"A conflict of interest only arises when the judge-in-question has a personal and relevant involvement in the particular proceeding at hand."
And in this case, if the judge has a personal and relevant involvement in looking at and enjoying pornographic material such as that which is at-issue in this case, then there is obviously a conflict-of-interest. Well, I suppose if we can just find an adult who has never enjoyed pornography before, we'll find an unbiased judge.
I read his argument as "it's not torture because it's not nearly as bad as what we consider torture to be". In other words, it doesn't fit the historical meaning, or carry the associated emotional baggage of such a word. When you think torture, you think Korea, Vietnam War, dungeons where people are burned alive, drawn and quartered, etc. I realize I'm just arguing for him and he may not even agree, but I think he thought about it in the same way I did.
Isn't the whole point of torture about severity, though? I mean at some point you have to draw a line between inconveniencing someone, making them uncomfortable, making them feel pain, and torturing them. To me, and I think by most definitions, it's about degree/severity.
Forcing someone to sleep in an uncomfortable prison is not torture, providing a bed that isn't very comfortable is not torture; depriving someone of sleep is torture. Handcuffing someone is not torture; handcuffing them so tight that they lose circulation in their hands can be. Making someone do something that scares him is not torture.
We could go on about it for days. Frankly, I feel that waterboarding is just over the gray line and on the side of being torture, but I do have to acknowledge that there's a logical argument on the other side of the debate. It's really all about what we consider to be acceptably cruel, and one has to admit it isn't the same as the mental image that usually comes to mind when you think of torture.
so other regimes have tortured people, therefore waterboarding is ok! I'm not sure how you get there from this:
Yes, the techniques used were questionable, but waterboarding being called "torture" is seriously stretching it, given what other regimes in the not-so-distant-past have employed to get information out of captives. Since that logical leap makes sense to you, how about "so other people have starved in Somalia, therefore I'm really starving when I haven't had food in six hours".
While I may not agree with him, he was arguing the definition of torture, not whether or not it was OK because other people did it.
I don't know what "certain academic circles" you're in, but I have feeling you're pretty far removed from the topic you're trying to sound intelligent about.
Japan is a fairly "pacificist" nation because it enjoys the full protection of the United States and has nothing to gain from any form of military aggression. Tens of thousands of American troops are stationed there. American patriot missile batteries defend them from possible ballistic missile attacks. American fighters patrol their skies and prepare to defend them from any aggressors. American fleets are always nearby to protect their shipping lanes or repel any attempted invasion.
Japan has a small, extremely well-trained and equipped defense force. They would absolutely love some new F-22s in case other Asian countries decide to get retribution for Japanese atrocities during WWII. Atrocities that would have continued had American soldiers not been properly trained or equipped to beat Japanese soldiers.
It's quite clear that there is a clear threat to Japan's safety in the theater, and will be for the foreseeable future. If the United States stops protecting Japan, Japan will expand its military and tech research and provide for its own protection. I agree that less Japanese scientists have to work on defense-related projects because the two countries are cooperating in this area.
Of course I shouldn't be arguing since you're likely either a troll or an idiot, but, just in case you aren't, which academic field are you in that doesn't benefit from the fruits of military research?
I think it's obvious enough that the above posters already said this. It's clearly in the best interest of our children if our militaries aren't well-trained, right? Why bother putting leaders into office who will make the right decisions when we can just castrate the military...
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who realizes this is the truth of the matter.
I just wonder what the history books will say... Will society perpetuate these frauds because it feels they're beneficial? Will legal scholars look back and say "they did what they could with their limited understanding of science/nature/psychology/human bodies"?
BMI is a tool just like any other in medicine that is helpful in the right context. Using it incorrectly, just like any other measurement or test, can lead to problems.
BMI is frequently used in practice to assess the degree of obesity in an individual for both studies and practice. So essentially you're agreeing that BMI is accurate for only a portion of the population. I have a feeling your claim of 99% is bullocks, but I would love to know the real numbers if you have them.
I agree with you that for SOME people, heck, maybe even for MOST people, BMI is useful. My issue with it is that it is extremely simplistic and doesn't take into account any other important factors in determining an individual's ideal weight. You agree that doctors must take other factors into account, but not everyone is a doctor.
People need some sort of index that they can use to determine how much they should weigh to be healthy, and right now people think that index is BMI. So do our nation's policy makers. Statisticians need an index they can use to track the weight and fitness of a society... Right now, BMI is the best tool they have.
My argument, and challenge to your community, is that we need a better statistical tool. I'd like to think that our medical knowledge has advanced since the 19th century... by now we should be able to develop a better tool. I propose body fat percentage. Body fat is easily measured to a fairly tight degree of accuracy using electrical impedance. Perhaps we should consider an index that compares body fat to blood pressure to resting heart rate to weight? We'll never create a tool or method that will cover 100% of the society, but we should strive to create a better one.
Thanks, it's a great example of something I also discovered when I became less active. When I was into martial arts, running, lifting weights, all the things that keep your metabolism up, I was about 5'11" and 190 pounds with ~12% body fat, and I couldn't fit into a size 34, either. I chuckled when I found out that, according to BMI, I really needed to go on a diet.
Of course since then I've re-focused my energies on sitting on my ass at work. After my lifestyle changed, my appetite remained the same. I ballooned to about 225 pounds before I managed to get the appetite under control... going from 3500 Calories/day to 2200 Calories/day takes some getting used to. Now I vary from 205-210 and have closer to 20% body fat, but I'm relatively happy with my weight and figure.
It certainly took a lot of work to get used to eating so much less, though. I imagine the same happened to you.
Some people really do have serious glandular problems or diseases causing obesity Bullshit. Your body doesn't produce mass from glandular secretions, it does so through the intake of calories. If you don't consume more than you burn, you don't get fat. Doesn't make any difference how borked your glands are. So you're saying every body burns 100% of what is ingested? There is no difference in digestive efficiency? Bacteria? Worms?
I'm interested to see your published research in this area.
Although it was quite funny, it's a straw man and the study itself has some serious flaws. Some people really do have serious glandular problems or diseases causing obesity. My cousin was a beautiful young woman until she developed lupus... she went from somewhere around 120 pounds to, well, I'm not going to speculate. I'm not sure what exactly caused the obesity, it could have been anything from hormonal changes to medications she had to take, but I know her house isn't exactly filled with twinkies. I feel terrible walking around with her in public. Not because I'm embarrassed to be with an obese woman, but because I get so upset at the looks people give us. People look at her like she just killed and ate their favorite pet, then they look at me with a slightly different look of disgust.
In addition, I feel that while this may be accurate, we'd be pushing the environmentalism too far to cite it as a reason for people to lose weight. Even if it would save some energy, fuel, and materials, all of the savings are overshadowed by the significant social and medical advantages. If we could waste just a little more food and fuel to ensure a longer life expectancy, we would.
Of course, this study isn't really very good. While the global demand for food would likely drop, you'd have a significant jump in energy and oil prices. All of the formerly obese Americans, spending hundreds less on food every month, would be ready to hit the beaches, ski slopes, etc. with their extra money and less embarrassing bodies.
Finally, BMI is a shoddy system that I'm sick of seeing. BMI was developed at a time when leeching was an accepted medical practice, and hasn't changed significantly since then. BMI can not differentiate between lean mass and lard. This means that a society of body builders would have the same average BMI as a society of, well, lazy Americans.
Getting back to serious topics, it's very important to note that global food shortages (and corresponding rises in prices) are not caused by increased demand. They're caused by reduced supply, which has been, in part, caused by food aid programs. When people become dependent on food aid programs, a small series of events can raise food prices enough that food aid programs can't afford to send food. You can imagine how well this works out for impoverished areas that have lost their indigenous food production capability.
2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished from random data).
Excuse me, but do most people keep large amounts of "random data" on their drives? Perhaps large amounts of "random data" on one's drives indecates the possibility of encrypted data?
But thanks for your comment. You spend a lot of time on IRC, yes?
Actually, I have a 10GB file called "Cannon Fodder.tc" (and.pgd for PGP Disk) on all of my hard drives... and yes, it goes quite a few levels deep with various algorithms. And yes, a few of them even have files in them. I do have some stuff I once cared about at a few levels, but I built it years ago just for the giggles I'd get if anyone ever decided to try to decrypt it. And no, customs hasn't seen it yet...
I'm coming from the "land of the free" to one of those wacky socialist European countries.
I know it's hard for US residents brainwashed during the cold war, but socialism is not an alternative to freedom or even to democracy. Socialism is an alternative economic system and as such would be an alternative to capitalism. Ok, I'll bite... Socialism is, by definition, a lack of economic freedom. Slavery or tyranny is also, by definition, a lack of freedom. I do agree that democracy and socialism can go together, but socialism and economic freedom cannot coexist; hence a truly socialist country can not be fully free unless you ignore economic freedom.
Semantics/pedantics/word games aside, I'm sure we agree that the GP said something fairly ignorant. When citizens from the majority of the developed countries in the world are terrified of the prospect of going to your country and losing their freedoms, you have some problems. Particularly if you like to portray yourself as doing something to advance freedom, liberty, justice for all, etc.
If they choose to store the contents of your hard drive for later analysis, not at all. Nor will it protect you against minimally-clever forensics tools.
It depends on what, in particular, you're concerned about. As far as I know, they don't currently routinely search laptops, so it'd be speculation to guess at what a routine search they don't do would miss. My laptop was searched in Korea a few years ago... If I remember correctly, they were looking for obscene porn. Apparently young males traveling alone are more likely to be bringing illegal pornography into the country (anything that shows penetration). I booted windows, they looked in My Documents, My Videos, and My Pictures. I tried to appear shocked when they went to Tools - Folder Options - View - Show Hidden Files...
The funniest part was that I was having some display issues in linux, and only kept the windows install around for, uhh, multimedia applications. I believe I was using PGP Disk to protect more sensitive content. Either way, I got a good giggle out of their thorough search, and I guess they got to appease their conservative electorate.
...it's perfectly possible for two perpendicular lines not to intersect. (Add a third dimension.)
The physical truths of how the universe was brought into existence, whether that occurred as the result of divine action or not, are the domain of the physicist, by definition. That leaves the ineffable to religion. Some unclear thinkers exist in both realms who want to confuse certain things which aren't confusing, that's all.
I think we fundamentally agree on a lot of issues, and from your other posts you obviously understand science. While there may be people who are trying to put science and religion in conflict when they don't need to be, religion is falsifiable whenever it makes factual claims:
There is a god with certain properties
This god has caused something to happen in the universe that would not have happened naturally
The Universe was made in 7 days or it wasn't
Humans are born with a soul or spirit
This conflict extends to value-based, or moral claims:
abortion should be illegal, based on the claim that a soul enters the body at conception
gay relationships should be considered inferior to straight ones
research with stem cells shouldn't be allowed for the same reason abortion shouldn't
Given the above conflicts between religion and science, I ask you now, "What is the difference between religion and philosophy?"
I'll assume that you agree that the physical universe is the domain of science. I define religion as "philosophy with a supernatural claim that involves the physical universe that serves to give it merit, divine right, justification, or induce an emotional reaction." If we disagree on the definition of religion, I can see how we might be both completely missing each others' points. If we agree on religion, all I can say is that I don't see how you can find any aspect of religion which does not directly conflict with science, other than the philosophy component. If we're just treating religion as glorified philosophy, I'll agree that philosophy is a very important thing. It's currently impossible to scientifically come to a conclusion about how one should live one's life. As such, we need philosophy and moral codes to guide us. I just don't feel we should glorify it with divine claims that will force philosophy into becoming a static religion, unable to adapt to changing circumstances.
Explaining that you adhere to the Big Bang theory as some kind of consequence of your atheism is a non sequitur. What does religious belief have to do with acceptance of a physical theory? Do you also explain electromagnetism to your daughter by pointing out that you are non-religious?
If religious beliefs that intelligent attraction caused magnetism were the prevailing attitude in my country, I'd certainly have to explain to my daughter that I did not believe that nonsense.
If anything this encourages the sort of illogical thinking which science tries to expose and eliminate. Religion and science are orthogonal to each other, as has been multiply observed for centuries by both scientists and religious leaders (the efforts of radicals on both sides to exploit it for political gains notwithstanding -- some people will fall for anything).
It's funny you use the term "orthogonal"... perpendicular, like two streets that intersect. Religion and science intersect exactly where religions make claims about the physical world. You can't have a full discussion about the issue of the beginnings of the universe, the origins of the species, etc. without examining the claims of both sides. Since they ARE mutually exclusive (natural processes causing something versus a supernatural creating causing something), you must weigh the evidence on each side, and decide which one is either correct or on the right path.
Both sides are, however, guilty of claiming that they don't intersect whenever they're afraid for their existence or livelihood. When contradicting a religious claim about the world, a scientist must have extensive evidence and public opinion on his side before admitting that it contradicts peoples' religious views. This can be seen everywhere from Galileo to the scopes trial. Once the roles are reversed, and religious leaders are on the defensive, they argue that their beliefs are just that... beliefs in the supernatural/spiritual world that can not be touched by science. Later, they will try to devise pseudo scientific "theories" to displace the scientific theories that replaced their god's hand.
My reference: See Intelligent Design or any current or past argument on any historical, scientific, or biological claim made in any popular religious text.
By far the biggest screwup of modern western education - with huge, seemingly unrelated consequences for society - is that it treats kids under teenage and even teenagers far to much like intellectually fully developed grown-ups. Perhaps I was a savant, but I'd like to reply that my personal experiences were quite the opposite. I find that my entire childhood (under 12 years old) was wasted by the bullocks that was taught to me while the educational system was waiting until I was older. History class consisted of lies, half-truths, and oversimplifications. Math classes taught me some basics like arithmetic, but I had to unlearn all of the explanations before I could proceed to higher levels. English class told me exactly how to write a single-page, 5 paragraph paper and exactly what each sentence was supposed to be. All I had to do was fill in the words, and my essays would be exactly like everyone else's.
To compound this problem, most of my teachers had degrees in areas like "Child Education" and didn't have a firm grasp of science, math, or history. They knew very little beyond what was in the textbook, and their explanations or additions to the texts were often completely incorrect. I was nearly kicked out of my pre-algebra class for arguing with my teacher over the "difference" between.9(bar/repeating) and 1.0. She didn't get my joke when I asked what the difference was, and she wasn't particularly impressed with my proofs.
Of course high school was essentially a repeat of this terrible process. Again, the majority of my teachers didn't have a good understanding of the areas they were teaching. History was generally white-washed and inaccurate. Some of the math classes were actually a little better, but I still spent half of my time unlearning the garbage I had been taught earlier.
Out of frustration and boredom, I rebelled. I started hanging out with druggies and stopped doing homework. My life and career have never really recovered from this... I should have gotten into better colleges, but admissions boards find it hard to ignore a bad GPA. I didn't attend a local community college because I knew I would still be surrounded by the same people. I still spend an hour or two per day reading published articles and journals, exploring my creative and scientific sides, but as I get older I know my chances of being able go to a real university rapidly diminish.
My hope at this point is that, when I have children, I will not put my childrens' brains in the same vice mine was in. I won't oversimplify answers, lie to them about everything from biology to history, or tell them how to think. They will be exposed to foreign languages at an early age. They will always have an opportunity to explore things at a deeper level. The hardest part will probably be finding a good enough school that I can afford to send them to.
I wish for once the religious arguments would stop. Dawkins doesn't even go out of his way to attack religion in The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children. His lectures in 1991 were brilliant and inspiring.
If you want a solid, secular explanation of evolutionary biology, do yourself a favor and watch this series with your children. You can tell your children "God was behind it" or anything else that will make you feel better about it, but at least they'll have an accurate understanding of the facts and theory. They'll also learn a lot of interesting things about biology.
I agree, actually, it's very interesting. This characteristic of human development is also one of the reasons there is such hot debate about religious indoctrination of children in schools. If you view religion as a vaccine against eternal damnation, you want children to hear about religion as much and as early as possible. If you think it's a bunch of bullocks, you absolutely don't want your children exposed to it until they're old enough to question it. Keep in mind how long it takes most children to learn not to trust teachers or authority figures.
There is some pretty interesting research out there about this, but I don't have any links with me at the moment. Nova (a TV series on PBS) did a few specials (Ape Genius, etc.) that also did a great job covering it. If you look into it, you'll see some incredible experiments that show that children are actually much more gullible and blindly follow what's taught to them than other primates. It's also quite likely that this has significantly benefited our society.
I'm too tired to dig through references right now, but I hope you look into it.
What Congresscritter killed 3,000 Americans, drove a major industry (the airlines) to the breaking point and inflicted billions of dollars of measurable damage (loss of the twin towers) and who knows how much unmeasurable damage?
As for which congresscritter has fucked the average citizen of the USA over, try, ooh I don't know, maybe ALL OF THEM! Methinks one of these is not quite the same as the others... Also, nice trolling and all, but please stop. This is getting too pathetic.
Actually it's closer to reality than you make it out to be. I don't know if you read the article, but the inventor of the space pen really did pour his heart into its development, and he did it with the space program in mind. There are, of course, legitimate needs for such a pen. The only difference is that he spent thousands, not billions, on its development, and, once he developed them, he promptly gave pens to NASA for free.
So nukes get you a few things- protection, status/power, and in the end a few more slices of bread too.
I suspect that the subtle threat of the US invading them makes some countries (Iran, North Korea) all the more inclined to want to have a deterrent. And their attempts to build nukes greatly increase the odds of the US invading them. Personally, not a game I'd play if I was a benevolent dictator.
Slashdot Mirror
And in this case, if the judge has a personal and relevant involvement in looking at and enjoying pornographic material such as that which is at-issue in this case, then there is obviously a conflict-of-interest. Well, I suppose if we can just find an adult who has never enjoyed pornography before, we'll find an unbiased judge.
I read his argument as "it's not torture because it's not nearly as bad as what we consider torture to be". In other words, it doesn't fit the historical meaning, or carry the associated emotional baggage of such a word. When you think torture, you think Korea, Vietnam War, dungeons where people are burned alive, drawn and quartered, etc. I realize I'm just arguing for him and he may not even agree, but I think he thought about it in the same way I did.
Isn't the whole point of torture about severity, though? I mean at some point you have to draw a line between inconveniencing someone, making them uncomfortable, making them feel pain, and torturing them. To me, and I think by most definitions, it's about degree/severity.
Forcing someone to sleep in an uncomfortable prison is not torture, providing a bed that isn't very comfortable is not torture; depriving someone of sleep is torture. Handcuffing someone is not torture; handcuffing them so tight that they lose circulation in their hands can be. Making someone do something that scares him is not torture.
We could go on about it for days. Frankly, I feel that waterboarding is just over the gray line and on the side of being torture, but I do have to acknowledge that there's a logical argument on the other side of the debate. It's really all about what we consider to be acceptably cruel, and one has to admit it isn't the same as the mental image that usually comes to mind when you think of torture.
Thanks, I needed a laugh, but I think by "decent size" he meant something like this:
* Military spending: $96.42
* Education spending: $848.2 trillion
* Health care spending: $925.0 trillion
While I may not agree with him, he was arguing the definition of torture, not whether or not it was OK because other people did it.
I don't know what "certain academic circles" you're in, but I have feeling you're pretty far removed from the topic you're trying to sound intelligent about.
Japan is a fairly "pacificist" nation because it enjoys the full protection of the United States and has nothing to gain from any form of military aggression. Tens of thousands of American troops are stationed there. American patriot missile batteries defend them from possible ballistic missile attacks. American fighters patrol their skies and prepare to defend them from any aggressors. American fleets are always nearby to protect their shipping lanes or repel any attempted invasion.
Japan has a small, extremely well-trained and equipped defense force. They would absolutely love some new F-22s in case other Asian countries decide to get retribution for Japanese atrocities during WWII. Atrocities that would have continued had American soldiers not been properly trained or equipped to beat Japanese soldiers.
It's quite clear that there is a clear threat to Japan's safety in the theater, and will be for the foreseeable future. If the United States stops protecting Japan, Japan will expand its military and tech research and provide for its own protection. I agree that less Japanese scientists have to work on defense-related projects because the two countries are cooperating in this area.
Of course I shouldn't be arguing since you're likely either a troll or an idiot, but, just in case you aren't, which academic field are you in that doesn't benefit from the fruits of military research?
I think it's obvious enough that the above posters already said this. It's clearly in the best interest of our children if our militaries aren't well-trained, right? Why bother putting leaders into office who will make the right decisions when we can just castrate the military...
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who realizes this is the truth of the matter.
I just wonder what the history books will say... Will society perpetuate these frauds because it feels they're beneficial? Will legal scholars look back and say "they did what they could with their limited understanding of science/nature/psychology/human bodies"?
I agree with you that for SOME people, heck, maybe even for MOST people, BMI is useful. My issue with it is that it is extremely simplistic and doesn't take into account any other important factors in determining an individual's ideal weight. You agree that doctors must take other factors into account, but not everyone is a doctor.
People need some sort of index that they can use to determine how much they should weigh to be healthy, and right now people think that index is BMI. So do our nation's policy makers. Statisticians need an index they can use to track the weight and fitness of a society... Right now, BMI is the best tool they have.
My argument, and challenge to your community, is that we need a better statistical tool. I'd like to think that our medical knowledge has advanced since the 19th century... by now we should be able to develop a better tool. I propose body fat percentage. Body fat is easily measured to a fairly tight degree of accuracy using electrical impedance. Perhaps we should consider an index that compares body fat to blood pressure to resting heart rate to weight? We'll never create a tool or method that will cover 100% of the society, but we should strive to create a better one.
Thanks, it's a great example of something I also discovered when I became less active. When I was into martial arts, running, lifting weights, all the things that keep your metabolism up, I was about 5'11" and 190 pounds with ~12% body fat, and I couldn't fit into a size 34, either. I chuckled when I found out that, according to BMI, I really needed to go on a diet.
Of course since then I've re-focused my energies on sitting on my ass at work. After my lifestyle changed, my appetite remained the same. I ballooned to about 225 pounds before I managed to get the appetite under control... going from 3500 Calories/day to 2200 Calories/day takes some getting used to. Now I vary from 205-210 and have closer to 20% body fat, but I'm relatively happy with my weight and figure.
It certainly took a lot of work to get used to eating so much less, though. I imagine the same happened to you.
I'm interested to see your published research in this area.
Although it was quite funny, it's a straw man and the study itself has some serious flaws. Some people really do have serious glandular problems or diseases causing obesity. My cousin was a beautiful young woman until she developed lupus... she went from somewhere around 120 pounds to, well, I'm not going to speculate. I'm not sure what exactly caused the obesity, it could have been anything from hormonal changes to medications she had to take, but I know her house isn't exactly filled with twinkies. I feel terrible walking around with her in public. Not because I'm embarrassed to be with an obese woman, but because I get so upset at the looks people give us. People look at her like she just killed and ate their favorite pet, then they look at me with a slightly different look of disgust.
In addition, I feel that while this may be accurate, we'd be pushing the environmentalism too far to cite it as a reason for people to lose weight. Even if it would save some energy, fuel, and materials, all of the savings are overshadowed by the significant social and medical advantages. If we could waste just a little more food and fuel to ensure a longer life expectancy, we would.
Of course, this study isn't really very good. While the global demand for food would likely drop, you'd have a significant jump in energy and oil prices. All of the formerly obese Americans, spending hundreds less on food every month, would be ready to hit the beaches, ski slopes, etc. with their extra money and less embarrassing bodies.
Finally, BMI is a shoddy system that I'm sick of seeing. BMI was developed at a time when leeching was an accepted medical practice, and hasn't changed significantly since then. BMI can not differentiate between lean mass and lard. This means that a society of body builders would have the same average BMI as a society of, well, lazy Americans.
Getting back to serious topics, it's very important to note that global food shortages (and corresponding rises in prices) are not caused by increased demand. They're caused by reduced supply, which has been, in part, caused by food aid programs. When people become dependent on food aid programs, a small series of events can raise food prices enough that food aid programs can't afford to send food. You can imagine how well this works out for impoverished areas that have lost their indigenous food production capability.
But thanks for your comment. You spend a lot of time on IRC, yes?
Actually, I have a 10GB file called "Cannon Fodder.tc" (andI know it's hard for US residents brainwashed during the cold war, but socialism is not an alternative to
freedom or even to democracy . Socialism is an alternative economic system and as such would be an alternative to capitalism
Semantics/pedantics/word games aside, I'm sure we agree that the GP said something fairly ignorant. When citizens from the majority of the developed countries in the world are terrified of the prospect of going to your country and losing their freedoms, you have some problems. Particularly if you like to portray yourself as doing something to advance freedom, liberty, justice for all, etc.
It depends on what, in particular, you're concerned about. As far as I know, they don't currently routinely search laptops, so it'd be speculation to guess at what a routine search they don't do would miss. My laptop was searched in Korea a few years ago... If I remember correctly, they were looking for obscene porn. Apparently young males traveling alone are more likely to be bringing illegal pornography into the country (anything that shows penetration). I booted windows, they looked in My Documents, My Videos, and My Pictures. I tried to appear shocked when they went to Tools - Folder Options - View - Show Hidden Files...
The funniest part was that I was having some display issues in linux, and only kept the windows install around for, uhh, multimedia applications. I believe I was using PGP Disk to protect more sensitive content. Either way, I got a good giggle out of their thorough search, and I guess they got to appease their conservative electorate.
Child porn... diagrams of your plans to bomb the super bowl? I'm sure there's something else that could be on your laptop that could be illegal.
I'm confused... Doesn't the lack of a belief in an afterlife make your time here even more valuable?
...it's perfectly possible for two perpendicular lines not to intersect. (Add a third dimension.)The physical truths of how the universe was brought into existence, whether that occurred as the result of divine action or not, are the domain of the physicist, by definition. That leaves the ineffable to religion. Some unclear thinkers exist in both realms who want to confuse certain things which aren't confusing, that's all.
I think we fundamentally agree on a lot of issues, and from your other posts you obviously understand science. While there may be people who are trying to put science and religion in conflict when they don't need to be, religion is falsifiable whenever it makes factual claims:This conflict extends to value-based, or moral claims:
Given the above conflicts between religion and science, I ask you now, "What is the difference between religion and philosophy?"
I'll assume that you agree that the physical universe is the domain of science. I define religion as "philosophy with a supernatural claim that involves the physical universe that serves to give it merit, divine right, justification, or induce an emotional reaction." If we disagree on the definition of religion, I can see how we might be both completely missing each others' points. If we agree on religion, all I can say is that I don't see how you can find any aspect of religion which does not directly conflict with science, other than the philosophy component. If we're just treating religion as glorified philosophy, I'll agree that philosophy is a very important thing. It's currently impossible to scientifically come to a conclusion about how one should live one's life. As such, we need philosophy and moral codes to guide us. I just don't feel we should glorify it with divine claims that will force philosophy into becoming a static religion, unable to adapt to changing circumstances.
Explaining that you adhere to the Big Bang theory as some kind of consequence of your atheism is a non sequitur. What does religious belief have to do with acceptance of a physical theory? Do you also explain electromagnetism to your daughter by pointing out that you are non-religious?
If religious beliefs that intelligent attraction caused magnetism were the prevailing attitude in my country, I'd certainly have to explain to my daughter that I did not believe that nonsense.If anything this encourages the sort of illogical thinking which science tries to expose and eliminate. Religion and science are orthogonal to each other, as has been multiply observed for centuries by both scientists and religious leaders (the efforts of radicals on both sides to exploit it for political gains notwithstanding -- some people will fall for anything).
It's funny you use the term "orthogonal"... perpendicular, like two streets that intersect. Religion and science intersect exactly where religions make claims about the physical world. You can't have a full discussion about the issue of the beginnings of the universe, the origins of the species, etc. without examining the claims of both sides. Since they ARE mutually exclusive (natural processes causing something versus a supernatural creating causing something), you must weigh the evidence on each side, and decide which one is either correct or on the right path.Both sides are, however, guilty of claiming that they don't intersect whenever they're afraid for their existence or livelihood. When contradicting a religious claim about the world, a scientist must have extensive evidence and public opinion on his side before admitting that it contradicts peoples' religious views. This can be seen everywhere from Galileo to the scopes trial. Once the roles are reversed, and religious leaders are on the defensive, they argue that their beliefs are just that... beliefs in the supernatural/spiritual world that can not be touched by science. Later, they will try to devise pseudo scientific "theories" to displace the scientific theories that replaced their god's hand.
My reference: See Intelligent Design or any current or past argument on any historical, scientific, or biological claim made in any popular religious text.
To compound this problem, most of my teachers had degrees in areas like "Child Education" and didn't have a firm grasp of science, math, or history. They knew very little beyond what was in the textbook, and their explanations or additions to the texts were often completely incorrect. I was nearly kicked out of my pre-algebra class for arguing with my teacher over the "difference" between
Of course high school was essentially a repeat of this terrible process. Again, the majority of my teachers didn't have a good understanding of the areas they were teaching. History was generally white-washed and inaccurate. Some of the math classes were actually a little better, but I still spent half of my time unlearning the garbage I had been taught earlier.
Out of frustration and boredom, I rebelled. I started hanging out with druggies and stopped doing homework. My life and career have never really recovered from this... I should have gotten into better colleges, but admissions boards find it hard to ignore a bad GPA. I didn't attend a local community college because I knew I would still be surrounded by the same people. I still spend an hour or two per day reading published articles and journals, exploring my creative and scientific sides, but as I get older I know my chances of being able go to a real university rapidly diminish.
My hope at this point is that, when I have children, I will not put my childrens' brains in the same vice mine was in. I won't oversimplify answers, lie to them about everything from biology to history, or tell them how to think. They will be exposed to foreign languages at an early age. They will always have an opportunity to explore things at a deeper level. The hardest part will probably be finding a good enough school that I can afford to send them to.
I wish for once the religious arguments would stop. Dawkins doesn't even go out of his way to attack religion in The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children. His lectures in 1991 were brilliant and inspiring.
If you want a solid, secular explanation of evolutionary biology, do yourself a favor and watch this series with your children. You can tell your children "God was behind it" or anything else that will make you feel better about it, but at least they'll have an accurate understanding of the facts and theory. They'll also learn a lot of interesting things about biology.
I agree, actually, it's very interesting. This characteristic of human development is also one of the reasons there is such hot debate about religious indoctrination of children in schools. If you view religion as a vaccine against eternal damnation, you want children to hear about religion as much and as early as possible. If you think it's a bunch of bullocks, you absolutely don't want your children exposed to it until they're old enough to question it. Keep in mind how long it takes most children to learn not to trust teachers or authority figures.
There is some pretty interesting research out there about this, but I don't have any links with me at the moment. Nova (a TV series on PBS) did a few specials (Ape Genius, etc.) that also did a great job covering it. If you look into it, you'll see some incredible experiments that show that children are actually much more gullible and blindly follow what's taught to them than other primates. It's also quite likely that this has significantly benefited our society.
I'm too tired to dig through references right now, but I hope you look into it.
Actually it's closer to reality than you make it out to be. I don't know if you read the article, but the inventor of the space pen really did pour his heart into its development, and he did it with the space program in mind. There are, of course, legitimate needs for such a pen. The only difference is that he spent thousands, not billions, on its development, and, once he developed them, he promptly gave pens to NASA for free.
Trust me, it could have been much worse. Try asking an undercover cop if you can buy a quickie from her!
I suspect that the subtle threat of the US invading them makes some countries (Iran, North Korea) all the more inclined to want to have a deterrent. And their attempts to build nukes greatly increase the odds of the US invading them. Personally, not a game I'd play if I was a benevolent dictator.