What are /r/TMBR's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Countering your counter points...

• If you buy a Dell or HP or any pre-built computer, it's essentially free. Most people buy computers like this rather than building, so the cost of $119 is hardly the average people spend.
• Everybody likes putting a face on sweatshops and making them sound so horrible, but it only looks that way compared to our standards. Compared to other people in their own country, they live a very high standard of life. I'm not saying that we shouldn't pay them well, but right now this is one of the few ways we have of putting a lot of money into poor countries. It must be again noted that these points do not hold universally. We see terrible abuse of some of the poorest people in the world done by the oil industry all the time. Also, tech factories aren't like the sweatshops you see in the clothing industry.
• I agree, top execs shouldn't get all the money when the employees do all the work. But don't forget that the developers at a company like Microsoft also make $70-80k starting. I think the tech industry does a better job of pay increase up the company tree than other industries. There are a hell of a lot of people who became millionaires working at Microsoft in their early days.
• Again, you are right. Not all billionaires act this way. But can we really enforce a law because some people abuse it? Some people drink and drive, but should we make alcohol illegal?

A government regulation would just make more money poured into expensive lawsuits, not to mention the cost of figuring out who to give it all to. That is not how you should distribute this wealth.

The issue is citation. Authors frequently use material from their earlier works in publications, but they note that fact and cite a reference so that readers may find those works. If you used material from an earlier work, even though it's yours, I think you needed to make note of that reference and provide a citation.

As my citation for this opinion, see here. This site purports to tell how to cite yourself.

You're not 'repurposing' your earlier work, you're quoting it, and it should be noted as you would with anyone else's work that you use.

What you're talking about is the spirit man.

Man is made of a body, soul, and spirit. A spirit is not a soul, they are distinctly different, which people don't realize. It's only in the Bible do we learn man has 3 parts, just as man was made in the image of God, God being Jehova, Holy Spirit and Jesus. But people realize man has the spirit because God reveals it to every person, and this is where we contact sometimes in our dreams. The spirit dwells in our heart, and down in there our dreams manifest to us... http://hubpages.com/education/your-second-brain-is-in-your-heart

What is going on, is that the spirit & soul bond into the nervous system at some level... subatomic or in some way I don't comprehend. However it happens, there is a link between the body, soul and spirit. What happens to people though is their soul gets dark, confused, and ignorant, and it fails to contact their spirit in many cases. Also, it's common for people to feel dead inside because their spirit is not born into the kingdom. So I think your original idea has merit.

Pro's:

Support from updates and security issues sorted as high priority (flag ship OS, so its a requirement)

Latest model, therefore most users will use, for development, choosing the most popular OS gives access to biggest pot of moniz

newest design, mimics the flat visuals most modern OS types (android/iOS, etc) therefore feels comfortable as phones (which are most popular in tech currently)

Cons:

Many older hardware is now incompatible, (some potato's are now exempt from gaming, no open GL support for intel series 4 etc.)

Telemetry is rife (all over, nearly everything, with options to add more quite easily) here is a list of hosts data is sent to, its crazy, this guy set them to 0.0.0.0 so that no data is sent to them anymore.

If you are used to where all settings are in win 7, then be prepred for it to change drastically, BUT still have access to the win 7 option forms but with limited (greyed out) functions.

if there are any others I didn't think of please say

P2P mesh networks are great it densely populated areas but suck elsewhere as they rely on users having devices to share data and messages across. Amazing idea in principle but not a practical full replacement for the internet.

Something in the middle though, where you use an ISP to get a connection, but users still use their devices to provide a peer to peer "servers" to host and share data would be a pretty fun thing. Would make content impossible to censor or take offline (assuming it's not censored directly at the ISP.. that's a different matter all together). https://zeronet.io/ are trying just that, as it happens.

Stop focusing on the big picture. Of course it's all meaningless compared to all of time and the entire universe.

You're alive now. You can find meaning in pleasure or in suffering. Try reading Man's Search for Meaning

Also....

Can I have your stuff?

I'm going to admit my facts are at least thirdhand; having read "Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists", by Raphael Lataster.

Regarding your link:

Thallus, supposedly having written in ~52 AD of Jesus, can not be reliably quoted, since his works are no longer in existence. This is despite the fact that we still have access to the works of some of the great Greek historians, some several centuries earlier.

And by AD 70, Christianity as a religion was established; and the Gospels written. This means that any writing, secular or otherwise, after AD 70 can not be considered an original source on Jesus's life: they are perfectly good proofs that Christianity existed, but not that the Christ they worshiped existed.

Not having Jesus did not Exist in front of me, I can not do justice to the arguments within; made by someone who has spent his academic career studying history. But what Lataster does in that book is to deconstruct the secular sources we have, and point out that they are at best missing, and at worst nonexistent. In contrast, there are a lot of records of Roman life at the time, including reasonable histories of major events in important people's lives.

I will not argue that there are not references to early Christianity; just that there is an absence of firsthand sources on Jesus that were not potentially, even probably, based on the Gospels and/or the writings of Paul.

First off all, my dumbass self wrote i7 instead of i5, was wondering what the hell you were smoking when you started talking about i7's. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Acer-Aspire-E5-575G-59EE-15.6-Gaming-Laptop-Windows-10-Home-Intel-Core-i5-6200U-Dual-Core-Processor-8GB-Memory-1TB-Hard-Drive/51708810 That's my laptop, I didn't get it off of walmart, hence why I said 250 and Walmart charges 500, it was used when purchased. I've only played gta 5-6 times on it(not exactly my type of game). I never actually run any sort of fps test on it whilst playing gta, but it shot around what seemed to be 30-40ish maybe?

> Name literally one.

That is getting harder and harder to do, I'll admit. But, feminism started with the demand for suffrage and reproductive rights. Reproductive rights continue today, though morphed from "can I use birth-control" to "can I have an abortion."

There's also an ongoing public discussion about gender pay gap. I won't go into the popular arguments... but until there is resolution on the issue then it remains a point of feminism.

There's two for you.

These are the definitions of feminism I use and defer others to:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Also, from Wikipedia: >Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

I do not use Emma Johnson's definition for Feminism, nor do I use any other single individuals definition.

When an individual's own definition defy's the common consensus definition, I reject theirs without necessarily rejecting the concept being defined. I do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Well I guess in law school they don't teach you that many words have more than one definition, and many times there are vernacular definitions for words, making it very important to define your terms when talking about philosophy. The word I use is irrelevant, the point of this post and my comment is clear.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

^ If you'll notice, one of the most prominent dictionaries in the world has more than one definition, and I'm sure many more people have their own definition. Can we stop arguing semantics now?

I encountered a quote from Abraham Lincoln today from this biography and thought back to this post.

> "In the course of my law reading I constantly came upon the word demonstrate. I thought, at first, that I understood its meaning, but soon became satisfied that I did not. I said to myself, What do I do when I demonstrate more than when I reason or prove? How does demonstration differ from any other proof? I consulted Webster's Dictionary. They told of 'certain proof,' 'proof beyond the possibility of doubt'; but I could form no idea of what sort of proof that was. I thought a great many things were proved beyond the possibility of doubt, without recourse to any such extraordinary process of reasoning as I understood demonstration to be. I consulted all the dictionaries and books of reference I could find, but with no better results. You might as well have defined blue to a blind man. At last I said,—Lincoln, you never can make a lawyer if you do not understand what demonstrate means; and I left my situation in Springfield, went home to my father's house, and stayed there till I could give any proposition in the six books of Euclid at sight. I then found out what demonstrate means, and went back to my law studies."

!AgreeWithOP

Just because it is the way we evolved doesn't make it rational. Consider this common moral contradiction. There is no rational reason that the life of someone right in front of us is more valuable than the life of someone half way around the world. It's only that for most of our evolutionary history we couldn't save lives by sending anonymous donations to people we haven't met. There is nothing rational about the hiker pushing our emotional buttons better than starving orphans only because he is closer.

You're touching on a lot of elements of Existentialism but only focusing on the negative, nihilistic viewpoints. I recommend you read Man's Search for Meaning and The Myth of Sisyphus, if you want to turn this into a truly positive personal philosophy that isn't so self defeating.

Sorry, should have been more explicit. I mentioned in another reply that I'm about to start on this book which claims that Godel proved that "In any universe described by GR, time cannot exist". A review that I read explains that G. was able to model a universe using E.'s mathematics in which "intuitive" time doesn't exit -- any two events are joined continuously, and G. concluded that time is another spatial dimension, despite the difference in the way we experience it. What I don't understand (not having read the book) is the inference that because GR describes a possible universe in which time "doesn't exist", then it can't exist. E. accepted the result "reluctantly" because he couldn't refute it. Godel was quite the genius eh?

It's a pop-sci book, I've never heard of this result before despite being interested in logic and philosophy myself, and after flicking through it the writing style is a bit sensationalist. But I just found an academic paper on the subject for you, published in a reasonably reputable outlet, might be a better place to look: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwj_tbjEsqnQAhVjB8AKHS4tCeQQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhrcak.srce.hr%2Ffile%2F19095&usg=AFQjCNHSsByQUAsaDyjoktOD7WEY6ETxVA

> Everything we know about obey the rules of time

So we're talking here about human knowledge reflecting something that seems natural to humans -- not very surprising I'd say. More generally, I think that all of our perceptions of the world are strictly limited by our sense perceptions. Atoms aren't really the way they appear to us, any more than daisies are really white. Daisies look white because of the way our eyes work, and atoms have the properties they do because those are the properties perceptible to us via the tools and theories we've developed to understand atoms. We can't possibly know what they "really" are like.

> You also have oversimplified the theory of relativity

No doubt! I just started reading this book but it caught my eye cos I was thinking about time already.

>I don't think you fully understand determinism

You're mistaken, I understand determinism very well.

>What about determinism makes life impossible?

I have just given you the argument, for this, in the post that you are replying to.

>I don't understand why life requires irreversibility

Here's a book in which Prigogine spells out his ideas for the general reader.

>Many things within the universe would still remain deterministic

Determinism is global, all or nothing.

>The closest thing we seem to have to this true randomness is the uncertainty principal in quantum theory.

Determinism is a thesis about laws of nature, not about scientific theories. It is demonstrably the case that no scientific theory can have laws that determine all the behaviour of scientists, so scientific determinism is definitely false.

Not taking a side, since this is something I still grapple with myself, I just wanted to say that The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking is a fascinating look at this topic. Written by an atheist/skeptic who comes to appreciate the upsides of magical thinking by studying it.

You might want to read the book the god delusion. You can buy it very cheaply used.

It goes over every single point you mention and more. I could try and replicate his points here but he does it so well there's really no point.

I think it will indeed be necessary at some point to revise metaphysical assumptions. This book was an intensely interesting survey of different current approaches to the hard problem.

> If you come up with a better way to make predictions about the world I'm sure peole would start to use that, instead.

I'm not suggesting that we come up with a better way of making such predictions. I'm suggesting that we regard science as a system of imaginative models that allow us to make such predictions.

> > Popper's very popular philosophy of science is aimed at demonstrating the objectivity of science

> I'm not familiar with that, but you've definitely piqued my interest there.

The book you're looking for, then, is Objective Knowledge. Here's a bit of insight into his influence on modern philosophy of science. Much of what you're arguing in favor of science is similar enough to the Popperian school that I suspect you've imbibed some of this position indirectly and without knowing it.