shirgall

Old school network and hardware platform geeks like myself are pretty strongly libertarian, and all over the map with respect to Trump acceptance. We are a pretty cynical bunch. After all, we were making the Internet before Al Gore got into office.

Really quiet in the halls at work today.

How much compassion would they have shown if they had won? Empirically, I don't think it would have been "sportsmanlike".

I had to drive to the mall where the drop-off box was. And there was junk food tempting me there. Tender, crispy, salty, sweet, greasy junk food. With soda!

While Marxism has being going strong since 1848, socialism goes back further to Thomas More's Utopia, and our betters looking out for our lessers was formalized by Plato. It will probably never go away, until empiricism trumps sensualism.

I don't think we're disagreeing. Any such observations are not enough to make a determination, but they are likely important. If i see someone is awkward around children that I want a long-term offspring-producing relationship with, I'd like to talk to them about it. I'm not going to know about it unless they have impressively self-knowledge and reveal it or until such an interaction is made available. There's no way I'd marry someone without knowing a little bit about them in the company of children.

This tradition goes back to Greensleeves.

I wouldn't go so far as saying "determine" but observation beats speculation. I also mentioned other common first date scenarios that are intended to give opportunities for observation. Determination requires tons of data well in excess of these interactions, but that's why we go on more than one date before we seal the deal.

In-group preference takes many forms. People make big changes for themselves for different reasons. For example, a lot of immigrants came to America to change their situation to be part of the American dream. Some did it to change themselves to be benefiting from the American dream without necessarily participating in it. Some did it to destroy the American dream. There's absolutely no reason to take people in those "not contributing" categories. You welcome people into your community or your neighborhood that love your community and neighborhood and have something to offer that will grow or improve your community or neighborhood. I've fought on the front lines of inclusiveness without changing the flavor of an organization. It sucks to be told you aren't inclusive enough, but when you are appalled by the influx of people into an organization that did not share or understand the founding principle of that organization but were willing to pay dues to get ballot access. It sucked when I quit an organization that rejected a member because he *might* be part of a faction that was disliked by the dominant faction. I'll never claim to be perfect, but the struggle is real.

All the call-in shows used to be livestreams, not all that long ago.

A common first date technique is to go out to dinner and see how the person you are dating treats the staff. I think being around family and seeing how the date treats family, especially young children, is important empirical data. It's not just how awkward the date might be, it's how they approach interactions. There's nothing unscientific about that.

The term I would use is "unindicted". Advocate determining if there's a reason to haul her into a court to a grand jury and not a political appointee.

Darn it, we even worked on a cover photo for this video over on the Facebook group, but I guess we were too late. The pic Roc came up with with my requested materials:

Ever since my revelation I have not participated in any reindeer games. No indication that my nose resembles a Kennedy's though.

Social ostracism among the tech crowd I'm part of.

Truth is preferable to falsehood, therefore we emphasize tools that are most likely to uncover truth. Logic, reason, good grammar, skepticism, empiricism, design of experiments... there are a lot of good things in the toolbox.

It's not the definition of universal at fault here, but the definition of "7" and "8" that's vague and therefore malleable into a terminology trap. This is not a problem with the concept of universality, but with your candidate statements for testing universality.

I think you just proved my point--you have to be explicit with definitions (the most boring part of philosophy, but, as illustrated, rather critical).

If you are explicit with definitions they can be. Plenty of people love to play word games.

Matthew 7:15: Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. Matthew 7:16: By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Once you figure out that all of the prophets are false, because they are mutually contradictory and there exists no objective standard to choose one set over another, you realize you are surrounded by wolves that don't even realize they are wolves. Time to get out of the garden.

"universal", as an adjective, means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to all cases. "universal", as a noun, means a term or concept of general application (or relevance). "universal", as a car part, means is a joint or coupling in a rigid rod that allows the rod to 'bend' in any direction, and is commonly used in shafts that transmit rotary motion.

It's not useless in local elections and the Boromir argument does not follow (except that I might be played by Sean Bean in the movie of my life, which means I die early **spoiler**). They are using force against me, and I'm responding with whatever tools I have at my disposal to change that. No one cares about people not voting, but they do care if the margins change.

In the media biz, the term "sweetened" means a piece to which ambient sounds and effects have been added for dramatic impact. Like when CNN throws in machine gun fire in the background when talking about Syria.