shirgall

Remember that the 9/11 Commission Report only included the items they could agree upon. There was plenty of other information that the committee chose to exclude because they could not agree. The "agree to disagree" tactic is simply an admission of failure. Either the arguments on either side are not compelling enough, or the parties cannot overcome their biases, or they simply are not using the tools of argument in a way that leads to a satisfactory conclusion. It's totally another matter to set an argument aside as more information is needed or the parties need time to absorb what has been learned. Agreeing to disagree is simply giving up.

The most telling moment is when Ken Ham was asked what would change his mind about his position, and he spent two minutes saying "nothing". How about pointing out the contradictions in the order of events between Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2? (While http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/03/feedback-genesis-1-and-2 covers this, I think it's pretty weak to claim it was a Hebrew translation error.) How about pointing out that the church had to frequently vote on what accounts were Canon or not? Whatever, I guess it's all poetry, except when we feel it's not. Cherry-picking at its finest.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/1e223b77e60 Turing Test for free will: Q1: Am I a decider? Q2: Do I make my decisions using recursive reasoning (ie using a process that can be simulated on a digital computer)? Q3: Can I model and simulate — at least partially — my own behaviour and that of other deciders? Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand?

Because we need Chinese currency to buy Chinese products, at some point on the value chain... and the trade surplus masonman mentions makes this transaction more favorable than it otherwise would be.

Round two would probably need to start, again, with common definitions and first principles.

You would think stupid press conferences would be "non-essential".

It's not worth fine-tuning an example, but I suspect they would offer different prices to different people and still manage to cover their expenses.

Don't forget the scenario includes the single supplier paying off competition to keep them away, as the reward of the monopoly than the reward of a competitive system... thus it is structured to fleece the unwary traveler.

I am not claiming to understand "structural violence" as a concept, but at its core the difference seems to be manipulating the situation to be a power play instead of a free exchange. The effects are the same, the motives appear totally different. Peter seems to view the natural consequence of the free market is the development and exploitation of scarcity to extract more value than would be considered "fair". Stefan relies on (what I call) the "jerk" theory of karma to discourage people from doing this, but I see a lot of jerks getting away with crap all the time. Here's a scenario. On a desert highway rest area 100 miles from the next exit there's a single gas station--a gas station that pays other gas vendors to stay away. A gas station that charges highway robbery rates that easily covers all of their costs and a significant profit as well. I can see the idea of structural violence here but it would only catch the unwary soul that decides not to carry extra gas to bypass this troll booth in the desert. Is paying off the others in order to build a local monopoly initiation of force? It's not quite fraud or misrepresentation, right? (In fact, this shows up as a movie trope where someone's car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and the only repair shop charges way too much to fix things, see National Lampoon's Vacation.)

This is not an argument, just my impressions. I think this has boiled down to "You have something that I don't. Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" I have watched the Zeitgeist films, and I cannot help but be reminded of Major's speech from Animal Farm, "The soil of England is fertile, its climate is good, it is capable of affording food in abundance to an enormously greater number of animals than now inhabit it... [N]early the whole of our produce of our own labour is stolen from us by human beings... Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle." There is no arguing with the above positions, as the one side is not interested in changing its mind if it runs aground in the truth. The truth is that scarcity exists, in resources, situation, and ability. It is the engine of trade that allows one to leverage one's assets to overcome one's weakness that increases the overall value of the system. What I don't understand is the desperation that leads folks to cheat the system, but the system is not set up to cheat just because you want to address what you lack. There are many ways to skin the cat, and most people choose the non-violent way when given a choice. The free market people think that the seller who says, "I will give you this thing you want if you give me that thing I want." The structural violence people think that the seller is saying, "I won't let you have this thing you want unless you give me that thing I want." For one it is an offer. For the other it is a threat. But I don't think the two are morally equivalent. I think for there to be structural violence there has to be deliberate manipulation of scarcity to maximize the value of transactions in favor of the manipulator. Is it the case that all such manipulations are initiation of force?

This popular view of creative destruction doesn't accurately describe the situation. Jobs come and go all the time and people's needs and desires for products and services change. For example, the worker doing rote labor on the assembly line is encouraged to find better things to do, such as make or repair assembly line robots (he knows an awful lot about how assembly lines work) which is a great deal more interesting and rewarding. This is hardly the worker's only option. The relentless goal of increased productivity improves the overall standard of living and the overall work, and workplace. Employers are encouraged to improve their workers and their productivity by competition. In the resource model, I don't understand what would drive creative destruction, let alone improving standards of living, or working.

Because movies now rely on widely-known memes to drive big sales, they tend to follow this "what's old is new again" pattern lately. It has been a lackluster year for movies. Instead, some of the best stories are in TV or video games right now.

I've been trying to download the latest episodes for about two days now.

In addition to what FriendlyHacker said, I assume you already did $ sudo apt-get build-essential May also want to apt-get build-dep on a similar package to your program, which installs all the dependencies for building it.

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/history-of-grilled-cheese.htm

The important thing to try with this video and others like it is to show the core content to someone cold and ask them about it afterward, instead of being primed to see the performance as fake in the first place.

Because new posts are added to the end of the feed rather than the top certain feed readers like, say, BeyondPod, aren't expecting this and don't automatically download the posts. However, they will still show up as unread and you should be able to filter and download those. It really depends on what you are using to read the feed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/08/27/Marriage-Proposal-Ends-With-Groom-Hit-Over-Head This one is full of fail. --jrp

Sounds sinister.

Find all the nvidia-related drivers: $ dpkg -l | grep nvidia Then purge them all: $ sudo apt-get purge all of the nvidia packages above Then shutdown, perform your hardware swap, and start it up. You'll have the option of loading additional drivers for the AMD card and which packages you install vary. Use jockey rather than specify them directly.