1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
You, sir, are correct. But can you explain to me why? |
|
|
|
....I am an atheist, and I disagree that there is a god necessary for morals. That being said, I'm not a "positive" atheist, but rather simply an unbeliever after having spent half my life searching for a way to believe in a benevolent god. I think this thread is probably the wrong place, but I'd like to hear your views on the subject. Your post, unlike those who subscribe to most any religion, showed some thought. I gave up on the idea of a god that wants to be worshiped a good while back, but I'm still open, somewhat, to the idea that one might exist.
However, the ideas of basic morality are easily derived from human experience, and to a lesser degree, the non human world around us. Things just work better when you have an ethical framework. Not necessarily FASTER, but better.
-KB.
I agree. By most standards I am an athiest but I seem to get along quite well with religious people of the sort who consider religion a matter between themself and their superior. Not so well do I get along with the asses preaching whatever. The 80% of "athiests" who are socialists, I don't get along too well with. I fall in the other 20 percent, though I question your figures. I *was* a socialist when I was quite young, but there are more problems than answers there. Socialism leads to totalitarianism or worse yet, democracy. Don't recall who, but somebody here has a good tagline: "Democracy: The original 51% attack". I can expand on that, but I can't improve on it. You will never get away from democracy, unless you wish to go the full authoritarian route. NAP is democracy at its best, and authoritarian at its worst. Do you care to revisit the knife wielding juggler on the life raft? |
|
|
|
|
Ever notice there's that one reviewer on Amazon for some film, and he says something like this: "This film could really stand to be edited down, cutting about 30 minutes from its overly long presentation."
Note: I'm not saying anyone said that here. I'm just saying those guys are amateur film critics that need to learn a thing or five about film, typically. I think it's interesting that the more watched you become, with regard to cinema, the more you appreciate films which take their time, which linger, which are long.
Said idiots had best stay away from the films made by the likes of Yang, Kubrick, Ozu, Diaz, and so on. If you can't digest why a director may be letting the camera linger on an empty hallway, then please, just move on.
|
|
|
|
So, if someone isn't involved in "high profile business" privacy doesn't matter?
Of course privacy matters. Have I indicated that it doesn't, or provided any methods that don't provide privacy if you're not a high profile business? By the way, don't you have a film to watch? Haha, good point, and a long one.  awaits. |
|
|
|
Im looking for a secure way to communicate with long distance friends and colleagues. What are my options these days? Are there secure VOIPs chat channels or something compared to pgp (something less tiresome) ?
Standard email. Seriously. Nobody cares what you're saying. Not even, you know... WRONG. Here is something useful: http://www.prism-break.org/So? Please tell me why I should care that my recommendation of a film to a friend resides as data on a harddrive in a basement in the middle of the desert, where upon nobody will ever read it. Are you trolling? This thread is about secure ways, not about unsecure ways  No one cares about your film, but if you have to fight against industrial espionage then you need a secure way to communicate No, I am not trolling. If you're involved in work in a high profile business, then secure communication matters. But is that the case for those here seeking secure communication? I'd be curious to hear the motivations. So, if someone isn't involved in "high profile business" privacy doesn't matter? Of course privacy matters. Have I indicated that it doesn't, or provided any methods that don't provide privacy if you're not a high profile business? By the way, don't you have a film to watch? |
|
|
|
Im looking for a secure way to communicate with long distance friends and colleagues. What are my options these days? Are there secure VOIPs chat channels or something compared to pgp (something less tiresome) ?
Standard email. Seriously. Nobody cares what you're saying. Not even, you know... WRONG. Here is something useful: http://www.prism-break.org/So? Please tell me why I should care that my recommendation of a film to a friend resides as data on a harddrive in a basement in the middle of the desert, where upon nobody will ever read it. Are you trolling? This thread is about secure ways, not about unsecure ways No one cares about your film, but if you have to fight against industrial espionage then you need a secure way to communicate No, I am not trolling. If you're involved in work in a high profile business, then secure communication matters. But is that the case for those here seeking secure communication? I'd be curious to hear the motivations. |
|
|
|
Im looking for a secure way to communicate with long distance friends and colleagues. What are my options these days? Are there secure VOIPs chat channels or something compared to pgp (something less tiresome) ?
Standard email. Seriously. Nobody cares what you're saying. Not even, you know... WRONG. Here is something useful: http://www.prism-break.org/So? Please tell me why I should care that my recommendation of a film to a friend resides as data on a harddrive in a basement in the middle of the desert, where upon nobody will ever read it. |
|
|
|
Well, this isn't a clip like what has been requested, but it is so relevant to the conversation, and so utterly fascinating, that it should be watched. Here it is: https://vimeo.com/68514760An extremely interesting comparison between two different versions of the same film. A very interesting watch for filmmakers. This isn't a clip from a movie, but rather a 2 minutes short film. http://vimeo.com/58723925Certainly the film contained a lot of heavy handed symbolism, but given its tongue in cheek nature, that's okay. I immediately noticed the YOU'RE _IRED coffee mug, and replayed that section to see how the boss's hand covered the blank spot and then revealed it seconds later. Thank you for sharing. Overall, for what it was, it was interesting and funny, but I can't get too excited about it within the context of this thread and its two minutes of very unsubtle employment of various techniques, and find it hard to discuss here, precisely because everything is obvious and in your face. Now, here's a clip that I'm posting: Equinox Flower, 1958, Yasujiro Ozu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wI6LfigwYA |
|
|
|
Why is Indian kept out of Asian League ? Asian means East Asian (China/Taiwan/Japan/Korea) ?
It means what one wants it to mean. Did I specify some constraint earlier in the thread? I do not recall. In my case, I have much more knowledge, experience and interest in the four you mentioned, plus, perhaps Vietnam and the Philippines. |
|
|
|
Im looking for a secure way to communicate with long distance friends and colleagues. What are my options these days? Are there secure VOIPs chat channels or something compared to pgp (something less tiresome) ?
Standard email. Seriously. Nobody cares what you're saying. Not even, you know... |
|
|
|
Well, this isn't a clip like what has been requested, but it is so relevant to the conversation, and so utterly fascinating, that it should be watched. Here it is: https://vimeo.com/68514760 |
|
|
|
|
Obviously, by disagreeing, you accept international law. Just thought I'd throw that out there to confound you.
|
|
|
|
|
As you can see, we're all ignoring it.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember the last time I encountered a bug in my house.
|
|
|
|
you seems quite depressed did you though of consulting a psychiatrist.
It says something about the person when insults start coming out. M Oh, they already have insulted me in this and other thread already. Its only fair game. Two wrongs don't make a right. But three lefts do. According to NAP, two wrongs do make a right. I believe your logic is flawed. Self defense is not wrong. You attack me, my property, or my loved ones, I will defend myself. You would be in the wrong, not I. And if you insult someone and are wrong, then your idiocy should be pointed out by a returning insult. Thus, not only is my logic not flawed, but you are wrong. However, I will be kind and generous, and not fling an insult your way. I'll repeat myself. Two wrongs don't make a right. Returning insult does not accomplish anything useful, and can only be "bad". As usual, I'm not following your logic. I am starting to be convinced your argument does not have logic, it is purely emotional and without reason. I don't really care. |
|
|
|
We've been discussing NAP here for a long time. Right back to the days over two years ago when the NAP proponents were going on about the injustice of violating the rights of a knife juggler practicing his art of juggling on an inflatable raft with five other passengers in the middle of the ocean with sharks circling. Don't even make assumptions about our awareness of NAP. We were discussing it back in the days when the NAP proponents were saying how wrong it would be to violate the rights of people who wished to walk about with rain drop triggered nuclear weapons on cloudy days. Did you claim these extreme examples of passive aggression were not aggression, or did they? If it was they, then it looks like you are right and they were wrong about what is non-aggression, at least according to this guy: http://andrewglidden.com/refining-the-nap-with-passive-aggression/But again, I am in no way an expert on NAP and the definition of "aggression" may be a moving target for the principle, for all I know. The thread was some 100 plus pages long. Those generally against libertarianism were arguing that that the knife juggler should be tied up, and people can't keep nuclear weapons. The anti-government crowd were quite adamant that such individuals cannot be violated against unless directly threatening you. I'm being serious. |
|
|
|
you seems quite depressed did you though of consulting a psychiatrist.
It says something about the person when insults start coming out. M Oh, they already have insulted me in this and other thread already. Its only fair game. Two wrongs don't make a right. But three lefts do. According to NAP, two wrongs do make a right. I believe your logic is flawed. Self defense is not wrong. You attack me, my property, or my loved ones, I will defend myself. You would be in the wrong, not I. And if you insult someone and are wrong, then your idiocy should be pointed out by a returning insult. Thus, not only is my logic not flawed, but you are wrong. However, I will be kind and generous, and not fling an insult your way. But, again, that's only one wrong. What is the second wrong you were talking about that supposedly is OK with NAP? Do you wish to discuss this? Or not? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
