Well great. I wager I can produce really cheap toys by manufacturing out of substandard materials. Sure, the materials might be toxic, might even be highly flammable, but hey, all that fucking counts is profits! We should just let companies fuck everything and everyone up because MONEY!!!! We should let them lie and distort and attack anyone who questions because MONEY!!!! Fuck every single human being on earth, because MONEY!!!!
You want their money? Gather up 1000 people, walk over to their house, and take it.
that's unjust and immoral
unless we live in a society where the rich are born that way and stay that way even if they are lazy, and the poor are born that way and stay that way even if they are hard working
then, indeed, people will revolt and rich people's houses will be ransacked. not because the people are unjust, but because society is unjust
the point is to AVOID that, because revolutions are horrible for everyone. and we avoid that by having a just society. which was the point of my post. and that's why you *should* care
not that you do care, as your post demonstrates. if you don't think we should live in meritocracy, good for you. but if you think we should just treat everyone like shit, not try to be fair in society, and revolts and mobbing rich people's houses is inevitable and unavoidable and we can't do anything about that, then, objectively speaking and not as a baseless insult, you are stupid and malicious
the ideal is a meritocracy- if you work hard, you're rich. if you don't work, you're poor
that's the ideal
of course reality means we have rich kids who don't do shit and can't fail, or whose dad gets them a cushy do nothing job with his friends at the golf club
it also means there are poor people who are busting their asses at two full time jobs who will never get ahead, barely tread water, and are one accident or medical problem away from losing everything, due to depressed wages because of power imbalances, and an insane healthcare system. and poor people on assistance who don't work simply because the financial incentive is to stay not working: it pays more
so we do not live in a meritocracy
we should, of course. and we should try to model our society on that ideal
and one way we do that is we guarantee a baseline of medical care and education to everyone
but if being poor means your education will be pathetic, you'll stay poor. and if you're rich and are a loser flunkie who never tries in school but still gets ahead due to connections
we WANT to subsidize poor people's healthcare and education, so we can actually and honestly say "you're poor because you don't try." we can't say that with honesty today. if we don't actually have everyone STARTING on level ground. the ideal of meritocracy requires everyone to start at roughly the same spot. then, indeed, you can criticize people for being poor, and laud people for being rich. rather than our increasing classist reality in the usa of a shirnking middle class, a rich kid who cannot fail and does nothing, and a poor person who cannot succeed and works his ass off
in fact, the usa is not the world leader in social mobility, the ability of the poor to get ahead by hard work
that title goes to "gasp" nordic countries, evil "socialist" countries, where people are happier and richer than "capitalist" america, which really isn't capitalist in the meritocratic sense, but more like plutocratic rent-seeking, social darwinistic fuck-you-i-got-mine-die-in-the-street america
it's overheated technophilia
if their idea is for software to guide children's education rather than, you know, teachers, they are proposing subpar education
just copy finland
finnish education is amongst the best in the world and has a number of novel differences that beg inspection and perhaps adoption
and they don't automate education like a drone flightplan
Bad designers think their design is far far more important than the information they are supposed to present, so they get fanatic about preventing even a single pixel being displaced, especially at the explicit request of the unsophisticated swine reading the page.
If you didn't do the math, I was doing Fortran on a mainframe at 10 years old. I did grow up with computers.Ben-Yehuda was already grown up when he got into Hebrew and Knuth was grown up when he got into algorithms.
Without Gates, Tiny BASIC would have ruled the day on micros instead. The rest would have unfolded in a similar way except people wouldn't have mental scars from dealing with Plug-n-Pray. IF anything, MS held the industry back.
Following the last link in TFS, and its link, We get a retraction of the story that is highly suspicious to say the least. Looking at "the investigation", we find a report that basically validates within reason all of the other stories by the author, leaving only the two on Carly but trying to spin the story as a complete failure to validate anything. The 'investigation' of those two seems to consist only of talking to a PR person at HP that denies the stories (yeah, big surprise, many buyers like to rationalize away and otherwise deny remorse) and "can't find" the person quoted in the company.
Retracting the article based only on that seems a bit extreme.
Let me ask. In what arena is AGW contentious?
Why should any scientist tailor their theories to ease your pain?
Yes, politicians and voters imagine themselves to be Canute, without understanding the moral of the story.
The real moral, of course, is that the Universe doesn't give a fuck about Congress, democracy, the GOP, the Democrats or the economy. It obeys specific laws that humans can harness and manipulate, but not change. Blaming scientists because some of their theories make people uncomfortable or because they challenge ideological, economic or political models is a pointless, futile exercise. The laws of physics owe humanity no favors.
sounds like it could also lead to groundbreaking new science along the lines of "hey, that's odd..." discoveries in the past where results were wildly outside expectations
why are you amazed and dismayed at people reacting to a threat?
why aren't you amazed and dismayed at the loser douchebag making the threat?
who needs to threaten people except a malicious person or a stupid and violent person?
most of it is empty, yes, until one asshole delivers. so you have to take it seriously as no one socially normal or well-intentioned makes violent threats
it is MEANT to cause fear
that's the actual problem genius!
that's how freedom is curtailed: by making you question your safety where you should feel secure
franklin's quote is ridiculously overused because security of course is a necessary thing in this world. it of course can go to far, but what amazes me are internet tough guys who think all prudent responsible reaction to threats is hysterical overreaction. these same internet tough guys will be going "the police heard the threats, why didn't they do anything!" because such losers don't argue form the position of right or wrong or logical coherence, just empty criticism without any intelligence or integrity