> As for allowing people to decide for themselves, I'm all for it... as long as we-the-people don't have to pay for your hospital visit because you didn't > wear the seatbelt.
I think it is generally a mistake to conflate these two, totally separate issues.
You see.... the public does pay for ER visits of the uninsured however, that has nothing to do with driving. We pay for ER visits of the uninsured whether they were in an accident and didn't wear a seat belt, or if they tried to blow their brains out, or just jumped out a window. When have we heard the issue of paying for ER visits of attempted suicides? Ever?
These people are WAY more personally responsible for those costs than someone who gets in an accident without a seat belt. Such a person maybe through lack of skill, or even through the actions of another driver, ended up in an accident. All they did was fail to take a precaution which, in the very unlikely event of an accident (which is all it was before the accident happened), might have reduced overall cost. However, a suicide? They did it themselves...to themselves.... on purpose.
Now, I don't care about either, I am more than happy to pay for Single Payer healthcare and just cover everyone, all the time. Suicides or not, seat belts or not, illegal immigrant or not, any human being that needs medical attention. Happy to do it, no qualms. I don't have that option, but hey, I would. In the mean time, I pay for private insurance.
What I don't get is how we allow this circular reasoning. Yes, the taxpayers pay for this....because they setup a system and laws that said they would pay for it. I don't see why deciding to pay for it, allows them to then turn around and use the fact that they pay for it as an excuse to mandate behaviour.
If I came to you today and said "Hey, I am going to just start paying you rmorgage for you, because I think its the right thing to do".... would you say that gives me any right to come by tomorrow and start telling you that you must take care of the house a certain way because, afterall, I am paying for it?
One does not follow from the other. Its a false connection.
Not everyone has medical insurance (or a living wage source of income). If such a person gets pregnant, tax payers end up footing the bill when they go to the delivery room.
There, fixed that for you. So.... you are saying we should be able to require all people to use condoms while having sex? Maybe some special licensing for unprotected sex? Seems reasonable by that rationale.
But as I said my point wss not that this legitimizes not wearing the belt, just that, different people have their reasons. Those reasons may not be based on what someone else would call sound judgement but.... isn't letting other people determine what is sound judgement a very basic part of living in a free society... and accepting that some people may take risks for themselves that we think are crazy?
Exactly....its for the same reason that people don't wear helmets in the car, or chest protectors. The same reason people recklessly walk down the road without helmets and elbow/knee protectors too. Crazy people...there is no intelligent excuse for avoiding it!
Well.... I knew someone who was in a car accident.... now.... don't get me wrong, this is one person, in a rather fantastic accident of the kind that doesn't happen every day.... but who escaped serious injury by not wearing it...as she litterally.... saw another car coming to tbone them, and moved aside to another seat....had she stayed where she was, or been belted in.... she would have likely been seriously injured by the impact.
Ok... silly I know...fantasitcal....thats not why I bring it up. After this event, she stopped wearing a seatbelt. In fact, she had massive panic attacks and was unable to take her driving test for a year because she was too paniced to drive at all with a seatbelt on.
I don't suggest this is that common, but, I would suggest that individuals have their reasons. Their reasons may not make sense, their reasons may be entirely emotional. Like mine, I wore mine every time I was in a car, trained by my parents. Stopped the very day I heard that a law had been passed, and I have only occasionally worn one in the decade or so since.
I know I should... I know its safer, but, it just pisses me off that some nosy busibody thinks what I do is any of his business.
Its emotional, its silly.... but we all have our reasons. Though...I put up with the ding. ding. ding.....
Unfair? No. Unfair is selling someone a device, telling them that they own it, it belongs to them, and if it breaks, they must pay to replace it.... and while it can technically connect to any network, its restricted to only use one. If they own it...its theirs, its unfair to make them own it AND tell them they can't use it as they see fit. Period.
So yes, it makes this particular business model untenable. Thats not unfair, it was the model that was based on an unfair practice.
Yah,.... I don't get it. If business owners want their shops to not burn down, then they should just pay their protection money. I don't see what their problem is, just take a knee already and bow down before your masters.
Right I never said that your app and its requirements can't be complex as to make this infeasible. However, not every app is in that situation. Not everything runs on google or facebook or uses their specific APIs.
Yes, its entirely possible that this is the case. However, in any case, rebuilding without the original players is generally going to be easier and faster with the source available.
Clearly, in the high volume world of 5-20k hosts per admin, this may not matter so much. The idea that anything that isn't relevant to people working in such an environment isn't relevant at all is... what I find a little ludicrous.
Yes but, you are thinking in terms of a developer. its true, API docs are a great starting point, and if well done, will allow you to recreate the whole API from scratch.
Now.... its friday at 6 pm. Your companies bread and butter is an app that was built on top of an API run by a company that just shuttered its doors forever.
If that API was based on open source, then you may have a few hours, or a day or so getting dependencies, looking over docs, getting it installed. Hell, if its really complicated, maybe a couple of days.
To do the same from scratch? You going to have that site back up by monday?
I want....both! (I also want it immediately for no cost, but thats just typical isn't it?)
Seriously though, the source availability may not be of use to you now, directly but, if you don't think it is of use to you, then realize that if the service with the published API goes away, you don't have a starting point to replace it, other than the API docs... unless someone else already implemented another version off the same docs.
There are definite plusses to independent code bases... but they have to exist in parallel to be useful. If nobody starts work on a new code base until the original service is gone, where does that leave you?
The same group? Almost.... colluding groups, with definite cross interests, but a common interest of shutting anyone else out.
At this point, I don't really see voters as voters for their own party. Voters vote against the other party. Its really the fundamental weakness of the two party system is the dichotomy that is set up. As long as republicans keep offending and scaring the piss out of democrat voters and democrats keep offending and scaring the piss out of republicans.... the lockdown stays in effect.
Take abortion. We all know its a legally settled issue. Sure that could change, but there is no real serious danger of that since the public is split on it. So the game is simply one of stirring the pot and taking in the donations from both sides.
But thats hardly unique. Take minimum wage. If you are going to have a minimum wage system, its clear it needs tweaks to adjust that wage. Do they bake them in? No... instead they fix it, and make it come before congress every few years for that. Then they can debate as to whether to raise it or not, and beat the drums on both sides... but everyone knows that the system would be worthless if never adjusted and they are going to adjust it on a rolling average with inflation.... but... they have to have the show every few years to drum up the support money.
It would be great if we could have a serious debate about whether its even a good idea, or how it should work if we want to continue it, but that would require third party voices, and is very hard to do with so many other issues and the time that can be devoted to this one is now stuck always being devoted to a fake debate about whether to raise it "this time" or not.
Probably not but.... most great successes come after lots of failures.
In fact, government will always suck, and we will always need to overthrow them and start again... that is inevitable. However, it doesn't mean that we should stop trying. I like the way that Allen Moore (of V for Vendetta fame) described his view of anarchism:]
I believe that all other political states are in fact variations or outgrowths of a basic state of anarchy; after all, when you mention the idea of anarchy to most people they will tell you what a bad idea it is because the biggest gang would just take over. Which is pretty much how I see contemporary society. We live in a badly developed anarchist situation in which the biggest gang has taken over and have declared that it is not an anarchist situation – that it is a capitalist or a communist situation. But I tend to think that anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice.
About sums it up.... now, lets talk about whats wrong here.
Well, I don't see how the voting system and representation system can evolve anything other than a 2 party system. The effecitvely means a constant 2 party struggle, meaning that no issue can have a third side and everything is broken up. Look at congressional approval. Polls show most people don't believe their rep represents their interests, and the majority of them, don't like the other parties candidates either. Where does that leave people in a 2 party system?
Of course, also with centralization.... it means the interests of 300 million people need to be distilled down into a few hundred people. A few hundred people who can't possibly be experts about everything, and so even with the best of intentions they can be manipulated easily. Its too much concentrated power, and too broken of a voting system.
To fix it from within itself, easily seen to be impossible. The two party lockdown ensures that no serious reformers could ever get power, and if they did, would have to be virtuous enough to vote themselves less power.
Well that much is clear, but how I individually end up is hardly really the issue, its just the only subjective experience of considering death that I have to draw on directly. Any individual can go either way, but, the question is, why do theists spend more time on their death beds and spend more money? Thats the model I have on hand to understand it. If you have a better one, or a refutation of the data, then.... please do enlighten.
Actually....I think this is a vital question. Healthcare is 20% of GDP, with 50% of that spent in the last years of life. How we approach the end of life culturally and the choices that large numbers of us make adds up. How you or I end up hardly matters.... but how people in general face their end is actually becoming a very important issue.
Who didn't? I mean this was hardly the only thing on my mind at the time. In fact, it wasn't even difficult for me. I remember thinking about it, I remember realizing that things would eventually end, and really I was, and am, very ok with that. In fact, only since I have been married and had to face that one of us must, almost certainly, go on for years without the other that ever made me find it sad.
Not to say I don't love life or would fight for it, if needed. Just... I realize that the day may come when the things worth fighting for are gone, when the life I know is already over, and the path forward is only pain. I promise you, I will not live to be the empty shell of a man who can't remember the faces and names of his own loved ones. I will not continue long in unending pain that leaves me unable to function and is expected to never end so long as I live. I will not ask anyone, particularly not someone that I care about, to give up their own ability to live life freely so they can wipe my ass and change my diapers.
Furthermore, I have no intention of selfishly keeping a hospital bed from someone who has a chance of seeing the end of their ailments while still alive. I don't begrudge people who do it,people who cling on to the very end... I understand why, I feel bad for them. Who knows, maybe this is what I will be wrong about, but, I doubt it.
YES! Thank you! I really enjoy the fuck out of TED talks.... but you know... sometimes a year later its hard to remember exactly who said something and where I saw it.
I haven't been looking at any religions. I have looked at articles referencing studies on the subject...which were clear. Atheists, on average, spend significantly less time and money on prolonging the end of their life with medical care. This is no theory or hypothesis, this is what the empirical data says.
I was simply advancing my hypothesis, based on those articles and my personal experiences, to explain why this is the case.
What you are missing is....wrong about what? Wrong about the christian god? Wrong about zeus? Wrong about Jupiter Optimus Maximus? Wrong about the Hindu pantheon? Which one might I be wrong about?
But more to the point...I could be wrong about any of them, thats not what I am talking about. I am saying, in my own mind, there is nothing to doubt. Nothing to be wrong about. Disavowing one belief doesn't require it to be replaced with some other. How does one believe in or doubt nothingness? This is not about objective right or wrong, simply the mental process that people endure at the end of life.
For me, death in old age is not something I expect to bring me any benefit, nor any harm. So I have nothing to doubt, the only thing I expect is for it to end my lifetime and the suffering that I will be in as my health fails. That, I have no reason to doubt.
I suggest you amend your hypothesis to explain why religious people DO spend more time and money on prolonging life because... thats exactly what the data finds.
I think you are missing the point. It only works both ways in a logical debate. Thats besides the point.
I am talking about the underlying emotional experience of what you might call a "crisis of faith". A religious person, generally, has their own images and ideas about death and afterlife. He has been told about this all his life, he believed in it... he had no reason to seriously contemplate a real end, since no end was actually in sight. So for him, doubt about whether he was wrong has real consequences...suddenly there is the possibility of an end, of no afterlife, or an undesirable one.
An atheist facing the same well...as I said, I found it very natural to contemplate death and a final end much earlier. When it finally comes, what do I really have to worry about? An afterlife that I never believed in? There is nothing to doubt. Even if I were to doubt it...in what direction would I go? To doubt it requires replacing it with something else as a possibility.
Think of it as the opposite of Dawkin's note on atheism... everyone is an atheist about the majority of gods that people have ever believed in. Every christian is an atheist to Shiva. How many christians do you think hit their death bed worried that maybe they were wrong and the hindu were right? There is a very natural course of doubt for a believer.... not so for an atheist.... if I were to be wrong, which god would I have been wrong about? Bugger all if I know.
This reminds me....
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Of a neurologist who had a stroke, and wrote an article about it later. It was really amusing how she wrote about it. She knew what was going on, she knew the signs, hell, she was an expert. She called for help of course, but, she talked about how during it, she was having a rich internal dialog about the process... thinking of what functions were broken, how it was manifesting and how she experienced it....
I think that is a lot of it. Other studies have found that the groups who spend the most on healthcare at the end, and spend the most time in hospital beds prolonging life are... the religious people. Atheists are much more in line with doctors. Why?
My own hypothesis, which fits my own experiences to is... that belief in an afterlife, in the absence of other experiences (like working in healthcare and seeing people die all the time), lets people ignore death. It happens later, there is life afterwards, everlasting life.
Atheists and people who deal with death on a regular basis have no such excuse. As an atheist, I came to terms with the lack of an afterlife early. I remember being maybe 14 years old when I realized that I was going to die, that was going to be it....and even that.... I didn't want to spend my time in a hospital bed. I knew...then...at 14, that when the time came, I would want to just die, even if it meant taking my own life. Not a desire to kill myself now or anything depressing like that, but an affirmation that life will someday not be fine, and never be fine again, and that when that happens, I know I can check out.
I have talked with some people who struggled with suicidal thoughts, serious ones, not attention whores. A few said that when they decided how they wanted to die, and put together a cyanide pill or some such.... just knowing it was there was enough. Knowing that they could end it provided a sort of final resolution, a comfort that allowed them to move past it and stop thinking about it.
On the other hand, I feel bad for the very religious. Doubt is common, almost inevitable. How can you not be on your death bed and wondering if those stories were true? For a religious person to be wrong, could mean so many things, hell, a different religions hell.... what if you chose the wrong god? For me as an atheist, whats to doubt? If there is an afterlife, great....but a heaven one seems just as unlikely as a hell. We literally have nothing to worry about.
Yes but, even the original customer still wanted the device. Even he said he would hate to really hurt the device sales since they are great for people with disabilities and could really bring a fuckton of joy to kids who otherwise couldn't play video games. Hes right, it would have been quite sad if this product left the market entirely due to this.
That said, I think this is epic win. Epic win because, while it will help device sales, it is already hurting the massive douche who is the actual problem. His marketing company is out the door now. I would be shocked if this doesn't hurt his personal options career wise. Everyone is going to know what a massive douche he is. Not only that but, I have to imagine he royally pissed off everyone whose name he dropped...whether he knew them or not.
So douchebag is now known about, and anyone with the wherewithal to google him is going to know all about it. The product is even more well known, and the company is distancing itself from him big time. Thats Charlie Sheen in his own mind levels of winning.
Sure but, who needed to wait for his appology to see that? Its true, normal people sometimes power trip, sometimes snap at someone and say unkind things. All true but...this guy comes right out over the top. Look at his response to being called a douche about his noise complaint video:
"LOL Thanks for the Free PR I know the Editor N Chief of Kotaku , IGN , Engadget I’ll be meeting them at CES . The noise complaint was for people high up on the food chain in a corporate world of real estate you have no clue about."
Who the fuck talks like that anyway? Oh you insulted me so I am gonna lean on claims of people I know and inflate my ego to put you in your place? Really? What does that tell you about his ego? Honestly his emails from that point just ooze "pretender to the throne".
I mean, its one thing to meet someone famous or well known in a community and tell the story. I enjoy telling the story of the time at the Sci-Fi con I ran into RMS and got to partake in a live 2 am hallway debate between him and a bookseller about copyright (and how the objectivist swooped in and interjected an argument about altruism so clueless that both RMS and the bookseller tag teamed him until RMS just got tired of it and left in search of better entertainment... ROTFL at least I assume he was an objectivist, I can't imagine anyone else saying "But thats altruism!" as if showing that something was altruism was the same as saying it must be wrong or is impossible)
Anyway.... thats my RMS story, I tell it because it amuses me. Another story, came to me by way of my wifes' late grandfather. He has a friend who knew a famous actor and used to get together with him for lunch. They were not old long time friends, they met on the set of a movie where his friend was working doing catering or some such. Anyway, one day they met and a number of people who had heard about these meetings showed up. I forget who the actor was but, he was furious at the invasion of their private time, and more so felt betrayed that his friend had told people where they meet.
In short, nobody likes to feel used. When this guy says "I know so and so", he is really saying "I have a relationship that I can exploit". Which is to say "I don't care about these people either, except in what they can do for me". I mean, its one thing to find out about an issue and come in with "I know so and so, let me talk to them for you" for a specific issue. It is quite another to threaten to abuse your relationships to your own benefit.
Frankly, after that, his "apology" is exactly what I would expect.
Sure but thats not the point. If they had informed their customers of the 2 year warranty that they were entitled to by law, that would have informed their decision as to whether to go for the extra AppleCare or not. The thing is, they thought the choice was between AppleCare and a 1 year warranty.... but it wasn't. They were misinformed, by the same party who was profiting from decision, and thus had motive to mislead them.
> Given that most of these transceivers would be fixed rather than mobile, it would not take long to find and eliminate them.
Ahem... and....
given that it would not take long to find and eliminate them.... it also wouldn't take long before most of these are mobile... just as drones can be used to find them, these transmitters can be affixed onto drones... or some kids can be paid to drive cars around in shifts.
This is a silly arms race, and the logical extension of the drug war. It just continues like this until we declare it a bust and stop funding these people by inflating the price of their product. Period.
Now they exist, so even doing that wont end them.... and probably just forces the issue towards civil war, but, it seems pretty inevitable at this point. Certainly keeping on Ahab's course is not helping anyone on either side of the border.
> They know that info getting out could cause soldiers to die and wars to be lost. Speaking for my colleagues, it is not just another job because we know what's at > stake.
Except that the wars and soldiers all work under the direction of congress. So those wars get started by those dummies, based on lies, and against our real interests. So... really the scary thing is that... you people who are so into the mission that you are willing to keep a secret, are also willing to work for the dummies in congress.
Frankly, It all seems like a huge waste to me, the only one of the lot who had any sense in his head, as far as I can tell, was Bradley Manning.
It wont come out for a few years, but, I imagine this scene from his unauthorized autobiography....
It was 2003, Kim was surfing online, reading articles on slashdot. The communities strong libertarian stripe had started to make inroads. He read about free speech, and beginning to be swayed. He began to think "Maybe we can scrap the nuclear program and wire up our country, give the people freedom".... and just as he thought that.... he saw a link to a nude picture of Natalie Portman.... he clicked on it.... because come on, you know you did too....
and as Goatse.cx loaded for Dear Leader, a window of opportunity for change closed.
Slashdot Mirror
> As for allowing people to decide for themselves, I'm all for it... as long as we-the-people don't have to pay for your hospital visit because you didn't
> wear the seatbelt.
I think it is generally a mistake to conflate these two, totally separate issues.
You see.... the public does pay for ER visits of the uninsured however, that has nothing to do with driving. We pay for ER visits of the uninsured whether they were in an accident and didn't wear a seat belt, or if they tried to blow their brains out, or just jumped out a window. When have we heard the issue of paying for ER visits of attempted suicides? Ever?
These people are WAY more personally responsible for those costs than someone who gets in an accident without a seat belt. Such a person maybe through lack of skill, or even through the actions of another driver, ended up in an accident. All they did was fail to take a precaution which, in the very unlikely event of an accident (which is all it was before the accident happened), might have reduced overall cost. However, a suicide? They did it themselves...to themselves.... on purpose.
Now, I don't care about either, I am more than happy to pay for Single Payer healthcare and just cover everyone, all the time. Suicides or not, seat belts or not, illegal immigrant or not, any human being that needs medical attention. Happy to do it, no qualms. I don't have that option, but hey, I would. In the mean time, I pay for private insurance.
What I don't get is how we allow this circular reasoning. Yes, the taxpayers pay for this....because they setup a system and laws that said they would pay for it. I don't see why deciding to pay for it, allows them to then turn around and use the fact that they pay for it as an excuse to mandate behaviour.
If I came to you today and said "Hey, I am going to just start paying you rmorgage for you, because I think its the right thing to do".... would you say that gives me any right to come by tomorrow and start telling you that you must take care of the house a certain way because, afterall, I am paying for it?
One does not follow from the other. Its a false connection.
Not everyone has medical insurance (or a living wage source of income). If such a person gets pregnant, tax payers end up footing the bill when they go to the delivery room.
There, fixed that for you. So.... you are saying we should be able to require all people to use condoms while having sex? Maybe some special licensing for unprotected sex? Seems reasonable by that rationale.
Yes...and?
Yup.... fantastical...rare.... but happens.
But as I said my point wss not that this legitimizes not wearing the belt, just that, different people have their reasons. Those reasons may not be based on what someone else would call sound judgement but.... isn't letting other people determine what is sound judgement a very basic part of living in a free society... and accepting that some people may take risks for themselves that we think are crazy?
Exactly....its for the same reason that people don't wear helmets in the car, or chest protectors. The same reason people recklessly walk down the road without helmets and elbow/knee protectors too. Crazy people...there is no intelligent excuse for avoiding it!
Well.... I knew someone who was in a car accident.... now.... don't get me wrong, this is one person, in a rather fantastic accident of the kind that doesn't happen every day.... but who escaped serious injury by not wearing it...as she litterally.... saw another car coming to tbone them, and moved aside to another seat....had she stayed where she was, or been belted in.... she would have likely been seriously injured by the impact.
Ok... silly I know...fantasitcal....thats not why I bring it up. After this event, she stopped wearing a seatbelt. In fact, she had massive panic attacks and was unable to take her driving test for a year because she was too paniced to drive at all with a seatbelt on.
I don't suggest this is that common, but, I would suggest that individuals have their reasons. Their reasons may not make sense, their reasons may be entirely emotional. Like mine, I wore mine every time I was in a car, trained by my parents. Stopped the very day I heard that a law had been passed, and I have only occasionally worn one in the decade or so since.
I know I should... I know its safer, but, it just pisses me off that some nosy busibody thinks what I do is any of his business.
Its emotional, its silly.... but we all have our reasons. Though...I put up with the ding. ding. ding.....
Unfair? No. Unfair is selling someone a device, telling them that they own it, it belongs to them, and if it breaks, they must pay to replace it.... and while it can technically connect to any network, its restricted to only use one. If they own it...its theirs, its unfair to make them own it AND tell them they can't use it as they see fit. Period.
So yes, it makes this particular business model untenable. Thats not unfair, it was the model that was based on an unfair practice.
Yah,.... I don't get it. If business owners want their shops to not burn down, then they should just pay their protection money. I don't see what their problem is, just take a knee already and bow down before your masters.
Right I never said that your app and its requirements can't be complex as to make this infeasible. However, not every app is in that situation. Not everything runs on google or facebook or uses their specific APIs.
Yes, its entirely possible that this is the case. However, in any case, rebuilding without the original players is generally going to be easier and faster with the source available.
Clearly, in the high volume world of 5-20k hosts per admin, this may not matter so much. The idea that anything that isn't relevant to people working in such an environment isn't relevant at all is... what I find a little ludicrous.
Yes but, you are thinking in terms of a developer. its true, API docs are a great starting point, and if well done, will allow you to recreate the whole API from scratch.
Now.... its friday at 6 pm. Your companies bread and butter is an app that was built on top of an API run by a company that just shuttered its doors forever.
If that API was based on open source, then you may have a few hours, or a day or so getting dependencies, looking over docs, getting it installed. Hell, if its really complicated, maybe a couple of days.
To do the same from scratch? You going to have that site back up by monday?
Embrace the power of AND.
I want....both! (I also want it immediately for no cost, but thats just typical isn't it?)
Seriously though, the source availability may not be of use to you now, directly but, if you don't think it is of use to you, then realize that if the service with the published API goes away, you don't have a starting point to replace it, other than the API docs... unless someone else already implemented another version off the same docs.
There are definite plusses to independent code bases... but they have to exist in parallel to be useful. If nobody starts work on a new code base until the original service is gone, where does that leave you?
The same group? Almost.... colluding groups, with definite cross interests, but a common interest of shutting anyone else out.
At this point, I don't really see voters as voters for their own party. Voters vote against the other party. Its really the fundamental weakness of the two party system is the dichotomy that is set up. As long as republicans keep offending and scaring the piss out of democrat voters and democrats keep offending and scaring the piss out of republicans.... the lockdown stays in effect.
Take abortion. We all know its a legally settled issue. Sure that could change, but there is no real serious danger of that since the public is split on it. So the game is simply one of stirring the pot and taking in the donations from both sides.
But thats hardly unique. Take minimum wage. If you are going to have a minimum wage system, its clear it needs tweaks to adjust that wage. Do they bake them in? No... instead they fix it, and make it come before congress every few years for that. Then they can debate as to whether to raise it or not, and beat the drums on both sides... but everyone knows that the system would be worthless if never adjusted and they are going to adjust it on a rolling average with inflation.... but... they have to have the show every few years to drum up the support money.
It would be great if we could have a serious debate about whether its even a good idea, or how it should work if we want to continue it, but that would require third party voices, and is very hard to do with so many other issues and the time that can be devoted to this one is now stuck always being devoted to a fake debate about whether to raise it "this time" or not.
Its become little more than theater.
Probably not but.... most great successes come after lots of failures.
In fact, government will always suck, and we will always need to overthrow them and start again... that is inevitable. However, it doesn't mean that we should stop trying. I like the way that Allen Moore (of V for Vendetta fame) described his view of anarchism:]
About sums it up.... now, lets talk about whats wrong here.
Well, I don't see how the voting system and representation system can evolve anything other than a 2 party system. The effecitvely means a constant 2 party struggle, meaning that no issue can have a third side and everything is broken up. Look at congressional approval. Polls show most people don't believe their rep represents their interests, and the majority of them, don't like the other parties candidates either. Where does that leave people in a 2 party system?
Of course, also with centralization.... it means the interests of 300 million people need to be distilled down into a few hundred people. A few hundred people who can't possibly be experts about everything, and so even with the best of intentions they can be manipulated easily. Its too much concentrated power, and too broken of a voting system.
To fix it from within itself, easily seen to be impossible. The two party lockdown ensures that no serious reformers could ever get power, and if they did, would have to be virtuous enough to vote themselves less power.
Well that much is clear, but how I individually end up is hardly really the issue, its just the only subjective experience of considering death that I have to draw on directly. Any individual can go either way, but, the question is, why do theists spend more time on their death beds and spend more money? Thats the model I have on hand to understand it. If you have a better one, or a refutation of the data, then.... please do enlighten.
Actually....I think this is a vital question. Healthcare is 20% of GDP, with 50% of that spent in the last years of life. How we approach the end of life culturally and the choices that large numbers of us make adds up. How you or I end up hardly matters.... but how people in general face their end is actually becoming a very important issue.
Who didn't? I mean this was hardly the only thing on my mind at the time. In fact, it wasn't even difficult for me. I remember thinking about it, I remember realizing that things would eventually end, and really I was, and am, very ok with that. In fact, only since I have been married and had to face that one of us must, almost certainly, go on for years without the other that ever made me find it sad.
Not to say I don't love life or would fight for it, if needed. Just... I realize that the day may come when the things worth fighting for are gone, when the life I know is already over, and the path forward is only pain. I promise you, I will not live to be the empty shell of a man who can't remember the faces and names of his own loved ones. I will not continue long in unending pain that leaves me unable to function and is expected to never end so long as I live. I will not ask anyone, particularly not someone that I care about, to give up their own ability to live life freely so they can wipe my ass and change my diapers.
Furthermore, I have no intention of selfishly keeping a hospital bed from someone who has a chance of seeing the end of their ailments while still alive. I don't begrudge people who do it,people who cling on to the very end... I understand why, I feel bad for them. Who knows, maybe this is what I will be wrong about, but, I doubt it.
YES! Thank you! I really enjoy the fuck out of TED talks.... but you know... sometimes a year later its hard to remember exactly who said something and where I saw it.
I haven't been looking at any religions. I have looked at articles referencing studies on the subject...which were clear. Atheists, on average, spend significantly less time and money on prolonging the end of their life with medical care. This is no theory or hypothesis, this is what the empirical data says.
I was simply advancing my hypothesis, based on those articles and my personal experiences, to explain why this is the case.
What you are missing is....wrong about what? Wrong about the christian god? Wrong about zeus? Wrong about Jupiter Optimus Maximus? Wrong about the Hindu pantheon? Which one might I be wrong about?
But more to the point...I could be wrong about any of them, thats not what I am talking about. I am saying, in my own mind, there is nothing to doubt. Nothing to be wrong about. Disavowing one belief doesn't require it to be replaced with some other. How does one believe in or doubt nothingness? This is not about objective right or wrong, simply the mental process that people endure at the end of life.
For me, death in old age is not something I expect to bring me any benefit, nor any harm. So I have nothing to doubt, the only thing I expect is for it to end my lifetime and the suffering that I will be in as my health fails. That, I have no reason to doubt.
I suggest you amend your hypothesis to explain why religious people DO spend more time and money on prolonging life because... thats exactly what the data finds.
I think you are missing the point. It only works both ways in a logical debate. Thats besides the point.
I am talking about the underlying emotional experience of what you might call a "crisis of faith". A religious person, generally, has their own images and ideas about death and afterlife. He has been told about this all his life, he believed in it... he had no reason to seriously contemplate a real end, since no end was actually in sight. So for him, doubt about whether he was wrong has real consequences...suddenly there is the possibility of an end, of no afterlife, or an undesirable one.
An atheist facing the same well...as I said, I found it very natural to contemplate death and a final end much earlier. When it finally comes, what do I really have to worry about? An afterlife that I never believed in? There is nothing to doubt. Even if I were to doubt it...in what direction would I go? To doubt it requires replacing it with something else as a possibility.
Think of it as the opposite of Dawkin's note on atheism... everyone is an atheist about the majority of gods that people have ever believed in. Every christian is an atheist to Shiva. How many christians do you think hit their death bed worried that maybe they were wrong and the hindu were right? There is a very natural course of doubt for a believer.... not so for an atheist.... if I were to be wrong, which god would I have been wrong about? Bugger all if I know.
Of a neurologist who had a stroke, and wrote an article about it later. It was really amusing how she wrote about it. She knew what was going on, she knew the signs, hell, she was an expert. She called for help of course, but, she talked about how during it, she was having a rich internal dialog about the process... thinking of what functions were broken, how it was manifesting and how she experienced it....
I think that is a lot of it. Other studies have found that the groups who spend the most on healthcare at the end, and spend the most time in hospital beds prolonging life are... the religious people. Atheists are much more in line with doctors. Why?
My own hypothesis, which fits my own experiences to is... that belief in an afterlife, in the absence of other experiences (like working in healthcare and seeing people die all the time), lets people ignore death. It happens later, there is life afterwards, everlasting life.
Atheists and people who deal with death on a regular basis have no such excuse. As an atheist, I came to terms with the lack of an afterlife early. I remember being maybe 14 years old when I realized that I was going to die, that was going to be it....and even that.... I didn't want to spend my time in a hospital bed. I knew...then...at 14, that when the time came, I would want to just die, even if it meant taking my own life. Not a desire to kill myself now or anything depressing like that, but an affirmation that life will someday not be fine, and never be fine again, and that when that happens, I know I can check out.
I have talked with some people who struggled with suicidal thoughts, serious ones, not attention whores. A few said that when they decided how they wanted to die, and put together a cyanide pill or some such.... just knowing it was there was enough. Knowing that they could end it provided a sort of final resolution, a comfort that allowed them to move past it and stop thinking about it.
On the other hand, I feel bad for the very religious. Doubt is common, almost inevitable. How can you not be on your death bed and wondering if those stories were true? For a religious person to be wrong, could mean so many things, hell, a different religions hell.... what if you chose the wrong god? For me as an atheist, whats to doubt? If there is an afterlife, great....but a heaven one seems just as unlikely as a hell. We literally have nothing to worry about.
Yes but, even the original customer still wanted the device. Even he said he would hate to really hurt the device sales since they are great for people with disabilities and could really bring a fuckton of joy to kids who otherwise couldn't play video games. Hes right, it would have been quite sad if this product left the market entirely due to this.
That said, I think this is epic win. Epic win because, while it will help device sales, it is already hurting the massive douche who is the actual problem. His marketing company is out the door now. I would be shocked if this doesn't hurt his personal options career wise. Everyone is going to know what a massive douche he is. Not only that but, I have to imagine he royally pissed off everyone whose name he dropped...whether he knew them or not.
So douchebag is now known about, and anyone with the wherewithal to google him is going to know all about it. The product is even more well known, and the company is distancing itself from him big time. Thats Charlie Sheen in his own mind levels of winning.
Sure but, who needed to wait for his appology to see that? Its true, normal people sometimes power trip, sometimes snap at someone and say unkind things. All true but...this guy comes right out over the top. Look at his response to being called a douche about his noise complaint video:
Who the fuck talks like that anyway? Oh you insulted me so I am gonna lean on claims of people I know and inflate my ego to put you in your place? Really? What does that tell you about his ego? Honestly his emails from that point just ooze "pretender to the throne".
I mean, its one thing to meet someone famous or well known in a community and tell the story. I enjoy telling the story of the time at the Sci-Fi con I ran into RMS and got to partake in a live 2 am hallway debate between him and a bookseller about copyright (and how the objectivist swooped in and interjected an argument about altruism so clueless that both RMS and the bookseller tag teamed him until RMS just got tired of it and left in search of better entertainment... ROTFL at least I assume he was an objectivist, I can't imagine anyone else saying "But thats altruism!" as if showing that something was altruism was the same as saying it must be wrong or is impossible)
Anyway.... thats my RMS story, I tell it because it amuses me. Another story, came to me by way of my wifes' late grandfather. He has a friend who knew a famous actor and used to get together with him for lunch. They were not old long time friends, they met on the set of a movie where his friend was working doing catering or some such. Anyway, one day they met and a number of people who had heard about these meetings showed up. I forget who the actor was but, he was furious at the invasion of their private time, and more so felt betrayed that his friend had told people where they meet.
In short, nobody likes to feel used. When this guy says "I know so and so", he is really saying "I have a relationship that I can exploit". Which is to say "I don't care about these people either, except in what they can do for me". I mean, its one thing to find out about an issue and come in with "I know so and so, let me talk to them for you" for a specific issue. It is quite another to threaten to abuse your relationships to your own benefit.
Frankly, after that, his "apology" is exactly what I would expect.
Sure but thats not the point. If they had informed their customers of the 2 year warranty that they were entitled to by law, that would have informed their decision as to whether to go for the extra AppleCare or not. The thing is, they thought the choice was between AppleCare and a 1 year warranty.... but it wasn't. They were misinformed, by the same party who was profiting from decision, and thus had motive to mislead them.
> Given that most of these transceivers would be fixed rather than mobile, it would not take long to find and eliminate them.
Ahem... and....
given that it would not take long to find and eliminate them.... it also wouldn't take long before most of these are mobile... just as drones can be used to find them, these transmitters can be affixed onto drones... or some kids can be paid to drive cars around in shifts.
This is a silly arms race, and the logical extension of the drug war. It just continues like this until we declare it a bust and stop funding these people by inflating the price of their product. Period.
Now they exist, so even doing that wont end them.... and probably just forces the issue towards civil war, but, it seems pretty inevitable at this point. Certainly keeping on Ahab's course is not helping anyone on either side of the border.
> They know that info getting out could cause soldiers to die and wars to be lost. Speaking for my colleagues, it is not just another job because we know what's at
> stake.
Except that the wars and soldiers all work under the direction of congress. So those wars get started by those dummies, based on lies, and against our real interests. So... really the scary thing is that... you people who are so into the mission that you are willing to keep a secret, are also willing to work for the dummies in congress.
Frankly, It all seems like a huge waste to me, the only one of the lot who had any sense in his head, as far as I can tell, was Bradley Manning.
It wont come out for a few years, but, I imagine this scene from his unauthorized autobiography....
It was 2003, Kim was surfing online, reading articles on slashdot. The communities strong libertarian stripe had started to make inroads. He read about free speech, and beginning to be swayed. He began to think "Maybe we can scrap the nuclear program and wire up our country, give the people freedom" .... and just as he thought that....
he saw a link to a nude picture of Natalie Portman....
he clicked on it.... because come on, you know you did too....
and as Goatse.cx loaded for Dear Leader, a window of opportunity for change closed.