Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


GoddersUK GoddersUK A is A.
  • 4th July

    , ScanIAm wrote


    I wasn't clear.  Bump up Alice's salary, too.  If raising minimum wage causes the next few levels to feel slighted, resolve the issue.  At some salary level, however, you won't have to do this because the point isn't to simply give everyone more money, it's to push the lower end up so that the inequality isn't so extreme.

    If the business can't do that, then, again, they are staving off the inevitable failure by exploiting their lower level workers (Bob AND Alice).

    What you propose is called inflation. It won't make anybody better off but does hurt a country's economy if over indulged in.

  • 4th July

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @bondsbw: The middle class is shrinking and the poor are increasing. Regardless of any numbers, a single income family cannot afford what it could in the mid 1960's, not even close. For anyone who wants to argue, you probably do not remember that far back.

    OK, I call bullshit, complete bullshit. How many foreign holidays did you take in 1960? How many white goods did you own? How many cars per household? How many of the latest expensive gadgets (or whatever the 1960s equivalent was)?

  • System requirement on user logins. Status: Failed.

    , magicalclick wrote

    I might as well just reformat my Windows Phone just to fix those??? What????

    Erroneous reductio ad absurdum. That's like using a piledriver to pin something to a noticeboard.

  • System requirement on user logins. Status: Failed.

    @magicalclick: I'm also replying to this here.

    I don't doubt your experiencing some kind of bug or issue related to WLID. It's happened before.

    But your first post about it in CH was factually incorrect and hugely, unnecessarily, conspiratorial.

    And it's not like clearing your cookies to see if that solves the issue is onerous. Heck, you could use private browsing (or (in IE, at least) ctrl+F5, although that's not quite the same).

  • System requirement on user logins. Status: Failed.

    , magicalclick wrote

    Current status: Failed. User is forced to login.

    We've been over this, it only applies if you're ALREADY logged into Windows Live ID (or have some problem relating to your WLID cookies).

    Yes the current behaviour can be non-ideal but let's be accurate...

  • C9 is so not open.

    @magicalclick: OK, to be clear, you're not being forced to log in - you're being forced to associate your already logged in account with your C9 account. Sadly I suspect that's an inevitable consequence of C9 using WLID.

  • A wish for global ​copyrights..​.

    @giovanni: I suspect that depends on the content providers rules: If their terms say you have to be based in country x then being anywhere else is in breach of their terms.

    Morally, if you're paying for it (either up front or via ads) I don't see the problem; I can see how moral quibbles would arise from visiting, say, iPlayer that way though (although you don't actually need a TV license to use catch up within the UK so it's not like you're really depriving them of revenue (beyond increased operational costs)).

  • C9 is so not open.

    No repo here :S

    If you're *already* signed in you'll hit a security prompt from your browser (redirect https to http) and I guess, in some circumstances, WL ID may require to re-input your password; but if you're not already logged in none of that should happen:

    Try clearing cookies.

  • SpamSpamSpam


  • creepy corps(e) for June 2014

    , cbae wrote


    If there are different definitions of morality, and some of those, by definition, can be subjective, then you can't say morality, in general, is objective.

    You can only say your definition of morality is correct, but that is highly subjective.

    I've already said disagreement doesn't equate to subjectivity. Morality cannot be subjective because then it ceases to be morality - that is a logical paradox; in such a case "right" and "wrong" cease to have any meaning.

    Subjective morality can be subjective morality. The only thing it can't be is objective morality, but you haven't shown that objective morality exists.

    I don't have to. Either objective morality exists or no morality exists. If morality exists then it must by definition be objective since existence is universal. If it does not exist then it simply doesn't exist, nothing need take its place.

    The existence, or not, of objective morality has no bearing on the impossibility of subjective morality.

    You agree with what? I said that IF morality were objective, then it'd be just be "morality".I didn't agree that the "if" posit was true.

    I quite agree that if morality is objective then to specify objective morality as opposed to simply morality would be meaningless. So I agree with your logic. I accept the conclusion you claim flows from my premise (because it does).

    What I disagree with is your inference that because we have the word subjective morality this is proof morality must be subjective. I can say 2+2=5; that doesn't make it true.

    In fact, I don't believe that objective morality exists. I tend to think unqualified morality is, by definition, subjective morality of the zeitgeist. History shows what was considered "moral" in the past isn't necessarily what is considered moral today and it will be different from what we consider moral tomorrow. That happens because the prevailing attitudes and beliefs change over time.

    You make the error of assuming that what someone considers moral and what actually is moral are one and the same. The existence of objective morality doesn't preclude error in determining what is, in fact, moral. The existence of a spherical earth didn't preclude people from erroneously thinking it was flat.

    Simply believing that good is good and bad is bad isn't proof of objective morality.

    I never claimed it was, I simply claimed that it's an priori proof that subjective morality is impossible:

    • Morality is the process of determining good from bad
    • The statement that good is good and bad is bad is an objective statement
    • Therefore subjective morality can have no concept of good and bad
    • Therefore subjective morality cannot exist

    Morality can only be what we perceive as morality. How can it be what we don't perceive as morality?

    Did photons exist in Newton's day? Of course they did. But how could light be anything other than what Newton perceived it as (a wave)? Turns out there's this thing called "reality".

    And if morality is simply what we perceive as morality what about the suicide bomber who truly believes he's doing God's work? I'm sure he perceives what he's doing as very moral; you can only say it's immoral if you invoke objective morality (and if you invoke a lack of any morality you must remain indifferent). Similarly for Hitler and countless other very nasty characters.