. In a technical document, however, you want to get the result that the manufacturer intended, so you don't try to find loopholes in the technical document.
Ah, New Jersey, the No Left Turn state... Or is it the "The Sign Is After The Turn Indicated" state? Driving in NJ is a surreal experience if you're not staying on one road the whole way through.
I've pumped my own gas driving through there. The attendant gave me a weird look. It made my day when I realized afterward what state I was in.
Yea, offtopic, flamebait, whatever, I know. Mod away. But sometimes one just needs to vent about one's neighbor states;-)
Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation
Wait, wait, wait, wait, WAIT!
We're gonna promote innovation of business practices by restricting their application? Last I checked, a successful business practice is its own reward. If these proponents are gonna make this argument, they need to be slapped down with the fact that at least in this case, the only reasonable conclusion derivable from that premise is that this type of patent should be forbidden.
I took a bunch of undergraduate Philosophy. I can navel-gaze and question the ability to know anything (beyond ones own existence) with the best of them. So when I say something is "rational" please assume I mean to stipulate the assumption that it is possible to perceive an independently existing world and form accurate conclusions based upon those perceptions. If that's not true, I just don't care, no matter how much it makes Maxwell spin about in his grave.
I'm right with you on this, and that's the kind of rationality I'm talking about too. What I'm asserting is that the sound application of that rationality is not well-definable precisely because its application is necessarily circular and/or arbitrary. Not because of questions about the existence of an external reality, but because of question about its nature. The question isn't whether reality is rational, because if it isn't there's not much point trying to reason about its rationality. The question is rather what are the axioms to which we can apply reason to derive conclusions?
As for evidence, I don't know what evidence a Hindu claims for the existence of Vishnu, so I'll go with what I do know. I do know that many Christians claim at least 2 forms of evidence for Yahweh's existence. First is the aforementioned assertion that humankind was created with knowledge of him which has been somehow corrupted but still remains - and that their own recognition of his existence and nature is a form of real evidence. Second is the historical event of the resurrection of Christ. Whether you accept it as fact or not is something I don't care to go into, but it is evidence that is claimed.
Obviously, acceptance of these forms of evidence is highly circular, as their interpretation depends on the conclusion they are trying to draw from them. On the other hand though, its rejection has the same kind of problems. These questions can't really be addressed from a neutral starting point because there isn't one. To say that there isn't evidence is to assert that what others see as evidence is not - but saying that is beginning with the conclusion already in mind that there is no Yahweh, is it not? Is that not circular?
BTW, if you're really only trying to offend me, you have still not succeeded. Does that offend you?;-)
Hmmm, apply the silly example test of (adult) belief in Santa Claus, and I conclude: It's fine to act like you believe, but those who really do believe are not OK. I don't see how that changes if instead of Santa it's Thor, Vishnu, or Jehovah. It's only more so. I
One way it changes is due to the infamous non-falsifiability of systems like religions that make metaphysical claims. The Santa hypothesis in its usual American form, doesn't fall into that category. One all-nighter on 24 December will decide it.
The only reasonable basis I can think of for saying that "those who really do believe are not OK" is that there really is no God of any kind. But if there really is a Vishnu, Jehovah, or Santa Claus, then the true state of things would be more like "it's OK (or not, depending on which god) to act like you don't believe, but those who really do not believe are not OK." So it seems you've made the jump from believing there is no god to believing a consequence of there being no god - specifically, that those who believe there is one are not OK. But isn't that begging the question?
One basic issue involved is whether it's reasonable to believe any particular thing. Most people agree that self-contradiction or contradiction of a more deeply-held belief is grounds for dismissal or reinterpretation of a philosophy, and that is where the Santa idea gets knocked down. Beyond that, though, I don't think anyone can make any universally acceptable claims even about a methodology to determine what's rational. When we talk about what is or is not reasonable to believe, we're basically mucking about at the foundations of human belief where everything is either circular or arbitrary. Usually both. That goes for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and even agnostics alike. The only "loophole" I'm aware of is illustrated by the Christian belief that Yahweh created humans with built-in knowledge of Himself. And of course, that loophole only works if the belief exploiting it is true, so in discussing whether or not it is, it's generally considered inadmissible.
I do actually like discussing it sometimes, but I tend to stick to anonymous strangers on the internet, because if they get offended I don't care (nothing personal).
Same here - and FWIW, I'm not offended. Anonymous strangers on the internet, especially those that actually think about what they say, generally don't offend me.
If I were ever in a situation where those disbeliefs were relevant, then yea, I do think I'd take them seriously. For example, if someone offered to build me a shrine to Vishnu for free, I would turn it down precisely because of my disbelief. I don't actively profess my disbelief in Vishnu either, though, and I certainly don't go around making remarks to the effect that those who do believe are ok, as long as they don't really act like they do.
I don't think ZigiSamblak's was saying that though, so I hope this doesn't come off sounding like a challenge - as far as I can tell, he was just contrasting extremes. I do like to point out, though, that the "serious == extremist" meme is really quite silly.
Heh, no particular reference in there other than the "cheap fast quality, pick two" you mention. It was just something I noticed about the relationship between multiplication and addition in an arbitrary ring. At the time, I believe I was trying to define the integers, rationals, reals, and complex numbers as products of unsigned base monoids and various symmetry groups as signs.
It's been a while since I gave it much thought, actually. Probably about time to think of something new.
On the other hand, he probably made thousands of others happy to see those seven taken down a peg;-)
(BTW, there's a whole lot more than seven covered by that list. Religions and gods don't all come in 1:1 correspondence. Heck, gods aren't even always in 1:1 correspondence with themselves...)
Slashdot Mirror
. In a technical document, however, you want to get the result that the manufacturer intended, so you don't try to find loopholes in the technical document.
Unless you're Microsoft... *ducks*
All that means is that the viewers aren't the customers.
Ah, New Jersey, the No Left Turn state... Or is it the "The Sign Is After The Turn Indicated" state? Driving in NJ is a surreal experience if you're not staying on one road the whole way through.
I've pumped my own gas driving through there. The attendant gave me a weird look. It made my day when I realized afterward what state I was in.
Yea, offtopic, flamebait, whatever, I know. Mod away. But sometimes one just needs to vent about one's neighbor states ;-)
I could be wrong, but I don't think most wrong-bus trips end that way. But then, I don't know what school district you live in...
Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation
Wait, wait, wait, wait, WAIT!
We're gonna promote innovation of business practices by restricting their application? Last I checked, a successful business practice is its own reward. If these proponents are gonna make this argument, they need to be slapped down with the fact that at least in this case, the only reasonable conclusion derivable from that premise is that this type of patent should be forbidden.
What are we going to do tomorrow night?
(President Obama, are you reading this?)
A /. reader for prez?
Ugh, if so I'm leaving the country _RIGHT_ _NOW_...
I took a bunch of undergraduate Philosophy. I can navel-gaze and question the ability to know anything (beyond ones own existence) with the best of them. So when I say something is "rational" please assume I mean to stipulate the assumption that it is possible to perceive an independently existing world and form accurate conclusions based upon those perceptions. If that's not true, I just don't care, no matter how much it makes Maxwell spin about in his grave.
I'm right with you on this, and that's the kind of rationality I'm talking about too. What I'm asserting is that the sound application of that rationality is not well-definable precisely because its application is necessarily circular and/or arbitrary. Not because of questions about the existence of an external reality, but because of question about its nature. The question isn't whether reality is rational, because if it isn't there's not much point trying to reason about its rationality. The question is rather what are the axioms to which we can apply reason to derive conclusions?
As for evidence, I don't know what evidence a Hindu claims for the existence of Vishnu, so I'll go with what I do know. I do know that many Christians claim at least 2 forms of evidence for Yahweh's existence. First is the aforementioned assertion that humankind was created with knowledge of him which has been somehow corrupted but still remains - and that their own recognition of his existence and nature is a form of real evidence. Second is the historical event of the resurrection of Christ. Whether you accept it as fact or not is something I don't care to go into, but it is evidence that is claimed.
Obviously, acceptance of these forms of evidence is highly circular, as their interpretation depends on the conclusion they are trying to draw from them. On the other hand though, its rejection has the same kind of problems. These questions can't really be addressed from a neutral starting point because there isn't one. To say that there isn't evidence is to assert that what others see as evidence is not - but saying that is beginning with the conclusion already in mind that there is no Yahweh, is it not? Is that not circular?
BTW, if you're really only trying to offend me, you have still not succeeded. Does that offend you? ;-)
Perhaps if you don't cooperate they'll let you out, but not back in?
Hmmm, apply the silly example test of (adult) belief in Santa Claus, and I conclude: It's fine to act like you believe, but those who really do believe are not OK. I don't see how that changes if instead of Santa it's Thor, Vishnu, or Jehovah.
It's only more so.
I
One way it changes is due to the infamous non-falsifiability of systems like religions that make metaphysical claims. The Santa hypothesis in its usual American form, doesn't fall into that category. One all-nighter on 24 December will decide it.
The only reasonable basis I can think of for saying that "those who really do believe are not OK" is that there really is no God of any kind. But if there really is a Vishnu, Jehovah, or Santa Claus, then the true state of things would be more like "it's OK (or not, depending on which god) to act like you don't believe, but those who really do not believe are not OK." So it seems you've made the jump from believing there is no god to believing a consequence of there being no god - specifically, that those who believe there is one are not OK. But isn't that begging the question?
One basic issue involved is whether it's reasonable to believe any particular thing. Most people agree that self-contradiction or contradiction of a more deeply-held belief is grounds for dismissal or reinterpretation of a philosophy, and that is where the Santa idea gets knocked down. Beyond that, though, I don't think anyone can make any universally acceptable claims even about a methodology to determine what's rational. When we talk about what is or is not reasonable to believe, we're basically mucking about at the foundations of human belief where everything is either circular or arbitrary. Usually both. That goes for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and even agnostics alike. The only "loophole" I'm aware of is illustrated by the Christian belief that Yahweh created humans with built-in knowledge of Himself. And of course, that loophole only works if the belief exploiting it is true, so in discussing whether or not it is, it's generally considered inadmissible.
I do actually like discussing it sometimes, but I tend to stick to anonymous strangers on the internet, because if they get offended I don't care (nothing personal).
Same here - and FWIW, I'm not offended. Anonymous strangers on the internet, especially those that actually think about what they say, generally don't offend me.
I imagine it depends on the church. I don't think I've ever been to one that would've cared.
The original was funnier, in light of your nick ;-)
(BTW, it was *really* supposed to be "We")
Ugh, I, have, too, many, commas, !
How do we know Asus and Microsoft, were both involved, other than the article's assertion?
How can I drink them? They're obviously not real.
If I were ever in a situation where those disbeliefs were relevant, then yea, I do think I'd take them seriously. For example, if someone offered to build me a shrine to Vishnu for free, I would turn it down precisely because of my disbelief. I don't actively profess my disbelief in Vishnu either, though, and I certainly don't go around making remarks to the effect that those who do believe are ok, as long as they don't really act like they do.
I don't think ZigiSamblak's was saying that though, so I hope this doesn't come off sounding like a challenge - as far as I can tell, he was just contrasting extremes. I do like to point out, though, that the "serious == extremist" meme is really quite silly.
Ok, *a* Christian one. Not Catholic though.
And my own chosen God implementation, the Christian one, has 3 different God interfaces all handled by one all-powerful back-end.
Heh, no particular reference in there other than the "cheap fast quality, pick two" you mention. It was just something I noticed about the relationship between multiplication and addition in an arbitrary ring. At the time, I believe I was trying to define the integers, rationals, reals, and complex numbers as products of unsigned base monoids and various symmetry groups as signs.
It's been a while since I gave it much thought, actually. Probably about time to think of something new.
On the other hand, he probably made thousands of others happy to see those seven taken down a peg ;-)
(BTW, there's a whole lot more than seven covered by that list. Religions and gods don't all come in 1:1 correspondence. Heck, gods aren't even always in 1:1 correspondence with themselves...)
Do you take your atheism seriously?
If they truly know you, I'd hope they got to that point because you trust them. When trust is misplaced, all bets are off when it comes to security.
Stupid sites like that probably have a whole lot of dead accounts anyway. And I for one feel no remorse whatsoever when I add to the pile.
That it's not Vista?
Patent pissing contests?