Counterargument: "No true Christian" could ever kill an enemy - Jesus was clear in this: turn the other cheek, die on the cross if need be, forgive 70 times 7 times, etc. In my sect, Christianity is totally pacifist. All true Christians are pacifists.
So there's no reason for any Muslim to harbor any enmity against any Christians, because no Christians have ever once harmed a Muslim (by my definition of Christians).
...
And so we're back to square one, arguing over who's really a Scotsman....
It is my opinion that people naturally care mostly about themselves, then the people closest to them, and less about people on the other side of the world. It is also my opinion (referring to the diagram) that the closer you are to being the person with the "need", the more effectively and efficiently you can address the need.
So in general, a person is best able to help themselves, less able to help the people closest to them, and even less able to help others. This can be envisioned as rings of concentric circles, where each larger circle represents more and more people, but less and less sphere of influence or ability to understand the "needs".
Along with that goes trust. The closer you are to someone (literally and figuratively) the more trust you will have. So these concentric rings are also rings of trust. I can count on my wife to be there for me when it's time to have my butt wiped. You, who I've never met, probably won't even offer help out. When my BFF tells me something, I automatically believe it, because after 30 years, AFAIK he's never lied to me. When a stranger on the street tells me something, I'm hard-pressed to even pay attention.
So if someone is close to you, then not only can you assess / relate to that person's needs, but you can also trust that person not to abuse your generosity.
So in a family or among close friends, communism (from each according to ability, to each according to need) is usually the norm and usually works fine. What's mine is yours. Mi casa es su casa. I know you, you know me, we won't hurt each other.
But in the world, capitalism / plutocracy / might makes right is the norm. As distasteful as it is, and as much as I understand that the people on the other side of the world desperately need my money, I'm much more inclined to give it to my wife, or friend, because I have far more trust that it will be used effectively and efficiently. And I have to also consider that, being someone very foreign to me, that you might be hostile to me, and use my generosity against me. So sorry, if I don't know you, you're on your own.
That's why I like to call myself a "micro communist" and "macro capitalist."
Now in reality of course I offer kindness to strangers because I'm not a sociopath.
But let's be honest: the kindness I show a homeless man (a dollar or two, or a meal) is not the kindness I show my wife or child (my kidney, my home, my life).
> I hope Apple finds a compromise where they can help get this specific data without risking leaking a compromised OS.
I want pharmaceuticals without side effects, and real doughnuts that don't make you fat.
Seriously, you are asking for "A" and "not-A" in one sentence. Take your pick. Are you willing to get this one phone unlocked so badly that you would be OK with nobody having security? Because that's what you're asking for, whether you realize it or not.
Tim Cook is probably more popular than Obama (and surely is WRT this issue.) Apple is about a thousand times more popular than the NSA and blessed with almost infinitely deep pockets and a very, very good marketing team.
Not to mention the fact that most of the people who use computers and phones don't even live in the USA.
I know it requires Tim Cook to be willing to martyr himself, but do we really see Obama whisking the CEO of Apple Computer off to Guantanamo or some supermax prison?
I'd maybe call the bluff, and take my political stand.
That's actually a good idea if you don't need too much extra horsepower. You get a good keyboard, an acceptable display, and a lightweight machine for a don't-care-if-you-drop-it price.
> Unless your intent is to quite literally put 100% of Bitcoin full nodes in datacenters
It is a fallacy to think that unless people can run nodes on dial-up in basements, the Bitcoin network has failed in its mission.
Thousands of nodes running in data centers all over the world can provide a scalable, fault-tolerant, censorship-resistant, decentralized relay network.
when people argue that "digital distribution is essentially free," then ask why Soundcloud is losing money, since distributing music is literally their only real cost of doing business.
we will continue to endure substantial cultural losses for so long as people continue to believe that content can & should be distributed and consumed for free.
ultimately some sort of micropayments + blockchain-like-cloudserving might replace Spotify, Soundcloud, and all other streaming services with a decentralized system in which listeners compensate artists directly.
until then the promise of disintermediation is just a fantasy. gatekeepers on the Internet control access to most content, particularly music.
Imagine you're a bank calculating the interest rate to offer on a loan. Do you think that rate will be lower or higher if you believe there are circumstances wherein the government would unilaterally forgive your bad debts if your customer defaults?
