Agree with some of what you said. However, t he Kylo Ren battle... he was injured (already had taken a shot to his side from Chewy's crossbow canon thing... he was lucky to be alive), and I presume that is the only way Fin/Rey were able to do anything to him. Full strength I'm sure Kylo Ren kicks their tails. Also, I think there is something between him and Rey... he could have killed her when she was young, but didn't, and he seemed reluctant to really want to hurt her in the last battle scene.
Her sudden use of latent powers, which took Luke a very long time to master, is somewhat strange... but it might also speak to the strength of her powers (which could far surpass even Luke's abilities).
My exact thoughts afterward were "it could have easily been longer." To the delight of some and dismay of others... but I enjoy long movies. They crammed a lot into a small time frame. Not sure who's decision it was to pare it down so much, but its understandable given the average attention span.
Actually, it had more story than any of the prequels.
I would not have watched another installment from Lucas. Saw only one in theater, and refused to spend that much to watch the rest.
I honestly cannot see where you are coming from... at all. The best thing Lucas ever did for the franchise was sell it... its up for debate if he sold it to the right buyer. He would have been booed out the door if he attempted to make more sequels. But maybe you liked them more than the originals... (gasp)
The hate is strange. Guardians of the Galaxy was an AWESOME product from Disney. But they had nothing "preconceived" to work from there. It was total freedom, and it was indeed awesome.
Star Wars is a totally different beast. Too many chances, and you end up with the crap Lucas spit out for prequels, and definite alienation of some fans. Regardless, there was NO WAY they were going to please everybody. But we got an entertaining continuation of the originals, IMO. Lets hope it only gets better! Honestly, I'm very much looking forward to the next installment.
What more can you ask for? They had epic expectations and didn't completely fail like the previous attempt from Lucas.
I agree with much of what you say. And at this time in human history it is very correct. There needs to be some middle ground, and some incentive for productivity.
However, at some point, we could be so technologically advanced that everything is automated. Literally everything. Will work ALWAYS be a requirement? What do we do when it no longer is? How would we transition to that stage, when so many people who may want to work can't? What if we become so automated that only a fraction of the world needs to work? How do those people live?
There are two issues here. The first is that of freeloading. I'm sure it has been touched on, but a basic income encourages free loading, or discourages productivity, or both. That being said, those who are in poverty and don't have their basic needs met are much more likely to commit crimes. Meeting those basic needs is not only humane, it is stabilizing. The trick is to still encourage productivity to the greatest extent possible while also assisting those who need it.
The second issue is job growth (or, in reality, job shrinkage). The earth's population is growing exponentially. While, at the same time, technological advances are continually and increasingly automating processes, to the point that we don't need people for many of the jobs we used to need them for in the past. At some point, there simply won't be enough jobs for people that want jobs. Its inevitable, aside from a massive reduction in population or a massive technological regression. The benefits of these technological advances shouldn't only benefit a few people (at the expense of the people who now no longer have jobs) - everyone should benefit, including the displaced workers. A basic income could be a solution to this problem.
The issue is much more complex than can be discussed in a couple paragraphs, but the two issues above are a summary of the most pressing issues that currently NEED to be resolved, or civil unrest is a certainty.
That is not a lack of ethics, on any party's part. The smelter bought electricity at a discount rate because of the volume they planned on using. That's perfectly legitimate. It's completely up to them how they use it, so, if they want to resell it that's fine.
Now, they probably would upset the power company if they tried to undercut them. The relationship could be ruined, if some arrangement weren't made. The power company may not offer such a nice discount in the future, and that's perfectly legitimate too.
You are correct. However, you must acknowledge that business must have limits.
If I want to create a business that nukes small villages, is it still legitimate simply because it makes money and there is a need/demand for it?
That's extreme, but simply put, a business shouldn't be allowed to be a business simply because it makes money and there is demand. There must be some level of responsibility involved, or else abuses are inevitable as every avenue of profit-increase is pursued (or perhaps you like how China employs children as young as 8 to do extremely dangerous work, etc, etc...).
That is a very elementary definition of a business. While in practice that is what most businesses are, essentially, the largest and most powerful business are actually Entities, consisting of Shareholders, a Board, Directors/Managers and employees. Because these huge powerful corporations are beholden to their investors, the board directs its management to employ bean counters and will lower the bottom line, *regardless*. And it is *regardless* because, in the cut throat nature of business, any possible slight advantage over a competitor must be pursued. This often results in squeezing the employees, squeezing the environment, and thus squeezing society as a whole.
Make no mistake, I am not against business, profits, or any such thing. I actually run my own business. However, when shareholders enter the picture, things change. Appeasing shareholders become the end-all of the company, instead of profits flowing back the employees that make it (essentially, a pyramid scheme). Add to that the massive size and power, these large corporations have the potential, in a heartbeat, to either uplift or drag down humanity. Due to their "bean-counting" nature, it's generally the latter.... at least without some form of regulation to prevent it. (Think 50 to 100 years ago... our cities would be worse than Beijing if pollution ordinances never went into effect. I live in North Country, and back in those days, the snow was black, not white.)
On the other hand, in my business, I know my actions directly effect my employees, my environment, and myself, and thus I make balanced choices that will benefit them all. I'm not tied to some nameless "shareholder" that demands I make profits increase by squeezing anywhere I can. Not as efficient? Maybe. Better quality product, service and employees? You betcha! And I sleep well at night knowing I am successful because I have helped others become successful.
Did you even read his comment? About him (personally) not having "any pangs of lack of integrity"? He wasn't saying HP lacked integrity, he said he didn't feel bad about lacking it.
Jeesh, before you rip someone a new one, be sure you know WTF you're talking about. Makes you seem like just about the most ignorant a**hole I know.
Yes, the utter and complete fallacy of many "believers" is that somehow everything will be taken care of for them - that life is determined, so no effort is required on their part. Sadly, this is simply due to false understandings. Embracing life, and in turn embracing God, is all about taking charge of your own life and making it the best it can possibly be through your own decisions and efforts. Hence liberty. "Sacrifice to the greater good", on the other hand, while "sounding Christian", is in fact a devaluation of your own life and accomplishments, a rejection of striving for personal betterment, an enslavement of self to others, and thus a rejection of life, an embracing of death.
That's funny... I find science has only validated and furthered my understanding of God. Then again, I don't view religion and God in the same way others may.
What?! Reality is shifty? Could please qualify that? I thought I saw feces dropping from you mouth.
No, my postmodern friend, reality is there for all to see, stable and waiting for our discovery. It's our feeble minds that have a hard time putting it all together with limited tools such as "science" and "religion".
Just because some old people chose to use a very limited definition of God doesn't mean it's correct. And yes, substituting Universe (understood as all that is) for God would be the same. Religion is simply a method of helping those who have difficulty comprehending incredibly complex subjects understand reality.
Your reduction to semantics is typical of people who have difficulty forming their argument.
And yes, scientists use the term Universe, but they tend to view it in a strict physical sense, ignoring vast areas of human nature (spirit, emotion, abstraction, etc).
That's untrue; an all-powerful deity, by definition encompassing all energy and matter, would necessarily be omnipotent, furthermore, traces would be seen everywhere (ie, reality).
God = Reality. To think of God in terms of a person, or any being, is by definition false - it limits God by your personal understanding of reality. Just because some crazy people in the past and present have chosen to interpret an ancient text completely wrong has nothing to do with the validity of God.
I'm not advocating ID here, but since when is the strict 5,000 years an absolute among all people of faith? And since when is this "invisible man in the sky" also a universal among people of faith? It's just as plausible that their God is simply energy manifest in life and will (evolution, purpose, what-have-you).
Most people who denounce God believers are more ignorant than the believers themselves. They cling to catch-phrases without fully comprehending the concepts within world religions.
Actually, it has much more to do with profitability. It has been much more profitable for a large electric company to ship in coal/nuclear and sell you energy on a monthly basis, rather than develop advanced technologies that allow you a one-time purchase.
Also, you don't seem to be very well informed. I live in the north, where we experience long winter months, and solar cells actually work very well in the winter, due to the fact that sun still penetrates clouds (or, we'd freeze to death), and heat causes solar cells to run less efficiently.
I agree that, if it were "that easy", it would be done already... but the entire basis of American society is that nothing is easy (see Civil War; Liberty). If you want easy, go live in France where they take care of everything for you, feeding, butt wiping and all.
Slashdot Mirror
He's the guy I really want to know about.
He developed real technology. How much of it do we know about and/or can replicate?
Was much of his technology hidden away by purchasers with other interests (AC electricity)?
Agree with some of what you said. However, t he Kylo Ren battle... he was injured (already had taken a shot to his side from Chewy's crossbow canon thing... he was lucky to be alive), and I presume that is the only way Fin/Rey were able to do anything to him. Full strength I'm sure Kylo Ren kicks their tails. Also, I think there is something between him and Rey... he could have killed her when she was young, but didn't, and he seemed reluctant to really want to hurt her in the last battle scene.
Her sudden use of latent powers, which took Luke a very long time to master, is somewhat strange... but it might also speak to the strength of her powers (which could far surpass even Luke's abilities).
My exact thoughts afterward were "it could have easily been longer." To the delight of some and dismay of others... but I enjoy long movies. They crammed a lot into a small time frame. Not sure who's decision it was to pare it down so much, but its understandable given the average attention span.
I'm also hoping for an extended-version release.
Actually, it had more story than any of the prequels.
I would not have watched another installment from Lucas. Saw only one in theater, and refused to spend that much to watch the rest.
I honestly cannot see where you are coming from... at all. The best thing Lucas ever did for the franchise was sell it... its up for debate if he sold it to the right buyer. He would have been booed out the door if he attempted to make more sequels. But maybe you liked them more than the originals... (gasp)
The hate is strange. Guardians of the Galaxy was an AWESOME product from Disney. But they had nothing "preconceived" to work from there. It was total freedom, and it was indeed awesome.
Star Wars is a totally different beast. Too many chances, and you end up with the crap Lucas spit out for prequels, and definite alienation of some fans. Regardless, there was NO WAY they were going to please everybody. But we got an entertaining continuation of the originals, IMO. Lets hope it only gets better! Honestly, I'm very much looking forward to the next installment.
What more can you ask for? They had epic expectations and didn't completely fail like the previous attempt from Lucas.
Interesting premise... those who don't have jobs should die. If everything becomes automated, everyone should die.
You have a unique version of utopia. I'm glad you don't make important decisions.
I agree with much of what you say. And at this time in human history it is very correct. There needs to be some middle ground, and some incentive for productivity.
However, at some point, we could be so technologically advanced that everything is automated. Literally everything. Will work ALWAYS be a requirement? What do we do when it no longer is? How would we transition to that stage, when so many people who may want to work can't? What if we become so automated that only a fraction of the world needs to work? How do those people live?
There are two issues here. The first is that of freeloading. I'm sure it has been touched on, but a basic income encourages free loading, or discourages productivity, or both. That being said, those who are in poverty and don't have their basic needs met are much more likely to commit crimes. Meeting those basic needs is not only humane, it is stabilizing. The trick is to still encourage productivity to the greatest extent possible while also assisting those who need it.
The second issue is job growth (or, in reality, job shrinkage). The earth's population is growing exponentially. While, at the same time, technological advances are continually and increasingly automating processes, to the point that we don't need people for many of the jobs we used to need them for in the past. At some point, there simply won't be enough jobs for people that want jobs. Its inevitable, aside from a massive reduction in population or a massive technological regression. The benefits of these technological advances shouldn't only benefit a few people (at the expense of the people who now no longer have jobs) - everyone should benefit, including the displaced workers. A basic income could be a solution to this problem.
The issue is much more complex than can be discussed in a couple paragraphs, but the two issues above are a summary of the most pressing issues that currently NEED to be resolved, or civil unrest is a certainty.
That is not a lack of ethics, on any party's part. The smelter bought electricity at a discount rate because of the volume they planned on using. That's perfectly legitimate. It's completely up to them how they use it, so, if they want to resell it that's fine.
Now, they probably would upset the power company if they tried to undercut them. The relationship could be ruined, if some arrangement weren't made. The power company may not offer such a nice discount in the future, and that's perfectly legitimate too.
You are correct. However, you must acknowledge that business must have limits.
If I want to create a business that nukes small villages, is it still legitimate simply because it makes money and there is a need/demand for it?
That's extreme, but simply put, a business shouldn't be allowed to be a business simply because it makes money and there is demand. There must be some level of responsibility involved, or else abuses are inevitable as every avenue of profit-increase is pursued (or perhaps you like how China employs children as young as 8 to do extremely dangerous work, etc, etc...).
That is a very elementary definition of a business. While in practice that is what most businesses are, essentially, the largest and most powerful business are actually Entities, consisting of Shareholders, a Board, Directors/Managers and employees. Because these huge powerful corporations are beholden to their investors, the board directs its management to employ bean counters and will lower the bottom line, *regardless*. And it is *regardless* because, in the cut throat nature of business, any possible slight advantage over a competitor must be pursued. This often results in squeezing the employees, squeezing the environment, and thus squeezing society as a whole.
Make no mistake, I am not against business, profits, or any such thing. I actually run my own business. However, when shareholders enter the picture, things change. Appeasing shareholders become the end-all of the company, instead of profits flowing back the employees that make it (essentially, a pyramid scheme). Add to that the massive size and power, these large corporations have the potential, in a heartbeat, to either uplift or drag down humanity. Due to their "bean-counting" nature, it's generally the latter.... at least without some form of regulation to prevent it. (Think 50 to 100 years ago... our cities would be worse than Beijing if pollution ordinances never went into effect. I live in North Country, and back in those days, the snow was black, not white.)
On the other hand, in my business, I know my actions directly effect my employees, my environment, and myself, and thus I make balanced choices that will benefit them all. I'm not tied to some nameless "shareholder" that demands I make profits increase by squeezing anywhere I can. Not as efficient? Maybe. Better quality product, service and employees? You betcha! And I sleep well at night knowing I am successful because I have helped others become successful.
Did you even read his comment? About him (personally) not having "any pangs of lack of integrity"? He wasn't saying HP lacked integrity, he said he didn't feel bad about lacking it.
Jeesh, before you rip someone a new one, be sure you know WTF you're talking about. Makes you seem like just about the most ignorant a**hole I know.
Yes, the utter and complete fallacy of many "believers" is that somehow everything will be taken care of for them - that life is determined, so no effort is required on their part. Sadly, this is simply due to false understandings. Embracing life, and in turn embracing God, is all about taking charge of your own life and making it the best it can possibly be through your own decisions and efforts. Hence liberty. "Sacrifice to the greater good", on the other hand, while "sounding Christian", is in fact a devaluation of your own life and accomplishments, a rejection of striving for personal betterment, an enslavement of self to others, and thus a rejection of life, an embracing of death.
Why is macro-evolution incompatible with belief in God?
That's funny... I find science has only validated and furthered my understanding of God. Then again, I don't view religion and God in the same way others may.
Insightful?! Who's scratching this guys back?
Unfortunately, my definition of stupidity is you.
Very well said! Mod this guy/gal up!
The comparison was ridiculous to begin with. How can you compare a being that encompasses all, with an alien life form that is encompassed by it?
You make absolutely no sense.
It's like saying macroeconomics and microeconomics are the same thing, since they both fall under economics. That's just retarded. Go back to school.
If I misunderstand, please clarify.
What?! Reality is shifty? Could please qualify that? I thought I saw feces dropping from you mouth.
No, my postmodern friend, reality is there for all to see, stable and waiting for our discovery. It's our feeble minds that have a hard time putting it all together with limited tools such as "science" and "religion".
Just because some old people chose to use a very limited definition of God doesn't mean it's correct. And yes, substituting Universe (understood as all that is) for God would be the same. Religion is simply a method of helping those who have difficulty comprehending incredibly complex subjects understand reality.
Your reduction to semantics is typical of people who have difficulty forming their argument.
And yes, scientists use the term Universe, but they tend to view it in a strict physical sense, ignoring vast areas of human nature (spirit, emotion, abstraction, etc).
That's untrue; an all-powerful deity, by definition encompassing all energy and matter, would necessarily be omnipotent, furthermore, traces would be seen everywhere (ie, reality).
God = Reality. To think of God in terms of a person, or any being, is by definition false - it limits God by your personal understanding of reality. Just because some crazy people in the past and present have chosen to interpret an ancient text completely wrong has nothing to do with the validity of God.
I'm not advocating ID here, but since when is the strict 5,000 years an absolute among all people of faith? And since when is this "invisible man in the sky" also a universal among people of faith? It's just as plausible that their God is simply energy manifest in life and will (evolution, purpose, what-have-you).
Most people who denounce God believers are more ignorant than the believers themselves. They cling to catch-phrases without fully comprehending the concepts within world religions.
Actually, it has much more to do with profitability. It has been much more profitable for a large electric company to ship in coal/nuclear and sell you energy on a monthly basis, rather than develop advanced technologies that allow you a one-time purchase. Also, you don't seem to be very well informed. I live in the north, where we experience long winter months, and solar cells actually work very well in the winter, due to the fact that sun still penetrates clouds (or, we'd freeze to death), and heat causes solar cells to run less efficiently. I agree that, if it were "that easy", it would be done already... but the entire basis of American society is that nothing is easy (see Civil War; Liberty). If you want easy, go live in France where they take care of everything for you, feeding, butt wiping and all.