ycats

The Federal Desktop Core Configuration and Technology Infrastructure Subcommittee set the "baseline" applications that federal workers use to do their jobs and maintain secure networks. Unfortunatley, IE8 is the current browser supported in 2014, which is so far behind that many web sites ( including many of the governments sharepoin sites) don't even render correctly. Why is the TIS so far behind?

I lived in Florida up through my mid 20s, I had never considered wearing undershirts as it was already hot enough. Moving up to the DC/Baltimore area many men wear undershirts under their knit polos or dress shirts. I sweat just looking at them and think about how uncomfortable it must be.

As many wash their clothing after wearing it (even with the undershirt), what is the point of wearing them in the first place?

Is it possible to be born and live within the sovereign and not be part of social contract?

Or to put it another way, what line (in your mind) gets crossed to become sexually perverse?

This question is pointed at those with a Marxist viewpoint. Karl envisioned a time in which capitalism would collapse under its own weight. Presumably an economy will still be present after the collapse, as we all need things to survive and have different skills. In order to prevent various entities in the market from accumulating capital again, it would appear that either the “workers” or the state would have to intervene. How do you envision this playing out with regard to preventing private capital accumulation? Does the collection of capital switch from a civil liberty to a collectively controlled process (thereby destroying a liberty for the better of all)?

Side note, I’m not a Marxist nor do I want this question to be a flame war.

I'm planning on doing local lakes, rivers and streams, possibly a bay or two. Never going over a class 3, and don't plan on doing any long tours. Would still like to be able to do barrel rolls ( classes pending).

Civility is act of being courtesy and polite. In American society we seem to have a fair mix of people who operate with civil discourse and some who prefer to be ‘uncivil’ , which would roughly translate to being crass or offensive. Do you have an ethical system that differentiates between these constructs? Do you use your ethical system when making decisions about what TV shows to watch, radio stations to listen to or books to read or do you restrict it to social interaction? There is no "best answer" to this question although I might reward a well though-out one.

I'm looking for the thought process of the people who find words offensive. I'm sure there is a value system in place, I'd like to hear why.

Do you ask questions or give answers because you believe your system of thought to be a superior andor/correct one? Can anyone NOT be the slave of some system of thought?

Logic fallacies are intellectual tools to help identify "bad thinking", ideas or thoughts that have inherit flaws which can draw people to irrelevant or poor conclusions.

The infinite monkey theorem would seem to dictate that even the most improbable event can be true with enough iterations. If this is true, then is it possible that some event that we would deem logically fallacious may eventually become true ?

Many people in the world can own land. Guided by the hand of many great philosophic minds, social contract was conceived as a mechanism to help achieve, among other things, property rights. The land on which we walk on is deemed as either public or private property and protected by social contract, binding law to the land. The state is the sovereign over the territory, and thus over the individuals who reside within the territory. A land "owner" is allowed legal entitlement to an estate - the rights to the land - but the land itself is property of the sovereign state. We speak of ownership and we play out our lives on the land we think we have, but the reality appears to be that no one other than our governing bodies "owns" anything. The people within the soverign have words on paper - entitlements to things the state really owns. Is property ownership then nothing but a metaphysical illusion of possession?

Cynicism seems in essence to be ying of the idealism yang. It seems that any intent or desire one would raise would immediately be crushed by the cynic with little or no intellectual review on the part of the cynic. The activity of cynicism outwardly appears to be a type of pessimistic bullying where no real outcome is arrived at other than a narcissistic reaffirmation of the cynic's own virtue. Is cynicism just self-righteous pessimism ?

I've read that many agnostics refuse the label atheism because they think that "non belief" requires a value judgment that they are incapable or unwilling to give. But atheists see their state as a light switch: on for deity belief, off if not. In that situation, the value only applies to the one who chooses to believe, the non-belief is not a value judgment in their eyes.

So which is it , are you born agnostic or atheist? Are we just playing semantic games?

Sexual essentialism is an idea that sex is a natural force based on our biology. Some would say them men are "visually sexual" while others say that women are inclined to such natural instincts as motherhood. To disagree with sexual essentialism is to believe that culture and surroundings form human sexuality. It is a classic nature V nurture argument. Give me your thoughts on sexual essentialism as an absolute.

This question centers on "forbidden information", concepts or ideas you think society should not be exposed to. Try NOT to include ideas of situational appropriateness - like the Disney channel showing an R rated movie. You can normally view the R rated movie elsewhere. This question deals with humanity as a whole. Are there any types of information that you believe society should not be allowed to see? If so, what is your justification.

Given that Spears, Hilton, Lohan and Smith have all become front page news, why do you think media outlets have chosen tabloid-style information to report as news rather than genuinely important news topics?

For example, many are against sexual objectification as one's humanity is not considered when evaluating sexual interest - humans are stipped down to their physical atttributes for the purposes of sexual gratification and//or exploitation. Some counter that human sexuality is by its very nature objective. Is it ever possible to not be though of as an object (devoid of all physical form)?

... and if so, should social contract consider vices when freedoms/protections are to be enumerated? For example, some say that the creation of welfare as a protection of against poverty is immoral because humans would naturally exploit it to avoid working. What are your thoughts on this? I'm looking for a philosophical perspective, not political banter.

Do you think society should enforce some notion of econoic rights? How would you see such a system implemented and enforced? Would such a system have moral ramifications?

Friend of family had her grandmother slip into a stoke last year. The grandmother is totally handicap now and the granddaughter assumed guardianship. Her property was sold and the money was put into a savings account - a fairly sizable amout of cash ( over $250k). When I discovered how low the intrest rate was I got a little mad at her. But what would be the best investment approach? She needs to keep some of the funds liquid for paying grandma's care bills and obviosly she can assume a heavy risk burdon with he cash. Some CDs look attractive at 5% but some mututal funs are out-performing that right now. Any suggestions?