Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is only being done to prove those Muslims who who are offended by it. Disrespecting their religious views just to get a rise out of them is counterproductive, and when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
Bears that attack people, especially those that kill people, are usually hunted down and killed. Was that the analogy you were trying to make?
Because they can't slap kids upside the head and take them home to their parents (where they would probably have received another slap just for being brought home by the police) for disrespecting them these days?
There is a subtle nuance that people making that comparison often miss.
Those cops that used to "slap kids upside the head and take them home to their parents" they did it for the kids' benefit (or so they sincerely believed), often as an alternative to arrest/charge/criminal record. Even when prompted by show of disrespect, the message commonly was "learn to temper your blatant contempt of authority before it gets you into *real* trouble". It is precisely this attitude -- not the uniform -- that commanded respect, even from the punks that got "slapped upside the head" (although they would not admit it).
Today, it's mostly about power trips of sociopathic assholes.
Yes, I know that not everything was peachy "then" and not everything is shitty "now" but on the aggregate things seem to have gotten worse.
Compare and contrast this with this and tell me who deserves more respect.
I can't attribute it unfortunately, but the applicable saying is: "I've always considered statesmen to be more expendable than soldiers." As in, there's plenty more where those came from.
The U.S. gallon is 3.8 litres, wherever else gallons are used (Canada, for instance, right across the border from U.S. for those who are not familiar) the gallon is 4.5 litres.
Google however is smart enough to realize that their entire business model is about getting users to use their products so they can serve up contextual ads. If they piss their users off, it destroys their business model.
It might have been that way in the past but I think that Google already reached the "too big to care" stage. Recently I keep having more and more problems with the way Google treats me as a user.
It started with their toolbar that, after version 3, started breaking features right and left (both toolbar features and native Firefox ones). It continued with Google Maps that removed the ability to save favourite locations without enabling web search history. It culminated with Google "archiving" all the discussion groups relating to their products, which proves that they are not interested in any dialogue with the "users".
- No local representation. Geography-based representation is huge for a country like Canada. Small communities need a voice. Although they may not have an equal voice in Parliament, at least they won't get ignored as they would in a proportional representation system. - No accountability. In a FPTP (first past the post) system, an MP is accountable to their electorate. If you F up, you will be voted out. In a proportional system, the parties decide who the MPs are, so even if an MP Fs up, they may not be replaced by the party. - No attachment to electorate. This is related to both of the above. An attachment to their electorate means that, at least in principle and outwardly, MPs need to take into account the interests of their electorate. Of the people they represent. In a proportional representation system, MPs will not be representing the people. They will be representatives of their party.
A very interesting analysis. Completely untrue but still interesting.
1. The proposed system was MMPP, not a straight proportional one. That means you still vote for individual representative (as well as parties).
2. Voting for both a representative and a party increases both accountability and attachment to the electorate because it allows the voter to vote for a candidate not affiliated with the party they want to govern.
For example, in my riding, if the Liberals decide to enter a goat in the race, it would win by a significant margin because most residents vote along party lines. I actually had a talk with a person that tried to pull the "accountability" card and ask him who he would vote for. He said "the Liberal candidate". Then I asked what was the name of that candidate and he could not tell me. So much for personal accountability and attachment to the electorate.
In the current political culture, FPTP is effectively voting for a party. Independents almost never get elected. In fact, the last time that an Ontario MPP was elected without a clear affiliation with one of the 3 major parties (Conservative / PC, Liberal / Liberal-Labour, NDP / Co-operative Commonwealth) was 1955 when one "PC Independent" got in.
If there is a conflict between the party line and the wishes of the electorate, an MPP has an option of either toeing the party line or not having the party backing come next elections, which effectively means no reelection. Guess what they will choose 10 times out of 10?
An MMPP system decouples the individual from the party to some extent and therefore leads to greater accountability. But then, that is bad for the big parties and could not compete with their spin.
Mensa Sweden has a nice test [mensa.se] that you can try online. As far as I know, this is the only free IQ test on the web that is properly normalized.
>embedded programming and the like And it's more and more irrelevant (Moore's law). It's quite often easier to use more expensive embedded system then to pay for more complex development.
Hm. I refer you to the "troll" comments that were made earlier.
I concede the point. That was unwarranted. I apologize.
I think we are arguing from different terms, though.
Fair enough. Please explain your terms.
You are presuming something: that I determined what the goal, or purpose, of my life is. I believe we are arguing from two different premises; I believe each individual life has a purpose. I did not say that I believed that each individual life is responsible for deciding said purpose and pursuing it...
OK, let's see if I understand. You believe that: 1. Individual life has a purpose 2. That purpose gives life meaning ("if there is no end goal to your life [...] life is useless")
But then you say: "You are presuming [...] that I determined what the goal, or purpose, of my life is."
So, the meaning of your life is the purpose, but you don't know what the purpose is? Wouldn't it mean that your life has no meaning (at least until you find out what the purpose is)?
> Yes, you are trolling. He didn't say "useless", you did. Then he can counter and explain why it is useful.
You just admitted to being a troll. "He" is under no obligation to educate you.
If you and I are playing a game and there is no way to win or lose, what's the point?
I pity your children.
I played a fair amount of games in my life, including competitive sports. Some games I had no chance of winning and I still played them for sheer enjoyment, and I gave my very best -- knowing that I would still not win the game -- just because it made the game more interesting and more fun.
We may, I don't know, grow somehow, but then we die and it's over.
But the moment before I die (if it will not be too sudden), I will look back and say to myself that I led a good life, that I enjoyed living it and that I made some small contributions to the lives of others and I will live for a little while longer in their memories. Sure, I will regret that the ride is over but we all have to get off sooner or later.
Now you -- you have a goal in life. A purpose. What if you die before reaching it? And if you don't, what happens once you reach it? Will you kill yourself then?
There's no end-goal, and thus, I don't think there's really any meaning to it...
That is because you have a very narrow viewpoint and no imagination. When I need goals, I set some. Good ones, because it feels better to have good goals than mediocre ones. Then I strive to reach them because it feels better than not to. And sometimes, I don't need goals, so I let go of them for a while and just enjoy being.
and I would call it useless.
*You* would call it useless. The problem is in *your* perception. *You* find a way to deal with it.
I would just as soon call your life useless, and I am willing to articulate my claim. You have not enriched my life (emotionally, intellectually or otherwise) in any way whatsoever, neither directly nor indirectly. In fact, I sincerely believe that you never will, as you seem to lack both the capacity and the motivation. However, the main difference between us is that, for all your uselessness, I do not advocate terminating your life. Mostly due to a foolish optimistic hope that maybe, just maybe, out of the 6.8 billion humans on this planet, a handful could be found to whom your existence will bring more good than harm.
What do you think they tell the new President on "No-shit day?" ("No-shit day" is what Merle Haggard calls it - when "they" tell the new President how things really work.)
Do you believe that presidential candidates make campaign promises without knowing "how things really work"? If so, what does it say about the system (both the politicos and the voters)?
Let's take it one step further. Do you believe that incumbents seeking re-elections still don't know "how things really work" when they make campaign promises?
No, that works in my favor, too. Creating division between classes is a primary cause of revolution throughout history. It just has to be obvious and loud enough to disrupt the status quo, else it is ignored.
Um, no. Revolutions are nasty and bloody and lethal businesses and only happen when enough people decide that the alternative is far worse. As long as the most of the populace is supplied with bread and circuses, the status quo will be maintained.
Now, don't take it personally, but since you're posting on Slashdot and not storming Capitol Hill (or your local equivalent if you're not an American), I can only assume that you are not close to the breaking point. In that case, what makes you assume that others will be different?
Democracy is a wonderful thing for forestalling revolutions. People have "the other party" to blame and are sure that, come next election, things will improve.
I am not a history buff, but as far as I can tell, revolutions happened either when masses were being killed or when some would-be dictator wanted a shot at being at the top. Class differences are not reason enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Bears that attack people, especially those that kill people, are usually hunted down and killed. Was that the analogy you were trying to make?
Cue the usual "correlation is not causation".
Learn a little bit of Germany's history and you'll understand why that law has absolutely nothing to do with the victims.
What about the Pastafarian religion?
There is a subtle nuance that people making that comparison often miss.
Those cops that used to "slap kids upside the head and take them home to their parents" they did it for the kids' benefit (or so they sincerely believed), often as an alternative to arrest/charge/criminal record. Even when prompted by show of disrespect, the message commonly was "learn to temper your blatant contempt of authority before it gets you into *real* trouble".
It is precisely this attitude -- not the uniform -- that commanded respect, even from the punks that got "slapped upside the head" (although they would not admit it).
Today, it's mostly about power trips of sociopathic assholes.
Yes, I know that not everything was peachy "then" and not everything is shitty "now" but on the aggregate things seem to have gotten worse.
Compare and contrast this with this and tell me who deserves more respect.
Three men in a boat, chapter I.
Harry Truman.
Canada is metric.
Looks like a typical British understatement.
Some, not all.
It might have been that way in the past but I think that Google already reached the "too big to care" stage.
Recently I keep having more and more problems with the way Google treats me as a user.
It started with their toolbar that, after version 3, started breaking features right and left (both toolbar features and native Firefox ones).
It continued with Google Maps that removed the ability to save favourite locations without enabling web search history.
It culminated with Google "archiving" all the discussion groups relating to their products, which proves that they are not interested in any dialogue with the "users".
A very interesting analysis. Completely untrue but still interesting.
1. The proposed system was MMPP, not a straight proportional one. That means you still vote for individual representative (as well as parties).
2. Voting for both a representative and a party increases both accountability and attachment to the electorate because it allows the voter to vote for a candidate not affiliated with the party they want to govern.
For example, in my riding, if the Liberals decide to enter a goat in the race, it would win by a significant margin because most residents vote along party lines. I actually had a talk with a person that tried to pull the "accountability" card and ask him who he would vote for. He said "the Liberal candidate". Then I asked what was the name of that candidate and he could not tell me. So much for personal accountability and attachment to the electorate.
In the current political culture, FPTP is effectively voting for a party. Independents almost never get elected. In fact, the last time that an Ontario MPP was elected without a clear affiliation with one of the 3 major parties (Conservative / PC, Liberal / Liberal-Labour, NDP / Co-operative Commonwealth) was 1955 when one "PC Independent" got in.
If there is a conflict between the party line and the wishes of the electorate, an MPP has an option of either toeing the party line or not having the party backing come next elections, which effectively means no reelection. Guess what they will choose 10 times out of 10?
An MMPP system decouples the individual from the party to some extent and therefore leads to greater accountability.
But then, that is bad for the big parties and could not compete with their spin.
Stacked against people that don't read Swedish.
Life's too short, period.
Absolutely and categorically not.
The only acceptable reason to kill 90% of all humans alive is a projected increase in profits.
Moore's law does not apply to battery life.
You are doing it wrong.
Which god?
There are so many to choose from...
So what is your answer to these questions?
I concede the point. That was unwarranted. I apologize.
Fair enough. Please explain your terms.
OK, let's see if I understand. You believe that:
1. Individual life has a purpose
2. That purpose gives life meaning ("if there is no end goal to your life [...] life is useless")
But then you say:
"You are presuming [...] that I determined what the goal, or purpose, of my life is."
So, the meaning of your life is the purpose, but you don't know what the purpose is?
Wouldn't it mean that your life has no meaning (at least until you find out what the purpose is)?
You just admitted to being a troll. "He" is under no obligation to educate you.
I pity your children.
I played a fair amount of games in my life, including competitive sports. Some games I had no chance of winning and I still played them for sheer enjoyment, and I gave my very best -- knowing that I would still not win the game -- just because it made the game more interesting and more fun.
But the moment before I die (if it will not be too sudden), I will look back and say to myself that I led a good life, that I enjoyed living it and that I made some small contributions to the lives of others and I will live for a little while longer in their memories. Sure, I will regret that the ride is over but we all have to get off sooner or later.
Now you -- you have a goal in life. A purpose.
What if you die before reaching it?
And if you don't, what happens once you reach it? Will you kill yourself then?
That is because you have a very narrow viewpoint and no imagination.
When I need goals, I set some. Good ones, because it feels better to have good goals than mediocre ones. Then I strive to reach them because it feels better than not to. And sometimes, I don't need goals, so I let go of them for a while and just enjoy being.
*You* would call it useless. The problem is in *your* perception. *You* find a way to deal with it.
I would just as soon call your life useless, and I am willing to articulate my claim. You have not enriched my life (emotionally, intellectually or otherwise) in any way whatsoever, neither directly nor indirectly. In fact, I sincerely believe that you never will, as you seem to lack both the capacity and the motivation. However, the main difference between us is that, for all your uselessness, I do not advocate terminating your life. Mostly due to a foolish optimistic hope that maybe, just maybe, out of the 6.8 billion humans on this planet, a handful could be found to whom your existence will bring more good than harm.
End goal != meaning.
Very often the process is more important than the result. Sometimes it is the only important part.
Yes, you are trolling. He didn't say "useless", you did.
You are a troll, and not a very intelligent one at that.
Do you believe that presidential candidates make campaign promises without knowing "how things really work"? If so, what does it say about the system (both the politicos and the voters)?
Let's take it one step further.
Do you believe that incumbents seeking re-elections still don't know "how things really work" when they make campaign promises?
Ruling elites do not rise to power (or stay in power) by being stupid.
Um, no.
Revolutions are nasty and bloody and lethal businesses and only happen when enough people decide that the alternative is far worse.
As long as the most of the populace is supplied with bread and circuses, the status quo will be maintained.
Now, don't take it personally, but since you're posting on Slashdot and not storming Capitol Hill (or your local equivalent if you're not an American), I can only assume that you are not close to the breaking point. In that case, what makes you assume that others will be different?
Democracy is a wonderful thing for forestalling revolutions. People have "the other party" to blame and are sure that, come next election, things will improve.
I am not a history buff, but as far as I can tell, revolutions happened either when masses were being killed or when some would-be dictator wanted a shot at being at the top. Class differences are not reason enough.
Your mistake is the assumption that the same rules apply to you and to them.