Trade is the only fair and just principle under which social relationships can be undertaken. When one party purchases something from another, it is a trade. If you wish to have more, then you must offer something that is worth more. Or else you're what we call a thief, or parasite.
What exactly do companies take from society? Those people walking into McDonald's by their own volition are actually being forced? The employees who get up every morning and work there by their own volition are somehow slaves?
Companies in America have no right to physically compel anyone to do anything. You either accept the terms they offer or you don't. No one is forced to work a sixty hour week. No one forces customers to purchase their goods. You show up at work because you want to. You buy things because you want them. No one is forced to do anything. Communist countries such as China are relevant to this discussion only as an example of what happens when the principle of trade is violated en masse. A perfectly capitalist society would never deal with despots.
You openly advocate holding a gun to the head of anyone who makes more money and demanding payment, at which point you say "accept it and shut the fuck up." Certainly sounds like the brotherly, charitable society of which I'd love to be a part! And incidentally, by this logic, any third-world citizen is entitled the contents of your bank account. Why haven't you sent any and all funds above the bare minimum requirements of your subsistence to Africa?
You actually seem to be more upset that the physical reality of existence compels people to work in order to live. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just hang out and do whatever we wanted all the time without consequence? I say we mandate this a human right: from now on every one has the basic human right to be free of the burden of their bodies, and of living: they have the right to die.
The author of this post has no health insurance, and runs a rapidly growing business that he started with $400 to his name.
Symantec and McAfee are about as effective at problem solving as the Bush administration. These are two products that render a machine useless by loading hundreds of megs of unnecessary graphics and who-knows-what while simultaneously blocking network communication, and popping up every four seconds to tell you about the "attack" so narrowly averted thanks to it. Every so often it asks you for more money.
I went red and started recommending Kaspersky, but my clients have trouble getting it installed thanks to its ridiculous registration system. Instead of a stream-lined system, you have to download a key file and 'show Kaspersky your papers,' if you catch my drift.
Now I just install the free version of Avast. No problems so far.
The first one of you to write software that blocks terra attacks from the inner-web is not going to have any trouble paying off that student loan. Promise.
"But the brain poses an additional level of concern because some envision nightmare scenarios in which a human mind might be trapped in an animal head."
Someone kindly explain to President Bush why this is impossible. And don't laugh. He doesn't like being laughed at.
I routinely dredge out the Symantec and Mcafee cancers from my customers machines after I finish removing all the spyware and viruses.
C. "But I need a firewall!"
U. "No. You have a router."
C. "But I need the Anti-Adware/Spyware/Hacker/Spam/Terra/Flash-Flood protection!"
U. "No. I installed a plain antivirus program and Firefox."
C. "But what if I get worms from my compu-- Hey, how come the start menu opens when I click it now? I usually click it, make a martini, and by the time I come back I my popup blockers are going at it with the poker game. You should see them go! Sometimes Norton gets into too! They're all popping up and beating the shit out of each other like it's the octagon or something!"
U. "Yes. I got rid of all that."
C. "You're the worst computer guy ever! What the hell's the point of it now!"
10 warranties for that many machines? I don't believe you. I've (my company) fixed a couple thousand Dells this year. I would put the rate of machines defective in hardware at least 1/30. But this isn't to mention the tons of worthless crap that comes installed on these machines which users don't know to remove to reclaim about half their CPU resources. I'm talking about AOL (whether ordered or not, Dell installs it) Symantec, Mcafee. As far as the printers go, it's like they told Lexmark to make yet worse printers that last exactly 6 months and badge them for Dell. And the tech-support! Don't even get me started. It was bad enough when you had to talk to those slow as shit cowboys, now you have to deal someone with doesn't even speak English.
(Although, most of my customers are not business customers, so Dell's business machines and service may be better, but I doubt it.)
I purchased an Alienware machine for my father last Christmas. Slighly better specs, $200 more. But it's important to acknowledge that Alienware uses quality components, especially motherboards. Things like this are never listed in the specs, or are but little noticed by people who don't know any better. My dad's machine came with a clean install of Windows. I was stunned that I wouldn't have to spend hours removing the AOL, Mcafee & Symantec viruses as I had expected.
Alienware machines have gotten the reputation of being very expensive because that's how their business started. Now they cater to a variety of markets and have for some time.
I'm not Dell bashing - they're the only company I'll use if I'm not building it myself. Just saying.
Dell is the worst. I repair them all day. You'd be better off buying a machine from the Home Shopping Channel. Seriously, if you're going to recommend a brand to someone, tell them to try Alienware.They're only a little more expensive.
Things do not occur absent a cause, and in this case, the cause is empathy. Empathy is an illusion. Humans can choose whether or not to disregard empathic feelings (for a variety of judicious reasons), chipanzees cannot.
I'm sorry, I completely forgot about this discussion. But, I don't really have the time to keep up with sort of exchange anymore anyway, so I'm going to have to call it quits.
Any attempt to imagine what a selfish person desires, by anyone, will necessarily evoke their own desires. When you ask yourself "what does a selfish person desire" or any question at all, where does the answer come from? Unless you believe that some external force provides these answers, the only possible origin is your own consciousness. The answer supplied by your own consciousness to the question "what does a selfish person desire" can be nothing but what you desire and not someone else. If the answer was not what you desire, then it was dishonest, and an attempt to deceive yourself. I cannot further simplify this point.
Instead of "it rests" let's go with "it's comprised of." Again, poor choice of words, but if you were interested in understanding my arguments as much as attempting to defeat them, this would be obvious.
Yes, the dictionary definition is exactly what I said, only leaving room for another reality wherein it is possible not to be selfish. I write with the knowledge that everyone is selfish. This doesn't automatically make my argument circular, it only makes me consistent. If I attempted to write from any other point of view than my own, I would be demonstrating that very "startling disconnect from reality" I abhor, and would be implicitly maintaining a contradiction.
The context of this discussion is the concepts of selfishness and altruism. That you mention reflexes, which have nothing to do with how we make choices, suggests that you make no distinction between not only impulsive whim and conscious choice, but between your conscious mind and the nerve-endings in your knee caps.
When you divorce an argument of its context by considering each clause in a vacuum (answering one cohesive thought in several quotes, replacing semi-colons with periods, etc), you lose its meaning, and additionally, confess that certain levels of abstract thought are inaccessible to you. Try answering each paragraph.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution.
(Yes, the site design is awful.)
There are ads on Slashdot?
Wewl, to begin wit, you puon Nelly. Den it gits hot in hea.
Adapted. Accustomed implies that there's one big human eye that got used to a certain color scheme.
Mr Macleod? Of the Clan Macleod? He can't track me, I'm not even immortal.
Trade is the only fair and just principle under which social relationships can be undertaken. When one party purchases something from another, it is a trade. If you wish to have more, then you must offer something that is worth more. Or else you're what we call a thief, or parasite.
What exactly do companies take from society? Those people walking into McDonald's by their own volition are actually being forced? The employees who get up every morning and work there by their own volition are somehow slaves?
Companies in America have no right to physically compel anyone to do anything. You either accept the terms they offer or you don't. No one is forced to work a sixty hour week. No one forces customers to purchase their goods. You show up at work because you want to. You buy things because you want them. No one is forced to do anything. Communist countries such as China are relevant to this discussion only as an example of what happens when the principle of trade is violated en masse. A perfectly capitalist society would never deal with despots.
You openly advocate holding a gun to the head of anyone who makes more money and demanding payment, at which point you say "accept it and shut the fuck up." Certainly sounds like the brotherly, charitable society of which I'd love to be a part! And incidentally, by this logic, any third-world citizen is entitled the contents of your bank account. Why haven't you sent any and all funds above the bare minimum requirements of your subsistence to Africa?
You actually seem to be more upset that the physical reality of existence compels people to work in order to live. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just hang out and do whatever we wanted all the time without consequence? I say we mandate this a human right: from now on every one has the basic human right to be free of the burden of their bodies, and of living: they have the right to die.
The author of this post has no health insurance, and runs a rapidly growing business that he started with $400 to his name.
Finally a unified argument against religion and hip-worn electronics.
Now it's all clear.
Symantec and McAfee are about as effective at problem solving as the Bush administration. These are two products that render a machine useless by loading hundreds of megs of unnecessary graphics and who-knows-what while simultaneously blocking network communication, and popping up every four seconds to tell you about the "attack" so narrowly averted thanks to it. Every so often it asks you for more money.
I went red and started recommending Kaspersky, but my clients have trouble getting it installed thanks to its ridiculous registration system. Instead of a stream-lined system, you have to download a key file and 'show Kaspersky your papers,' if you catch my drift.
Now I just install the free version of Avast. No problems so far.
The first one of you to write software that blocks terra attacks from the inner-web is not going to have any trouble paying off that student loan. Promise.
Did you mean "privacy?" Whoops, somebody just confessed that they equate privacy with the malevolent connotations of secrecy.
...four computers, one in each room, and four computers, all in one room. Yet it makes all the difference.
"But the brain poses an additional level of concern because some envision nightmare scenarios in which a human mind might be trapped in an animal head."
Someone kindly explain to President Bush why this is impossible. And don't laugh. He doesn't like being laughed at.
Yeah, because everyone is a potential criminal, especially everyone standing in the vicinity of a potential criminal.
"If I'm on an investigation and I need to know where somebody is located who might be committing a crime . . ."
I don't see what everyone's worried about. They just want to track anyone who might be commiting a crime.
You realize you can take your cellphone with you, right? In fact, you'd be surprised how many people do just that!
Wasn't that HP?
P.O.D. is a shitty band and they deserve to be jacked.
I routinely dredge out the Symantec and Mcafee cancers from my customers machines after I finish removing all the spyware and viruses.
C. "But I need a firewall!"
U. "No. You have a router."
C. "But I need the Anti-Adware/Spyware/Hacker/Spam/Terra/Flash-Flood protection!"
U. "No. I installed a plain antivirus program and Firefox."
C. "But what if I get worms from my compu-- Hey, how come the start menu opens when I click it now? I usually click it, make a martini, and by the time I come back I my popup blockers are going at it with the poker game. You should see them go! Sometimes Norton gets into too! They're all popping up and beating the shit out of each other like it's the octagon or something!"
U. "Yes. I got rid of all that."
C. "You're the worst computer guy ever! What the hell's the point of it now!"
U. "..."
. . . just make smaller, nano-mosquitoes to bite the regular mosquitoes and teach them a lesson?
Company slogan: "Catering to the attention spans of your loved ones."
10 warranties for that many machines? I don't believe you. I've (my company) fixed a couple thousand Dells this year. I would put the rate of machines defective in hardware at least 1/30. But this isn't to mention the tons of worthless crap that comes installed on these machines which users don't know to remove to reclaim about half their CPU resources. I'm talking about AOL (whether ordered or not, Dell installs it) Symantec, Mcafee. As far as the printers go, it's like they told Lexmark to make yet worse printers that last exactly 6 months and badge them for Dell. And the tech-support! Don't even get me started. It was bad enough when you had to talk to those slow as shit cowboys, now you have to deal someone with doesn't even speak English.
(Although, most of my customers are not business customers, so Dell's business machines and service may be better, but I doubt it.)
I purchased an Alienware machine for my father last Christmas. Slighly better specs, $200 more. But it's important to acknowledge that Alienware uses quality components, especially motherboards. Things like this are never listed in the specs, or are but little noticed by people who don't know any better. My dad's machine came with a clean install of Windows. I was stunned that I wouldn't have to spend hours removing the AOL, Mcafee & Symantec viruses as I had expected.
Alienware machines have gotten the reputation of being very expensive because that's how their business started. Now they cater to a variety of markets and have for some time.
I'm not Dell bashing - they're the only company I'll use if I'm not building it myself. Just saying.
Dell is the worst. I repair them all day. You'd be better off buying a machine from the Home Shopping Channel. Seriously, if you're going to recommend a brand to someone, tell them to try Alienware.They're only a little more expensive.
Things do not occur absent a cause, and in this case, the cause is empathy. Empathy is an illusion. Humans can choose whether or not to disregard empathic feelings (for a variety of judicious reasons), chipanzees cannot.
I'm sorry, I completely forgot about this discussion. But, I don't really have the time to keep up with sort of exchange anymore anyway, so I'm going to have to call it quits.
Any attempt to imagine what a selfish person desires, by anyone, will necessarily evoke their own desires. When you ask yourself "what does a selfish person desire" or any question at all, where does the answer come from? Unless you believe that some external force provides these answers, the only possible origin is your own consciousness. The answer supplied by your own consciousness to the question "what does a selfish person desire" can be nothing but what you desire and not someone else. If the answer was not what you desire, then it was dishonest, and an attempt to deceive yourself. I cannot further simplify this point.
Instead of "it rests" let's go with "it's comprised of." Again, poor choice of words, but if you were interested in understanding my arguments as much as attempting to defeat them, this would be obvious.
Yes, the dictionary definition is exactly what I said, only leaving room for another reality wherein it is possible not to be selfish. I write with the knowledge that everyone is selfish. This doesn't automatically make my argument circular, it only makes me consistent. If I attempted to write from any other point of view than my own, I would be demonstrating that very "startling disconnect from reality" I abhor, and would be implicitly maintaining a contradiction.
The context of this discussion is the concepts of selfishness and altruism. That you mention reflexes, which have nothing to do with how we make choices, suggests that you make no distinction between not only impulsive whim and conscious choice, but between your conscious mind and the nerve-endings in your knee caps.
When you divorce an argument of its context by considering each clause in a vacuum (answering one cohesive thought in several quotes, replacing semi-colons with periods, etc), you lose its meaning, and additionally, confess that certain levels of abstract thought are inaccessible to you. Try answering each paragraph.