I knew it was out there somewhere, this is the actual address where PJPII clears up the Catholic Churches relationship with evolution and science.
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)
WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.
1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.
He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1986; L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22).
2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.
3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieve
Actually the official position of the Catholic Church...
Yeah I've made the same point many times before originally made by Pope John Paul II. So if I.D is not evolution how is what you are saying different? I said That's if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do.. Sure I can accept that no one knows if the Big Bang happened or not. Are you agreeing with me that I.D is not evolution and that the catholic church are not too keen on I.D, or are you trying to make a different point?
ID isn't blasphemous to Catholics because it's limiting God.
Well actually ID is quite offensive to some catholics. It's one thing to say it's wrong because it's not science and quite another to say it's offensive because it's blasphemous. You see science can also be looked on as a tool for discovering the nature of an unlimited universe much more amazing than any single group of people can conceive. Not everyone has the same beliefs as a stick shaking Evagelist.
ID is just wrong because A) it isn't science. B) it assumes taking the BIble literally.
You mean like if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do?
and so taking a specific translation and treating it as word-for-word literal truth is a simplistic and juvenile approach.
If you read the bible as a work of philosophy then it's hard to digest without reading it in context. Ignorance is the enemy so I do hope you're not directing that remark at me. It takes intelligence just to read the bible, which is a book about humanity, not science. You don't read the bible to gather knowledge, you read it to learn about human nature and hopefully accumulate some wisdom on the way.
That's if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do. Not all people think that way. Only people who want to ram their spirituality down someone else's throat.
I think Catholicisms objection to I.D is a matter of doctrine, that it actually limits the possibilities of the universe (which is described as the glory of God in the bible). Anything that limits the glory of God is blasphemous, therefore Intelligent Design is blasphemous.
If you representative even gives you an answer it will be along the lines of don't care because it wasn't their decision and doesn't affect them or you.
Bullshit. I've written to Pollicritters numerous times and not only received a reply but been asked to advise them.
Further, I've also been able to play a part in making sure stupid legislation doesn't pass.
I can understand your cynicism, but if you don't want to participate in your democracy, that's your business, not mine.
For the most hypocritical church on earth they're surprisingly progressive with some matters. I don't think they're that keen on Intelligent design either.
Actually, they are now required not to pay the Microsoft Tax. The last tests I saw showed that Microsoft Office got over 5,000 failures in Microsoft's own OOXML conformance tests. It therefore does not support OOXML and can therefore not be used by the Australian government. I suggest that anyone in Australia points this out to their elected representatives.
Amusingly, Microsoft Office actually did better in ODF conformance tests (with a plugin, I think), than it did in OOXML conformance tests. I'm not sure how OO.o does with OOXML, but it's managed to open both of the the OOXML files I've ever been sent.
That's the difference between someone who's intellectually curious (and always looking to better themselves) and someone who's dug their heals in and is becoming more a liability every day.
There is a lot to be said being efficient with your time. I find that personally I *want* to have a look at all sorts of technology but I have to be very selective that the technology I actually learn has a return on investment in time. Even young programmers are going to get older and you have to choose what you are going to incorporate in you skill set.
What concerns me here is the increasing trend to drive down the salary of all IT professionals. I don't know about anyone else but I work really smart at the things I do but I.T is still hard work, not everyone (or anyone) can do it. Increasingly I find myself questioning if the effort can be justified by lower salary trends such as these.
You're not going to be young forever and it's a tough choice to be evaluating the viability of something you love to do versus the fact that you have to be paid fairly for your efforts.
When I heard Moonstalk I thought it would involve Rockin' out for days on end and wallowing in peace and free-love with the Lunarians -- Like a Lunar Woodstock.
Maybe the Police could be coaxed out of retirement yet again for one more final rendition of 'Stalking on the moon'
What better way to find a use for a Moonstalk, the lunar equivalent of a terrestrial Space Elevator. If the materials are available to do such a thing now then mining the moon may finally provide the commercial impetus to get into space. A Moonstalk would certainly remove the need for launchers from the moon to get the material into space.
Let him. Just use a Whitelisted system. There are Kids Browsers out there. If he wants a site in his browser, "he has to ask IT". That's the mentality we should promote, not "the net is too big and scary".
It's a good idea but the net is big and scary so, lets be realistic and honest about it. Whats appropriate is for a child to be able to develop the skills to use it properly. That means, if your idea is to become effective, that it's also necessary to discuss their choices. Understanding the choices develops the relationship with the child and helps them to make their own decisions responsibly. If a child knows you are going to monitor their website choices there is a better chance that they will start to associate consequences with their choices.
But your premise is right on. Society molly-coddles children too much instead of making them take responsibility for their own actions. Letting a child use the internet is analogous to letting a child use a knife. Instead of showing them how to use it and then saying "But be careful if you use it incorrectly it will cut you and that hurts" we just blunt the knife until it's ineffective. The damage the net can to to an impressionable mind is just not as obvious than that from the knife. If a child is taught how to use the net then the chances they will be able to educate and entertain themselves are increased.
one's e-mail inbox should be considered fairly private.
Then use encryption on your email. I mean it's not that hard to do, much like putting a letter in an envelope. Until then all you are receiving in your inbox are postcards not actual mail. Until this distinction is actually made you are still treating your inbox with the assumption of privacy and reading someones inbox could be as accidental has hitting the back button on someone's gmail session or some other scenario. Subverting encryption on an email takes a deliberate, pre-meditated act, like opening some one else's snail mail
Sure the guys was stupid but at the same time Palin is a public official, her advisors should have advised her to protect her information assets with a strong enough password at the very minimum. If there is no excuse for his stupidity then there is no excuse for hers. Certainly there is no excuse for people whining about privacy for their email communication and then not encrypting their email.
Politicians telling Scientists how to do science, what could possibly go wrong.
But they're not. They're telling engineers how they want something engineered which is not the same thing. Obviously it is going to be a compromised but hey if thats how the people with the money want it done for whatever reasons I'm sure the engineers can deal with the issues. The difference between this and Apollo is that no-one told the engineers how Apollo should be designed and built. BAck then the politicians said "Here's the money, get us to the moon"
You would have thought they'd learn from Vietnam when they told the military how to wage a war...
Or when they told NASA how they should build a space shuttle...
But I guess that won't stop the doomsday idiots from waiting for their Rapture on that day. What else is new?
Planet Niburu! I met one of the very people you were talking about and you know what I was amazed at how entertained I was for about twenty minutes as she told me about how planet X was coming into earth orbit in 2012 and that you could see it with the base of a glass coke bottle.
When I asked her if she had tried it she said no.
But she did say I could see all the contrails from the secret Military planes flying around! At which point I assured her they were mostly domestic jet airliners and that most jets do that and you can't see the really super secret planes - they fly too high.
She said "Are you a scientist or something"
I said "no" but realised that the person had consumed waaay to much acid but it was necessary for this person to be as kooky as they were to produce the artwork they were capable of making. I resisted the urge to tell her that the real danger was from all the mind control drug put into our water supply and the only way to avoid it was to drink one's own wee.
Thank you I was educated by your description of the fuctioning of the Mayan Calender I hope you are entertained by the example of someone trying to apply it. Education really is the only way to combat the two extremes of ignorance Conspiracy Theorist; where no proof is necessary and Dogmatic Skeptic; where no proof is possible.
It's only necessary because of the complete dumbing down of...
Everyone and everything. I mean seriously it's not just schools look at the media it's totally patronising and just keeps getting dumberer and dumberer every day. Even documentaries are so seriously rewriting history I feel genuine woe for the ignorance being inflicted on the human race. We basically don't get good quality politicians because, after all, what sane person would try to do something the dumb ignorant masses don't understand just to get pummeled into submission by a frenzy of ignorance.
It's time to ignore the religious crackpots and start teaching real science without fear of backlash.
Yeah good luck with that. The greater irony is that even the bible describes the masses as sheep. baaaa baaaaa. I think it was Hitler who said "What great fortune for tyrants that men are so easily led"
but have a look at where your bullies are now... do you really want to be like them? Chances are they now want to be like you.
I've been studying bullying recently and the growing body of evidence on bullying behavior reveals a mindset that is unlikely to want to be like another person. Specifically bullies are broken people with mindsets that range from simply dictatorial all the way to sociopaths.
I have no regrets or bitterness about those early years - I often give work to some of my former bullies.
Then you are doing your company a great dis-service. The evidence suggests unless a bully has received counseling and in some cases psychiatric care, it is more than likely that they are continuing to bully the people around them without your knowledge. They may even be undermining you and the real issue to you is what hiring a bully says about you. In Robert Sutton's book The No Asshole Rule you may be bullying people yourself (i.e you may be an asshole) and not even know it as bullies tend to hire bullies. I won't judge you but you should do the Asshole Rating Self-Exam as while it all sounds kind of funny and cute it's actually a serious topic. I did the test myself and rated fairly low assholish tendencies - but there is always a possibility I could turn into one if I am not diligent.
(and learnt to fight)
This is the one reason that makes me think you are not an asshole or a bully. Not patting my own back too much but if you are referring to martial arts or a fighting sport you have probably had the asshole and bully disciplined out of you. I train and most people I have met in this sphere are morally strong. The problem is bullies *do* have social skills and in some cases they are exceptional social skills, the difference is that they are anti-social and destructive individuals. These are not the type of people you want around any form of creative environment as it is shown to severely reduce the productivity of professionals such as these (programmers, graphic artists, scientists etc).
Make no mistake bullies are toxic individual that can drive a company to bankruptcy, kill moral and productivity and drive people into depressive states. I am just thankful that I live in a country where this is recognised and there is a legal framework to deal with it. If you live in the U.S though you have no such protections. A bully does not want to be like anyone, there are only two types of people to a bully those who are targets and those who are not. Do not hire them, bullies should be avoided at all costs.
Somewhat of a flaw in the US legal system. The foundational princibles were written to provide extensive protection from government oppression, but none from corporate oppression. At the time there just hadn't been any corporations with so much power that it was seen as a concern. The age of the multinational megacorp didn't come until much later.
At the time of the founding fathers a corporate charter was granted with the express goal of doing something and was forbidden, by law, to diversify. For example a corporation chartered to build a bridge could not start making socks. Laws regarding corporate diversification were repealed in the 1950s. Somewhat cynically, corporations were granted the same rights as any human being on the backs of black people's rights being recognised. I can't remember the exact circumstances.
However one founding father, Benjamin Franklin, did recognise the danger and noted that the constitution would not protect America from falling into despotism;
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
It's not clear to me if this is specifically what Franklin was refering to, I'm sure there were other reasons. It's a simple matter of changing the corporations law to undo the current situation but that calls for the voters to be informed of the issues, which I think is as close to impossible with the control media currently exerts over the media in this day and age. A simpler solution would be to allow corporations to experience the full force of the law and the board exposed to liability for their decisions. but I'm sure that would be fought with as much vigor.
Slashdot Mirror
WHO supports net neutrality...
World Health Organisation support Net Neutrality as well?
Religion and science shouldn't mix. And science should not meddle with politics. Religion is politics, unfortunately. It never had any other purpose.
I think you'll find it's don't mix religion with politics, i.e don't mix clay with iron.
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)
WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.
1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.
He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1986; L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22).
2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.
3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieve
Actually the official position of the Catholic Church...
Yeah I've made the same point many times before originally made by Pope John Paul II. So if I.D is not evolution how is what you are saying different? I said That's if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do.. Sure I can accept that no one knows if the Big Bang happened or not. Are you agreeing with me that I.D is not evolution and that the catholic church are not too keen on I.D, or are you trying to make a different point?
ID isn't blasphemous to Catholics because it's limiting God.
Well actually ID is quite offensive to some catholics. It's one thing to say it's wrong because it's not science and quite another to say it's offensive because it's blasphemous. You see science can also be looked on as a tool for discovering the nature of an unlimited universe much more amazing than any single group of people can conceive. Not everyone has the same beliefs as a stick shaking Evagelist.
ID is just wrong because A) it isn't science. B) it assumes taking the BIble literally.
You mean like if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do?
and so taking a specific translation and treating it as word-for-word literal truth is a simplistic and juvenile approach.
If you read the bible as a work of philosophy then it's hard to digest without reading it in context. Ignorance is the enemy so I do hope you're not directing that remark at me. It takes intelligence just to read the bible, which is a book about humanity, not science. You don't read the bible to gather knowledge, you read it to learn about human nature and hopefully accumulate some wisdom on the way.
I think Catholicisms objection to I.D is a matter of doctrine, that it actually limits the possibilities of the universe (which is described as the glory of God in the bible). Anything that limits the glory of God is blasphemous, therefore Intelligent Design is blasphemous.
If you representative even gives you an answer it will be along the lines of don't care because it wasn't their decision and doesn't affect them or you.
Bullshit. I've written to Pollicritters numerous times and not only received a reply but been asked to advise them.
Further, I've also been able to play a part in making sure stupid legislation doesn't pass.
I can understand your cynicism, but if you don't want to participate in your democracy, that's your business, not mine.
For the most hypocritical church on earth they're surprisingly progressive with some matters. I don't think they're that keen on Intelligent design either.
Actually, they are now required not to pay the Microsoft Tax. The last tests I saw showed that Microsoft Office got over 5,000 failures in Microsoft's own OOXML conformance tests. It therefore does not support OOXML and can therefore not be used by the Australian government. I suggest that anyone in Australia points this out to their elected representatives.
Amusingly, Microsoft Office actually did better in ODF conformance tests (with a plugin, I think), than it did in OOXML conformance tests. I'm not sure how OO.o does with OOXML, but it's managed to open both of the the OOXML files I've ever been sent.
Thank you, that's exactly what I intend doing.
That's the difference between someone who's intellectually curious (and always looking to better themselves) and someone who's dug their heals in and is becoming more a liability every day.
There is a lot to be said being efficient with your time. I find that personally I *want* to have a look at all sorts of technology but I have to be very selective that the technology I actually learn has a return on investment in time. Even young programmers are going to get older and you have to choose what you are going to incorporate in you skill set.
What concerns me here is the increasing trend to drive down the salary of all IT professionals. I don't know about anyone else but I work really smart at the things I do but I.T is still hard work, not everyone (or anyone) can do it. Increasingly I find myself questioning if the effort can be justified by lower salary trends such as these.
You're not going to be young forever and it's a tough choice to be evaluating the viability of something you love to do versus the fact that you have to be paid fairly for your efforts.
When I heard Moonstalk I thought it would involve Rockin' out for days on end and wallowing in peace and free-love with the Lunarians -- Like a Lunar Woodstock.
Maybe the Police could be coaxed out of retirement yet again for one more final rendition of 'Stalking on the moon'
What better way to find a use for a Moonstalk, the lunar equivalent of a terrestrial Space Elevator. If the materials are available to do such a thing now then mining the moon may finally provide the commercial impetus to get into space. A Moonstalk would certainly remove the need for launchers from the moon to get the material into space.
Let him. Just use a Whitelisted system. There are Kids Browsers out there. If he wants a site in his browser, "he has to ask IT". That's the mentality we should promote, not "the net is too big and scary".
It's a good idea but the net is big and scary so, lets be realistic and honest about it. Whats appropriate is for a child to be able to develop the skills to use it properly. That means, if your idea is to become effective, that it's also necessary to discuss their choices. Understanding the choices develops the relationship with the child and helps them to make their own decisions responsibly. If a child knows you are going to monitor their website choices there is a better chance that they will start to associate consequences with their choices.
But your premise is right on. Society molly-coddles children too much instead of making them take responsibility for their own actions. Letting a child use the internet is analogous to letting a child use a knife. Instead of showing them how to use it and then saying "But be careful if you use it incorrectly it will cut you and that hurts" we just blunt the knife until it's ineffective. The damage the net can to to an impressionable mind is just not as obvious than that from the knife. If a child is taught how to use the net then the chances they will be able to educate and entertain themselves are increased.
I'm sure they'll be lining up in the prison to cover it.
Then use encryption on your email. I mean it's not that hard to do, much like putting a letter in an envelope. Until then all you are receiving in your inbox are postcards not actual mail. Until this distinction is actually made you are still treating your inbox with the assumption of privacy and reading someones inbox could be as accidental has hitting the back button on someone's gmail session or some other scenario. Subverting encryption on an email takes a deliberate, pre-meditated act, like opening some one else's snail mail
Sure the guys was stupid but at the same time Palin is a public official, her advisors should have advised her to protect her information assets with a strong enough password at the very minimum. If there is no excuse for his stupidity then there is no excuse for hers. Certainly there is no excuse for people whining about privacy for their email communication and then not encrypting their email.
But they're not. They're telling engineers how they want something engineered which is not the same thing. Obviously it is going to be a compromised but hey if thats how the people with the money want it done for whatever reasons I'm sure the engineers can deal with the issues. The difference between this and Apollo is that no-one told the engineers how Apollo should be designed and built. BAck then the politicians said "Here's the money, get us to the moon"
Or when they told NASA how they should build a space shuttle...
Isn't that what they say about a lap dance?
But I guess that won't stop the doomsday idiots from waiting for their Rapture on that day. What else is new?
Planet Niburu! I met one of the very people you were talking about and you know what I was amazed at how entertained I was for about twenty minutes as she told me about how planet X was coming into earth orbit in 2012 and that you could see it with the base of a glass coke bottle.
When I asked her if she had tried it she said no.
But she did say I could see all the contrails from the secret Military planes flying around! At which point I assured her they were mostly domestic jet airliners and that most jets do that and you can't see the really super secret planes - they fly too high.
She said "Are you a scientist or something"
I said "no" but realised that the person had consumed waaay to much acid but it was necessary for this person to be as kooky as they were to produce the artwork they were capable of making. I resisted the urge to tell her that the real danger was from all the mind control drug put into our water supply and the only way to avoid it was to drink one's own wee.
Thank you I was educated by your description of the fuctioning of the Mayan Calender I hope you are entertained by the example of someone trying to apply it. Education really is the only way to combat the two extremes of ignorance Conspiracy Theorist; where no proof is necessary and Dogmatic Skeptic; where no proof is possible.
It's only necessary because of the complete dumbing down of...
Everyone and everything. I mean seriously it's not just schools look at the media it's totally patronising and just keeps getting dumberer and dumberer every day. Even documentaries are so seriously rewriting history I feel genuine woe for the ignorance being inflicted on the human race. We basically don't get good quality politicians because, after all, what sane person would try to do something the dumb ignorant masses don't understand just to get pummeled into submission by a frenzy of ignorance.
It's time to ignore the religious crackpots and start teaching real science without fear of backlash.
Yeah good luck with that. The greater irony is that even the bible describes the masses as sheep. baaaa baaaaa. I think it was Hitler who said "What great fortune for tyrants that men are so easily led"
Well I was thinking that it's certainly a long way out for a lone TIE Fighter, then I realised...
Money, it's a hit. Don't give me none of that do goody good bullshit.
all it needs now is a massive EGO module and it will be just like a real shredder guitarist ;)
I've been studying bullying recently and the growing body of evidence on bullying behavior reveals a mindset that is unlikely to want to be like another person. Specifically bullies are broken people with mindsets that range from simply dictatorial all the way to sociopaths.
Then you are doing your company a great dis-service. The evidence suggests unless a bully has received counseling and in some cases psychiatric care, it is more than likely that they are continuing to bully the people around them without your knowledge. They may even be undermining you and the real issue to you is what hiring a bully says about you. In Robert Sutton's book The No Asshole Rule you may be bullying people yourself (i.e you may be an asshole) and not even know it as bullies tend to hire bullies. I won't judge you but you should do the Asshole Rating Self-Exam as while it all sounds kind of funny and cute it's actually a serious topic. I did the test myself and rated fairly low assholish tendencies - but there is always a possibility I could turn into one if I am not diligent.
This is the one reason that makes me think you are not an asshole or a bully. Not patting my own back too much but if you are referring to martial arts or a fighting sport you have probably had the asshole and bully disciplined out of you. I train and most people I have met in this sphere are morally strong. The problem is bullies *do* have social skills and in some cases they are exceptional social skills, the difference is that they are anti-social and destructive individuals. These are not the type of people you want around any form of creative environment as it is shown to severely reduce the productivity of professionals such as these (programmers, graphic artists, scientists etc).
Make no mistake bullies are toxic individual that can drive a company to bankruptcy, kill moral and productivity and drive people into depressive states. I am just thankful that I live in a country where this is recognised and there is a legal framework to deal with it. If you live in the U.S though you have no such protections. A bully does not want to be like anyone, there are only two types of people to a bully those who are targets and those who are not. Do not hire them, bullies should be avoided at all costs.
it was done for the lols
At the time of the founding fathers a corporate charter was granted with the express goal of doing something and was forbidden, by law, to diversify. For example a corporation chartered to build a bridge could not start making socks. Laws regarding corporate diversification were repealed in the 1950s. Somewhat cynically, corporations were granted the same rights as any human being on the backs of black people's rights being recognised. I can't remember the exact circumstances.
However one founding father, Benjamin Franklin, did recognise the danger and noted that the constitution would not protect America from falling into despotism;
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
It's not clear to me if this is specifically what Franklin was refering to, I'm sure there were other reasons. It's a simple matter of changing the corporations law to undo the current situation but that calls for the voters to be informed of the issues, which I think is as close to impossible with the control media currently exerts over the media in this day and age. A simpler solution would be to allow corporations to experience the full force of the law and the board exposed to liability for their decisions. but I'm sure that would be fought with as much vigor.
A) Admitting that you've joined one of these sites for the express purpose of obtaining an illicit copy of a game, $7.50
B) Admitting that you are willing to knowingly pay for pirated media, $10.87
C) Admitting to having fallen for the scam. Multiple times, Priceless
Mastercard, for the PAY warez sites seems to seen scams and some even list fake games or other stuff just to make there file list seem big.