Slashdot Mirror

Faith is expected without justification and is expected to endure regardless of what facts may come to challenge it.

Sounds like youre trying to create a distinction where the dictionary doesnt see one (based on first and primary definitions from multiple dictionaries):
Wikipedia-- Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.
Reference-- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
MerriamWebster-- allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

None of those indicate "enduring regardless of what facts may come to challenge it"'; the best you can get from any of those is "trust for that which has no evidence" (which is a far cry from "trust regardless of any evidence").

Faith is an idea with no evidence to back it up no matter how adept the 'experts'.

By whose definition? According to wikipedia:

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.

According to this:

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Although, getting to the meat of the argument, back in 2008 someone discussed this already over at Bad Astronomy.

I have faith in science. That doesn't mean I blindly believe what science tells me ... it means that I'm confident that the process is open and documented enough that someone could explain it to me. And, if I really insisted, someone could sit down and walk me through it.

At a certain point, I have to take some of the mathematics or really deep science "on faith", meaning I don't actually understand it in all of its gory detail, but I have been satisfied that a good amount of people who do (some of whom I have personally met, and some of whom are in the pantheon of "smart people"), that the parts I don't explicitly grasp are, in fact, true.

Now, if you just blindly believed everything science told you without holding it up to some degree of a "smell test" to assure yourself it's consistent with everything else, science could become "faith". But that doesn't mean that science is inherently "a faith".

I don't necessarily agree with your rigid (and possibly pulled from thin air) definition of "faith", but I do agree that science in general isn't "faith".

Is this some sort of affect/effect pedantry?

affect n.
          1. Psychology feeling or emotion.

          2. Psychiatry an expressed or observed emotional response: Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia. -source: dictionary.com

Stress would presumably count as an harmful affect.

1. n. a black person's male, black friend. : Another brother took a fall last night.
(Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition. Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.)

"A brother" (without greater specificity) is almost always the description of one black guy by another. Inner city racist use it to segregate themselves from the rest of society. It doesn't even need to identify friendship, only perceived similarity in station due to skin color.

Your opinion does not constitute fact.

Technically true, but unimportant. I'm talking about facts.

Your opinion does not constitute objective truth.

Also technically correct, but unimportant. I am talking about objective truth.

Do you not understand NY v Ferber, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?

Oh, I understand the case. It's nonsensical to suggest that the ACLU filed an amicus curae brief in this case that had nothing to do with the case. The ACLU was arguing that videos of teenaged boys masturbating were not obscene and therefore were covered by the first amendment.

Again, your opinion.

No, objective fact. How many counts of murder was Scott Peterson convicted of? One of those two was an unborn child. The law recognizes that the unborn child is a person under the law.

Safe, legal, and rare is the common meme. Nobody wants that number to actually go up, it's always preferable for them to go down.

And for this, I ask why? Because you know that it's wrong. Because you know that it's the killing of a defenseless human being.

So you support lawlessness and murder.

Defense of others is an affirmative defense to charges of murder.

Don't come back with "abortion is murder", that's a point that is opinion, not fact.

No, it's murder. Definition 5 to be exact.

The three people that you named and are okay with are, unarguably, murderers.

That's a problem for you. You can deal with people like me, or you will have to deal with people like them.

I won't shoot you, but they will.

LK

Mods, I apologize for continuing this OT discussion but....

Any reasonable definition of self defense (legal or otherwise) means exactly what you are saying it does not. Even if your definition of defense were correct, guns in general (which was the original statement) are not the act of shooting people , much the same way as a bodyguard is not the same as having people beaten. The utility of guns and bodyguards come more from their threat of reprisal than the actual usage of them.

WE liberals will go ahead and continue to run government according to socialist principles.

Ancient, failed "socialist" principles. And let us remind ourselves what liberalism really means:

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

The true liberals, libertarians are reviled by you because freedom is "corporate control".

I have a challenge for you. You wish to be a liberal. Then find a way to implement your schemes without imposing on the freedom of the individual.

Whoosh.

Hint: He's punning on "ferocity" and...ya know..."ferrous".

Really, the people that think it is cool to tell people that they are using "irony" incorrectly are more frequently wrong than the people they are trying to prove linguistically inferior. You should look into what situational irony is and why it has been used correctly in this situation.

You can if you refer to a snowstorm as a "snow".

For instance, the sentences "It snowed 3 times last winter." and "We had 3 snows last winter." are functionally equivalent.

Whether or not you agree that is correct usage depends on how quickly you update your dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snow for instance seems to think that usage is correct (definition #3).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchy?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

What I'm saying is a system of freedom rules is freer than no rules. The GPL is just that. You don't have the freedom to take away from others the freedom you where given yourself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchy?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

1. the act or state of settling or the state of being settled.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/settlement the first listed definition.

In the context of settlement as an action, the headlines grammar is fine.

enormity

That word does not mean what you think it means.

Enormity, noun.

1. outrageous or heinous character; atrociousness: the enormity of war crimes.
2. something outrageous or heinous, as an offense: The bombing of the defenseless population was an enormity beyond belief.
3. greatness of size, scope, extent, or influence; immensity: The enormity of such an act of generosity is staggering.

Because of course, being "tolerant" and "open-minded" also means accepting broken ideas founded upon magical thinking..

No, tolerance doesn't mean accepting.

I have linked to the dictionary to help you understand what the words actually do mean. No one is forcing you to click the links if you would prefer to remain ignorant though.

Because of course, being "tolerant" and "open-minded" also means accepting broken ideas founded upon magical thinking..

No, tolerance doesn't mean accepting.

I have linked to the dictionary to help you understand what the words actually do mean. No one is forcing you to click the links if you would prefer to remain ignorant though.

Creationist: One who believes in a creator.

Words have meanings, you can't just go making shit up, not even if you're an atheist.

creationism[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] –noun

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.

3. the doctrine that god immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist

Also, you're an idiot.

I see where your error is. Someone should've explained to you that the word intangible is the exact opposite of the word physical.

Certainly, the banks (fractional reserve banking) and government have the ability to print more money, but there are costs involved. Not only the cost of the paper and ink and presses, but the value lost in the rest of the currency in circulation (inflation).

I see where your error is. Someone should've explained to you that the word intangible is the exact opposite of the word physical.

Certainly, the banks (fractional reserve banking) and government have the ability to print more money, but there are costs involved. Not only the cost of the paper and ink and presses, but the value lost in the rest of the currency in circulation (inflation).

Although i$DEVICE users are supposed to have the attitude of "I just want to use it, not tinker with it", doesn't anyone find it patronizing that Apple assumes its users are so dumb as rocks as to not recognize that, Yes Virginia,
-there are other phones besides the iPhone, and so consequently
-there must be app[lications] for those phones, and
-there must be app[lication] stores for those phones?

Or are Apple users so solipsistic that they can't even begin to conceive of a phone that doesn't wear a black turtleneck?

So a sociopath trying to save a life is going to the bottom of the list. Yea, this is an awful idea.

Do sociopaths do that very often?

I mean, if you lack "a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience", are you really calling 911 to save lives?

I agree this sounds like a potentially bad idea ... just not sure if your example is one of the likely corner cases.

It can be used as a verb or a noun, with one of the accepted definitions of the latter being a synonym for alternative.

It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor. ;-)

Sorry, the 'Insightful' mod broke your punchline.

I'll try to leave that out next time.

Okay, just so we're all in agreement, when no bad iPhone news happens next week, we're supposed to cycle back to the water sensors getting tripped. We haven't used that one in a while so it'll seem like a fresh complaint. Boy it'd make our jobs easier if the people who actually had the phones would just complain about something.

It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor. ;-)

Sorry, the 'Insightful' mod broke your punchline.

Okay, just so we're all in agreement, when no bad iPhone news happens next week, we're supposed to cycle back to the water sensors getting tripped. We haven't used that one in a while so it'll seem like a fresh complaint. Boy it'd make our jobs easier if the people who actually had the phones would just complain about something.

It was a joke. But I guess you haven't found an app that will give you a sense of humor. ;-)

That viewpoint is fine, justifiable, and understandable as well. From your side (non-Americans) however, please understand there are those of us (Americans) that disagree with the tea party, are even ashamed of some of the propaganda it generates, and can articulately express why we feel as such. Also, please, understand the tea party has much more interest in protecting big business than anything else. There is nothing "grass routes" about it. I am not saying there are zero "common folk" that support the tea party, but it comes from Dick Armey, American's for Prosperity, the Koch brothers, and big business money. To put it bluntly: it is about money, money, money. Before any tea party members jump all over me: please do the research to understand who funds your "people's movement."

Also, I cried when Bush v Gore was decided, because at the time it was the biggest offense to the US Constitution ever and a very sad day for all true Americans (Yes, even Bush's supporters, if they would stop looking through Republican colored glasses and understand the constitutional issues). Now however, Bush v Gore has been bumped to #2 by the "Citizens United" decision; that should scare the entire world (entire "non-rich" world). Many of us do not think Reagan was the greatest president ever, although he did do some things that today would be very liberal (amnesty for illegal immigrants for one), as "trickle down economics" was a proverbial knife in the back to the middle class (or affront, to put it mildly).

Ann Rand? Her writings are not 100% wrong, but no where near 100% right; most people have no idea about her writing or ideals outside of hearing right-wing politicians mention her name. I say "her writings" because I have learned many political viewpoints espoused are not always believed even by those doing the espousing.

Our country is not perfect, but many of the bad moves could be mitigated if our entire electorate was less ignorant (lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant ) about the issues of which we vote. I will, however, go as far as necessary to defend everyone's right to vote. I love this country and truly feel it is the best country on earth (in ideals at least); one of the major reasons it is such is everyone gets a right to their one vote in each election. While I wish the entire electorate would educate themselves on the issues facing our country, the "one person/one vote" is the only things standing between our democracy and a plutocracy.

If everyone (both those inside and outside the US) will understand these things about the American citizenry, hopefully we could all get a fair shake, and get along much better too. Thank you for your time and understanding; I will now step down and put away my soapbox!

Contrary to the /. spirit, I say that piracy is theft.

Dictionaries and courts have decided otherwise.

theft

the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

What did they take away from you? Piracy is illegal but theft is the wrong word.

Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property

Like Windows, Apple, Sun, Oracle?

See Phrase.

The Japanese did not evaporate any US cities

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

sarcasm

sar-casm
[sahr kaz uhm]

noun

1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Origin:
1570-80;
-Related forms
su-per-sar-casm, noun

-Synonyms 1. sardonicism, bitterness, ridicule. See irony

So the business school grads are completely unqualified, once again. You can't be a back-stabbing, underling abusing sonofabitch to be a good boss. Someone should let them know.

You obviously haven't been to business school. On day one, literally, most are taking a class in a topic often called organization behavior. Its mostly about how to organize and motivate people. How there is no one way to do so. How different people may be most efficient when employing different practices. How managers need to learn to recognize what practices work best for each individual and to structure things to accommodate this as much as possible. How one of the most important things to a worker is not whether or not they like a decision but whether the decision was made in a just process. How ...

I love how all the fanbois are crawling out to insist that "ample" and "adequate" are synonyms.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ample
ample /æmpl/ Show Spelled[am-puhl] Show IPA
–adjective, -pler, -plest.
1.
fully sufficient or more than adequate for the purpose or needs; plentiful; enough: an ample supply of water; ample time to finish.
2.
of sufficient or abundant measure; liberal; copious: an ample reward.
3.
of adequate or more than adequate extent, size, or amount; large; spacious; roomy: ample storage space.

Sucks to be as dumb as you.

I think it only fair to also present similar definitions for what a Republic is.

Personally, I feel that Republic is more accurate given the historical meaning of democracy, but that the meaning of "democracy" has changed since 1787 to basically include what the United States is now. The founders generally thought of direct democracy (think Athens) rather than today's broader definitions. Perhaps the most-encompassing term may be that the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

Definition of REPUBLIC (from Merriam Webster)
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Or from Dictionary.com:
republic
/rpblk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Here's what dictionary.com says on "demo-":

a combining form occurring in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “people” ( democratic )

To know the more intricate connotation of the word (as in "citizenry"), you'll have to find a source that goes deeper. Check out Wiktionary for a start.

Also, I hope I don't have to explain why "rule of the people" is not the same nor implies "strict majority rule" (i.e. 50%+1 vote).

My dictionary and encyclopedia disagree with you. As does dictionary.com

It's not brainwashing nor nonsense. From the same dictionaries you referenced:
Reference.com:
republic
/rpblk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Or Miriam Webster
Definition of REPUBLIC
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

I think we're actually considered a Constitutional Republic.

Even if we directly elected the president we could still have 51% of the House of Representatives, each of whom were elected by 51% of their population, create or veto a law. Even if the views of those Representatives were perfectly reflective of the views of those who voted for them that could mean a law was passed/not passed that only 26% of the population agreed with/disagreed with. As soon as you elect agents rather than exercising direct democracy the results will no longer directly reflect the will of the people, but it still falls under the modern English definition of democracy. That is why there is a distinction between democracy and direct democracy, at least in the language which is relevant to this discussion.

Wrong again, Bob.

From the fucking dictionary:
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

? This is what I just said. Right up there. I'll quote it for you:

A representative democracy with constitutional limitations to protect the individual is the very DEFINITION of a republic. Do some reading.

Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):

democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)

Or Merriam-Webster:

democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)

Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:

democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)

(Sorry for cross-posting this, but this nonsense has to stop).

Wrong again, Bob. From the fucking dictionary: 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. 4. ( initial capital letter ) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic. 5. ( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.

I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):

democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)

Or Merriam Webster:

democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)

Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:

democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)

Regardless of that, it must be noted that the article makes no mention of Utah making the decision because "democracy" suggests a relation to the "Democratic" party.

Since Pi is an irrational number, it should sound rather gaga...

contradictions

The word is "contraindications."

If you're going to learn armchair medicine, you should at least get the words right.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

I think you need to settle down and think about this. If you can see how Monsanto and Halliburton can be considered evil then it's not outrageous to suggest that other companies, Apple included, are capable of immoral conduct.

Personally, I consider cars and by extension car companies as evil because I think that they are the root cause of urban sprawl which I feel is responsible for many of the US' social ills. For me, an individual car is pretty benign (I own one), but the notion of evil comes into play when an individual car is scaled up to millions of cars. Now instead of a fun and convenient way to get from A to B we're talking about huge social, economic and environmental issues. It's a matter of scale. For me the evil act was when Henry Ford and GMAC made it possible and popular for near everyone to own a car.

Can you not see how an individual concerned about consumerism, freedom of speech, security or whatever might reasonably consider Apple to be evil? Smart phones and the like are relatively benign in the hands of a few geeks, but when made desirable and affordable to the masses the purveyors of these devices become responsible for the grand social impacts that follow, positive and negative.

I can see both sides in regards to Apple, Google, etc. Smart phones educate, empower and unite people. Sometimes this results in Democracy in Egypt and sometimes it results in cyber-bullying, sexting and landfills full of iPads.

Anyway, it's not "idiotic bullshit" to call Apple evil. At worst it's just too soon to tell.

State that the people who could defend it are too busy to go to court and their for it needs to be dismissed

Their
There
They're
Therefor

State that the people who could defend it are too busy to go to court and their for it needs to be dismissed

Their
There
They're
Therefor

State that the people who could defend it are too busy to go to court and their for it needs to be dismissed

Their
There
They're
Therefor

State that the people who could defend it are too busy to go to court and their for it needs to be dismissed

Their
There
They're
Therefor

If you built an electron microscope you know it has "lenses" not lenses. The quotes are important - a focusing magnet isn't an optical element. Also, "optical" implies light: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics.

Technically there are some scanning electron microscopes that measure created x-rays or cathodoluminescence but it's still a pretty bit stretch to call those optical microscopes. Hybrid electron-optical would be a better description.

Oh, the old "broken window fallacy" fallacy... :-P

It doesn't matter how old the flaw is.

In fact the idea of the line was to show that I can call the "broken window fallacy" a fallacy (the "broken window fallacy fallacy"). As people usually just state a lemma and treat it as self-explaining truth, I like to twist their words a little to "break the dogma". In later lines I explain why I don't think it is as simple as the OP stated.

Keynes does not advice breaking windows and then replacing them to increase budget. He says that would work, too, but it is better if you get something usable (infrastructure, science, technology...) in return.

There's one gaping problem with this idea. We don't enough to make this judgment.

I like my fries with ketchup, and the statements with verbs. Thank you very much.

Maybe you were going to say "We do not know enough to make this judgement". Well, I think history has shown it that, while not a "cure-it-all" magical formula, it does works. The point is, if you think we do not know enough about it being trugh, then why do you oppose it later in your post?

The broken window fallacy exists only when people would use that money to invest, not to store it due to uncertainty and fear.

In other words, you don't have a clue what investment is. Most people would agree that insurance is investment. You are insuring against expensive future events which can cripple your finances and cause low cash flow. Similarly, saving (also called "storing due to uncertainty and fear") is investing against expensive future events like losing a job or needing a down payment on an expensive asset.

No, you don't have a clue what investment is. The only relation of saving money with investing is that you save it in a bank (security boxes apart), then the bank may lend your money for someone to invest it.

This is the sort of conceit that is common to people who want to spend Other Peoples' Money. They believe they can spend my money better than I can. And to rationalize it, they trivialize my investment choices.

Sorry, didn't knew you were investing in windows. The trouble is defining what is better, and for who. Let's say that an economic policy causes 1.000.000 people become unemployed, but allows you to change your BMW by a Ferrari. It is better for you, but for one million people it is worse. And don't misunderstand me (again), I am not talking that you can not defend getting your Ferrari over all. But don't overstate that other people might not think the same. In particular, given the option, I will always vote for one million people working against your/my Ferrari. If you do not want it and lose the vote, you can try going to Mars so you do not have a Government (but there are no roads there for your Ferrari). You can also try to be de Government (there have been a few job openings in North Africa lately).

My view is that Keynesian spending kills the value of a recession, which is to cull the weakest businesses. I don't think it's a coincidence that US economic dominance started to decline in the 70s after a few decades of Keynesian spending.

Multiple item line here:

• I think you are confusing keynesianism with bailouts.
• Your criterium of "weakest" is very curious (small? with less assets?). Take two bussiness A and B, equal. A decides to innovate, invest (buy new tech, hire better workers, so on), B just keeps doing as usual. The crisis comes and demand falls, B has savings and A investesments. In your view A is "weakest" because they did the right thing in the wrong time (and that was out of their control). In resume, your point only measures reserves, nothing else (neither productivity nor value provided

Yes, and using indentation to implicitly indicate code blocks... and requiring the use of null statements to implicitly imply that this is an empty function.

Explicit: clearly developed or formulated.
Implicit: implied, rather than expressly stated.

It's explained (explicit) in the documentation that indentation is significant.

Indentation explicitly indicates code blocks. There's nothing "implicit" about it. It's part of the language definition, same as keywords, etc. but if it bothers you that much, turn on "show tabs" in your editor of choice, to make it more evident / explicit.

A lot of people don't like the idea of whitespace being significant, because that's not what they're used to. It takes a bit of getting used to, but when you indent code, you are explicitly saying it is at a specific nesting level (as opposed to needing to bracify a series of expressions, or using the implicit nesting of single-line statements in, say, c or c++)