Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaa. That's a funny joke. Oh Microsoft. You're so funny. Hahahahahaha. Compatability with non-Vista, non-Internet Explorer user experiences? Oh jeeze. This ought to be interesting.
I feel like if I ever met someone with a double major in computer science and philosophy, I would immediately have the desire to punch them in the balls.
I never said the government should shut it down; the implication was that people should wise up and stop watching the channel and that advertisers would move on to greener pastures. Maybe that's how I came across, but you basically wrote an entire post off of assumptions. You're not even attacking a good straw man; you're just being daft.
I'm hardly 'bitter' that there are people who prefer Fox, I was just pointing out the objective reality and wishing people would observe it more.
What about editing the pictures of journalists from other news sources to make them look worse? What about Fox News editing wikipedia pages related to itself against wikipedia's terms of service? What about unprofessionally involving themselves in the Terry Schiavo case, repeatedly violating journalism ethics and skewing facts to make it a partisan issue, as John Gibson put it, "Republicans stand for parents' right and life, and Democrats have sided for [a] questionable husband and dying." when in fact polls showed that most republicans supported removing the tube, and calling the story "Terry's fight"? What about Mark Foley, a republican congressman in trouble for sending sexually explicit text mesages and emails to an underage pages being identified as a 'democrat'? What about Anne Coulter saying, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot." So..." and several other Fox News commentators backing her up when she was criticized by other media? Yeah, not biased at all. Please. Fox News should be shut down, immediately, so Americans are no longer fooled by this joke that calls itself 'Fair and Balanced'
You guys realize, if Apple loses, they'll lock down their OS much more than it is already, and use the DMCA to shut down hobbyists who try to circumvent it?
Here's hoping Psystar loses so we don't have to deal with shitty macs out in the wild and so that we don't have to get into fisticuffs with Apple over DRM.
Uh, socialism is probably on a different axis than liberalism. (Of course, at this point these terms have all become horribly relative and muddled)
I've always understood it that liberalism was opposite of conservatism in that liberalism was interested in moving forward in terms of cultural and civil advancement, while conservatism was interested in retaining old values and keeping them in power. Socialism would be advocacy of wealth redistribution, something not necessarily opposed to traditional or more liberal values.
Um, well a liberal would disagree with you: Most liberals promote strong civil and human rights, even when that would require a larger government (welfare)
Freedom doesn't necessarily constitute a Ron Paul government, anonymous.
Um, I think you're confusing 'liberal' with 'all people who I disagree with and think are crazy'.
Because I'm pretty sure liberalism is, in general, at odds with the idea of a dictatorship? You know, like 'liberation'?
She goes off on a lot of her own personal tangents that don't really organically fit into the rest of the Objectivist idealogies.
Specifically:
-Her ideas about sex are probably more related to her personal life than they are direct throughthoughts about objectivism
-She was homophobic, said that individuals should have the right to do that but that it wasn't a rational self interest because it was unnatural. We now know differently.
-Her views about certain wars were largely influenced by the fact that she was so anti-communist. While objectivism would condemn the vietnam war for the use of non-reactionary physical force, for example, she believed the united states needed to slow the spread of communism and the soviet union.
-She and many other objectivists believe that the government shouldn't be able to stop businesses from discrimination based on race or sexuality or gender, and that instead that discrimination should be stopped through social efforts. Arguably, this discrimination is a use of force which could be punishable by an objectivist government as being hedonistic. Objectivists disagree about this.
Rand does say that if you disagree with parts of her beliefs and not others, you shouldn't call yourself an Objectivist, and instead should attribute the parts of your philosophy you believe to their authors, but I think it's fair to say a large amount of her philosophy just doesn't have the perspective we have now
um, Palin's current stance is that doesn't believe that creationism should be taught in school in addition to evolution, but that it should not be a prohibited topic.
If you're going to diss a candidate, at least don't act like a raving fool and use actual arguments and assessments.
If I recall, I said, "You won't have beautification programs or great defense budgets, but it's doable."
If the government was simply minimized and was reduced to a basic law enforcement system, then yes, it could probably survive off of state lottery and other methods of money collection besides taxation.
I never said *enjoyable* sustainable government structure.
uh, have you heard of a state lottery?
It's very possible to have a sustainable government structure sans taxes. You won't have beautification programs or great defense budgets, but it's doable.
uh, do you understand the works of Ayn Rand and the values of objectivism at all?
Objectivism is a set of ideologies built around the concept that objective facts exists. Ayn Rand meant to evaluate concepts of identity and reality, and although she promoted laissez-faire capitalism, objectivism contains a wide range of interesting and useful ideas.
The fact is, Ayn Rand believed that laissez faire capitalism was the best system through which individuals could fulfill their rational self-interest with the least amount of interference. In this case, the meat packers are acting on hedonistic motives (something considered objectivism does NOT condone), and the judges are illegitamately using their force to place unnessessary restraints on the smaller corporation.
Tangent: Usually most people think objectivism is equivalent to anarchy and that it says people should be able to do whatever they want. This is not true. Ayn Rand's objectivist writings make clear the difference between rational self-interest and hedonistic selfishness-without-self. An action is morally defensible, according to objectivism, if it fulfills the individual's rational interest in becoming a full human being. Actions like rape, murder, stealing, instead fulfill an individual's sub-human instincts and should be punished.
I considered it artistic. It's viscious commentary, but it still has all the traits of postmodern art (it is indistinguishable from parody of itself)
A simple, two second interpretation: The World Trade Center represents capitalism, and the invaders, by slowly destroying the world trade center, are slowly stripping away our accomplishments and even some of our failures to produce a fair society. These invaders are both setting us back and giving us a chance to start over. In multiple ways, they are charicatures of our actual enemies; they're slow moving, giving us the opportunity to stop them if we deem our successes worth protecting, and they're part of a video game. In a twist that even the most hardened postmodern critic would have to love, he is actually commenting on how people won't take the video game as a serious work of art.
There. I could probably whip up a few more paragraphs, pages, or books if I had the time or motivation. But a reasonably intelligent person would realize that if he wanted to be offensive about 9/11, he could do it in way better ways than this.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaa.
That's a funny joke.
Oh Microsoft. You're so funny.
Hahahahahaha.
Compatability with non-Vista, non-Internet Explorer user experiences?
Oh jeeze. This ought to be interesting.
I feel like if I ever met someone with a double major in computer science and philosophy, I would immediately have the desire to punch them in the balls.
Because I'm not letting that reproduce.
I never said the government should shut it down; the implication was that people should wise up and stop watching the channel and that advertisers would move on to greener pastures. Maybe that's how I came across, but you basically wrote an entire post off of assumptions. You're not even attacking a good straw man; you're just being daft.
I'm hardly 'bitter' that there are people who prefer Fox, I was just pointing out the objective reality and wishing people would observe it more.
What about editing the pictures of journalists from other news sources to make them look worse?
What about Fox News editing wikipedia pages related to itself against wikipedia's terms of service?
What about unprofessionally involving themselves in the Terry Schiavo case, repeatedly violating journalism ethics and skewing facts to make it a partisan issue, as John Gibson put it, "Republicans stand for parents' right and life, and Democrats have sided for [a] questionable husband and dying." when in fact polls showed that most republicans supported removing the tube, and calling the story "Terry's fight"?
What about Mark Foley, a republican congressman in trouble for sending sexually explicit text mesages and emails to an underage pages being identified as a 'democrat'?
What about Anne Coulter saying, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot." So..." and several other Fox News commentators backing her up when she was criticized by other media?
Yeah, not biased at all. Please. Fox News should be shut down, immediately, so Americans are no longer fooled by this joke that calls itself 'Fair and Balanced'
That's..... that's an accomplishment.
You mean the conclusion that offering DRM-free tracks when possible at the same price is a good thing? (iTunes Plus)
Hi Roland! What's up? I haven't seen you in a while!
You know, a long time ago, the citizens of America in the south didn't have a problem with slavery.
Does that make it right?
You guys realize, if Apple loses, they'll lock down their OS much more than it is already, and use the DMCA to shut down hobbyists who try to circumvent it?
Here's hoping Psystar loses so we don't have to deal with shitty macs out in the wild and so that we don't have to get into fisticuffs with Apple over DRM.
You could just fedex it. Unless your time is worth less than like, $5 an hour.
At this point, there are no watchers--just a mob of thieves extorting you for protection money.
Uh, socialism is probably on a different axis than liberalism. (Of course, at this point these terms have all become horribly relative and muddled)
I've always understood it that liberalism was opposite of conservatism in that liberalism was interested in moving forward in terms of cultural and civil advancement, while conservatism was interested in retaining old values and keeping them in power. Socialism would be advocacy of wealth redistribution, something not necessarily opposed to traditional or more liberal values.
Um, well a liberal would disagree with you: Most liberals promote strong civil and human rights, even when that would require a larger government (welfare)
Freedom doesn't necessarily constitute a Ron Paul government, anonymous.
Um, I think you're confusing 'liberal' with 'all people who I disagree with and think are crazy'. Because I'm pretty sure liberalism is, in general, at odds with the idea of a dictatorship? You know, like 'liberation'?
She goes off on a lot of her own personal tangents that don't really organically fit into the rest of the Objectivist idealogies.
Specifically:
-Her ideas about sex are probably more related to her personal life than they are direct throughthoughts about objectivism
-She was homophobic, said that individuals should have the right to do that but that it wasn't a rational self interest because it was unnatural. We now know differently.
-Her views about certain wars were largely influenced by the fact that she was so anti-communist. While objectivism would condemn the vietnam war for the use of non-reactionary physical force, for example, she believed the united states needed to slow the spread of communism and the soviet union.
-She and many other objectivists believe that the government shouldn't be able to stop businesses from discrimination based on race or sexuality or gender, and that instead that discrimination should be stopped through social efforts. Arguably, this discrimination is a use of force which could be punishable by an objectivist government as being hedonistic. Objectivists disagree about this.
Rand does say that if you disagree with parts of her beliefs and not others, you shouldn't call yourself an Objectivist, and instead should attribute the parts of your philosophy you believe to their authors, but I think it's fair to say a large amount of her philosophy just doesn't have the perspective we have now
wow, Rand was wrong about a lot of things, but you clearly don't understand Objectivism if you think she's an idiot. Objectivism != Anarchy.
um, Palin's current stance is that doesn't believe that creationism should be taught in school in addition to evolution, but that it should not be a prohibited topic. If you're going to diss a candidate, at least don't act like a raving fool and use actual arguments and assessments.
If I recall, I said, "You won't have beautification programs or great defense budgets, but it's doable." If the government was simply minimized and was reduced to a basic law enforcement system, then yes, it could probably survive off of state lottery and other methods of money collection besides taxation. I never said *enjoyable* sustainable government structure.
uh, have you heard of a state lottery? It's very possible to have a sustainable government structure sans taxes. You won't have beautification programs or great defense budgets, but it's doable.
uh, do you understand the works of Ayn Rand and the values of objectivism at all?
Objectivism is a set of ideologies built around the concept that objective facts exists. Ayn Rand meant to evaluate concepts of identity and reality, and although she promoted laissez-faire capitalism, objectivism contains a wide range of interesting and useful ideas.
The fact is, Ayn Rand believed that laissez faire capitalism was the best system through which individuals could fulfill their rational self-interest with the least amount of interference. In this case, the meat packers are acting on hedonistic motives (something considered objectivism does NOT condone), and the judges are illegitamately using their force to place unnessessary restraints on the smaller corporation.
Tangent: Usually most people think objectivism is equivalent to anarchy and that it says people should be able to do whatever they want. This is not true. Ayn Rand's objectivist writings make clear the difference between rational self-interest and hedonistic selfishness-without-self. An action is morally defensible, according to objectivism, if it fulfills the individual's rational interest in becoming a full human being. Actions like rape, murder, stealing, instead fulfill an individual's sub-human instincts and should be punished.
I considered it artistic. It's viscious commentary, but it still has all the traits of postmodern art (it is indistinguishable from parody of itself)
A simple, two second interpretation: The World Trade Center represents capitalism, and the invaders, by slowly destroying the world trade center, are slowly stripping away our accomplishments and even some of our failures to produce a fair society. These invaders are both setting us back and giving us a chance to start over. In multiple ways, they are charicatures of our actual enemies; they're slow moving, giving us the opportunity to stop them if we deem our successes worth protecting, and they're part of a video game. In a twist that even the most hardened postmodern critic would have to love, he is actually commenting on how people won't take the video game as a serious work of art.
There. I could probably whip up a few more paragraphs, pages, or books if I had the time or motivation. But a reasonably intelligent person would realize that if he wanted to be offensive about 9/11, he could do it in way better ways than this.
But really, how could you NOT want to live here?
I can't tell if this is beautiful poetry or if you're just autistic.
um, do you understand genetics? Of course two 'little people' parents can have normal sized children. It's roughly a 25% chance.
wow you're an idiot. Do you even understand how nuclear bombs work versus how nuclear reactors work?