Is PayPal Better Led by an AmEx Exec Versus a Startup CEO?
• Related Questions
What were the factors that led to Socrates' death sentence?A) Context:Socrates was of poor origins and his mother was a midwife. He spoke of himself as a "midwife of the mind", constantly questioning people in order to help them notice how unsubstantiated were many of the opinions that took for granted.The Oracle of Delphi had asserted that Socrates was the wisest of men, and given the philosopher's acute awareness of his own ignorance, he concluded that if he had been designated so, it must surely be due to the fact that most others simply did not realize how ignorant they actually were.
All of this made him a very disturbing figure and the trial was essentially a political condemnation that could not publicly admit it.B) Charges:Plato's account of the Trial lists the three following charges, all of which were based on unsubstantiated facts:1) Disrupting Public OrderSocrates was seen as a dissident given his propensity to question established opinions.For example, 4th century BC Athenians were overwhelmingly of the opinion that foreigners, namely Persians (in the context of Marathon & the Peloponnesian War.
.) were barbarians. Socrates, a man of great culture that had most certainly read Herodotus, was not of this opinion, but instead recognized that they were a highly sophisticated civilization, if not superior to Greece. This was considered blasphemous.Furthermore, at a time were early Democracy was still being tested, with Athens just coming out of a period of severe disruption, during rule of "the 30 tyrants", a few of his questionable friendships (including otherwise prominent philosophers) were held against him. But, this accusation does not hold very much either.
2) Offending the GodsReligiously, he was accused of listening to (what he called) his "inner demon" (or, what we would call his "inspiration"), and it was argued that by doing so he was introducing new Gods (his Demon) & offending the established ones.Politically, the Gods might be understood as the highest authority, namely Democracy. In this regard, he was accused of being against democracy & opposing the rule of law. Two arguments, which at the very least, are highly debatable, given documented events of his personal life that point otherwise. This might easily been seen as an out of context exploitation of his intellectual position, which (just like Aristotle, Plato & many others..) did not necessarily believe Democracy to be the absolute best (& only) acceptable system.
3) Corrupting the YouthGiven the success of his ideas with younger audiences and the personal beef he had with one of the main accusers, who's son was one of his followers, it is no surprise that the typical bourgeois reaction of a parent might (conveniently) be to violently discredit the guru
------
If you led a group of Vikings what would be your tactic against mounted archers defending their village?
Walk away and go find a nice, defenseless monastery to loot.This is very similar to Kevin Yues answer but for a different reason. Popular English-language accounts of the Viking era, even those with a commitment to historical accuracy (i.
e.
, not the series Vikings) focus on the exploits of the semimythical Great Heathen Army of the sons of Ragnar Lothbrok, or Harold Hardrades bid for the English throne, or maybe even the empires of the Rurikids or Cnut. That presents a vastly distorted picture of Viking era raids, especially in the early period.Historical Vikings valued martial bravery in battle, but they didnt value fighting to show off martial prowess or uphold principles. They valued loot. They valued cleverness. They definitely valued their lives over those of others. For the average Viking expedition, the more easy pickings there were, the better. They werent out to fight fair and didnt subscribe to modern ideals of honor.
Not only were they not above tricks and ambushes if forced to fight, even better was to bypass anyone who had a decent chance at defending themselves in favor of more profitable opportunities. That way, everyone got to go home before winter and had a little more with which to supplement the meager living from farming and herding.Raiding Vikings, particularly small parties of Vikings, overwhelmingly favored raiding undefended villages and monasteries. Small villages were great places to snatch people to be sold as slaves. Christian churches were especially favored targets because they were poorly defended compared to market towns and often had large stores of ecclesiastical silver, gold, and other riches. Especially early on, none of the raiders were Christians and so had no problem robbing and slaving on consecrated ground. The Viking period is often said to have begun with the 793 raid on the abbey at Lindisfarne. Viking objects recovered from burial hoards in Denmark include worked silver cups used to hold the host during communion, stolen from Western Europe.Honestly, the approach Vikings took makes sense, and its what I would do too. Doubly so if I were related to the people Im raiding with, as is likely. If I saw a well-defended village, even one with as little as a palisade let alone some fully equipped horse archers, Id probably say, nah, if we tried that someone from my village might end up getting hurt or killed. Lets go find some monks instead.
------
Has the aphorism "Ideas are worthless" led to poor ethics?
Any poor ethics involved was likely already there. OTOH, if ideas are considered to be relatively worthless until developed, there may be more opportunity to act unethically. There may be individuals and groups with experience and resources that enable them to quickly develop many new ideas, and they could look around for freely available ideas to essentially steal. This is what the patent systems were created to avoid. However, it can take a lot of resources even to take an idea far enough along that it can be patented.There have been many ideas I've had that I have wanted to be stolen. My interest was to get the ideas out there to be used. These ideas were mostly about what I consider to be better approaches to learning and education. As a teacher I had time to make use of these ideas in my classes, but I didn't have time to develop them in more detailed ways that would have resulted in making money. My preference was that anyone who later shared these ideas would give me credit for them, but even that often didn't happen. I have reason to believe that at least once someone has made money using my ideas without giving me credit.This was happening even before the "ideas are worthless" meme took off. People have always been lazy or even unethical about giving credit.The other side of the coin is a severe problem that would arise if every idea could be firmly attached to the person originating it. In that case practical innovation would quickly come crashing to a halt. We see some of this problem in the extensions of intervals on patents and copyrights that have been granted by the supreme court. If only those who originate ideas can develop them before their intellectual property rights run out and few people have the experience, resources and inclination to fully develop the ideas, very little will be done.Possibly there is something in between full long-term rights and none at all that will work well to protect individuals and also help innovation. If people could learn to develop a new ethical system that would motivate all of us to do this naturally, we would be better off, but I don't see a way of making that "idea" work. It's clearly a brilliant idea, but it's also clearly worthless
