I don't really care about studio support, because I will never willingly buy a studio release. But 22.5 GB of storage in 3 layers would make me a recorder buyer!
I certainly agree that both Muhammed and Jesus are well-established as actual historical figures. There is a great leap from the notion that Muhammed is a historical figure to the notion that his teachings accurately reflect the revelation of God to man -- a leap that can only be justified by strong evidence. In the case of Muhammed I find the evidence pretty weak, regardless. The resurrection, on the other hand, is fairly strong evidence, if you accept it as an actual event in history -- and doubly so the ascension. Few people will accept them as historical facts absent some personal experience which compells them to do so.
> This book is a worthy successor to the last book published
which would imply that this book should *never* be published. Yet now I learn that [the first chapter of [the successor of [the last book]]] is already available as a pre-print? Methinks my Peano is out of tune.
Indeed, Microsoft has destroyed some of the best minds of our generation.
Re:And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
> On the other hand...stupid conspiracies like "whoever heard of fire melting steel" are annoying. > Especially since anyone in manufacturing of steel has heard of fire melting steel.
Not kerosene in atmosphere.
> As for fire not being able to melt and bring down a structure. The recent collapse of an interstate > highway due to a gasoline fire which caused a concrete re-inforced steel structure designed not just > to bear it's own weight but that of tons and tons of vehicles. Proved that fire can indeed melt steel > and collapse structures.
No fire was involved in the I-35W bridge collapse.
I'd rather be falsely labelled a "conspiracy theorist" than be truly proven a liar and a traitor.
If you define al-Qaeda (which in Egyptian Arabic means "the toilet") as an organization incorporating Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, Marvin Bush, and Douglas Feith, I can go along with that.
Re:Never good philosophy.
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The ontological argument is pretty darn good. Weak in its implications, perhaps, but very elegantly constructed, as well as formally correct. Of course there are many competing variations, of uneven quality.
There is no inconsistency between the existence of evil and the 3O god. Your claim that there is one is completely unsubstantiated. There is "cognitive dissonance", yes. But inconsistency? Not one whit of it.
There is another argument that says it's turtles all the way down, but then who cares? Some arguments are just ludicrous.
I think that most, if not all, people who become convinced to become religious are convinced by a philosophical argument. Ultimately, it is an argument that they construct for themselves, internally, but it is quite clearly a philosophical argument.
Of the major socially constructed religions, only Christianity and Islam are contenders for Pascal's Wager. They make opposite claims. Of course one could construct an infinite variety of alternative contenders, but only Christianity and Islam have any substantive grounds for historical claims of factuality. Personally, I find Islam internally inconsistent and transparently self-serving, much like Mormonism (which is not "major", but if it were would be even more obviously fraudulent, on grounds of historical evidence -- cf. "The Book of Abraham"). Christianity is a bit more difficult to dismiss, with a lot of historical and testimonial support. Of course there's enormous antipathy to it, so one might well chose to ignore it on grounds other than factuality. Then there's the issue of factional subdivisions and their associated doctrinal differences -- Christianity doesn't really mean one thing, but rather refers to a range of religions nearly as broad as are the range of religions which are not included within nominal Christianity. That's enough to discourage almost anyone from taking it seriously.
> if there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been
Among the very subjective terms in this claim (which I regard as speculative and unproven, with great skepticism) is the term "devout". It seems to assume a great deal about the nature of the man-god relationship which is left unspoken, and probably very controversial. It is possible that many people who regard their relationship to God as central to the meaning of their lives would qualify as "devout" by most constructions of devotion.
Christianity holds that it IS the reality-based community, and that you are living in a fantasy world where anthropic effects occur by a cast of dice and tornados passing through junkyards assemble flight-ready 777s on a predictable schedule.
My contention is that by making fun of a viewpoint you oppose, you are in fact doing a severe disservice to your own. Intelligent people recognize ridicule and insults as the desperate refuge of a rhetorician without an honest argument.
The difference between me and you is that I won't try to control the way you vote, or where you send your child to school.
While muslims may not be mentally unstable in the DSM-IV sense (infinitely debatable), and indeed the vast majority of nominal muslims are likely no more or less stable than median nominal atheists, hindus, christians, jews or buddhists, I think it is quite clear and not in the least genuously debatable that a genuinely held belief in the most basic tenets of Islam quite compellingly and logically leads to a duty of violent struggle, both internal, spiritual, and external, as in the form of warfare. It is important, therefore to understand that the "War on Terror" so-called is in fact a war on genuine Islam. The goal of those who manage it is to render Islam an impotent geopolitical force. This can only be done by stomping out obedience to the teachings of the Koran on the geopolitical stage. This in turn can only be done by crushing at least one of (1) democracy in the Ummah, and (2) observance of Islam.
lots of possibilities. i think people tend to contrain their imaginations too much.
how about: grey aliens are actually completely incomprehensible and unrecognizable as sentient beings, from the point of view of humans, so they interact using little meat puppets that are a parody of what humans might be like 5 million years from now.
or, grey aliense are a kind of material manifestation of the collective unconscious mind which underlies our experiential manifold. there really are no atoms or quarks (or spoons), only mind, and they serve as a decorative grotesque, for entertainment purposes.
or, grey aliens are actually the material manifestation of spirtual beings, much like the ectoplasms manifested by spirit mediums in the late nineteenth century. they are in fact the emissaries of satan himself, sent to tempt the governments of the world into a conspiracy of supression and repression in order to avoid some imaginary evil far less heinous than the actual horrors planned for all of mankind under thier dominion, all in exchange for a few pieces of advanced technology silver.
or, grey aliens are in fact an advertising gimick.
or, as ronald reagan proposed to the u.n., they are a boogey man used to perpetuate the systems of control that keep the rich rich and the poor poor.
or, grey aliens, as they are never seen in female forms, but rather in emasculated male forms, are a patriarchal tool of oppression, creating a pattern of exclusion of the feminine from the domains of discourse, whilst simultaneously belittling healthy and robust masculinity.
Or, grey aliens live under the south pole. they evolved on earth long before humans did, but have never been out of the solar system. because the ultraviolet rays on the surface due to our modern atmosphere are intolerable to them, we had already completely overrun the surface before they realized it. the egg-shaped craft operate on magnetic principles, using movements of iron-rich magma deep within the earth to provide their leviation power.
It's not necessary for regimes or governments to change, in order for relationships to change. Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and pitching chemical weapons to him under Reagan. In less than ten years the US started bombing Iraq, and hasn't stopped since. In less than 25 years we installed a puppet regime that hanged Saddam Hussein for using the chemical weapons which we supplied. It's purely a matter of convenience and politics. When it serves the interests of an amoral SOB with power, you die, whether you are in Dallas, Memphis, New York, London, Moscow, Shanghai, Havana, Gaza or Baghdad. The trick is keeping power out of the hands of the amoral SOBs. For this purpose are governments instituted among men, and when they no longer serve those ends, new governments are required in order to fill that critical void -- regardless of whether the old should persist or dissolve. That's the essence of a system of checks and balances. When one system of checks and balances becomes consolidated, and power becomes a monolith of corruption, there are two ways to restore balance. One is to overthrow and replace the old system. Another is to add to it a separate check and balance mechanism, such as assassination politics.
> There are places where economic embargoes, or the threat thereof, may have significant benefit.... > Iran instituted fuel rationing a couple of days ago in response to threat of embargo of gasoline > trade into the country in an attempt to build up reserves in anticipation of trade sanctions.
Two points:
(1) If you consider riots, repression, and rationing to be a significant benefit, I'd hate to see what you consider to be a detriment.
(2) Thus Iran is justified in demanding the enforcement of its rights under the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaties to which it, and the U.S., are signatories, that it should be allowed to fully develop a domestic nuclear fuel cycle. (Did you hear that sound? I think it was Dick Cheney shooting himself in the foot. Or maybe it was Bibi Netanyahu shooting him in the foot.)
Excellent, informative commentary, sir! You overlooked a vast catalogue of misdeeds, but of course to even scratch the surface of the treasons of this administration would consume volumes, so that is no criticism.
I do agree with the original comment, however, that the "defeatocrats [i.e. democrats] are the terrorists [sic] best ally", in that the Democrats are indeed the Republicans' best ally in the war on the American people, the rule of law, world peace, and justice. The neo-conservative cabal is the principal engine of global terrorism, and the self-interested play-acting opposition leaders such as Clinton and Obama are among their best and most intimate allies in their campaign of terror, both domestically and globally.
George Bush was taking Cipro a month before the anthrax attacks in 2001.
Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the WTC and at Dulles on Sept. 11, 2001.
Osama binLaden was able to charter an airplane in late September 2001, in the U.S., and the FBI didn't object.
The Bush family has established a history of personal *and* business relationships with the bin Laden family.
Since, on the assumptions of the article, information is always preserved, anything which has ever been known has been known since forever, I can confidently (on the assumptions of the article) answer: YES!
You can't detect, measure, or interact with a lot of things in the ordinary universe, using current technologies, but that does not mean that they don't exist, or that it is not wise to believe in them. What the last time you tasted your own liver? Yet, if you swallow 500 acetominophen tablets, it will kill you just as dead. The same is true of an aboriginal who doesn't know what a liver does or what acetominiphen is. Similarly, what is notional, fantastical, to you, Horatio, may be quite practical to another, at another time -- or, in the case of God, should she so choose, to you yourself, in another "place" and "time".
Slashdot Mirror
> How big was Gandhi's
Bigger than Putin's. He took down the British Empire.
I don't really care about studio support, because I will never willingly buy a studio release. But 22.5 GB of storage in 3 layers would make me a recorder buyer!
I certainly agree that both Muhammed and Jesus are well-established as actual historical figures. There is a great leap from the notion that Muhammed is a historical figure to the notion that his teachings accurately reflect the revelation of God to man -- a leap that can only be justified by strong evidence. In the case of Muhammed I find the evidence pretty weak, regardless. The resurrection, on the other hand, is fairly strong evidence, if you accept it as an actual event in history -- and doubly so the ascension. Few people will accept them as historical facts absent some personal experience which compells them to do so.
The article reads
> This book is a worthy successor to the last book published
which would imply that this book should *never* be published. Yet now I learn that [the first chapter
of [the successor of [the last book]]] is already available as a pre-print? Methinks my Peano is out of tune.
Indeed, Microsoft has destroyed some of the best minds of our generation.
> On the other hand...stupid conspiracies like "whoever heard of fire melting steel" are annoying.
> Especially since anyone in manufacturing of steel has heard of fire melting steel.
Not kerosene in atmosphere.
> As for fire not being able to melt and bring down a structure. The recent collapse of an interstate
> highway due to a gasoline fire which caused a concrete re-inforced steel structure designed not just
> to bear it's own weight but that of tons and tons of vehicles. Proved that fire can indeed melt steel
> and collapse structures.
No fire was involved in the I-35W bridge collapse.
I'd rather be falsely labelled a "conspiracy theorist" than be truly proven a liar and a traitor.
If you define al-Qaeda (which in Egyptian Arabic means "the toilet") as an organization incorporating Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, Marvin Bush, and Douglas Feith, I can go along with that.
The ontological argument is pretty darn good. Weak in its implications, perhaps, but very elegantly constructed, as well as formally correct. Of course there are many competing variations, of uneven quality.
There is no inconsistency between the existence of evil and the 3O god. Your claim that there is one is completely unsubstantiated. There is "cognitive dissonance", yes. But inconsistency? Not one whit of it.
There is another argument that says it's turtles all the way down, but then who cares? Some arguments are just ludicrous.
I think that most, if not all, people who become convinced to become religious are convinced by a philosophical argument. Ultimately, it is an argument that they construct for themselves, internally, but it is quite clearly a philosophical argument.
Of the major socially constructed religions, only Christianity and Islam are contenders for Pascal's Wager. They make opposite claims. Of course one could construct an infinite variety of alternative contenders, but only Christianity and Islam have any substantive grounds for historical claims of factuality. Personally, I find Islam internally inconsistent and transparently self-serving, much like Mormonism (which is not "major", but if it were would be even more obviously fraudulent, on grounds of historical evidence -- cf. "The Book of Abraham"). Christianity is a bit more difficult to dismiss, with a lot of historical and testimonial support. Of course there's enormous antipathy to it, so one might well chose to ignore it on grounds other than factuality. Then there's the issue of factional subdivisions and their associated doctrinal differences -- Christianity doesn't really mean one thing, but rather refers to a range of religions nearly as broad as are the range of religions which are not included within nominal Christianity. That's enough to discourage almost anyone from taking it seriously.
> if there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been
Among the very subjective terms in this claim (which I regard as speculative
and unproven, with great skepticism) is the term "devout". It seems to assume a great
deal about the nature of the man-god relationship which is left unspoken, and probably
very controversial. It is possible that many people who regard their relationship to God as
central to the meaning of their lives would qualify as "devout" by most constructions
of devotion.
It would be nice if you could name the "codes which work well".
I gather he's doing passive radar/sonar on variable terrain with variable weather.
Christianity holds that it IS the reality-based community, and that you
are living in a fantasy world where anthropic effects occur by a cast of
dice and tornados passing through junkyards assemble flight-ready
777s on a predictable schedule.
My contention is that by making fun of a viewpoint you oppose, you are
in fact doing a severe disservice to your own. Intelligent people recognize
ridicule and insults as the desperate refuge of a rhetorician without an
honest argument.
The difference between me and you is that I won't try to control the way
you vote, or where you send your child to school.
While muslims may not be mentally unstable in the DSM-IV sense
(infinitely debatable), and indeed the vast majority of nominal muslims
are likely no more or less stable than median nominal atheists, hindus,
christians, jews or buddhists, I think it is quite clear and not in the
least genuously debatable that a genuinely held belief in the most
basic tenets of Islam quite compellingly and logically leads to a duty
of violent struggle, both internal, spiritual, and external, as in the form
of warfare. It is important, therefore to understand that the "War
on Terror" so-called is in fact a war on genuine Islam. The goal of
those who manage it is to render Islam an impotent geopolitical force.
This can only be done by stomping out obedience to the teachings
of the Koran on the geopolitical stage. This in turn can only be done
by crushing at least one of (1) democracy in the Ummah, and (2)
observance of Islam.
You could use the cache-affinity angle.
On this interpretation, we should never use artificial intelligence because of Clippy.
lots of possibilities. i think people tend to contrain their imaginations too much.
how about: grey aliens are actually completely incomprehensible and unrecognizable
as sentient beings, from the point of view of humans, so they interact using little
meat puppets that are a parody of what humans might be like 5 million years
from now.
or, grey aliense are a kind of material manifestation of the collective unconscious
mind which underlies our experiential manifold. there really are no atoms or
quarks (or spoons), only mind, and they serve as a decorative grotesque, for
entertainment purposes.
or, grey aliens are actually the material manifestation of spirtual beings, much like
the ectoplasms manifested by spirit mediums in the late nineteenth century. they
are in fact the emissaries of satan himself, sent to tempt the governments of the
world into a conspiracy of supression and repression in order to avoid some imaginary
evil far less heinous than the actual horrors planned for all of mankind under thier
dominion, all in exchange for a few pieces of advanced technology silver.
or, grey aliens are in fact an advertising gimick.
or, as ronald reagan proposed to the u.n., they are a boogey man used to perpetuate
the systems of control that keep the rich rich and the poor poor.
or, grey aliens, as they are never seen in female forms, but rather in emasculated male
forms, are a patriarchal tool of oppression, creating a pattern of exclusion of the feminine
from the domains of discourse, whilst simultaneously belittling healthy and robust
masculinity.
Or, grey aliens live under the south pole. they evolved on earth long before humans did,
but have never been out of the solar system. because the ultraviolet rays on the surface
due to our modern atmosphere are intolerable to them, we had already completely
overrun the surface before they realized it. the egg-shaped craft operate on magnetic
principles, using movements of iron-rich magma deep within the earth to provide their
leviation power.
You betcha! The bottom of the well is our designated free speech zone!.
It's not necessary for regimes or governments to change, in order for relationships to change.
Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and pitching chemical weapons
to him under Reagan. In less than ten years the US started bombing Iraq, and hasn't stopped since.
In less than 25 years we installed a puppet regime that hanged Saddam Hussein for using the
chemical weapons which we supplied. It's purely a matter of convenience and politics. When it serves
the interests of an amoral SOB with power, you die, whether you are in Dallas, Memphis, New York,
London, Moscow, Shanghai, Havana, Gaza or Baghdad. The trick is keeping power out of the hands
of the amoral SOBs. For this purpose are governments instituted among men, and when they no
longer serve those ends, new governments are required in order to fill that critical void -- regardless
of whether the old should persist or dissolve. That's the essence of a system of checks and balances.
When one system of checks and balances becomes consolidated, and power becomes a monolith of
corruption, there are two ways to restore balance. One is to overthrow and replace the old system.
Another is to add to it a separate check and balance mechanism, such as assassination politics.
> There are places where economic embargoes, or the threat thereof, may have significant benefit....
> Iran instituted fuel rationing a couple of days ago in response to threat of embargo of gasoline
> trade into the country in an attempt to build up reserves in anticipation of trade sanctions.
Two points:
(1) If you consider riots, repression, and rationing to be a significant benefit, I'd hate to see what
you consider to be a detriment.
(2) Thus Iran is justified in demanding the enforcement of its rights under the terms of the
nuclear non-proliferation treaties to which it, and the U.S., are signatories, that it should be allowed
to fully develop a domestic nuclear fuel cycle. (Did you hear that sound? I think it was Dick
Cheney shooting himself in the foot. Or maybe it was Bibi Netanyahu shooting him in the foot.)
Amen. Kudos to the CBC for the best damn 1-sentence explanation of Free Software in the history of journalism!
Does anyone have mod points anymore? I thought that everyone who disagreed with CmdrTaco was eventually doomed to third-class citizenship.
Excellent, informative commentary, sir! You overlooked a vast catalogue of misdeeds, but of course to even scratch the surface of the treasons of this administration would consume volumes, so that is no criticism.
I do agree with the original comment, however, that the "defeatocrats [i.e. democrats] are the terrorists [sic] best ally", in that the Democrats are indeed the Republicans' best ally in the war on the American people, the rule of law, world peace, and justice. The neo-conservative cabal is the principal engine of global terrorism, and the self-interested play-acting opposition leaders such as Clinton and Obama are among their best and most intimate allies in their campaign of terror, both domestically and globally.
George Bush was taking Cipro a month before the anthrax attacks in 2001.
Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the WTC and at Dulles on Sept. 11, 2001.
Osama binLaden was able to charter an airplane in late September 2001, in the U.S., and the FBI didn't object.
The Bush family has established a history of personal *and* business relationships with the bin Laden family.
You can't make this stuff up.
It's odd that advocating the status quo should be considered hate speech, don't you think?
> hasn't this been known since forever?
Since, on the assumptions of the article, information is always preserved, anything which has ever been known has been known since forever, I can confidently (on the assumptions of the article) answer: YES!
Yeah, that was a hoot. I suspect they said it in the form of an elatic chorus, wearing togas, in pentatonic harmony, with heavy Serbian accents.
We really should replace the word "complex" with "octonionic" in most circumstances, for the sake of accuracy.
You can't detect, measure, or interact with a lot of things in the ordinary universe, using current technologies, but that does not mean that they don't exist, or that it is not wise to believe in them. What the last time you tasted your own liver? Yet, if you swallow 500 acetominophen tablets, it will kill you just as dead. The same is true of an aboriginal who doesn't know what a liver does or what acetominiphen is. Similarly, what is notional, fantastical, to you, Horatio, may be quite practical to another, at another time -- or, in the case of God, should she so choose, to you yourself, in another "place" and "time".