What is Reddit's opinion of
dotSUB?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ dotSUB website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
66 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
Dude watch the lightbulb conspiracy it talks about why products aren't very durable. its kinda long but its interesting.
There's a very beautiful piece in Paris, je t'aime called Quais de Seine. The man asks a woman why she hides her hair, why she hides her beauty under the hijab. She has this whole explanation of how it makes her feel as if she has an identity when she wears it, and how it makes her feel good, and how that's a kind of beauty too. There's a version with the english subtitles in the my link below. :3
The monkeys prefer grapes and the first gets pissed when he can see that grapes are available but he isn't getting them.
Link to article about the study
Link to full video
The ideas of the TZM absolutely has its flaws. Nobody ever said the ideas put forth were a "fantasy land" or as some put it "a utopia." It was never suggested that their ideas were the "end all solution." But that doesn't make it worse than what we have now. I certainly think it is the best idea I've heard of as an initial solution to the shit we're dealing with right now.
As for the first film, he never said that it wasn't a documentary. The film was just meant for a different purpose than the purpose that has been born out of the movement. Anyway, I feel like I'm not going to get anywhere further on my points with you. Rather, I will direct you to Peter Joseph's piece by piece discounting of the mainstream media's portrayal of the movement in light of his films.
The Power of Nightmares is essential viewing material imo. Absolutely fantastic series. Also check out Adam Curtis' other work (The Century of the Self especially), he's done quite a lot of good stuff based on very reliable sources, far more so than 99% of other 'conspiracy' related material.
Its all of a piece, you can't separate the propaganda wing of the corporate sector from the political sector.
I don't know if you are aware that Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was retained for a time under Bush, post Clinton, disclosed over 20k pages of classified documents detailing the neocons intention to invade 7 nations including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Syria (can't remember them all off the top of my head). These were stated goals that they brought in, day 1 of the Bush administration.
The neocon Project For a New American Century (PNAC) was position paper that detailed the desire to maintain American and Western hegemony in the Middle East. Their take was that the American public would never allow this save for a new "Pearl Harbor" incident.
Funny, if you ever read "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who was an advisor to the Obama administration who goes way back in the political policy arena) you know that he stated exactly the same thing.
Congress, of course, is complicit, as are the mercenary assholes (KBR, Bechtel, etc) and the rest of the armed thugs who had no issue destroying nations for the spoils of war.
That is terrorism. Turns out, in the end, the bad guy was us. Which is what fear does to a nation.
Also suggest watching the Adam Curtis documentary, "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear"
Adam Curtis is a genius.
I would suggest:
All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace
The Trap: Fuck You Buddy
The Power of Nightmares
These are the first parts to each.
Related;
> I think to engage dogma in debate is to legitimise it and to confer on it a status that it simply doesn't deserve. With its arrogant intrusiveness I think it long ago forfeited any claim it may have had to be treated with respect.
> Too many liberties have already been taken. Religious dogma has been allowed to encroach on ground it has no right to occupy, and to claim authority where it has no authority to claim anything.
> And I don't think this is a matter for polite debate, especially when all you're going to get is the usual raft of glibly held but unexamined certainties hammered home like coffin nails at every opportunity.
> Because dogma is blind and deaf to anything that reason has to offer. Faith is non-negotiable, so where exactly is the debate? You obey the rules of reason; religion ignores them, and neutralises your argument before you've even opened your mouth.
> It's not interested in anything you've got to say. It's just waiting for you to draw breath so it can say: "Yes, that's all very well, but you've still got to submit because it's written in this book."
Source: Why debate dogma? - Pat Condell
It is not really that bad. You just have to look forward to the little things. When people talk about the adulthood I always think of this David Foster Wallace commencement speech. It is worth listening to.
EDIT: I changed the video to a shorter version. Cuts out all the specifics about the college he is talking about.
I used to have a girlfriend who wanted me to go to church with her. I said to her I'd be glad to on one condition; that she would be willing to hear my honest opinions about the service after the service was over. That small concession was not acceptable, so she eventually gave up asking.
While your co-worker is not someone dear and special to you, something similar may work.
Besides, calling yourself a staunch atheist is not required. Religious theism is thin and unimpressive. Knowing that, I can be fairly passive when dealing with religious people in most situations. If they had something, I'd have to put more effort into addressing their ideas ... but they don't.
Related;
[tag: waterfall 1& 2]
More;
What do you mean? How would what work, a basic income guarantee? There are several elaborations online... (e.g.). But one of its chief effects would be to make necessary work which is inherently unpleasant, or which doesn't pay what it's worth to the community, more lucrative to those who perform it.
Edit: Link added.
Electric light bulbs are actually a victim of planned obsolescence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
http://dotsub.com/view/aed3b8b2-1889-4df5-ae63-ad85f5572f27
Drug companies do a similar thing in the vein of when a drug is going off patent they'll change the formula slightly and patent it as a new drug.
I think TPP is an example of a working brain model in which each person playing the game can be boiled down to representing a cell or group of cells making up single brain or conscious. In 1991 Loren Carpenter designed an experiment which TPP resembles greatly, clip here http://dotsub.com/view/2ba18e4f-3d43-4abf-85ab-f8b3f7741a90 In Loren's experiment a group of people had to work together to control a paddle in the early computer game Pong. Loren describes the crowds innate and ability to cooperate with almost no communication as a sort of "subconscious consensus" which I think describes very well the happenings in TPP. Depending on which aggregating filter is currently being used on the groups inputs (democracy or anarchy) I think the participants are grouped into a collective conscious containing all the conflicting positions, doubts and chaotic Id that go through a human mind in the process of making decisions. MIT have been trying to design a computer model of the human mind for years but are currently held back by the sheer size that the system would need tobe. Maybe, through a similar system of reducing each persons input into a very limited number of inputs, a cloudsourced model of the human brain could finally be made possible?
I found the full video, most of it isn't translated but from what I could pull out soldiers from the Golani Division were on patrol and were attacked by hamas.
> So in effort to convert me (which obviously won't happen) she will answer questions about the religion.
Related;
Here are some of my notes on what to talk about;
[tag: waterfall 1 & 2]
I have two things to offer. First, someone else's, followed by mine from about last year;
Feel free to ask what you want. I aim to please, if that is right.
I don't debate. I discuss. I observe and look for agreement. I've talked with religious theists enough to realize that there is no debate, and for a variety of reasons.
Related: Why debate dogma? -- Pat Condell
I don't try and convince them, I try and motivate them. Religious people already know of problems caused by their peers. I remind them of that.
> The way I see it, thoughts of religion are highly personal and should be brought on by self discovery.
Consider why you say that. Maybe one of these fit?
Also consider that if you are always silent, how much of an advantage that is for those who abuse your silence and the silence of others -- such as the religious that know of problems but do nothing.
I think you did an excellent job of discussing the issues in the video. I can't count the number of times I've done a careful and detailed analysis of various claims and ideas that people bring up, then I noticed a pattern in the responses.
Related;
My own notes on how I handle things these days;
[tag: waterfall 1& 2]
I wish this were true, I really do, but there are so many forces working against a rational response to religious influence in society. Too many people in positions of power use/rely on religion as a source of power and control people. As long as this dynamic exists, it's difficult to imagine it being recognized for what it is... Control.
Don't debate about religion. You'll just spend all your time trying to show them that they lost the argument and they will insist that they have won or that they have good arguments -- <em>'because it says so in this book'</em>.
Just ask them questions about theism, not religion. Their religion is just a box of tools to argue over that they likely do not need to be theists.
Here are the two main issues to ask them about;
Do they think that any gods actually exist, and if so what personally convinces them that there are any?
Can they explain -- to you -- why they are personally convinced without referring to the ideas in a religion? Specifically, if they claim to know for a fact that one or more gods exist, why do they claim that is knowledge?
If they say 'it is a belief' or 'you/I/... must have faith', then say to them: So, you don't know that any gods exist, you just are hoping that there are some?
The reply to that will be that they know the god(s) exist, or they will attempt to say that belief = knowledge, or that there is something noble about people (meaning you) when they force themselves to believe without actually knowing anything.
This is a dodge and an attempt to introduce religion.
Don't buy it.
Bring them back to the first bullet item and repeat the cycle till you get an honest answer. If you get any good answers for the second bullet item, please let me know. I'd be fascinated if they come up with anything that isn't overtly religious and is personal.
Bullshit, this is called planned obsolescence. It makes sense, does it not? A company must remain profitable by tapping into and expanding their market share. If you create a product that last forever that market share goes bye, bye and so does your company. Apple has documents that have been leaked on this matter. Check out this documentary, it goes into really well: http://dotsub.com/view/aed3b8b2-1889-4df5-ae63-ad85f5572f27
They talk about this lightbulb in The Lightbulb Conspiracy.
It's about planned obsolescence. That's why your home appliances have life spans. If things didn't break, we'd have no reason to replace them.
I'm not anti US at all. I'm pro Canadian.
I like that Canada is a different entity. I like our identiy. I like our laws, our casual attitude, our social health care. Losing ourselves to become some kind of quasi American colony would be sad.
Conspiracy theory labels are a simple way to attack someone's credibility. Not saying that's what you're intentionally doing, but it's an ad homynim characterization that basically tries to call someone a nutjob 'politely'.
No I don't buy into aliens or care about any of that 2012 crap or other nonsense the History Channel tries to align to 'conspiracy theorists'.
911 is slightly different. Osama Bin Laden did the US military complex a favour by blowing up Silverstein's aesbestos lined towers.
Considering his rants about the US, Israel & Palestine, and the fact that the US government treated him like some 'mastermind' plotter, he must have spent the last decade kicking himself for causing the deaths of 100k of his muslim brothers and sisters while making Israel as powerful as it's ever been.
Either he had the worst case of hindisght in history, or you could look at the more sinister idea that he was set up. Look at that last video I posted a few days ago and you have to admit it's pretty odd looking. 00:50 mark especially.
Our history has been filled with 'conspiracies'. To dismiss them so quickly is naive. People lie. That's all a conspiracy is, lying through silence or diversion or manipulation. There's a ton of ways to con people.
Advertising and marketing have turned 'social directive' into a scientific art form. Anthropology, psychology, sociology, all mixed in to figure out the best way to sell you a light bulb.
This is my current translation project at dotsub. Really good presentation about current state of technology. Can't say i could do a better one.
1000 Internets for whoever can locate or produce English subtitles for this.
Even without them, it's still worth it, since you're just missing some bits, since most of the doco is in English. It's just some interviews that aren't.
There's quite a bit to read, though I recommend keeping things simple unless you have a specific reason to dig into the details.
First off, take this to heart;
Are there exceptions? Sure. Do you have an audience? If you do, then debate can be useful if you want to persuade them. If not, don't debate. Discuss. After all, why not find out how things are regardless of how good of an argument can be made to support one claim or another? Here are some of my notes on what to talk about;
[tag: waterfall 1 & 2]
Why? Because it can be interesting to understand who you are talking with and what they think. That said, reality needs no defense. It should always be discovered -- humbly -- based on the facts you are able to discover.
Related;
[Tags: kids club, morality, ethics, vicarious redemption, original sin, value of facts, Alan Sokal, ethical dimension of facts, identity principle, reality]
Most trolling-for-the-sake-of-trolling threads get nuked quickly -- often within seconds to a few minutes.
In the other thread(s) today, the person started with insults and insisted that they knew our minds better than we knew our own; that we are lying. So, from the start, overt bigotry.
When they did get replies, the more thoughtful and detailed replies were not addressed, and at best the original claims were returned to ... as if nobody said a thing.
Like a tag along friend of a dinner guest, we aren't throwing the party for them. If the tag along wants to be here, they can start by understanding who's at the party and attempting to talk cordially with them. They don't have to agree with anyone, they don't even have to be self-effacing. If they are good at it, they can even be a bit aggressive or rude -- but that rare skill doesn't come from making things up about other people. That's the mark of the bully and the bigot.
All anyone has to do is have an actual back and forth conversation, or add to what other people have already said. Ignoring what other people say and following that with telling them what they think is not being in the conversation.
We get a few people like the OP a week; they seem engaged and sincere, but are completely defensive and dismissive. They do not listen, and are quick to dismiss and judge.
If I had a good way to get them out of that mode, I'd use it. All that I have found that works is patience, keeping things as simple as possible, and not debating religion. Should I have been more patient? Certainly.
Related;
[tag: waterfall 1 & 2]
General comments and advice;
Chances are, someone in the other thread now sees that you are asking for help from the folks here.
Don't debate someone else's ideology or religious texts. If it's not yours, there's not much of a point. More: Why debate dogma? -- Pat Condell
Floods: Some major floods did happen in antiquity. No global flood happened. Evidence? Very simply, if a global flood happened why didn't the societies that existed at the time notice they had been killed? Also, ice cores and mid-ocean ridge sediment layers linked to magnetic reversions.
Reference;
Edit: Mistyped: "kidded" ==> "killed".
I don't think that's a problem. Merely mentioning anyone and associating them with atheism tends to cause criticism of even having anyone famous say anything positive about atheism let alone anything negative about theistic religions. When these complaints come up, I take it as an example of what Daniel Dennett talked about when he mentioned belief in belief.
The intent of many of these 'let us be careful' posts is not to address a real problem, but to encourage silence. Well, silence does not work. Speaking, though, does. So, let's advocate more of those open discussions while calling people out who advocate silence or submission to some idea or to some opinion.
Related;
Here's a full transcript of the scene:
http://dotsub.com/view/542eece4-2050-488a-9aae-f562a9304873/viewTranscript/spa
Bonus: here's a meme http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6mdlgu2P71rwxufgo1_500.jpg
Don't debate religion, there's no point. (The only exception is if you are aiming at addressing the audience of the debate in the hope of showing you are reasonable.)
Focus on theism, not religion. The religious layer is there to protect the soft theism bits that the whole thing is based on.
My own notes on how I handle things these days;
[tag: waterfall 1& 2]
Related;
Discussion or even debate can be handy, though what people bring up is often not why they hold their own conclusions.
Giving the moral high ground to people who have no right to it because they don't care about facts or evidence.
Taking the bait and following theist talking points.
Talking about how if we drop specific topics everyone will be kind to atheists and not be biased against us.
Not knowing the proper role of debate, and the importance of the audience when and if we engage in it in public.
See also: Pat Condel - Why debate dogma?
Sum: I don't think your premise is completely wrong, but it's not on the right track as it is overly simplistic.
Here's part 2 and 3 respectively 2. http://dotsub.com/view/4233a5cd-c4d3-4faf-ac62-9fdc13e52593 3. http://dotsub.com/view/53b8e7df-fa03-4e44-a47a-c27f70f276f5
This is not a conspiracy theory, this is real, official history. Yet people have been force fed propaganda so much that this now feels like a conspiracy theory.
Don't argue reality. Better: Don't argue. Babble like that is a tacit admission that he has no valid argument. Goose him with that idea if you want to see him completely melt down.
Yet, before you do that, consider this;
Related;
This may be helpful: http://dotsub.com/view/88e11b45-950a-4bae-8ed1-2debe2276294 (from Discovery)
This is also from OP on the youtube video: "This is a GREAT question. There is no a simple relation between droplet sizes that I know of because they depend sensitively on interactions with the surface ripples. However your observation about how the small droplets jump high is quite perceptive. The energy stored in surface tension depends on the curvature. The small droplets have both high curvature and low mass, which means they are able to jump proportionally much higher than big drops."
for how much you use it, it might be worth it to get a laser printer. They are expensive, but worth it. Inkjet printers, especially HP's, are not very ggod bang for your buck. watch This to see what I mean(mostly beggining and end. brother makes good laser printers.
Sam Harris has an interesting viewpoint on objective morality: video, transcript.
Planned obsolescence is real and is a factor in nearly all consumer goods, including vehicles. But it's never 100% of the business model, and there are some examples of goods that are meant to last beyond the buyer's lifetime (such as some tools and furniture). But repurchase is only an added bonus in most cases - the manufacturer profits when you buy the car, if you crash it and buy a new one then they're happy to take more of your money, but if they never see you again they've still made a profit.
Credit cards are different. If you use a credit card prudently and never pay fees or interest and only gain rewards, then they lose money in the deal (especially when the cost of defaults is added in). Their goal is to get you out of the "deadbeat" category that you extol, because without people falling into the trap there is no sustainable business model.
Nope. You should all check this video out. I mean come on, this video is from 1974...and your telling me we need Nuclear power? I encourage you to watch the whole thing, but the main point I'm trying to get across starts at 2:05. Volcanic energy is a clean source of energy, so why aren't we trying this? He states that Mount Aloha could pretty much power the world. 1 volcano. And there are 500 potential volcanoes we can tap in to for reliable, clean energy.
Edit:1 - Sorry... here it is... http://dotsub.com/view/9f1c7ba6-ff4c-447c-a561-29e250ef8db1
Yep. It's a pisser, isn't it? Keep that in mind; The lack of interest in evidence and the immoral jabs and outright lies and dodges.
This video is one you should take to heart on all levels;
Others have mentioned the issue of various harms caused by groups and individuals practicing religion. I'll take a slightly different angle.
I don't argue about religious dogmas. There's no point; they don't have any good arguments and even if they did there are other problems with arguing about dogmas. (see: Why Debate Dogma? -- Pat Condell).
I do ask religious people to take responsibility for people who do bad deeds either in support of their religious sect or in defense of it.
On point #2, I don't usually need to give them a list of those bad deeds. Most religious people have their own list. Those few who don't usually haven't read much of the news and can easily be pointed to a few examples of what -- even they -- think is abhorrent. As for the rest, I question the sincerity of religious people who refuse to acknowledge any bad deeds.
I've talked to a bunch of theologians, seminary students, priests/preachers, and evangelicals. Once you get them off script, why they think any gods exist is almost always because;
- 'I felt'/'I experienced'/'I intuited' ... [God/Jesus/Holy Spirit/saint/other proxy].
The only ones that insist that it is 'the order of nature' or some abstract logic puzzle are the ones that are new and very fervent converts or they are not listening and are stuck on trying to sell me on their ideology.
This also happens with non-Christians and even areligious people, though the being/entity/essence/... they name (if they give it a name) is different or completely generic.
Here are some of my notes on a method to get them to focus on what matters to them;
[tag: waterfall 1 & 2]
Related;
Yes, of course, see my other comment for more;
A related perspective;
http://dotsub.com/view/229ca3b5-e82f-4162-9e9d-1b6ad4af9cb2
Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: To create a disunited Europe. In that course, we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, ... with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Ancient history, surely.
And current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we are inside, we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing. Set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased. It's just like old times.
Depends on what your goals are. Overall, I don't argue dogmas or religious texts with religious theists. I focus on theism.
That said, if they force the issue back to religious ideologies or texts, it is handy to have a good comeback that lets them know you can go toe to toe with them ... but you're more interested in a different conversation.
Here are some of my notes;
[tag: waterfall 1& 2]
More;
If someone invokes "God" to mean something along the lines of manifest destiny, or freedom, or other cultural myths and goals ... then, it would not be a violation even if there are people who disagree with those myths or goals.
That, unfortunately, is not where we find ourselves. Where we are now is a weaponized theism, a dogmatic theism, and one that rejects the cultural myths and insists that no imagination or investigation or debate or even discussion is required because they have the answers.
The time of independence, the stirring muse gained from such words, has passed. It probably died with the rise of Senator McCarthy and the McCarthy Era. Since then and through to today, the sectarian theocrats have spoiled the use of the word "God" by insisting that it is not one of the cultural aspirations, but a private theistic deity focused on bowing and serving obediently whoever happens to be religious and dogmatic. It is anti-democratic, and it is abusive.
Related;
See also;
Debates can be fun, but let's be serious. Theists don't have much to present, so it's not really worth debating the fantasies of such people.
Gary Yourofsky, one of the most famous vegan speakers got started after witnessing a chained elephant (good video, but skip from 49s to 2:00 unless you have a strong stomach for violence. Also just listen to the audio.) He has longer speeches you can find on youtube, which are quite good, but unfortunately with a few factual errors. (Mostly ignore what he says about nutrition...)
I agree. Isn't there something about probabilities though? I vaguely remember Brian Greene or the like going on in lecture about how if we were to isolate the room he was lecturing in as a closed system the tendency for the air molecules in the room would be to spread out evenly and randomly. However given enough time (infinite), through sheer force of probability eventually you'd encounter a state where they all converged to one point (and would do so infinitely many times), a low entropy state, before spreading out again int chaotic randomness.
Edit: It was Sean Carroll in a TED talk (roughly 8:30 he says it).
M8 please hear me out! before u do anything at least watch this video:
http://dotsub.com/view/f00caebd-55aa-40ee-a933-be8d0dbb5c5e
There is guy in it whose surgery was cancelled due to changes in his diet!
Please don't underestimate the importance of these life saving principles!
Also have a look here:
Triple Bypass Surgery Cancelled, NO BS! http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/2006/061100stardon.html
great free book here: http://heart.kumu.org
After some of us show up, make a show of being pissy about redirecting OP to proper subs, and bash them for not figuring it out. #MasterRaceProblems
EDIT: Basically, ya'll don't be Nick Burns.
True that's not evidence but look at the Phoebus Cartel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel#Purpose
There are plenty of other example of this happening.
Good documentary with modern day examples
From Yes, Minister S1x5: "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?"
If you watch the full study, it is called "Capuchins Reject Unequal Pay." And it is exactly why people protest unequal pay for the same work - and it works the same. We do not get angry at the individual who receives more/greater/tastier pay than we do. We get angry at the employer who is unfair in opting to compensate some better than others.
The full video was linked above by someone. It's fascinating.
Watch the Light Bulb Conspiracy (or Torrent it). It's Planned Obsolescence gone full circle. Phillips was one of the companies that forced light bulb makers to limit them to only 1000hrs, We've had 20 year light bulbs before made back in the 80's in East Germany and there's a light bulb still in use continuously right now for over a 110 years in a fire station in Livingmore, California
First off, yeah he did specify a time period for the predictions, i.e. "I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased."
No, he didn't specify exactly when each event should occur, nor exact details of each event. That would be a timetable. But he did say these events would occur within 5 to 10 years. These are predictions even if no timeline or time table was provided at all. Events are discussed, that will happen in the future, within 5 to 10 years. Those are predictions in anyone's book (well, I won't say some won't lie about it though).
Second, give me your economic models that did a better job of predicting the mess we are in than Ron Paul's. The CBO was just one of many I could have quoted, and they are also by law to evaluate the law within the economic conditions expected. The report is complete, and they simply didn't predict the economic conditions that occurred.
Or are you going to claim that the law changed to produce the deficits we now face? That the housing bubble and other market failures were not in any way responsible for the world wide recession we have seen? That it is all due to changes in the law? That by law the CBO knew and understood these risks, but couldn't discuss them?
Thirdly, Ron Paul was mostly right. Not many predictions were bulls-eyes, but they were all on the target. I will repeat. Show me the economists "using math" that did better. (And oh by the way, the idea that Austrian Economics doesn't use math and statistics is bunk. The arguments with Austrian Economists and others has to do with how to interpret the data we have, and what we can do with that data to form predictions about the market.)
Have you ever heard of Planned Obsolescence ? Here it is
Also a very interesting documentary about it : Right here
> I guess I gave up on the dream for the short term advantages
Great, now I'm depressed for you.
Thanks for ruining my Internet snark.
Also, the most precious thing you have is time, especially when you're young. Embrace mom's couch, find a problem that needs to be solved, and solve it, and charge people for your solution.
Here's some motivation. It's web tech centric, I know, but the concepts are the same even for a non-tech solution providers.
http://dotsub.com/view/75a8d940-d901-4aa0-8d46-47d904f2b5c3
I'm a little bit gay for DHH.
I dont buy your "everything will just work out because of the magical hand of the market" crap either.
Lightbulbs are a perfect example, our lightbulbs used to last much longer, and they have basically been made to have shorter lives because its simply much more profitable to waste natural resources in order to make people buy more lightbulbs. watch this video: http://dotsub.com/view/aed3b8b2-1889-4df5-ae63-ad85f5572f27
In addition, look at the ISPs of america. They are a perfect modern example of why your assumptions are incorrect.
There's a cool documentary about planned obsolescence in which that light bulb plays a key role... it was manufactured before light bulb companies collectively decided to start deliberately limiting the lifespan of light bulbs so they could ultimately end up selling more of them. This business model, of course, still exists today with many products and is perhaps the corner stone of our consumer society.
I'll take this opportunity to link a video from TEDxCracow - it's a talk given by the developers of the Witcher, who are also the guys who started GOG: http://dotsub.com/view/9abccb35-f54c-4613-80e2-653c9fccead3
(Description to accompany the video from TEDxCracow below, I couldn't link the video directly from their page)
"Marcin Iwiński and Michał Kiciński: Think different – it's still extremely up to date
High-school friends Marcin Iwiński and Michał Kiciński describe how they go against the herd to develop an award winning computer game development business.
In 1994, straight after finishing their studies, Marcin and Michał co-founded CD Projekt, the first distribution/publishing company to import CD ROMs into Poland and establish new standards for gaming in the country. Their company was the first to fully localize games to Polish, introduce large-scale marketing and PR campaigns, establish product life cycles and introduce new, lower SRPs that were in-line with eastern Europeans' average income.
In 2002 they founded CD Projekt RED, whose first PC title, The Witcher, (released in October 2007) became the PC RPG of the year and received over 100 prestigious awards and has, to date, sold over 1.5 million units worldwide.
In 2007 Marcin and Michał co-founded GOG.com, a breakthrough, DRM-free platform for delivering classic PC games to audiences worldwide, which has since become one of the leading players on the digital distribution market.
In 2008 they shared the honour of being named Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year"
You make it sound as if there are no plausible mechanisms.
There's a documentary that talks about why printers are made so shitty. It's called pyramids of waste, the lightbulb conspiracy.
Check it out
I fully admit that there are some concepts of deities that may point towards some set of real entities. For example, deist and pantheist deities are both internally consistent and do not contradict what is demonstrable in reality. Yet, neither are evident in reality.
The Abrahamic deity/deities are not consistent with reality, so there is no struggle to discard them while admitting that there may be some other category of deity that is possible, even probable, or even shown to actually exist.
I'm only interested in what is real, and in all honesty if you do jump over to the theist side come on back and let me know what it was that was most convincing to you. This is not to say that I'm looking to be converted to some religion or another, but that if I've got it wrong I'd like to know.
So, relax. Don't take them or yourself too seriously. Consider someone else getting stressed out and ranting about this kind of stuff for a while...
Why debate dogma?
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE
Transcript: http://dotsub.com/view/3b95169f-8aa5-40d3-9120-fc214fe8f416/viewTranscript/eng