Its your job to keep the computers safe, not mine.
That is true, it is your job not his. Like a mother's (typical gender role assignment coming up) job is to take care of a child. So when the child is playing in the street, she drags him inside and punishes him.
So, keep the computers safe. He requested that you protect his web access with a whitelist and make him come to you everytime he wanted to open an e-mail attachment. Or that he not have the ability to change the C: drive (there is some software that crushes it ever night). Or that he have no privledges and run in a custom shell you pull off the web.
The problem with taking away liability [e.g. ability to police content] from the telcos is you leave a void. If I can't find the owner of a website, and I can't force the telco [or isp] to remove illegal content, then we have anarchy.
I agree that this is a problem. If someone invents a way where the courts can be used to give such a directive, I doubt I would fight it. But I have a very large problem with telcos filling that void. I think it is properly a government function and that it should not be outsourced to corporations. The telcos will not filter the usenet for you, and I trust them not to abuse that power as much as I can throw them (which is no distance because they are ephemerial entities).
Anonymity on the 'net has both boons and banes. But that is a different topic altogether then whether telcos should have to protect first amendment rights. After all, anonymity is not guarunteed by the first amendment.
Of course, it is next to impossible to police the internet because of the innumerable proxies, etc.
. "freedom of speech" is FROM THE GOVERNMENT, not private citizens. If AT&T doesn't want to host your website anymore, that's up to them, not you.
I would contend that all corporations, but especially ones granted a governement monopoly, are not private citizens. In fact, to some (but an insufficent) degree, the government is making them act more like the government than a private citizen. To wit, IBM cannot have a policy of not hiring [insert racial epitat here]. I think the federal government should go farther and refuse to allow companies randomly drug test employees, as one example.
But I do believe that telcos should not have the right to police content.
I don't live in an apartment. So now, my cable bill will go down (okay, the next rate hike will be delayed), cause I am no longer subsidizing someone else's home cost.
It depends on the relative speed of the observer and the earth. And of the obeserver and the rest of the universe. Hence, we can predict Jesus's speed and acceleration very precisely (as it is 6,000 years, or 6,000 years plus a few days to Jesus, but 4.5 billion and 13.7 billion years to us, repectivly), but not his position.
Bullshit. Have you ever performed the double-slit experiment? Circumnavigated the globe? Reconstucted Mendel's experiments? Taken position data for the various planets and proven that gravity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance?
Possibly some, but almost certainly not all. And if you had somehow done all of those, I would come up with more and more. Which is not to say I think you should have, but I think you should drop the dumb "I don't believe things without evidence" meme. No one has the time.
But I did not ask you to prove the nonexistance of anything. I asked you to answer three well-known philosophical questions without falling back on the existance of a higher power. Because, people have for thousands of years and, as far as I know, failed.
How is "manifestation of the divine" different from "G-d did it"?
It is not, that is why the next word was "but" and I go on to explain why 2/3 of the examples did not have an answer like that.
You still have not even ventured an atheistic answer for my questions. And the answer you ascribe to Deists does not hold water. Free will can be explained by a manifesation of the divine, but morality does not happen because a deity did it. On the contrary, morality is something human beings must do. Nor is the Deist answer to the all we know or seem being but a dream within a dream rely on a deity performing it. Rather, the Deist answer would rely on an understanding of divine benevolence. But whereas I can answer those questions, you are unable to provide an atheistic alternative.
I believe the problem is only with writes, not reads. Which, with a windows machine means that as long as there is a hardware switch to disable writes, it is more secure as well as faster to boot off a flash drive.
don't want to spare a nickel for the soldiers who man them.
That is not the case. They are willing to pay exhorbinently for soldiers, so long as the private sector provides them. Remember, this is the same group that thinks the private sector can always do better, cheaper. So, when mercinaries need to make $300,000/year to be in Iraq, it must be fair. But pay more under a socialist system? Then what are we defending our country from?
The burden on proof rests on those who make positive claims.
My point is that atheism makes positive claims. One should be moral. Free will exists I(well, some atheists claim this). This is all not a dream. Deists can answer all of these questions in a religious context. Atheism also must make these claims. I will contend that Deists have a simplier and more complete model of the universe.
You keep thinking that I think atheism has to prove there is no higher power. Since my first post said I do not believe it is either verifiable or falsifiable, this is not the case. I believe that atheism has to answer philosopical questions as well as deism.
Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether
or not the public wants their internet and mobile
communications blocked or censored?
No.
Telco service is a natural monopoly, as well as a legally granted one. Beyond the market failure, there is still the issue that I do not believe companies (should) have unfettered access to do whatever is most profitable. I think that the richer you are, the more responsibilites you have and the governemnt has a right to enforce that. Cue progressive taxation, anti-dicrimination laws, and sexual harassment laws, as well as EPA, FCC, FAA, and numerous other restrictions.
When I'm unsure as to whether something is good or bad, as an American I reach my answer by asking, "What would the Founding Fathers say?"
Interesting... so rather than rely on your own reasoning, you reach your answer by asking what people who died 200-odd years ago would do based on a (probably) poor reconstruction of their thought process. I usually ask myself questions rooted in the categorical imperitive of Kant, but sometimes fall over to utilitarianism when the imperitive is hard to determine/the people I am talking with are utilitarians. The difference is I am not asking "What would Kant say" but rather, based on my intereprtations of this framework, what would this framework say. I find it helps avoid dubious and unneccessary appeals to authority in conversation.
Agnosticism is the absence of faith, in the same way that asexual is the absence of sex. Agnosticism is not a type of faith, and asexual is not a type of sex.
There, fixed that for you. Agnostics don't know/care. Atheists believe that there is no higher power. That is, one is a claim it is all irrelevent, the other is a claim that there is no deity.
Therefore, atheism has just as high a burden of proof as religion when it comes to philosophical as opposed to scientific principles. So, what is the atheist explaination for how free will can exist, why this is not all a dream within a dream, or why one should be moral? Heck, Atheism also would have to justify that the laws of physics don't change from moment to moment, and had just coincidentally all been the same up until now, but that seems trivial enough.
Remember, it is Microsoft's fault that application developers don't liveup to the security model that was in XP and Vista, and thus tons of permissions boxes popup. I suppose the default account should be admin like in XP... no wait, that sucks too.
In science, nothing. However, again you fall back on religion being an explaniation for natural phenomenon. I am claiming that religion answers a different question. And for which explaination, well, philosophers and theologists have been debating for millenia. Atheism is merely one such answer. And, it certainly seems like Atheism has more complex answers than monotheism when it comes to questions covering discussions of free will, reasons one would be moral, epistomolgy, and other big, nonscientific questioning. But to answer your question, it is a question of faith, since there is no way to choose one explaination objectively.
My proof that your god doesn't exist is your lack of proof that he does.
This is not proof. All you said is your proof is equal to my proof, and then likely some implied fallback on Occam's Razor. But existence a higher power is unfalsifiable, which is the reason why it is religious belief and not scientific theory. Rational people can believe in both.
And yes, I get just as upset when zealous fundamentalist Christians try to push their religious beliefs into science classrooms as by zealous Atheists try to push the scientific standards of proof into religion. I believe in both and, unless you get them confused, there is not much of a contradiction between the two.
As a sidenote, if anyone does have some interesting proofs for atheism (no doubt rooted in philosophy), would they mind sharing them?
If you don't complain about an infringing product, you should lose your right to patent protection. With millions of patents on the books, it's impossible for anyone to verify that they aren't infringing on a patent.
By the same token, with millions of products in the world, it's impossible for anyone to verify (quickly) that someone is infringing on their patent. While I agree patent trolls are evil, the alternative seems impossible to be remotely fair about, which would mean more power for larger corporations.
I said "If X then Y." Claiming the likelihood of X is low does not change my point. Later, I do claim that if extradition would not be enforced, the company would laugh at them. (Source: Elementary logic texts)
My other claim, intermingled in there, is that Canada would ship them off to the US. As evidence I would cite Australia doing the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That is true, it is your job not his. Like a mother's (typical gender role assignment coming up) job is to take care of a child. So when the child is playing in the street, she drags him inside and punishes him.
So, keep the computers safe. He requested that you protect his web access with a whitelist and make him come to you everytime he wanted to open an e-mail attachment. Or that he not have the ability to change the C: drive (there is some software that crushes it ever night). Or that he have no privledges and run in a custom shell you pull off the web.
The possibilities are endless...
Since the bug is over a year old, I doubt is exclusive to 7.10.
I will imagine that Dell will shorten the warantee on their drives and make more money replacing them. At least until people get pissed.
I agree that this is a problem. If someone invents a way where the courts can be used to give such a directive, I doubt I would fight it. But I have a very large problem with telcos filling that void. I think it is properly a government function and that it should not be outsourced to corporations. The telcos will not filter the usenet for you, and I trust them not to abuse that power as much as I can throw them (which is no distance because they are ephemerial entities).
Anonymity on the 'net has both boons and banes. But that is a different topic altogether then whether telcos should have to protect first amendment rights. After all, anonymity is not guarunteed by the first amendment.
Of course, it is next to impossible to police the internet because of the innumerable proxies, etc.
I would contend that all corporations, but especially ones granted a governement monopoly, are not private citizens. In fact, to some (but an insufficent) degree, the government is making them act more like the government than a private citizen. To wit, IBM cannot have a policy of not hiring [insert racial epitat here]. I think the federal government should go farther and refuse to allow companies randomly drug test employees, as one example.
But I do believe that telcos should not have the right to police content.
Fixed that for you. It is a false dicotomy, and it causes religious folks to feel the need to attack science to defend religion.
I don't live in an apartment. So now, my cable bill will go down (okay, the next rate hike will be delayed), cause I am no longer subsidizing someone else's home cost.
It depends on the relative speed of the observer and the earth. And of the obeserver and the rest of the universe. Hence, we can predict Jesus's speed and acceleration very precisely (as it is 6,000 years, or 6,000 years plus a few days to Jesus, but 4.5 billion and 13.7 billion years to us, repectivly), but not his position.
Bullshit. Have you ever performed the double-slit experiment? Circumnavigated the globe? Reconstucted Mendel's experiments? Taken position data for the various planets and proven that gravity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance?
Possibly some, but almost certainly not all. And if you had somehow done all of those, I would come up with more and more. Which is not to say I think you should have, but I think you should drop the dumb "I don't believe things without evidence" meme. No one has the time.
But I did not ask you to prove the nonexistance of anything. I asked you to answer three well-known philosophical questions without falling back on the existance of a higher power. Because, people have for thousands of years and, as far as I know, failed.
It is not, that is why the next word was "but" and I go on to explain why 2/3 of the examples did not have an answer like that.
You still have not even ventured an atheistic answer for my questions. And the answer you ascribe to Deists does not hold water. Free will can be explained by a manifesation of the divine, but morality does not happen because a deity did it. On the contrary, morality is something human beings must do. Nor is the Deist answer to the all we know or seem being but a dream within a dream rely on a deity performing it. Rather, the Deist answer would rely on an understanding of divine benevolence. But whereas I can answer those questions, you are unable to provide an atheistic alternative.
I believe the problem is only with writes, not reads. Which, with a windows machine means that as long as there is a hardware switch to disable writes, it is more secure as well as faster to boot off a flash drive.
That is not the case. They are willing to pay exhorbinently for soldiers, so long as the private sector provides them. Remember, this is the same group that thinks the private sector can always do better, cheaper. So, when mercinaries need to make $300,000/year to be in Iraq, it must be fair. But pay more under a socialist system? Then what are we defending our country from?
My point is that atheism makes positive claims. One should be moral. Free will exists I(well, some atheists claim this). This is all not a dream. Deists can answer all of these questions in a religious context. Atheism also must make these claims. I will contend that Deists have a simplier and more complete model of the universe.
You keep thinking that I think atheism has to prove there is no higher power. Since my first post said I do not believe it is either verifiable or falsifiable, this is not the case. I believe that atheism has to answer philosopical questions as well as deism.
No.
Telco service is a natural monopoly, as well as a legally granted one. Beyond the market failure, there is still the issue that I do not believe companies (should) have unfettered access to do whatever is most profitable. I think that the richer you are, the more responsibilites you have and the governemnt has a right to enforce that. Cue progressive taxation, anti-dicrimination laws, and sexual harassment laws, as well as EPA, FCC, FAA, and numerous other restrictions.
Interesting... so rather than rely on your own reasoning, you reach your answer by asking what people who died 200-odd years ago would do based on a (probably) poor reconstruction of their thought process. I usually ask myself questions rooted in the categorical imperitive of Kant, but sometimes fall over to utilitarianism when the imperitive is hard to determine/the people I am talking with are utilitarians. The difference is I am not asking "What would Kant say" but rather, based on my intereprtations of this framework, what would this framework say. I find it helps avoid dubious and unneccessary appeals to authority in conversation.
There, fixed that for you. Agnostics don't know/care. Atheists believe that there is no higher power. That is, one is a claim it is all irrelevent, the other is a claim that there is no deity.
Therefore, atheism has just as high a burden of proof as religion when it comes to philosophical as opposed to scientific principles. So, what is the atheist explaination for how free will can exist, why this is not all a dream within a dream, or why one should be moral? Heck, Atheism also would have to justify that the laws of physics don't change from moment to moment, and had just coincidentally all been the same up until now, but that seems trivial enough.
Remember, it is Microsoft's fault that application developers don't liveup to the security model that was in XP and Vista, and thus tons of permissions boxes popup. I suppose the default account should be admin like in XP... no wait, that sucks too.
In science, nothing. However, again you fall back on religion being an explaniation for natural phenomenon. I am claiming that religion answers a different question. And for which explaination, well, philosophers and theologists have been debating for millenia. Atheism is merely one such answer. And, it certainly seems like Atheism has more complex answers than monotheism when it comes to questions covering discussions of free will, reasons one would be moral, epistomolgy, and other big, nonscientific questioning. But to answer your question, it is a question of faith, since there is no way to choose one explaination objectively.
This is not proof. All you said is your proof is equal to my proof, and then likely some implied fallback on Occam's Razor. But existence a higher power is unfalsifiable, which is the reason why it is religious belief and not scientific theory. Rational people can believe in both.
And yes, I get just as upset when zealous fundamentalist Christians try to push their religious beliefs into science classrooms as by zealous Atheists try to push the scientific standards of proof into religion. I believe in both and, unless you get them confused, there is not much of a contradiction between the two.
As a sidenote, if anyone does have some interesting proofs for atheism (no doubt rooted in philosophy), would they mind sharing them?
By the same token, with millions of products in the world, it's impossible for anyone to verify (quickly) that someone is infringing on their patent. While I agree patent trolls are evil, the alternative seems impossible to be remotely fair about, which would mean more power for larger corporations.
Their hardware may be cheap, but they had some interesting product ideas. The U3 stuff was interesting, for instance.
Any case that does not have repercussions outside of the courtroom is worthless. What point is the submitter trying to make?
Because analog is lossy, and thus technicially impossible. So not worth considering.
At least on their main machine... My work computer, home computer, and laptop are all 64-bit already. And by 2009, so will everyone elses'
Who has time to RTFT title anymore?
I said "If X then Y." Claiming the likelihood of X is low does not change my point. Later, I do claim that if extradition would not be enforced, the company would laugh at them. (Source: Elementary logic texts)
My other claim, intermingled in there, is that Canada would ship them off to the US. As evidence I would cite Australia doing the same thing.