altaylar2000

2 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Who must ? 

Predator must be killed

2 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Whom must  ?

 by a hero

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Do you understand anything?

Everyone knows that. The dollar did not change for gold, only during government calculations, as soon as De Gaulle took out 2 ships of gold from the United States, the United States declared a default

11 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

What if a predator infects ( and thus kills )  human beings without attack ? 

Rumors have it that in this present pandemic, some people are intentionally infecting the wildlife  .

Must be killed too

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The gold standard was forgotten, when we understood that we could just print money; and not eat gold..

It doesn't matter, under the gold standard there was no real gold plating, even officially there was a fractional reserve of 1 in 10 or so, and there wasn’t even that. It was just a formality

All this is nonsense, practically the same yuan coverage system works there asit was in the Bretton Woods system, only without golden promises and more flexible. To fill its budget, China is forced to export goods to the US and Europe, otherwise it will not print the yuan and collect taxes for the budget. Their can not print own money, only exchange on western actives

This was standard system of British Empire, currency board

yes, they hold another debts too, but it change nothing principially

7 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Killing a predator simply because

Killing a predator simply because it is killer of innocents

Indra kills a snake, a villain and a liar and frees cows and waters, the sources of life for peaceful people, for this he is praised, and not for the fact that he attacked the innocent

I don't care about the empty stomach of the wolf. I'll just kill him as it should be

Regardless of whether he is well-fed or hungry, for evil must be destroyed

In traditional Aryan morality, the hero is not the one who attacks the weak, but who destroys the attacker. Anything else is absurd. Nietzsche's morality is foolishness for idiots

attacking a weak or by group to this day is generally considered a shame and weakness, and not a sign of strength or nobility

This was alredy discussed

Just now, dimreepr said:

Herbivore's are the worst, they do everything they can to prevent a predator from eating..

Often they kill them and this is right.
About what rights have the predator you can tell your mother or child, when they are attacked by a robber, rapist or cannibal, and there is no antipredator nearby, who will prevent the predator's crime

Just now, dimreepr said:

Have you even read your own thread? 

Yes, I have

If there is a problem somewhere, then it is definitely not in this question. There is no use in stupid pacifism, he plays into the hands of wolves in sheep's clothing

Just now, dimreepr said:

Quite.

since you did not voice the problem, there is nothing to talk about

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

And there in lies the problem with your argument, and why you're ill suited to navigate ethics...

I don't undestand what a problem

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What are the major differences between "modern OOP" and its roots that would like to discuss? 

Mainly modern OOP became more static, and more synchronous I think

A very difficult compromise with compiler vendors.

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you want the moral high ground, you have to go full-on Buddhist and never knowingly kill anything, even bacteria; extreme enough for you?

This is bad example because they evil-tolerance. They not kill evil, just tolerate

As for "killing" bacteria, this is demagoguery, bacteria are no more sensitive than plants.

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

I do not see a very thigh relationship between first part and second part of your statement; feel free to elaborate. 

There is a relationship. First ideas for OOP comes directly from frames Minsky and Hewitt's Actors
Before them noone used "object" like unit of computation with own memory and behavor, it's the base idea of OOP too

China puting almost all profit in US Government, Is It easier? What the question? Why they still feed the Chinese with rice?

Just now, iNow said:

Right. Would you like to try now actually answering any questions asked of you?

Just don't ask about the color of my underwear.

Just now, dimreepr said:

Have you ever been hungry enough to eat from a bin?

This is not an excuse, you can die from the cold, and there is no need to seek out extremes. Most people eat meat not even out of hunger, but for pleasure.

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now you’re moving goalposts by adding that your villain must be conscious. That’s fine, but now you must define what you mean by consciousness. I’m not hopeful you’ll succeed. 

May be it's my problem with english, But there is

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

are not conscious villains, but this is not a reason to equate them with the innocent

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which means I also get to decide. I’ve decided you’re evil and that your life is worth less than a chicken. How will you defend against this?

In general, there are objective properties, this cannot be simply "decide"

Just now, iNow said:

Language isn’t the problem here.

Yes, the problem is "autistic" formal interpretation of informal text

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I tend to agree, which is why you look so extremely and irreparably foolish saying ridiculous things like this:

The language is not perfect, I mean profit without taking into account the costs of production and life support

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Parasites are innocent too, but you're happy to commit genocide; your moral compass needs adjusting, before you can find a route through the complexities of ethics...

There is no difficulty for me. Predators and parasites(in animal world) are not conscious villains, but this is not a reason to equate them with the innocent. There is no such possibility to differentiate precisely conscious villainy, because anyone can be justified in this way, say the rapist is innocent, because nature created him that way. This is idle chatter

_____

It's kind of obvious that it's impossible not to invest in own economy at all, then everyone will die of hunger.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Like here, again spouting trivially false nonsense suggesting China hasn’t invested in its own economy. You post often here and seem to like including laughable fictions essentially every time you do. 

 

Are you trying to find solace in the word "completely"?

Let not completely LOL

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

the only other options involve sending in bombs and soldiers. Is that what you’re recommending?

If not, then what ARE you suggesting they do? 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Someone you don't know anything about...

then I don't know its price either