go around spreading loony lies about a fairy tale monster which wasn't even invented until 1000 years after the pyramids were built yet who he claims magically invented the whole 14+ *billion* year old universe.
Sad, pathetic, dumb as a post and insane: Yes.
A person with better things to do than engage in retarded nonsense? Clearly not.
I got a degree in mathematics. My employers (and co workers) are all pretty impressed...at least as soon as I start talking about what I learned
(and I did learn a lot) they all totally get inspired and find other things to do.
Aside from a few universally hated people like Hitler, we have a tendency to focus on the good in people when they die. I think there are a couple of reasons why we do this:
Except Ted Stevens *is* universally hated by everyone in America with the exception of those Americans who avidly supported Hitler during his reign (or who clearly would have had they been around), which is to say Republicans. They share Hitler's philosophy and world view which is defined as "rabid opposition to the Left and Liberalism,". Right wing ideology is 100% fundamentally incompatible with a free society and specifically the American Constitution by the very definition of the Right.
So, you're entirely missing the point. Stevens deserves nothing but to be reviled at this point as the rabidly anti-American piece of shit Nazi thief that he worked so hard to be.
You, by denying him the just culmination of his life's work, are disgracing his memory. If he didn't want his death to be a cause for celebration among all patriotic Americans, then he would have lived his life in pretty much the exact opposite of the manner in which he did. Anybody mourning his death is celebrating the death of America as Stevens and his vile ilk were the primary cause of its demise.
No.
...errrr...well wait, the other thing that's not lying ;-).
It does make me think that whatever proof Fermat had was flawed though. The idea that the proof we now know came down to 2 different areas of research that seemed to have no relation and that the proof came down to them ending up being kind of the same thing and finally that neither area was researched in Fermat's time more or less constitutes my hand waving on that point.
just look at anything in algebraic geometry involving schemes
I only did my BS, but I did take a few graduate series while doing it (Real Analysis and Diff Eqs). I only had the basic one quarter undergrad class in topology, but the Prof used, "A First Course in Algebraic Topology" by Czes Kosniowski. That's about as far into algebraic this and that...let alone schemes or categories or anything like that that I worked with, but it's enough to know it goes up a notch as soon as you mention it ;-)
It doesn't mean anything about the actual proof, but FLT is easy as pie for damn near anybody above a pretty young age to understand. a^n + b^n = c^n is pre high school mathematics.
The simplest currently known (only) proof of FLT required damn near every scrap of mathematics that's been invented since it was stated which is counter intuitive to people who haven't done much math. In spite of this, the simplicity of the concept allows damn near anybody to get interested in it and make an attempt to solve it.
P ?= NP is more complicated to state and understand meaning that fewer people will even try to find a solution to the question. On top of this, it doesn't have anything like an obvious place to start trying. The one is a simple mathematical equation and a question as to which values for one of the variables allows a solution. The other is an abstract question as to the relative complexity of various algorithms. Night and day as far as the actual nature of the problem.
There are more than enough cases where a simple seeming problem yields an immensely complicated solution ( see Galois Theory and how it solved problems that were around since before Euclid for one cool example) to put that forward as anything like a proof that simple statement implies simple solution, but when the statement is so complicated relative to so many others, it's intuitive to conclude that the proof will take some doing.
Certainly you're fine being skeptical of the OP's statement, but it's not entirely unjustified to suspect although far from justified to conclude what he did.