tuco

Democracy is capable of destroying itself from within. That is why there are safeguards, like a constitution for example. That is also why the situation in Poland is worrying as such safeguards are being weakened. As it was said, the march in question is not the biggest problem Poland has at the moment. 

How? Well, what to say? By passing time .. I think the fact that Poland is part of the EU, thus subject to at least some actual outside influence,  allows for an optimistic prospect. Mr. Orbán in Hungary been trying to defy the EU since his massive election win couple of years ago and while some steps taken by his administration are questionable, he has not defied the EU yet. 

As noted, and it's my belief, the Polish people themselves gotta make it right, just like people elsewhere, for example in the US (Trump) or the UK (Brexit). For that, they need time. And if they will not make it right? What to do but to say ... it's too bad. There is no Messiah. 

We live in interesting and fast-changing times.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

There are two ways to look at it. The optimistic view is that this the growing pain of an increasing international community. By being afraid of the new, the boundary what is considered to be foreign is pushed further and further outward. For example, in former times the ethnic and nationalist boundaries between European nations was much tighter. Yet now, even nationalist call for a European (albeit white) identity. Eventually, one could argue that this tight definition of nationalist identity simply becomes obsolete and delegated to a fringe that will become insignificant by virtue of self-isolation.

The pessimistic view is that these movements are just the manifestation of an existing undercurrent that has always existed and will always exist. Their powers will come and go in rhythm with perceived crises. And with the advent of fake news, some actively try to create perpetual crises to solidify these movements.

Half agree, half disagree with the sentiment. I think it is more accurate to state the research is heavily abused (though some researchers are not quite impartial).

Nicely said. 

The cooperative competition enabled by the four freedom flows (labour, goods, services, and capital) of the EU (not commenting on the rest of the world because of ignorance and complexity) indeed pushes boundaries of what is foreign and what is national. At the same time it seems, at least seems to me, it allows for or even brings to attention similar questions asked in theses about nationalism. I would think that being afraid of different or being protective of peers, for example, is inevitable. On the other hand, it's important to realize that the cooperative part of competing yielded the results we are observing in the 21st century. To say that nationalist identity (subject to own topic and definitions) is to become obsolete is almost like to say that different languages will become obsolete. 

Personally, as noted, I am optimistic when it comes to need to be unique diverse individually or locally while belonging together being united in an institution or globally. There surely are frictions as the processes are dynamic and quite rapid, but what is a rational alternative? Then again, only time will tell. 

---

edit: In varietate concordia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motto_of_the_European_Union

Education

among others like: practicing principles of open society, getting interested and involved in own affairs -  politikos, or generally not being assholes. All this requires time and energy so perhaps the so-called industry 4.0 will allow for it. Oh wait, I've been watching too much Star Trek again!

Honestly, the xenophobia rising/present in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia (no idea about other countries from the former Soviet bloc) is a mystery to me. In comparison to the Netherlands, Germany, France or Sweden to name a few. I mean it's not a complete mystery, given certain historical context, but its irrational for sure. 

btw its my understanding that Polish people are proud people, with regards to history. Proud in positive connotations. Though as it seems the line between being proud and being, how to say this, a militant nationalist is thin. 

----

edit: useless trivia

The pleasure was all mine. If would care to share your notes on what you were looking for, I would appreciate it. I cannot fully comprehend the subject because of lack of deeper mathematical background, but an anecdote or two regarding the subject I would enjoy. 

Since whether or not its possible was settled we can focus on whether or not its right.

On this point, I would say that just like others rights and wrongs, it's arbitrary. Personally, I do not promise to be sexually monogamous (unlike genetically for example though there are risks or socially) so my conscience is not troubled by having more than one sexual partner in parallel. From my experience, most people view this differently and frankly, I gave up justifying my point of view to such people. I do not view having more than one sexual partner as wrong. I would be bothered more by my partner being in love with someone else but me, let's say platonically, than having a sexual affair.

Question, to me, remains whether sexual monogamy is natural (loaded term) or not and how the current state of affairs in Western cultures is influenced by religious conservatism. Though even if I would know the answer, I do not think it would change how I feel about it. Not that I have solid data, but I would guess that most people are not monogamous their whole life. Their polygamy is serial, however, unlike parallel.  

Hi, my googlefu found this:

Doc. 2 The Principle of Relativity and Its Consequences in Modern Physics 117 -  http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/131

from here: Volume 3: The Swiss Years: Writings 1909-1911 (English translation supplement) - http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/

Translated by Anna Beck

Hope it helps.

Indeed, thank you. Much better now.

Nothing excuses the crimes committed through history by communists. 

The communist party over here (https://www.kscm.cz/cs) been getting between 7.5 - 15% of votes in every election since the so-called Velvet revolution in 1989. This is to show that sentiment for "old times", mostly among older voters, exists and is not insignificant. The communist party, despite getting a relatively decent number of seats in parliament, never been part of any government coalition as no political party wanted to be affiliated with them but that is a matter of political marketing IMO.

I tend to agree, however, that the communist bosses, unlike Nazi bosses, have not been dealt with justly, not been held responsible respectively. As far as I know, apart from Ceausescu (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-elsner/trial-and-execution-the-d_b_401497.html) most of them (from the former Soviet bloc) got away either with no charge or relatively light sentences for their crimes, participation in them. There was a heated debate over here right after the fall of the so-called communist regime over this very issue - what to do with communist bosses and whether or not to make the communist party illegal. Then, perhaps due to humanist ideals of Václav Havel and co, the consensus was negative towards harsh punishment and ban. Perhaps people wanted to look forward, perhaps many felt responsible for cooperating in one way or the other with the regime, perhaps it was just naive and misguided notion, I do not really know. Today its not a topic anymore, its understood that its too late. 

The fact remains that there is indeed a certain discrepancy between judging crimes committed by communist bosses and fascist ones. Then again, there is a half-century between the fall of fascism and communism so maybe that played some role. 

I think its fascinating subject, with a lot of research being published lately,  and since I have not much to say about it I rather listen. 28 000 years ago? That's a news I missed. 

History of communism is a broad subject and if we were to examine it closely, we would probably need to start with The Communist Manifesto (1848) if not earlier.

The way I understand OP is that it's curious how come communism, unlike fascism, is still a topic for debate. To me it's not such a mystery for the reasons noted by several posters already. For the very same reason there is still China, Cuba or Venezuela whose administrations aim or aspire to communism or elements of communism, but no country I know of openly endorses fascism.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Marx is spelled out The Communist Menifesto:

Quote

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Allowing for violence.

For this reason, its illegal over here to promote fascism and communism as per manifesto, despite having a political party with a "communist" epithet on our political map. On the other hand, steering bit off topic, the right to bear arms exists so citizens can use violence against those trying to take away their freedom, which is perhaps not all that different from freeing proletariat from the bourgeoisie. Not trying to get this derailed, just thinking aloud about the dilemma of justified violence.

As far as I know, Marx was of the opinion that democracy is condition needed for the existence of communism, a memo the so-called communist regimes failed to read.

It will probably sound weird or even trivial but it will never cease to amuse me that the October revolution comes in November.

We used to carry lanterns ...

oh they are still being carried, probably for a different reason .. anyway, so cute! 

On a more serious note, what to say?

Generalizations are tricky as always, however, communist ideals are similar to Christian ideals for example in a sense that they (still) look good on paper. Now let's not debate/define what these ideals are

There is probably a good number of closet communists who approve tyranny in the name of <insert cause> but there is probably a similar number of such people on the other side of political spectrum. 

Fascism does not still good look on paper, so that is the difference. 

I do not think the word "truth" should/can be used in/by science. In other words, the question in OP is a philosophical question.

Seems to me matter of definition, "using algorithm" in particular.

Question is, who is not using an algorithm?

From wiki:

Quote

The idea of the ant colony algorithm is to mimic this behavior with "simulated ants" walking around the graph representing the problem to solve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization_algorithms

27 minutes ago, Butch said:

I don't believe Trump with his super enormous ego will have anyone speaking for him.

Personally, I do not consider authenticity much relevant in this case. The tweets will be presented and understood as Mr. Tump's tweets and that matters for all practical purposes. I mentioned it as I thought it was relevant to the topic of the authenticity of an authority. 

In other words, my concern is not authenticity but, as mentioned, let's say sophistication of the thoughts behind the information presented. To me, it's not about the form, though I do admit I do not quite understand the appeal of some of the so-called new media. Just it's not possible to form a political opinion from such tweets. Why I think an informed opinion is important to citizens is for another debate, however, to answer the question in OP, I'd rather have president hiding behind speech writer or a very strategic press secretary rather than a Twitter president.

I concur that the slow response of the site is discouraging me from browsing it more. 

Question is which "Trump tweets" are Tump's own: http://www.newsweek.com/does-trump-write-his-own-tweets-677821

Also, the trend of strategic speechwriting in the second decade of the 21st century being dumbed down to 140 characters is kind of disturbing to me. Mr Trump is the first Twitter president and I suspect there will be more.

In short term, it can go to a group of states with synchronized economies and legislatures to benefit trade and born upon consensus after public debate. Kind of like in the motto of the EU: "United in diversity". To leave the empire, to join a democratic union. 

Well, the only way to know is to hold referendum approved by Madrid, which was my point as I am pro-independence. I come from former Czechoslovakia so I have some experience.

IMO,  and in what I view as modern liberal democracy, if an independence movement is strong, its just a matter of time when it will achieve its objective and counter actions against it are just obstructions. While this is surely internal matter of Spain, thus other governments ought to be careful with their comments, I like to think that supporting independence in general is the decent thing to do. Its not possible to keep together those who do not want to be together,  at least not in free and just society.  

Seem more like Kosovo *coughs*. Independence movements are common, and I would say inevitable, phenomenon at the turn of the century, and international law and understanding regarding territorial integrity seems to be lacking behind it.

Not necessarily, just like NHL for example. 

Same issue.

Since clear majority been positive in past on "whether a referendum should be held", it would be interesting to see how many of those who did not show up to vote were intimidated and how many respect and accept position of Spanish government. 

13 hours ago, iNow said:

It won’t be infinite, but healthcare will continue to grow, as will service jobs generally. 

Agreed, jobs where human interaction is essential. 

On 30/09/2017 at 0:46 PM, koti said:

Spherical earth dates as far as 6th century BC where it appeared in greek philosophy. It remained a speculation untill the 3rd century when hellenists established  the spherical earth as a physical given.

This alone is an astounding example of a large discrepancy between scientific and technological advancement and human mentality not being able to keep up. It seems that over the period of the last couple of thousand years we’ve made several, huge leaps in science and technology and ended up in 2017 with quantum computing, advanced genetics, silicon technology rulling the earth and the space in our solar system but mentally we are not keeping up with for example religion being important to the majority of the ~7bln people where basic, confirmed truths are being dubted every day by majority of the people on earth. Is this discrepancy our evolutionary imperfection or something else? The availability and freeflow of information should (at least it seems to me) be able to cope with this...or is it simply that our brains need several thousands of years to change and are not capable of coping with short periods of time where the huge scientific advancements were made?

When you look at other species it seems that we are the only one with such discrepancies between ourselves. Im shooting in the dark here but it seems to me that every chimp has similar mental and physical abilities, just like every fish or bacteria. Every chimp deals with far less information than an average human so that might be the reason but then again you cant teach calculus to a chimp and that should be enough for every human to be more or less on the same level of basic knowledge - which is not the case. Has anyone done studies on this?

Human mentality is keeping up alright since humans invented all the tech  

That body of knowledge about reality is so wast not a single human can comprehend it all is obvious. Whether or not confirmed truths (scientific theories and facts) are being doubted or not I am not sure but I suspect that only relatively few people would for example reject medical treatment from MD or expert opinion on structure and composition of their ceiling, regardless what they believe. 

However, trying to understand the point you are making, what you call discrepancy is evolutionary advantage - human brain is capable of working with abstract concepts, has power to imagine, is able to simulate. That is all really imo. 

I think it would be the most grandiose experiment since Germany decided to ditch nuclear power

On more serious note, I think some sort of the basic income concept is inevitable as technology progresses. For example here: The robot that takes your job should pay taxes, says Bill Gates - https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes/