I think the point he was making is that any intellectual that has considered their place in life and moral philosophy are alike where it matters, regardless of religious creed or lack thereof.
I'm a Baptist, and I share those beliefs. So do many atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and others.
Religion just isn't important when forming a viewpoint about someone, and only causes problems if one falls into the "pride and self-righteousness" category.
This is exactly right. It's the same reasoning why violent criminals don't bother to register their guns, and coke shipping rings swap license plates on their stolen cars.
If they were doing something illegally, going through legal channels to make their actions visible to authorities is incredibly stupid, even enough for wrongdoers to pick up on.
"In US football, the team with the most offensive yards almost always wins. Does soccer have a similar outcome?"
Yes, in the sense that the team that stays near a goal the most often almost always wins.
Obviously, it's stupid to think they're directly comparable, but the idea is the same: there are many statistics more valuable than points to measure in many sports, including soccer.
I used to attend a private Presbyterian school, and one of my "science" teachers claimed that oil is shot out in high volume every time any sort of organic matter (plankton,dead whales, etc) touches thermal vents.
Obviously a load of horse shit, but so is the earth being 6k years old.
Geekiness and social skills are not mutually exclusive. In fact, engineers and other technical people who have a lack of social skills as adults tend to be the bottom of the food chain.
Companies value extroverted engineers far more than they do the dime-a-dozen geek with mild autism.
I don't know about that. BP Stock has dropped by about 33%. That's enough for any public company to axe the CEO. Remember, the CEO still serves the board, and the board serves their bank accounts.
"It gives a good indication that this will be the case, but assuming that 100% of five can be extrapolated to mean 100% of any number in Biology is going to get you in a lot of trouble."
I want to point out that he was being sarcastic, since I'm not sure if you picked up on that or not.
The hint was the bit about Texas, which is well known for throwing around bunk science to push religious or political views.
He basically said the same thing you did, just in a lot less space.
That's not quite how things work. The ISP tracks which dyamic IPs are given to customers at different times.
Subpoena goes to the ISP, says "look, this IP was downloading our honeypot at this time", the ISP goes to their DNS logs and says "oh, that belongs to John Q, we'll pass this along".
That's why this sort of lawsuit is held up in court in the first place. It's not foolproof, but it's not inaccurate.
"This means even an innocent man will be forced to pay if he cannot spare $10,000."
And what exactly do you think the rate is for an innocent person's IP getting tracked by a honeypot that collects all IPs that download the file it holds?
1 in 5k surely isn't enough to throw the whole batch out, maybe 100 in 5k isn't either. Your claim heavily depends on the chance that an innocent person gets accused in the first place. It's very possible that none of them are innocent.
It's been two years since the film was released, so I'd expect that they've done at least some verification in two years on those 5k IPs.
And anyone truly found innocent at least has a good argument for the court to force the person bringing the suit to pay lawyer fees, given the large difference in the wealth of an individual and corporation.
It's now been ~30 days since the start of the oil spill, and at 70k barrels/day (one of the numbers I've seen thrown around), this would be at 2.1m barrels (3rd worst not including the Gulf War wells).
It'd pass IXTOC 1 in just two weeks, which isn't long given that there's been almost no progress to capping the well so far.
"Does this mean American businessmen can't travel ao Australia with company laptops?"
You'd check "No" on the questionnaire asking if you have porn on your laptop. If you have porn on your business laptop, well, you have a whole set of other problems to worry about.
No, that is a popular stereotype put out by Libertarians (which are not conservatives, they're economically conservative but socially liberal). Conservatives think of liberals as being delusional, and liberals think of conservatives as being deceived. There's no reason for either side to want to be lumped together.
The morally significant difference between what I said and what you're saying at is that I'm not arguing for the "future-like-ours" perspective as would Don Marquis, and as you are implying.
Instead, just like drinking water or breathing air, the decision to have children is morally insignificant, and by action of choosing not to have children with the maxim of abiding by personal ideology is equivalently bad as choosing to have children (insignificantly so).
Nowhere do I say or imply that potential children have equal moral considerations as people, but rather that in either case, the moral considerations are negligible since, in either case, the decision made is selfishly made from a personal ideology and selfishness does not imply morality.
The faceless collective of those harmed by overpopulation elsewhere are not affected by a single child born in an economy that supports it, so I grant "them" the same moral considerations as the unborn child (none, just as that use of "selfish" does not imply morality).
I can go on and say that another significant difference is that you do not have the positive right to sire as many children as possible, but rather the negative right to have children without external influence from peer pressure or others' opinions.
If that's still confusing (I know it's a subtle point), and you are a Kantian like I am, I could go on from another line and point out that if the OP's claim of having children being a selfish act was implying morality instead of just an observation, that it would fail the Formula of Universal Law. Tthe maxim that I pointed out, "not having children because of your own ideology", presents a contradiction, since universalizing that maxim causes the population to shrink on a massive scale which defeats the original ideology. While that might sound like resolution, it would only be so on a small scale, and is not morally correct (though maybe not morally incorrect) given the economic and political implications. It fails some of the same sort of philosophical (not pragmatic) tests that eugenics fails.
"On the third hand (where did that come from?), we'd need to keep the clouds up (assuming the cool us) until the CO2 is flushed from the atmosphere in 150 years."
I would assume that since H2O+CO2 makes carbonic acid (H2CO3, or acid rain), that letting the clouds come back down would flush the CO2 out faster than leaving them up.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point he was making is that any intellectual that has considered their place in life and moral philosophy are alike where it matters, regardless of religious creed or lack thereof.
I'm a Baptist, and I share those beliefs. So do many atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and others.
Religion just isn't important when forming a viewpoint about someone, and only causes problems if one falls into the "pride and self-righteousness" category.
"Widow moves out of service area, gets early termination fee on canceled contract."
Would be a more appropriate, albeit less sensational headline.
The issue isn't that the guy died and the widow wanted to cancel the contract. If that were so, I'd totally be with her.
It's that she decided to up and move and canceled the contract because where she decided to move didn't have service. That, is her fault only.
I don't think they care much about children accessing adult porn, so much as they are of adults accessing child porn.
I mean, all they've done before to fix the previous scenario is require a 1 click through disclaimer in tiny print.
This is exactly right. It's the same reasoning why violent criminals don't bother to register their guns, and coke shipping rings swap license plates on their stolen cars.
If they were doing something illegally, going through legal channels to make their actions visible to authorities is incredibly stupid, even enough for wrongdoers to pick up on.
Which is who we expect to be visiting internet porn.
"In US football, the team with the most offensive yards almost always wins. Does soccer have a similar outcome?"
Yes, in the sense that the team that stays near a goal the most often almost always wins.
Obviously, it's stupid to think they're directly comparable, but the idea is the same: there are many statistics more valuable than points to measure in many sports, including soccer.
You don't get points for how many yards you move a Football (American), but that's still an important statistic in analyzing players.
This is the same sort of thing for soccer, except with a clever algorithm.
I used to attend a private Presbyterian school, and one of my "science" teachers claimed that oil is shot out in high volume every time any sort of organic matter (plankton,dead whales, etc) touches thermal vents.
Obviously a load of horse shit, but so is the earth being 6k years old.
Geekiness and social skills are not mutually exclusive. In fact, engineers and other technical people who have a lack of social skills as adults tend to be the bottom of the food chain.
Companies value extroverted engineers far more than they do the dime-a-dozen geek with mild autism.
I don't know about that. BP Stock has dropped by about 33%. That's enough for any public company to axe the CEO. Remember, the CEO still serves the board, and the board serves their bank accounts.
Maybe it's because I'm on the east coast, but it's rare to be in a town without more than 1 gas station option.
"It gives a good indication that this will be the case, but assuming that 100% of five can be extrapolated to mean 100% of any number in Biology is going to get you in a lot of trouble."
I want to point out that he was being sarcastic, since I'm not sure if you picked up on that or not.
The hint was the bit about Texas, which is well known for throwing around bunk science to push religious or political views.
He basically said the same thing you did, just in a lot less space.
That's not quite how things work. The ISP tracks which dyamic IPs are given to customers at different times.
Subpoena goes to the ISP, says "look, this IP was downloading our honeypot at this time", the ISP goes to their DNS logs and says "oh, that belongs to John Q, we'll pass this along".
That's why this sort of lawsuit is held up in court in the first place. It's not foolproof, but it's not inaccurate.
Because 6.7m < 6.7m+(pirated copies-people who would pirate but not buy).
A multi-GB hurtlocker parody?
You really think someone is going to believe that?
"This means even an innocent man will be forced to pay if he cannot spare $10,000."
And what exactly do you think the rate is for an innocent person's IP getting tracked by a honeypot that collects all IPs that download the file it holds?
1 in 5k surely isn't enough to throw the whole batch out, maybe 100 in 5k isn't either. Your claim heavily depends on the chance that an innocent person gets accused in the first place. It's very possible that none of them are innocent.
It's been two years since the film was released, so I'd expect that they've done at least some verification in two years on those 5k IPs.
And anyone truly found innocent at least has a good argument for the court to force the person bringing the suit to pay lawyer fees, given the large difference in the wealth of an individual and corporation.
It's now been ~30 days since the start of the oil spill, and at 70k barrels/day (one of the numbers I've seen thrown around), this would be at 2.1m barrels (3rd worst not including the Gulf War wells).
It'd pass IXTOC 1 in just two weeks, which isn't long given that there's been almost no progress to capping the well so far.
Yet...
"Does this mean American businessmen can't travel ao Australia with company laptops?"
You'd check "No" on the questionnaire asking if you have porn on your laptop. If you have porn on your business laptop, well, you have a whole set of other problems to worry about.
No, that is a popular stereotype put out by Libertarians (which are not conservatives, they're economically conservative but socially liberal). Conservatives think of liberals as being delusional, and liberals think of conservatives as being deceived. There's no reason for either side to want to be lumped together.
The problem is that you are starting with the presumption that you are open minded and everyone else that doesn't think like you is close minded.
In reality, you are close minded one way, and they may or may not be close minded in another way.
You've shown no open mindedness in any of your posts so far.
The morally significant difference between what I said and what you're saying at is that I'm not arguing for the "future-like-ours" perspective as would Don Marquis, and as you are implying.
Instead, just like drinking water or breathing air, the decision to have children is morally insignificant, and by action of choosing not to have children with the maxim of abiding by personal ideology is equivalently bad as choosing to have children (insignificantly so).
Nowhere do I say or imply that potential children have equal moral considerations as people, but rather that in either case, the moral considerations are negligible since, in either case, the decision made is selfishly made from a personal ideology and selfishness does not imply morality.
The faceless collective of those harmed by overpopulation elsewhere are not affected by a single child born in an economy that supports it, so I grant "them" the same moral considerations as the unborn child (none, just as that use of "selfish" does not imply morality).
I can go on and say that another significant difference is that you do not have the positive right to sire as many children as possible, but rather the negative right to have children without external influence from peer pressure or others' opinions.
If that's still confusing (I know it's a subtle point), and you are a Kantian like I am, I could go on from another line and point out that if the OP's claim of having children being a selfish act was implying morality instead of just an observation, that it would fail the Formula of Universal Law. Tthe maxim that I pointed out, "not having children because of your own ideology", presents a contradiction, since universalizing that maxim causes the population to shrink on a massive scale which defeats the original ideology. While that might sound like resolution, it would only be so on a small scale, and is not morally correct (though maybe not morally incorrect) given the economic and political implications. It fails some of the same sort of philosophical (not pragmatic) tests that eugenics fails.
"If you want kids, have kids, but don't deny that it's the supremely selfish act."
Maybe selfish in the sense that breathing air or drinking water is supremely selfish, but not in the sense that it is morally incorrect.
I say that, because not having children because of your own ideology is just as selfish from the unborn potential child's perspective.
"On the third hand (where did that come from?), we'd need to keep the clouds up (assuming the cool us) until the CO2 is flushed from the atmosphere in 150 years."
I would assume that since H2O+CO2 makes carbonic acid (H2CO3, or acid rain), that letting the clouds come back down would flush the CO2 out faster than leaving them up.