I never claimed to be an atheist. A strict atheist claims there is no "god", but that's another assertion without any evidence. I don't believe it's necessary to concede even that. I believe the ether model discarded by physics when electricity was found to travel through vacuum Michelson-Morley_experiment is useless because it does not provide a more useful understanding of anything, than application of other, more robust theories to the same phenomena. I am not "a strict anetherist," I disbelieve in ehter because I am a scientist, and for the same reason the phrase "strict atheist" is strictly nonsensical. It is invoked because it falsely implies equivalence between strict standards of proof [atheists & scientists] and strict standards of behavior with only force and the threat of force as substitute for proof [religious extremists & tyrants], which is handy for various deists who wish to be taken more seriously than they deserve.
What the hell is the use of a sociology or liberal arts major to a terrorist other than to strap a bomb to? One use might be to write rubbish like the article we've been discussing. If believed, I think the claim that engineers are similar to terrorists in "mindset" could be accurately described as "terrifying."
He hasn't said anything new or original. Well I know he does a good job of citing his sources, even when he paraphrases. That is not the same thing as not saying "anything new or original."
Give me a break, Sam Harris has been debunked by any religious scholar with a basic education. The word "debunked" applies to a person's claims. If many of a person's claims are disproved, that person is discredited. Only claims, such as "Sam Harris exists" can be disproved or "debunked." Given that you used his name as the object of a real action, I surmise that you concede his existence to be a fact. Logically, therefore, your statement about his nonexistence is nonsensical & self-contradictory.
A good argument, but one that postulates that reality itself is real -- which can't be proven or disproved. You have to start from *somewhere*. Objective reality cannot be proven to exist, but we must assume that it does because the results of assuming otherwise lead to absurdity. Nevertheless, the house of reason cannot be built with no foundation. Can you suggest a more reasonable approach than using the models and approximations that are most consistent with observations?
Everything from "I exist" to "Time flows" to "Cause and effect exists" to "The information my senses provide me is accurate and true" is just as much an unprovable (and impossible to disprove) assumption as "The universe has a first cause" or "We persist after death" or "All of this has meaning." All those things are not equally consistent with observations. The rational conclusion of which is left as an exercise for the thinker.
No, he's doing a fine job. "The Unseen" is not a valid basis for making statements, or directing actions, in the realm of what is seen.
2:3 Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
This pretty much ends the false dichotomy between Science and Faith. Science is by definition is the domain of Seen by experiment or experimentally verifiable logical conclusions of experiments. No, when dogmas based on what is admittedly "Unseen" are invoked as cause for actions against others in "the domain of Seen," then the dichotomy is easily seen. If you want to claim the "domain" of "Unseen," go right ahead. But "the domain of Seen" belongs to realistic thinkers.
but merely to compare the mindset, which seems quite reasonable. Please read the article. If you have/when you do:
Did you notice the cherry-picking of data, from known terrorists and extreme Islamist nations? The so-called "samples" are statistically invalid, as they already "strongly overrepresent" -- in comparison to the general population -- the two attributes it claims to show are "correlated". Well, of course they're correlated, in those samples, because of the need for those skills to do the types of damage those groups desire, not because of some psychological similarity. Other than more publications like that very study, the social sciences have little value as terrorist employees.
Sorry I posted that previous comment as a reply to your comment; should have been to the article itself. Your points are mostly reasonable, except I took issue with the phrase "quite reasonable." I see the majority of your points are "quite reasonable," and your reasoning is good, from your premises, one of which appears to be that the study cited is not a load of bull. It is, though, and it is not at all reasonable to compare the mindsets in the context that the article suggests, nor to use that article as support of any reasoned argument. The whole thing is just a lot of cherry-picking and context-dropping.
I think it comes down to fundamental assumptions. I disagree on a fundamental level with a lot of terrorists. However, I have to say, if I believed some of the core things they believe, I would describe the actions they take as the logical conclusion of their faulty premises. There, don't need any level-headed people being classified "terrorist" just because you explained that in a separate paragraph.
Frankly, extremeism is the logical conclusion to some of the basic assumptions of religion.... and I see engineers as people who are more likely to follow something to its logical conclusion than others who are happier with vague contradictions. If they're also looney, but engineers also tend to analyze the "basic assumptions" on which we act, so the whole article is just a smear piece. Of course, that also follows directly from their "sample," page 8 of the PDF. Uh, I'm sure if you start any analysis with a "sample" group of accomplished criminals, you'll find professional and/or educational backgrounds in the requisite skills are "strongly overrepresented."
The whole thing adds up to a truism, stated out of context to imply support for the completely unsupported thesis, that "engineers have a 'mindset' that makes them a
particularly good match for Islamism." The rational conclusion is that engineers have a skillset, not a "mindset," that makes them a particularly alluring target to terrorist recruiters. The statistics in tables 2 - 7 are likewise taken from countries in which one who does not practice "extremist" Islam will be systematically hindered from pursuit of a higher education, and emigration to a country where they could. The analysis depends on ignoring common knowledge causal explanations of the statistics, which are cherry-picked to support what is obviously a fallacy. Why obvious? If "graduates from subjects such as science, engineering, and medicine" did have such a mindset, nobody would ever dare to print such libel against the people most able to get away with retribution killings undetected.
My guess, usually 'rm $file' & occasionally 'right-click, delete.' Oh, did you mean, how did they get access to the server? I suppose they showed a warrant, or flashed their badge at somebody who was (a) willing to cooperate (2) didn't know his rights (d) wasn't willing to get himself on any ominous-sounding watch-list for somebody else's rights.
It does seem far-fetched, but then, so do a lot of news items in the mainstream press in the past few years.
Those are a lot of replies, which I would characterize as civil and extremely polite disagreement. I haven't read them all yet, but after a handful, I see no death threats. Of course, if you're suicide bombed by one of us, I suppose that will prove your point. So far, it hasn't happened once. In human history.
No, I agree about the underlying reasoning, also.
That said -- patent protection for software comes with too high an economic cost and fails to accomplish its stated purpose (to "promote the sciences and useful arts") -- so while we may disagree on underlying reasoning, I'm pretty sure we remain well-aligned on intended policy. I just find it useful, when in disagreement with some element of the [i]status quo[/i], to show that the stated purpose is in fact hindered, not advanced, by the means described as its justification. When that's the case, it's pretty much a trump card; there is no "Yeah, but..." reply when you can demonstrate such a lose-lose situation. The only trick is presenting it to people who care about being right. Slashdot seems pretty good for that.:-)
In a perfect role, yes. But I think we are living in a far from perfect world. In the world we live in, people will vote or not vote for a candidate because of race and gender. I think that had you noticed the connotation that you disclaim personal responsibility, and blame your environment, you would not have included that in your reply.
In that context, it is a valid topic. No, it isn't a valid criterion and it isn't a valid topic.
Please note that I'm not claiming either has anything to do with the person or the quality of the person. If you had, you wouldn't have been worth my time.
It is all with the people they will depend on to cast a vote. Ignoring this and making it off limits would mean that we would never know if racism or misogyny currently exists or to what extent it does. You weren't conducting academic-quality research or providing valuable "documentation" of anything. I already noted that the phenomenon is common, and implied partial sympathy and limited credit based on your apparent good intentions. That's as far as I'll go on this.
Not knowing about it or the extent of it is so much more dangerous then thinking it isn't an issue and is isn't happening or attempting to hide the issue because it isn't PC. One doesn't talk about politics or intestinal surgery at the dinner table, and for the same reason. They're unappetizing subjects. What is or is not "PC" has nothing to do with the price of a Mac.
This is especially true when the conduct of the candidates could mitigate this enormously by dispelling fears and assuring constituents of their qualifications. They could be effectively tearing down the barriers to true equality opposed to allowing them to fester and grow like a cysts on society. Siiigh. That admirable goal is most effectively pursued by discussion of the candidates' individual merits, not this boring analysis of the various advantages and/or disadvantages they hold as members or non-members of any particular demographic group. Like I implied earlier, you seem to have your heart in the right place. Add a bit more ruthlessness in the application of your intellect and moral standards, and I'll like you even more.
Instead, be cautious about that hot blonde at the gym who confessed a lifelong sexual weakness for balding guys trying to work off the desk paunch and who expresses a sweet naivete and engaging curiosity about how, precisely, you do your job. Look around the gym. That hot blonde would rather be with an über-geek than a brainless, 'roided-out meatsack. She really is that sweet, and probably even more curious about me than she seems.
The internet's not like an enclosed valley which can support 300 sheep no matter what. I agree. The problem is one of quality, not quantity. It used to be a productive tool. Now, they'll let any sort of rubbish in.
My sentiments, exactly. And they're copyrighted, I'll show you... ;-)
As an inventor, do you agree that even if a process is deemed "novel," given any process that can be automated with software, the code is always, by definition, "obvious"? Once a programmer is given, or decides upon, an algorithm to code, he either does so correctly or incorrectly, ergo the working software of a patent application is always "obvious." If the process is not novel & non-obvious without a computer, making it a program doesn't magically transform what is essentially a pedantic and obvious solution to a simple problem. Separate from our mutual opinions of patent statutes, I find the opinion that software can ever be judged "novel and non-obvious" proof positive of extreme dishonesty and/or complete ignorance of computer programming among patent clerks.
You're wrong.
Except that, as the article states Niro's position (and I tend to agree), that unless someone is working for a massive regime change in the government then posting anonymously is nothing more than veil of plausibility deniability for deliberately harassing and defaming someone. If you or Niro want information that is not given to you willingly or compelled via legal means, you will have to deal with not having it. The "right to anonymity" is a straw man, constructed to distract from the lack of a right to obtain information about others, which we do not voluntarily divulge.
A right to free speech is not necessarily a right to anonymity Of course it is. The right to refrain from speech generally is included in the First Amendment, and outside of a court, it is absolute. In court, there is less complete protection of the right to refrain from certain types of speech, described by the Fifth Amendment.
By "most likely" I mean they, in comparison to people not employed at those places, are "most likely" to be able to get that information. The way I phrased that originally suggests that every office worker at both companies has his info as readily accessible as speed dial or their e-mail contacts, which of course is ridiculous.
It is common knowledge that both the host of the website and the e-mail address of the Troll Tracker have low-wage employees, performing routine office work. It is also common knowledge that they are most likely to have access to the registrant's identity, but that making that identity available to this patent troll is illegal. The bounty, therefore, constitutes enticement to an illegal action. IANAL, and I think I could convince a judge that the bounty is illegal. Who is the DA in that jurisdiction and why isn't he upholding the rights of citizens to our privacy, and to be free of undue search and seizure by corrupt lawyers? Fire him.
They tend to be the most courageous posters with a great idea, but no time to sign in. [:)] True, in labeling some that way. The other 99 1/2% are absolute rubbish.
Do you? Anybody here about to be laid off, because their employer's profit margins are so squeezed by piracy? Mmmmkay, Gates & Ballmer, we know what your opinion is. Anybody else?
At the same time I want to make sure that our trading with other nations is done on a fair basis, and when a nation like China does not honor our intellectual property rights then we're going to have to get serious with our Chinese friends and say guys you just can't do that or you're going to suffer consequences in our markets. To really "make sure that our trading with other nations is done on a fair basis" means, first and foremost, symmetric tariffs, for every good and with every nation. This will be accomplished by simply using each nation's import tariff rates as our export tariff rates, in our dealings with that nation, and vice versa. Some large lobbying interests will whine. Let them.
It isn't a racist or sexist thing to point out reality. In the context of an election, it is inherently sexist and racist to discuss any role of candidates' gender and race, either in their fitness or likelihood of being elected. They have a voting record, and make campaign promises about their policies, if elected. Those are the only relevant subjects. Raising other subjects is bad manners, and bad journalism, and it's common, so I'm not very surprised you think it's "OK", but it isn't.
The earth is bursting with more energy than the human race could hope to exhaust. And it is already being harvested for electricity today. Yet almost no money is spent on geothermal research. And all the presidential candidates talk about is biofuels, hydrogen, solar, wind, and nuclear. Why isn't geothermal on the list if it is both practical and promising? URL, plz
Hyperbole aside, many of the "worst accidents" at nuclear plants are in fact merely instances of property damage with no injuries or fatalities. Wariness of nuclear reactors is smart, but so is wariness of speeding through thin air at high altitudes in a tube of metal, using a combination of basically flat, slightly curved protuberances and extreme velocity to keep hundreds of passengers aloft. Statistically, both are safer than the alternative means of achieving the same goals.
Slashdot Mirror
This pretty much ends the false dichotomy between Science and Faith. Science is by definition is the domain of Seen by experiment or experimentally verifiable logical conclusions of experiments. No, when dogmas based on what is admittedly "Unseen" are invoked as cause for actions against others in "the domain of Seen," then the dichotomy is easily seen. If you want to claim the "domain" of "Unseen," go right ahead. But "the domain of Seen" belongs to realistic thinkers.
Did you notice the cherry-picking of data, from known terrorists and extreme Islamist nations? The so-called "samples" are statistically invalid, as they already "strongly overrepresent" -- in comparison to the general population -- the two attributes it claims to show are "correlated". Well, of course they're correlated, in those samples, because of the need for those skills to do the types of damage those groups desire, not because of some psychological similarity. Other than more publications like that very study, the social sciences have little value as terrorist employees.
Sorry I posted that previous comment as a reply to your comment; should have been to the article itself. Your points are mostly reasonable, except I took issue with the phrase "quite reasonable." I see the majority of your points are "quite reasonable," and your reasoning is good, from your premises, one of which appears to be that the study cited is not a load of bull. It is, though, and it is not at all reasonable to compare the mindsets in the context that the article suggests, nor to use that article as support of any reasoned argument. The whole thing is just a lot of cherry-picking and context-dropping.
The whole thing adds up to a truism, stated out of context to imply support for the completely unsupported thesis, that "engineers have a 'mindset' that makes them a particularly good match for Islamism." The rational conclusion is that engineers have a skillset, not a "mindset," that makes them a particularly alluring target to terrorist recruiters. The statistics in tables 2 - 7 are likewise taken from countries in which one who does not practice "extremist" Islam will be systematically hindered from pursuit of a higher education, and emigration to a country where they could. The analysis depends on ignoring common knowledge causal explanations of the statistics, which are cherry-picked to support what is obviously a fallacy. Why obvious? If "graduates from subjects such as science, engineering, and medicine" did have such a mindset, nobody would ever dare to print such libel against the people most able to get away with retribution killings undetected.
My guess, usually 'rm $file' & occasionally 'right-click, delete.' Oh, did you mean, how did they get access to the server? I suppose they showed a warrant, or flashed their badge at somebody who was (a) willing to cooperate (2) didn't know his rights (d) wasn't willing to get himself on any ominous-sounding watch-list for somebody else's rights.
It does seem far-fetched, but then, so do a lot of news items in the mainstream press in the past few years.
Those are a lot of replies, which I would characterize as civil and extremely polite disagreement. I haven't read them all yet, but after a handful, I see no death threats. Of course, if you're suicide bombed by one of us, I suppose that will prove your point. So far, it hasn't happened once. In human history.
He's still orders of magnitude better than you, anonymous trash-talker.
My sentiments, exactly. And they're copyrighted, I'll show you ...
;-)
As an inventor, do you agree that even if a process is deemed "novel," given any process that can be automated with software, the code is always, by definition, "obvious"? Once a programmer is given, or decides upon, an algorithm to code, he either does so correctly or incorrectly, ergo the working software of a patent application is always "obvious." If the process is not novel & non-obvious without a computer, making it a program doesn't magically transform what is essentially a pedantic and obvious solution to a simple problem. Separate from our mutual opinions of patent statutes, I find the opinion that software can ever be judged "novel and non-obvious" proof positive of extreme dishonesty and/or complete ignorance of computer programming among patent clerks.
"For $10,000 dollars and to be able to mock the lawyer even more" I'm interested in impersonating Troll Tracker and turning "myself" in!
By "most likely" I mean they, in comparison to people not employed at those places, are "most likely" to be able to get that information. The way I phrased that originally suggests that every office worker at both companies has his info as readily accessible as speed dial or their e-mail contacts, which of course is ridiculous.
It is common knowledge that both the host of the website and the e-mail address of the Troll Tracker have low-wage employees, performing routine office work. It is also common knowledge that they are most likely to have access to the registrant's identity, but that making that identity available to this patent troll is illegal. The bounty, therefore, constitutes enticement to an illegal action. IANAL, and I think I could convince a judge that the bounty is illegal. Who is the DA in that jurisdiction and why isn't he upholding the rights of citizens to our privacy, and to be free of undue search and seizure by corrupt lawyers? Fire him.
Hyperbole aside, many of the "worst accidents" at nuclear plants are in fact merely instances of property damage with no injuries or fatalities. Wariness of nuclear reactors is smart, but so is wariness of speeding through thin air at high altitudes in a tube of metal, using a combination of basically flat, slightly curved protuberances and extreme velocity to keep hundreds of passengers aloft. Statistically, both are safer than the alternative means of achieving the same goals.