Ayn Rand would deny basic human nature and say you are an ubermensch who owes nobody nothing
And she would be absolutely right; I don't owe you a damn thing. If I choose to give you something it's either because I see some benefit in it or because I'm feeling generous. Either way the idea that you are "owed" something just because you're incapable of providing for yourself truly is just an insane delusion dreamed up by thoughtless narcisitsts.
Solution: We dont need or want the federal government demanding efficacy. Thats for your fucking doctor to decide, not some professional bureaucrat asshole
Yeah you do. There are multiple problems with these two sentences:
1. You're OK with "some professional bureaucrat asshole" deciding whether something is safe, but not whether it's effective? Why? Do you, by any chance sell homeopathy? "Buy my shit; it doesn't to dick, but it's completely safe!"
2. "Your doctor" is no more able to asses the efficacy of an untested treatment than is your garbage man. In order to know whether or not a medication is effective we need large scale studies, not clinical anecdotes. Your doctor isn't doing any large scale studies; the "professional science assholes" at the FDA are.
They both suck, really, and the latter is morally dubious
By that estimation pretty much all military (and much non-military) R&D is morally dubious. All kinds of technology and knowledge has the potential to be abused.
Morality is all well and good, but pragmatism matters too. I'd rather be "morally dubious" and alive than morally virtuous and dead.
Funny, I just upgraded to the beta from a functional install, and then had to manually edit xorg.conf because the automated tools thought everything was fine even though I was stuck with a text console.
Changed one line for the nvidia driver and it started right up.
With today's constant bombardment of reporting of scientific studies - many times dumbed down to be meaningless - we are getting to many mixed messages.
This is nothing new; it's just gotten somewhat worse over time. Traditional media companies used to have science-trained reporters and editors dedicated to science reporting, and even they sometimes got things wrong. Things got significantly worse when those positions were eliminated, but that happened a good 20 years ago now.
For well over a deacde we've been in the age of science-by-press-release where, basically, a scientist well write a paper, some PR flunky with no real understanding of it will put together a press release, and then reporters will either publish that press release verbatim or put their own spin on it. It's a game of broken telephone, played by people who are hard of hearing.
This process is further undermined by quacks (like, for example, Seralini) who skip the science part entirely and publish misleading press releases straight to the media before their "research" has been vetted by the scientific community. And reporters don't care because bad science generates just as much interest from readers as good science (if not more).
That would be grand if we were a collective. We are not.
There is something of a realisation (in the West, at least) that we're all basically the same. Whatever colour you are, whatever gender you are, wherever in the world you are - we're all basically the same.
In superficial traits, sure. In all the ways that matter? Hells no. Unless you think that Hitler and Einstein are basically the same, in which case go fuck yourself.
With that in mind, in a war, why are you killing the guy next door?
Because he wants to kill me, control me, and/or take my stuff.
What is achieved by dong so?
If I win I get to keep my stuff and enjoy my freedom. If he wins he gets my stuff and gets to control me or kill me.
More particularly, what is achieved in doing so that couldn't be achieved in other ways?
As soon as you find "other ways" to keep an invading army from taking over there's a Nobel Peace Prize with your name on it. I look forward to reading about it.
So they're spending money on "clean" power they don't actually use (and apparently nobody actually uses) to somehow atone for "dirty" power they actually do use (and apparently also pay for). Who says environmentalism isn't a religion?
Heh, yeah, I wouldnt have thought of it that way myself... but when you put it in those terms it sounds exactly like the old catholic practice of buying "indulgences".
They're not giving money to renewable projects, they're buying from renewable projects, like any other customer.
Apparently not. Every other customer buys the energy they actually use. Google, here, is saying they buy MORE than they use. That's significantly different and leads to the obvious question "then where the fuck is the extra energy going".
Right, if nobody wants to play with you, you can stay out of the game. Not much of a party trick, that one. The real question is what do you do when they insist on playing.
They're finally catching on then. I've been using the Jolly Roger Telephone Company's bots for a while now, sending all my spam call to them. You should hear how frustrated some of those poor bastards get after 10 minutes on a call with a bot. Great hilarity.
History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.
This is by far the stupidest comment I've read in recent history. A zero sum game is, by definition, one in which a win for one side is a proportional loss for the other. If I want to play and you don't, you lose by default.
You have to be completely ignorant of human history to decide that "not playing" is a winning move.
To suggest that a personâ(TM)s likelihood to commit crime is tied entirely to their race and not their socioeconomic status is preposterous.
Nobody suggested that. In fact nobody talked about why it is the way it is; merely that it is. You're the only one looking to make excuses; as entertaining as those excuses are, they don't change the underlying data.
Is there some crime gene that only black people have?
Is there some basketball gene that only black people have? How about a running gene?
Slashdot Mirror
The only way arbitrage works is if you allow your car to not stay at full capacity in which case why have all the batteries in the first place
My ICE car has a 70 litre tank; do you really think I keep it topped off at all times? If not, do you think all that tank space is just wasteful?
You do understand that the daily length of travel for most people can vary greatly over the course of a year, right?
One could argue that in civilized places not everyone has a car
Somalia mist be the height of civilisation ...
Ayn Rand would deny basic human nature and say you are an ubermensch who owes nobody nothing
And she would be absolutely right; I don't owe you a damn thing. If I choose to give you something it's either because I see some benefit in it or because I'm feeling generous. Either way the idea that you are "owed" something just because you're incapable of providing for yourself truly is just an insane delusion dreamed up by thoughtless narcisitsts.
The truth is every one of them could be having quality of life improvements from Marijuana usage
Don't forget whisky usage. Works just as well.
Solution: We dont need or want the federal government demanding efficacy. Thats for your fucking doctor to decide, not some professional bureaucrat asshole
Yeah you do. There are multiple problems with these two sentences:
1. You're OK with "some professional bureaucrat asshole" deciding whether something is safe, but not whether it's effective? Why? Do you, by any chance sell homeopathy? "Buy my shit; it doesn't to dick, but it's completely safe!"
2. "Your doctor" is no more able to asses the efficacy of an untested treatment than is your garbage man. In order to know whether or not a medication is effective we need large scale studies, not clinical anecdotes. Your doctor isn't doing any large scale studies; the "professional science assholes" at the FDA are.
Oh, FFS... this isn't conspiracy theories, you bonehead... it's just following the money.
aka conspiracy theories.
"Urmaghurd, China made a bundle off the steel from the WTC! China did 9/11!!! Follow the money!!1!1!!!1!!"
The spike strips will wake him up.
They both suck, really, and the latter is morally dubious
By that estimation pretty much all military (and much non-military) R&D is morally dubious. All kinds of technology and knowledge has the potential to be abused.
Morality is all well and good, but pragmatism matters too. I'd rather be "morally dubious" and alive than morally virtuous and dead.
Funny, I just upgraded to the beta from a functional install, and then had to manually edit xorg.conf because the automated tools thought everything was fine even though I was stuck with a text console.
Changed one line for the nvidia driver and it started right up.
It's supposed to be an animal, so obviously the next version will be cybernetic cock.
Yes. Unlike most people I use my head,
That's a very generous interpretation of the situation.
Thanks for admitting you made it all up, anyway.
That's pretty funny. Did you come up with that all on your own?
The entire lost boils down to "if we can't do it perfectly, we should just let other countries do it".
What an insanely naive position.
With today's constant bombardment of reporting of scientific studies - many times dumbed down to be meaningless - we are getting to many mixed messages.
This is nothing new; it's just gotten somewhat worse over time. Traditional media companies used to have science-trained reporters and editors dedicated to science reporting, and even they sometimes got things wrong. Things got significantly worse when those positions were eliminated, but that happened a good 20 years ago now.
For well over a deacde we've been in the age of science-by-press-release where, basically, a scientist well write a paper, some PR flunky with no real understanding of it will put together a press release, and then reporters will either publish that press release verbatim or put their own spin on it. It's a game of broken telephone, played by people who are hard of hearing.
This process is further undermined by quacks (like, for example, Seralini) who skip the science part entirely and publish misleading press releases straight to the media before their "research" has been vetted by the scientific community. And reporters don't care because bad science generates just as much interest from readers as good science (if not more).
It has all to do with having hobbies that aren't passive consummation.
Honestly, that's my favourite type of consummation. Let her do all the hard work.
Collectively, not playing is the only way to win.
That would be grand if we were a collective. We are not.
There is something of a realisation (in the West, at least) that we're all basically the same. Whatever colour you are, whatever gender you are, wherever in the world you are - we're all basically the same.
In superficial traits, sure. In all the ways that matter? Hells no. Unless you think that Hitler and Einstein are basically the same, in which case go fuck yourself.
With that in mind, in a war, why are you killing the guy next door?
Because he wants to kill me, control me, and/or take my stuff.
What is achieved by dong so?
If I win I get to keep my stuff and enjoy my freedom. If he wins he gets my stuff and gets to control me or kill me.
More particularly, what is achieved in doing so that couldn't be achieved in other ways?
As soon as you find "other ways" to keep an invading army from taking over there's a Nobel Peace Prize with your name on it. I look forward to reading about it.
So they're spending money on "clean" power they don't actually use (and apparently nobody actually uses) to somehow atone for "dirty" power they actually do use (and apparently also pay for). Who says environmentalism isn't a religion?
Heh, yeah, I wouldnt have thought of it that way myself ... but when you put it in those terms it sounds exactly like the old catholic practice of buying "indulgences".
They're not giving money to renewable projects, they're buying from renewable projects, like any other customer.
Apparently not. Every other customer buys the energy they actually use. Google, here, is saying they buy MORE than they use. That's significantly different and leads to the obvious question "then where the fuck is the extra energy going".
Where's the fun in that? I torment them directly.
No problem; give me your number and I'll start forwarding them to you, instead.
Right, if nobody wants to play with you, you can stay out of the game. Not much of a party trick, that one. The real question is what do you do when they insist on playing.
They're finally catching on then. I've been using the Jolly Roger Telephone Company's bots for a while now, sending all my spam call to them. You should hear how frustrated some of those poor bastards get after 10 minutes on a call with a bot. Great hilarity.
Because your allies need weapons too. Duh.
History has taught us, war is a zero sum game. The only way to win is not to play.
This is by far the stupidest comment I've read in recent history. A zero sum game is, by definition, one in which a win for one side is a proportional loss for the other. If I want to play and you don't, you lose by default.
You have to be completely ignorant of human history to decide that "not playing" is a winning move.
But they aren't crazy. Their ideology makes a clear argument with basis in logic.
So does the flat-earther ideology, but they're still fucking nuts.
To suggest that a personâ(TM)s likelihood to commit crime is tied entirely to their race and not their socioeconomic status is preposterous.
Nobody suggested that. In fact nobody talked about why it is the way it is; merely that it is. You're the only one looking to make excuses; as entertaining as those excuses are, they don't change the underlying data.
Is there some crime gene that only black people have?
Is there some basketball gene that only black people have? How about a running gene?