Its not so much that he cares about civil liberties, champ (can I call you champ?) its that he is a terrorist, and his main job is screw with your head. When people are willing to be inconvenienced, champ, for the sake of protection from terrorism - he has succeeded for he has made an negative impact on your life. Now whether or not osama really knows or cares about this is largely irrelevant.
P.S. I'm not sure what sort of intellectual masturbation led you to assume I empathise with osama but rest assured that its wrong.
Its not so much the new rules that anger me, for employers have previously just asked you to sign an agreement giving them that right, its that way they are introduced as to "fight terrorism". If I was osama I would be laughing my head of every time a new law is introduced to fight terrorism. We are just handing them moral victory after victory and they are just sitting in a cave somewhere.
I hear this often but this is just a load of feel good mumbo jumbo. Religion doesn't tell us why - it tells us nothing. Science tells us how and why - however sometimes people don't know or don't like the answer so they just make it up. If they don't need to conflict then you aren't paying attention to either current or historical events.
Not really, free will is a hypothesis which, with the right machines and if you are clever enough may be tested. The only things that cannot be tested are those notions that have no agreed definition or properties, such as a "soul" or "god". Once you give these notions fixed properties (i.e. souls give us free will) then they because testable.
The "do we punish people if they have no free will" is a false dilemma, because punishing people for crime reduces the incidence of crime, irrelevant if there is free will or not, and after all that is what we are trying to achieve. Hopefully what such a question might encourage is to seriously look at rehabilitation rather than punishment as the main vehicle of dealing with criminals.
It wouldn't be free will because your brain starts off wired in a way not of your choosing when you are born. You are right that the brain changes as you go thru life, which impacts on future decisions, but since the original set-up was out of your hands you are more like a ball throw, bouncing off walls. Each ball will have a different trajectory but that's because they were thrown differently to begin with, not because they chose to go down a certain way.
I agree with you that the 7 seconds part doesn't actually relate to free will, however if the thinking process is mechanistic then there is no free will, as you are therefore just a complicated decision making machine (sort of like a expert machine in AI fields). Hence there is no real free will, and anyone who could see how your brain functions at the lowest level, could predict your reaction to any given scenario.
Furthering what you are saying, there are some interesting experiments referenced in steven pinkers book "The blank slate", which are done on patients that had the connections between the two brain hemispheres removed (due to crippling epilepsy) - they instruct one side of the brain to do something (ie go out of the room) and then ask the other side of the brain why they did it. The other side never says "I don't know" it always makes up a reason, and the patients can get quite heated insisting that they had a reason. This would suggest that consciousness is a story telling device to explain our actions rather than the source of our decision making.
With the increase in state funds due to the rising resource prices, the russians have a bit of cash to spare, and with putin being keen to show his countrymen that they are a superpower again it doesn't seem outrageous that they might try something in space - which has always had major propaganda value. The budget for the Russian Federal Space Agency has been increasing every year (but is still a fraction of nasa).
"For one thing Dawkins claims that all religion is fundamentally evil"
Is there some other edition of that book that is only available to religions people or are you all just not bothering to read it before you claim to know what its says?
What makes you think he attacks theism without understanding it? I hear this clam often and am enquiring as to the reasoning behind it.
As another point what is faith if not belief (or any such related word)? The definition of faith incorporates the notion that its a choice not based on proof. In fact the second definition on dictionary.com is exactly this: "2. belief that is not based on proof:". To argue that this is a mistake to say as such is to say that our current definition of faith is wrong.
Which is why you should stop reading crappy reviews and just read the damn book. And read the selfish gene while you are at it - in my humble opinion its one of the best books ever written.
That argument doesn't seem logical to me - when one goes about a major infrastructure project like this its done in stages and on a local basis - so the size of the end result is not really that important. I'm sure that people who live in the middle of nowhere aren't expecting fibre to their house so there is not need to include them in the calculation - no country would try to cover 100% for their population, only the easiest 80% or 90% at most.
Ok we are probably arguing the same point - my original post was the the revolution is started by the middle class - meaning that the leadership core of the revolution is from the middle class - but the mass of the revolution as with anything else is the lower class.
P.S. Mao is full of shit - he was neither a competent leader or a good guerrilla fighter so if you are planning to start a revolution steer clear of his writings.
I am not sure but I suspect those cases are exceptions (I wouldn't really count presidents as leaders of a revolution) but it could be a new phenomena for the 21th century. However up to now the upper class is usually the one that has the interest in keeping the status quo - but the middle class has both the talent and the frustration from not having the same opportunities as the upper class to start a revolution. As one of the responders mentioned you do need the masses to follow the leader - but the masses will follow anyone who promises them a better life - its the leaders that generally define the direction of the movement (ie. left vs right, democratic vs dictatorship)
Slashdot Mirror
Its not so much that he cares about civil liberties, champ (can I call you champ?) its that he is a terrorist, and his main job is screw with your head. When people are willing to be inconvenienced, champ, for the sake of protection from terrorism - he has succeeded for he has made an negative impact on your life. Now whether or not osama really knows or cares about this is largely irrelevant.
P.S. I'm not sure what sort of intellectual masturbation led you to assume I empathise with osama but rest assured that its wrong.
I thought it was supposed to settle the question of whether there is a difference between feet and meters?
Where can I find this atheist doctrine? Perhaps with the many people who use no free will as a means of self-justification in straw-man land?
Its not so much the new rules that anger me, for employers have previously just asked you to sign an agreement giving them that right, its that way they are introduced as to "fight terrorism". If I was osama I would be laughing my head of every time a new law is introduced to fight terrorism. We are just handing them moral victory after victory and they are just sitting in a cave somewhere.
I hear this often but this is just a load of feel good mumbo jumbo. Religion doesn't tell us why - it tells us nothing. Science tells us how and why - however sometimes people don't know or don't like the answer so they just make it up. If they don't need to conflict then you aren't paying attention to either current or historical events.
Not really, free will is a hypothesis which, with the right machines and if you are clever enough may be tested. The only things that cannot be tested are those notions that have no agreed definition or properties, such as a "soul" or "god". Once you give these notions fixed properties (i.e. souls give us free will) then they because testable.
The "do we punish people if they have no free will" is a false dilemma, because punishing people for crime reduces the incidence of crime, irrelevant if there is free will or not, and after all that is what we are trying to achieve. Hopefully what such a question might encourage is to seriously look at rehabilitation rather than punishment as the main vehicle of dealing with criminals.
It wouldn't be free will because your brain starts off wired in a way not of your choosing when you are born. You are right that the brain changes as you go thru life, which impacts on future decisions, but since the original set-up was out of your hands you are more like a ball throw, bouncing off walls. Each ball will have a different trajectory but that's because they were thrown differently to begin with, not because they chose to go down a certain way.
I agree with you that the 7 seconds part doesn't actually relate to free will, however if the thinking process is mechanistic then there is no free will, as you are therefore just a complicated decision making machine (sort of like a expert machine in AI fields). Hence there is no real free will, and anyone who could see how your brain functions at the lowest level, could predict your reaction to any given scenario.
Furthering what you are saying, there are some interesting experiments referenced in steven pinkers book "The blank slate", which are done on patients that had the connections between the two brain hemispheres removed (due to crippling epilepsy) - they instruct one side of the brain to do something (ie go out of the room) and then ask the other side of the brain why they did it. The other side never says "I don't know" it always makes up a reason, and the patients can get quite heated insisting that they had a reason. This would suggest that consciousness is a story telling device to explain our actions rather than the source of our decision making.
With the increase in state funds due to the rising resource prices, the russians have a bit of cash to spare, and with putin being keen to show his countrymen that they are a superpower again it doesn't seem outrageous that they might try something in space - which has always had major propaganda value. The budget for the Russian Federal Space Agency has been increasing every year (but is still a fraction of nasa).
Perhaps you better stick with Dr. Seuss
Matthew Halverson is the author of that poem - I saw it in a book called "The Trigger" by Arthur Clarke and Michael Kube-McDowell.
"For one thing Dawkins claims that all religion is fundamentally evil"
Is there some other edition of that book that is only available to religions people or are you all just not bothering to read it before you claim to know what its says?
What makes you think he attacks theism without understanding it? I hear this clam often and am enquiring as to the reasoning behind it.
As another point what is faith if not belief (or any such related word)? The definition of faith incorporates the notion that its a choice not based on proof. In fact the second definition on dictionary.com is exactly this: "2. belief that is not based on proof:". To argue that this is a mistake to say as such is to say that our current definition of faith is wrong.
Poseidon is great! - he totally whooped Odysseus's ass. None of this eternal torment after death rubbish, the wrath is here and now!
Which is why you should stop reading crappy reviews and just read the damn book. And read the selfish gene while you are at it - in my humble opinion its one of the best books ever written.
Social equality? End of corporate involvement in government? Free health care and schooling? Stop me if I've guessed it...
That argument doesn't seem logical to me - when one goes about a major infrastructure project like this its done in stages and on a local basis - so the size of the end result is not really that important. I'm sure that people who live in the middle of nowhere aren't expecting fibre to their house so there is not need to include them in the calculation - no country would try to cover 100% for their population, only the easiest 80% or 90% at most.
As opposed to Sweden where the average holds for every corner of the country???
Its not so much that we hate OOXML, its just that we like to scream revolution and blasphemy.
This imaginary world sounds intriguing, is the portal nearby?
Ok we are probably arguing the same point - my original post was the the revolution is started by the middle class - meaning that the leadership core of the revolution is from the middle class - but the mass of the revolution as with anything else is the lower class.
P.S. Mao is full of shit - he was neither a competent leader or a good guerrilla fighter so if you are planning to start a revolution steer clear of his writings.
That's rubbish - both Mao and Chiang were from the middle class. Mao could read and write, which was unheard of for someone with a peasant background.
I am not sure but I suspect those cases are exceptions (I wouldn't really count presidents as leaders of a revolution) but it could be a new phenomena for the 21th century. However up to now the upper class is usually the one that has the interest in keeping the status quo - but the middle class has both the talent and the frustration from not having the same opportunities as the upper class to start a revolution. As one of the responders mentioned you do need the masses to follow the leader - but the masses will follow anyone who promises them a better life - its the leaders that generally define the direction of the movement (ie. left vs right, democratic vs dictatorship)