Did he have to escape from a group of brownshirts in jackboots? Was he convicted as an enemy spy "attacking the Capitalist State and Social Order" and sent to a labor camp for 15 years? Perhaps, a fatwa was issued calling on the faithful to kill him?
No? None of that? Damn, this lousy government of ours. They can't even silence anyone!
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we needed to wait until it was that bad before we took a stand. Perhaps your historical conjecture that brownshirts and political prisoners suddenly appear overnight along with totalitarian governments in formerly democratic nations was what threw me off. Sorry, I'll go back to being a good complacent citizen until I have to risk my life instead of writing my congressmen after reading a newspaper article or two. Does your pattern recognition not work or are you just trolling? Were you out sick the days they covered the American Revolution and civil liberties at school?
The government is not allowed to propagandize by law. We pay taxes for this guys research, we get to hear his opinion, no matter how bad it makes another one of our employees, the president, look. If he thinks he knows something his employers (we the people) should hear and would be most concerned if we didn't hear, he is under every obligation to release the information into the public, regardless of what sycophantic political appointees think. They serve us.
Did we read the same article? This is a different level of scrutiny with the flimsiest of reasons. The quotes from career federal employees and other members of the science community directly contradicted the appointed officials views. And as for this, "Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority."; NPRs' listeners pay taxes just like Fox News' listeners. Mr. Deutsch has no authority to deny interviews due to the political leanings of those requesting the interview or if an interview might not make the president look good. That is the heart and soul of propaganda, which is still illegal in this country.
I understand and sympathize with the administration's position, it's hard when the facts are biased against you, but the law is the law. While I've got plenty of bones to pick with the NYT over unobjective reporting, calling this liberal only works if, by liberal, you mean objective. The behavior of the administration described in the article is like a cancerous tumor that will destroy our nation if we let it. Dr. Hansen's refusal to be silenced and those who support him have taken the most honorable position a scientist can take. It's a pity some people can't see that.
Depends on what you need to do, which frameworks your using. I've found IntelliJ integrates with a standard IDE-neutral build xml and custom tools like XDoclet much better than Eclipse. Eclipse demands that your project be built inside Eclipse to use any Eclipse tools. The default Java editor in IntelliJ is nicer than Eclipses as well.
If you're supporting multiple developers, Eclipse can be easier to get people to standardize on, making debugging the dev environment easier. If your doing JBoss work, the Eclipse based JBossIDE might be nicer than IntelliJ, just because everything is setup already. Avoid Rational Application Developer at all costs though, it probably needs a couple of revisions before the IBM over engineering gets out of your way and lets you work.
It's been a while since I've tried to do web framework stuff in IntelliJ, although it's always handled this a lot better than the plugins for Eclipse that I've seen, it never handled XDoclet integration well enough to deal with tag library and struts tags. That always made some nice features useless. Eclipse is just as bad, I've yet to see a good set of plugins that handle all the tools I use in a standard Java dev environment. Many of the plugins seem to expect things done the Eclipse way, or they become useless. I wouldn't mind doing things the 'Eclipse way' if that were synonymous with IDE-neutral, but until then, the Eclipse way won't cut it.
The thing that annoys me the most about all these IDEs is the lack of imagination in tool-building. Very few graphical tools handle the IDE-neutral environment well, the wizards and syntax highlighting engines tend to be extremely inflexible. If my project needs JUnit testing, why wouldn't I do an automated nightly pull and generate a public report everyday? Wouldn't my IDE only be helpful if I could do the Unit tests outside the IDE, without figuring out a boatload of crypticlly stored dependencies?
Anyway, I'd try each of them out with the particular features you need, and make sure to check that they will easily integrate other tools you'll need. Java IDE's could be a lot nicer. Both Eclipse and IntelliJ have made great improvements, but this is more a half-way point than anywhere near a victory lap.
Eastern philosophy has a striking parallel to Western rationalist philosphy. Actually, I would say the Upanisads have more about the unprovable nature of God. The Vedas were more mystic and covered proper ritual behaviors. I'm currently reading the History of Indian Philosophy by Surendranath Dasgupta. This, on the heels of David Miller's Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence, has been pretty fun so far. I don't think it matters that the robot simply mimics self-awareness. After all, if we cannot prove or disprove God, then we are likely not to be able to determine how our Brahman nature interacts with the physical world. Even without the ability to gain this knowledge, we can most likely understand how our behavior and learning happens physically. If we can duplicate this technological knowledge, then we should be able to create something which mimics a being with Brahman nature, but itself lacks a Brahman nature.
I'd say that's all we really need from a tool. On the other hand, I'm very interested how they create logical structures from the learned patterns coming in from the nueral nets. Is the behavior in the article a collection of cool pet tricks or a primitive personality?
While these are cool pet tricks that may lead to a primitive personality, I'm much more interested in the latter.
Ahem: Learn ID alongside Darwinian evolution, and suddenly you're in danger of being unable to think rationally.
The issue is a metaphysical theory being taught as a scientific theory. Yes, this does put you in danger of being unable to think rationally. Thinking rationally requires objectivity, calling a metaphysical theory scientific is unobjective. You cannot logically enter into this position with rationalist identity without losing rationalist integrity. Rationalist identity without rationalist integrity is unobjective.
Whether you agree or disagree with ID being taught, your wild-eyed devotion to Darwinian evolution as a key lodestone for critical thinking is positively magikcal.
Wild-eyed devotion to anything is unobjective and therefore unscientific. We are discussing what is proper to teach in science class, I would say that science is a good candidate. Science is the attempt to objectively describe the physical world (measurable existence, reality; whatever you'd like to call it), science does not function without objectivity.
Your trollish reply to sfjoe ignores this point, thus my first reply to your ignorant and provably wrong comments. Business requires objectivity, science class is possibly the clearest place to learn objectivity, teaching ID undermines this objectivity, undermining science and producing students who are less productive. I wouldn't hire anyone who couldn't use the scientific method either, how could I ever trust the information they give me otherwise?
Using Science isn't a matter of belief. I don't care what you believe, but you'd better know how to produce objective analysis and communicate it objectively. You have to distort this to make your point, which is why your replys are trollish and wrong. Just like Intelligent Design, you don't have an honest argument to make.
BTW, I'm shrill and emotional about this, because your perpetuating fraud. If I know you're disseminating falsehoods and I point it out, then you deny it in light of reasoned evidence, not much else I can do but shun you until you choose to behave like an adult. You've obviously been around long enough, this is a forum for science enthusiasts, either make an honest argument or go find someone else to annoy. You're just generating noise and reducing the signal here.
"very few science oriented individuals consider how evolution might be falsified"
Irrelavent and incorrect. All scientific theories are falsifiable, so at least some thought went into how they could be falsified. Evolution is considered to be a fairly reliable theory because it has managed to not be falsified so many times. Since you cannot know what it is that you do not know, evolution is evaluated every time new evidence is found. So far, no new evidence has failed rationalization with the theory of evolution. What you see as verification is actually attempted falsification. In fact, evolution is so reliable that you have mistaken it for being accepted as fact and treated as dogma. If that were the case, science would cease to exist as a practice.
Science does have a truth, that truth is to objectively describe reality. Simply because that goal is unobtainable and has no a priori justification, does not mean one is not capable of evaluating how well certain ideas achieve this goal, compared to other ideas. It just means that you can never be certain that you have obtained "The Truth" aka 'the most efficient means of reaching ones goals'.
Because of this irrational goal (no natural justification for understanding reality, we just find it useful for our other equally irrational goals), science is able to have a truth. Truth is just the most efficient means for reaching unjustified goals, science's truth involves the exclusion of metaphysical theories.
In other words, all "truths" are unjustifiable interpretations, but if your goals are to objectively describe reality (science), then the scientific method (no metaphysical theories, must be falsifiable) produces progress towards absolute truth. If your goals are to unwaveringly believe in an unobjective description of reality, then science is not your truth. The problem isn't that people want to believe in a metaphysical theory, it's that people want to call their metaphysical theories scientific. The only way to do this is to change the definition of science, which is dishonest. Parading metaphysical theories as science is part of an ideology that justifies lying to achieve it's goals. It perpetuates a fraud to claim students were taught science and showed proficiency in the field, when the curiculum specifically undermines the definition by introducing metaphysical theories as scientific.
Your arguments are entirely fucking wrong, the fact that they've been modded up as insightful is just sad. There's really no other way of putting this. Intelligent Design is a metaphysical theory since it cannot be falsified. Scienctific theories are falsifiable, metaphysical theories are not. To teach metaphysical theories as scientific is to teach lies as truth. This has nothing to do with claiming religious or other metaphysical beliefs are whacko. To be a scientist or objective does not require that one disavow any unscientific beliefs, but that one recognize that they are metaphysical and not scientific.
This argument that science is wrong to discriminate against metaphysical theories is wrong. Sectarian disputes are arguments over metaphysical theories, science does not take a position on such theories and therefore cannot be drawn into such debates while retaining it's integrity. This entire attack on science as if it is antagonistic of religious beliefs is provably wrong. Those who make it should be shunned as idiots, regardless of their metaphysical positions.
Atheism is "strong atheism". WTF is weak aethism, agnosticism? The very term means you believe that there are no theistic beings, which in rational terms means provably false. Your playing word games here. Skepticism isn't inherently rational, in fact, it is just as irrational as positive belief. You have no more rational basis in disbelief of something that cannot be falsified than you do in belief of something that cannot be falsified. The question is metaphysical and inherently not rational, all positions are irational. The Agnostic is the only one who doesn't take a position. Look at the words:
Theistic : belief in a positive answer to a metaphysical question. Atheistic: belief in a negative answer to a metaphysical question. Theistic with 'a' on the front, as in opposite. Agnostic : no belief, a state of not knowing. As in Gnostic, or posessing knowledge with an 'a' on the front, not possesing knowledge.
These are all greek words with greek roots. The meanings of them are consistent with my post and inconsistent with yours.
This is why atheists traditionally stick to logic to denounce theism, since poking holes in definitions is a lot easier than the impossible feat of disproving the existence of.
Ever read theistic philosophy? There's a lot of logic in there. Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, they all use logic to argue with one another in sectarian dispute, which is why an Atheist using logic to poke holes is no different than the way a Catholic pokes holes in Protestant thought and vice versa. It's a sectarian argument, entirely irrational. Just as a Catholic or Protestant must resort to dogmatic foundations for their logic, the atheist must do the same, the dogma that there is no theistic being.
Now denouncing a religion with science typically works, since religions make ad hoc explanations of the world, most of which turn out to be wrong, and demonstrably so. But gods are conveniently not subject to any of the standard rules of the universe, such as the tendency of things that exist to leave evidence of their existence.
It doesn't work. You can't prove or disprove metaphysical questions, that's why gods aren't subject to physics. Attempting it is a misrepresentation of science. Science is just as much an ad hoc description, it's goal is to produce an objective and consistent description of the physical world. There is no inherently rational reason for doing this, it's just useful to our other irrational goals. If I'm going to wipe out the heretics, I need ballistics. Science is a tool, it's scope does not include metaphysical questions, those that produce theories which cannot be falsified.
You really should read my post more carefully and reconsider what your saying. You've contradicted yourself a number of times and misused the meanings of several words. David Miller's "Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defense" contains the logical proofs that there are "No Good Reasons". That all goals are equally irrational. Thus rationality is can only be measured in how well one's actions will assist in achieving one's equally irrational goals. To attempt to prove some goal as inherently more rational is to attempt to answer a metaphysical question, which is not scientific.
Atheists have no ground to stand on fighting irrational beliefs. The belief that there is no higher power is just as irrational as believing that there is one. Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, you cannot prove the non-existence of God. Atheism is just a different answer to a metaphysical question. Neither answer is rational since the question cannot be rationally answered. The only "rational" answer to the question is that the answer is unknowable, or that you do not know the answer, which is agnosticism.
Just remember that there are "No Good Reasons". Rationally speaking, there is no basis for doing or believing anything. Yet we know that we have goals and act on goals since we act. Our goals are utterly and always irrational, but the objective method most likely to allow us to reach those goals is our "truth". We when act in accordance with meeting our own goals (including goals like self-preservation, or following one's conscience) we are said to be acting rational. When we act against our own goals (throw logic out the window, etc), we are called irrational.
Belief or disbelief in a higher power is no less a rational fulfillment of a goal than using scientific knowledge to cure cancer. Science simply has very specific and well-defined goals, to objectively describe the physical world, including it's contents, history and future.
When people try to denounce theism with science, they are abusing science and simply engaging in sectarian disputes. In other words, there's no difference between an Atheist admonishing a theist and the Deist Thomas Jefferson calling John Calvin a false prophet who is most suredly burning in Hell.
That being said, anytime you have a debate about what ought to be done or believed, you're fighting against something that doesn't exist.
Consumers Bill of Rights, or rationalization that current statutes regulating trade uphold certian Subjective Rights, that may not be given away. In other words, the contract would be invalid, since it imposed illegal conditions.
Boring old institutional engineering is the answer once again.
"there would be many, many more instances of what we saw in that particularly disfunctional unit." I didn't name a specific unit. Mainly because there were "many more instances", secondly, why didn't this happen during Gulf War I, where we took similarly large numbers of prisoners?
Are you forgetting about Bagram, Afghanistan?
From Wikipedia:
In October 2004, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case. Seven soldiers have been charged so far.
Do a few bad apples manage to hide prisoners from the Red Cross without help? Are the CIA operatives involved in "extraordinary rendition" a few bad apples too? How do a few bad apples get use of a private jet to deliver suspects to their torturers, violating both US law and international treaties?
From Wikipedia:
Taguba's 53-page report, classified "Secret" and dated April 4, 2004, concluded that U.S. soldiers had committed "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" at Abu Ghraib.[4] Taguba found that between October and December 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners. In violation of Army regulations, intelligence officers asked military police to "loosen up" inmates before questioning. The report estimates that 60% of the prisoners at the site were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely. Guards invented their own rules and supervisors approved of their actions. Personnel lost track of prisoners, did not count their prisoners, and kept no records regarding dozens of escapes. The facility held too many inmates and supplied too few guards. Training of those on guard was insufficient, and superiors neglected to visit the facilities in person. Top military personnel disagreed on whether military police or military intelligence should be in charge. Prisoner treatment varied between shifts and between compounds.
Taguba cited numerous organizational and leadership failures at Abu Ghraib. Reservists tasked with guarding the prison population were inadequately trained, and Taguba faulted senior commanders for failing to address these deficiencies. Specifically, intelligence officers and members of one company, the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cresaptown, Maryland, in charge of security, took part in the documented abuses.
Taguba's report makes it clear that this was a systematic problem. There were a number of military lawyers who objected to these techniques and the careless orders that came down and loosened existing regulations or implied that a different interpretation would be used. These orders came from the civilian leadership. It was also the leadership's responsibility to make sure that these soldiers were not given conflicting orders and that they were given the proper tools to carry out their orders (proper facilities, not dog leashes and chains).
Let's also look at when the abuses started at Abu Ghraib.
On July 12, 2005 members of a military panel told the committee that they proposed disciplining prison commander Army Major General Geoffrey Miller over the interrogation of Mohamed al-Qahtani who was forced to wear a bra, dance with another man and threatened with dogs. The recommendation was overruled by General Bantz J. Craddock, commander of U.S. Southern Command, who refered the matter to the Army's inspector general.
Geoffrey Miller then gets transferred to Abu Ghraib:
In August 2003, Miller was sent to Iraq by the Department of Defense to help get more information out o
Until all the world is a civil society, there will be the possibility of war and the need for civil society to defend itself. The solution to the dehumanization and aggression problems that you mention are solvable via the institutions which "manage" these functions in society.
Torture and violations of human rights didn't happen simply because we taught a our guys to kill. They happened because the institutional protections broke down. When Gonzales wrote his memo stating that the Geneva Convention was quaint, the President and the rest of the civilians in charge of the military showed where priorities lay. By not showing the required leadership, they failed to fulfill their duties and minimize the risks of such self-defeating actions taking place.
Had their been leadership shown or at least a sense of accountability within the institution, as there has been in the past, we would not have seen this much abuse, nor would it have weakened our global standing as much. The spin of a few bad apples is fooling no one outside of the US, which makes one wonder why half the population of the US and it's executive institution believe they can bullshit their way through the problem of global terrorism and radical fundamentalists.
the extreme expense it would take to build the massive mass transit systems such a large nation would need More expensive than invading Iraq or paying off the Saudi's to secure oil? Even if you had to subsidize Amtrak, the money have a better return on investment to the global economy and our own, than our strategy to secure oil in the Middle East and South America.
The author seems to have a decent grasp on the effects of technological innovation on the market, but he has no grasp of the structure of the market itself. Without centralized artificial restrictions on spectrum usage, the military, commercial radio, emergency services and hobbyists would all have had to wait until radio's tools caught up to make use of it. At the time of the establishment of the FCC, radio much less useful without artifically defining spectrum usage. The barrier to entry would have been too high.
The FCC will always be needed to protect spectrum for low-tech communications, which are still needed. As to the FCC's censorship and their handling of pirate radio, they've totally acted in contradiction to their purpose. However, the FCC is a public institution and can be raigned in, but I doubt that's the approach someone writing for the Von Mises Institute would take. The irrational belief in the 'a priori' axiom leads to a logic that makes throwing the baby out with the bathwater appear rational.
So I should blame any future sexual dysfunction caused by gender confusion on the Atari 5200 and Super Breakout? Did Grand Theft Auto undue the damage or was that just crass overcompensation?
The way I see it, Bushnell just made himself liable for an entire generation's sexual frustrations. Breakout will now replace Asbestos in high-paying AdSense keywords. If nothing else, I could turn it into a Law & Order script to pay for the enormous lawye^H^H^H^H^Htherapist bill. Hopefully any symptoms will occur before "Law & Order: Class Action Suit" goes into syndication in 2020. I'm sure they'll buy it if the real courts won't.
Today's legal sarcasm brought to you by McScribly's: purveyor of archival quality legal pads; harvested from the finest genuine iguana skin. When your billing $500 an hour, nothing less is acceptable.
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret ambiguous law, not substitute it with the law they'd like to see. A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy. The task of making law should be left up to the legislature, not usurped by the judiciary. Interpretation of law can easily create derivative law. The entire legal system must be internally consistent, if a law is passed that creates inconsistency, then the courts may need to strike it down, clarify it, change scope or otherwise change the law passed by the legislature.
If precedent cannot be logically consistent without a non-legislated right, such as the right to privacy, then the courts are well within their bounds to surmise that such a right exists for the purpose of maintaining logical consistency. In other words, if the Bill of Rights doesn't make sense without a right to privacy, then the courts are entirely within their official and traditional mandate to declare one exists. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who argues otherwise is either lying or has no reliable knowledge about the history of Western law.
This is the power that balances against the legislature and it is the only way to constrain a legislature. If the legislature or the voters don't like the can of worms they've opened by writing or asking for bad legislation, then they need to think through their actions more carefully.
The courts do not act arbitrarily (except for Bush v. Gore, remember it's not to be used as precedent), legislatures that continuously have anti-choice laws overturned are just throwing a demagogues fodder to the voters. They know that their laws will be overturned, or are otherwise inconsistent with precedent involving the health of the mother, rape, etc. They do this to keep the pro-life PAC checks coming every election cycle.
My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her. Don't worry, it's the best of both worlds, it will be a right-wing fundamentalist who will be billed as a "Constructionist". Not that "constructionist" really means anything outside of Scalia's deranged mind. The definitions of "Constructionist" by self-proclaimed "Constructionists" varies from loony and lacking historical evidence to being identical to the "original intent" method preferred by Liberals (albeit with different outcomes and ideas of original intent).
The courts do not act arbitrarily (except for Bush v. Gore, remember it's not to be used as precedent), legislatures that continuously have anti-choice laws overturned are just throwing a demogogues fodder to the voters. They know that their laws will be overturned, or are otherwise inconsistent with precedent involving the health of the mother, rape, etc. They do this to keep the pro-life PAC checks coming every election cycle.
My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her. Don't worry, it's the best of both worlds, it will be a right-wing fundamentalist who will be billed as a "Constructionist". Not that "constructionist" really means anything outside of Scalia's deranged mind. The definitions of "Constructionist" by self-proclaimed "Constructionists" varies from looney and lacking historical evidence to being identical to the "original intent" method preferred by Liberals (albeit with different outcomes and ideas of original intent).
Remember boys and girls: conservative != fundimentalist.
Indeed, fundimentalists would be call "liberals" or "leftists" in any other era.
Maybe you should remind them of this, cause the religious fundies in this country sure like to call themselves conservative and rate "conservatism" along their fundamentalist's measuring stick. Hell, they've got $18 million stockpiled to mount an offensive to get Bush to appoint a religious fundamentalist to the bench under the label "conservative".
As for your linkage of fundies to leftism. If you had noted that the theoretical structure of the extreme left and extreme right are identical, and right-wing fundies are more prevalent now, you'd have been correct. However, if you want to see right-wing fundamentalism in action, look up the history of the Noble Lie.
Fundies are allergic to liberalism, and liberalism tends to just condescendingly pat them on the head. Liberals are moderates by definition and antithetical to fundamentalism. But hey, not like you're the first to confuse leftists and liberals 'round these parts; so don't be surprised when people start confusing religious fundamentalists with conservatives.
I think you'll find that true communism in the spirit of Marx doesn't have anything to do with censorship.
Marx's Communism has everything to do with imposing it's moral view on people. It naively believes in some ultimately authoritative truth that would be revealed to people if the circumstances were correct. That's why all Communist States have legal systems that are structured around the State as a parent, a teacher of morals. It's to fashion the perfect people in order to bring about the "True Communist Revolution", and if it doesn't work out, then the people weren't real Communists. Fascism does the same thing using economics, remember Hitler cursed the Germans, saying they weren't worthy of survival if those mongrel Russians beat them.
Censorship is just a tool of this parenting force, be it through legal or economic means. Marx would have used it in order to bring about the Communist Revolution. It's just that he was in a position of power where censorship was more harmful than good, in other words, he wasn't the censor.
What claim does Sony (or whoever) have on the DVD Decrypter source code? Terms of extortion. They don't have any rights, in fact, if you read the author's post he states that he's also got to contact anyone who was mirroring the site and ask them to stop, then turn over a copy of that request to Sony (or whomever).
This is what their lawyers came at him with if he wants the gun pointed somewhere besides his temple. I have no clue what license DVD Decrypter was under, but this is why the Free Software Foundation encourages authors who license code under the GPL to turn the copyright over to the Foundation. The FSF has more than $75 (approx conversion), to fight things like this.
If you're going to write cool stuff that might get a legal posse out to lynch you (legally), you should consider a strategy like the one the FSF offers to protect your personal assets. It is still possible to stick it to the man, but you better act smarter than the man.
In the absence of clues to differentiate your usage, I assumed you meant it as it is most commonly used. Even so, my comment still stands. I never claimed there was no "authority," either. Your comment was that you didn't "believe anyone has ever accurately determined an absolute meaning or purpose". That statement supposes that any objective truth must be a truth that is manifest to all. You claimed that all truth was an equal source of authority, which I did not disagree with. I do not believe that there is any objective truth that is manifest to all. Hardly. It's unclear to me how you reached that conclusion. I've never argued for a knowable universal truth. My statement above should show how I reached that conclusion. I have argued for an absolute truth for an individual perspective and that such truth is not capable of being manifest to all.
Certainly they are capable of it. They just don't resemble anything like a hard science currently. The forecast for the future isn't very rosy in that regard, either. That does not preclude the possibility of it happening at some point, though. You must have some knowledge about the state of the epistemology of these fields that you are not sharing to have such an exact assessment of their futures.
(taking for granted that it does not contradict them, or it wouldn't actually have a net use) Your parentheses contains the thrust of my attack. I contend that maintaining a falsehood does contradict the moral goals of the US and therefore has no net use.
If something is useful from the standpoint of reaching your moral goals (taking for granted that it does not contradict them, or it wouldn't actually have a net use), and moral constructs are the only absolute truth (the only thing knowable), then usefulness certainly can be equated with truth. You just have to make sure "usefulness" isn't sloppily defined. As for it being a "falsehood," that can only be if it is not a part of one's moral goals. If it is antithetical, it is "false." If it is beneficial, it is "true." For those who see it as having no bearing, it is irrelevant. It may be false from your point of view, but given that you define truth to be composed of only what you have constructed in your mind, your truth or falsehood is functionally irrelevant to anyone else The "absolute truth" is the "most efficient" means of achieving one's moral goals. If you chose an action that was 50% less efficient in fulfilling your moral goals than another, you could say it was only half-true. I don't know how the definition could be more exact than that. An action that defeated one's moral goals could be considered a falsehood. You can claim a degree of truth as long as the net result is forward movement towards one's moral goals. You could also claim a degree of falsehood as long as the net result is a retreat from one's moral goals.
The truth or falsehood of my moral goals aren't irrelevant if robbing you is part of my "truth". The epistemology I am extending from Popper and Bartley contends that all language is abstract, and that we can only communicate in abstractions. This means that any absolute truth would be impossible to communicate, that there can be no truth that is manifest to all. Moral goals are entirely mental constructs, there is nothing that can be described as naturally good or bad. Such valuations are entirely relative to one's own moral goals and exist entirely in one's mind. However they influence the world around us when we choose to achieve our moral goals.
The poverty of your claim of irrelevancy is further shown if you consider the need to trust me to assist in achieving your moral goals. You need to evaluate my actions against your moral goals as well as those I have stated to ascertain the truthfulness of my statements. As long as we interact, my moral goals are relevant to you.
If tomorrow everyone ceases to understand "government" or any of the extensions of it, nothing physical would cease t
Perhaps you should apply this assertion to your claim that I am imprecise in my language. I very well may have misspoke and meant unclear instead of imprecise. Regardless, I don't think it's pertinent to the discussion. My point was that language is relative, but that we can verify that each other understands the meaning of the communication. Anything beyond that is probably a debate on semantics.
That's funny. I never said there was no meaning or purpose in existence. I just don't believe anyone has ever accurately determined an absolute meaning or purpose. I did not make that accusation. Nihilism can also mean there is no authority. That is the nihilism of the relativist who assumes that because everyone's perspective is equal that there can be no absolutes. My own moral goals are absolute. It is ultimately me who is responsible for determining that meaning or purpose. I might be lazy and take a pre-packaged one because it works for me, but I have still made a choice.
As for relativism, you appear firmly on that page as well: I may not be able to know something absolutely and My moral goals, on the other hand, are knowable as they are entirely mental constructs[referring to the basis of "truth"]. If "truth" isn't relative, what is the absolute, unchanging basis for it? Or is it only "absolute" for each person (essentially arbitrary and relative when viewed in general). Exactly. Truth is only absolute for your own moral goals. Since I cannot falsify your moral goals, yet we all possess them, we must derive a system which allows us to get along, given this conundrum of authority. Your moral goals are the authority for your actions, the state gains authority when we each cede come amount of that political will to the state. By doing so, I give up the right use violence against my fellow citizens to enforce my political will as long as the state, or my fellow citizens do not violate certain defined rights. A major branch of philosophy that concerns the forms, nature, and preconditions of knowledge. As a science, it is only concerned with objective knowledge. There is a sociological aspect of epistemology, but that is not what we are discussing here. Plato's forms have long been shown to be metaphysics.
Not necessarily objective knowledge. Part of the search is attempting to answer the question of whether objective knowledge exists and if it exists in a form comprehensible to finite beings.
Firmly inside the realm of metaphysics. The reasoning behind Natural Law, that all law flows from God given laws, has to do with the nature of reason. The theology goes something like this: The 10 commandments cannot be derived from nature, how can our law be derivative of God if it is not consistent with nature? The answer is that reason itself is one of God's creations; therefore as God gave us reason, God gave us the 10 commandments. We can derive law from the 10 commandments since they were divinely revealed, but we cannot derive the 10 commandments from nature.
We can never truly know anything beyond our perception, which may not record "reality" correctly. Our own moral perceptions can be truly known. They are entirely constructed inside our minds, have no actual attachment to reality, yet through our actions, we impose that vision upon reality in measurable ways. This means that our moral goals are the only objective truth we have. Thus, "The Truth", is whatever means is most-efficient for us to accomplish our moral goals.
As you noted, your question [...of whether objective knowledge exists and if it exists in a form comprehensible to finite beings...] is a metaphysical question. It is like asking what is outside the expanding Universe. I do not ask if we can really know the truth, I ask what we truly know. What we truly know is the truth. To rephrase, asking if you can know about something that you know nothing about is stupid and useless to science. Asking what we know is useful to science.
I don't see how your example follows. Since you claim to operate with more precision, I would assume you place yourself in the category of the craftsman, and me as the bumbler with a dull knife attempting to recreate your piece.
Only, I was never attempting to recreate any of your positions, only to clarify my own, since you as yet seem to fail to understand my position. It was a general metaphor, an example, not a description of this conversation. The knife is language, the woodshop would be the historical context. If I were to reproduce a wood cut, I would only need skill and a knife. I wouldn't need to duplicate the type of light that came through the windows, or how much sawdust it refracted against on it's way to light the piece of wood I was carving. Your assertion that language has changed, does not make my usage of it imprecise. Just as historical language was precise in it's historical context, my language can be precise for my context. To say that language cannot be precise is to claim that all of the knowledge we have built up is a product of luck, not some method of progress.
A word can be precisely defined and still fail to communicate the idea, that does not mean it was imprecisely defined. Take any technical acronym. I can precisely define it for my mom, but she probably has no clue what I'm talking about. I have to find another manner to describe the idea, and I know the idea is conveyed when she integrates it properly into other ideas. I can do this without technical language, and it then makes it easier to teach the technical labels for the concepts afterwards, because she has a conceptual model to hang the terms on. From there on out, I can use the efficient technical abstractions with her and she will understand my communication.
The one part I would agree with is that there are multiple paths and different tools one can use to achieve the same result. There are many paths in language to describe the same idea. The only catch is that both parties need to be on the same page. It is still my contention that we are not on the same page. Agreed. I know which page I'm on, I have a few ideas about which ones you are on, but this assertion is entirely possible.
Perhaps that is enough clarification of my use of the term "manipulate in that sentence? I guess It is an exercise in clarification wasn't enough.:) Given the nihilistic and relativist nature of your epistemology, I assumed you meant manipulate in the way one would manipulate public opinion about "inalienable rights". As long as the manipulation is done without guile or deception, I have no argument with restating a position to gain clarity.
Other usage is only fine if you don't care about precise understanding. For precisely conveying an idea, you must exclude other usage so that all parties understand exactly what remains. False relationship. There need not be only one meaning for a word. There need only be one meaning for a single usage. As long as I am willing to define terms upon examination and stick to those definitions, I may use as many meanings as needed without worrying about deception. One may understand my meanings of constitution dealing with corporal health or with dealing with political matters without losing precision. If there is misunderstanding I can mend it, that does not mean my usage wasn't precise.
Otherwise, there is always the chance that some other meaning of all or part of the language used will be attributed to your message. That is a frequent pitfall of any in-depth discussion, especially those where participants are particularly dug-in to their position, and have a hard time looking at it in terms other than those they most closely associate with (something I am frequently guilty of). Communication is a different art form than definition. Definition can only happen in a state of arrested change, a context. Since reality changes, that context is temporary and the definition must be translated betwe
It's only a false statement if you take it literally, which is absurd given that Gore is a politician and not a computer scientist. So what if Cerf and Andreesen provided context that clarified the statement instead of Gore? How does that change a damn thing? If he didn't intentionally mislead and both Cerf and Andreesen gave clarifying statements in his defense, why should he even give the subject any more thought?
You're simply refusing to accept Cerf and Andreesen's evidence. You have to in order to continue holding the irrational belief that the statement was vague enough to be a falsehood. By ignoring the impact of Cerf and Andreesen on that judgement, your position becomes irrational. This is like saying Kennedy lied when he said Ich bin ein Berliner!
Slashdot Mirror
install DOJ's Anti-Trust© to remove the offending product. Of course, it has been a little buggy since the Jan 2001 release.
Did he have to escape from a group of brownshirts in jackboots? Was he convicted as an enemy spy "attacking the Capitalist State and Social Order" and sent to a labor camp for 15 years? Perhaps, a fatwa was issued calling on the faithful to kill him?
No? None of that? Damn, this lousy government of ours. They can't even silence anyone!
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we needed to wait until it was that bad before we took a stand. Perhaps your historical conjecture that brownshirts and political prisoners suddenly appear overnight along with totalitarian governments in formerly democratic nations was what threw me off. Sorry, I'll go back to being a good complacent citizen until I have to risk my life instead of writing my congressmen after reading a newspaper article or two. Does your pattern recognition not work or are you just trolling? Were you out sick the days they covered the American Revolution and civil liberties at school?
The government is not allowed to propagandize by law. We pay taxes for this guys research, we get to hear his opinion, no matter how bad it makes another one of our employees, the president, look. If he thinks he knows something his employers (we the people) should hear and would be most concerned if we didn't hear, he is under every obligation to release the information into the public, regardless of what sycophantic political appointees think. They serve us.
Did we read the same article? This is a different level of scrutiny with the flimsiest of reasons. The quotes from career federal employees and other members of the science community directly contradicted the appointed officials views. And as for this, "Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority."; NPRs' listeners pay taxes just like Fox News' listeners. Mr. Deutsch has no authority to deny interviews due to the political leanings of those requesting the interview or if an interview might not make the president look good. That is the heart and soul of propaganda, which is still illegal in this country.
I understand and sympathize with the administration's position, it's hard when the facts are biased against you, but the law is the law. While I've got plenty of bones to pick with the NYT over unobjective reporting, calling this liberal only works if, by liberal, you mean objective. The behavior of the administration described in the article is like a cancerous tumor that will destroy our nation if we let it. Dr. Hansen's refusal to be silenced and those who support him have taken the most honorable position a scientist can take. It's a pity some people can't see that.
Depends on what you need to do, which frameworks your using. I've found IntelliJ integrates with a standard IDE-neutral build xml and custom tools like XDoclet much better than Eclipse. Eclipse demands that your project be built inside Eclipse to use any Eclipse tools. The default Java editor in IntelliJ is nicer than Eclipses as well.
If you're supporting multiple developers, Eclipse can be easier to get people to standardize on, making debugging the dev environment easier. If your doing JBoss work, the Eclipse based JBossIDE might be nicer than IntelliJ, just because everything is setup already. Avoid Rational Application Developer at all costs though, it probably needs a couple of revisions before the IBM over engineering gets out of your way and lets you work.
It's been a while since I've tried to do web framework stuff in IntelliJ, although it's always handled this a lot better than the plugins for Eclipse that I've seen, it never handled XDoclet integration well enough to deal with tag library and struts tags. That always made some nice features useless. Eclipse is just as bad, I've yet to see a good set of plugins that handle all the tools I use in a standard Java dev environment. Many of the plugins seem to expect things done the Eclipse way, or they become useless. I wouldn't mind doing things the 'Eclipse way' if that were synonymous with IDE-neutral, but until then, the Eclipse way won't cut it.
The thing that annoys me the most about all these IDEs is the lack of imagination in tool-building. Very few graphical tools handle the IDE-neutral environment well, the wizards and syntax highlighting engines tend to be extremely inflexible. If my project needs JUnit testing, why wouldn't I do an automated nightly pull and generate a public report everyday? Wouldn't my IDE only be helpful if I could do the Unit tests outside the IDE, without figuring out a boatload of crypticlly stored dependencies?
Anyway, I'd try each of them out with the particular features you need, and make sure to check that they will easily integrate other tools you'll need. Java IDE's could be a lot nicer. Both Eclipse and IntelliJ have made great improvements, but this is more a half-way point than anywhere near a victory lap.
Eastern philosophy has a striking parallel to Western rationalist philosphy. Actually, I would say the Upanisads have more about the unprovable nature of God. The Vedas were more mystic and covered proper ritual behaviors. I'm currently reading the History of Indian Philosophy by Surendranath Dasgupta. This, on the heels of David Miller's Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence, has been pretty fun so far. I don't think it matters that the robot simply mimics self-awareness. After all, if we cannot prove or disprove God, then we are likely not to be able to determine how our Brahman nature interacts with the physical world. Even without the ability to gain this knowledge, we can most likely understand how our behavior and learning happens physically. If we can duplicate this technological knowledge, then we should be able to create something which mimics a being with Brahman nature, but itself lacks a Brahman nature.
I'd say that's all we really need from a tool. On the other hand, I'm very interested how they create logical structures from the learned patterns coming in from the nueral nets. Is the behavior in the article a collection of cool pet tricks or a primitive personality?
While these are cool pet tricks that may lead to a primitive personality, I'm much more interested in the latter.
"What arguments are those?"
Ahem:
Learn ID alongside Darwinian evolution, and suddenly you're in danger of being unable to think rationally.
The issue is a metaphysical theory being taught as a scientific theory. Yes, this does put you in danger of being unable to think rationally. Thinking rationally requires objectivity, calling a metaphysical theory scientific is unobjective. You cannot logically enter into this position with rationalist identity without losing rationalist integrity. Rationalist identity without rationalist integrity is unobjective.
Whether you agree or disagree with ID being taught, your wild-eyed devotion to Darwinian evolution as a key lodestone for critical thinking is positively magikcal.
Wild-eyed devotion to anything is unobjective and therefore unscientific. We are discussing what is proper to teach in science class, I would say that science is a good candidate. Science is the attempt to objectively describe the physical world (measurable existence, reality; whatever you'd like to call it), science does not function without objectivity.
Your trollish reply to sfjoe ignores this point, thus my first reply to your ignorant and provably wrong comments. Business requires objectivity, science class is possibly the clearest place to learn objectivity, teaching ID undermines this objectivity, undermining science and producing students who are less productive. I wouldn't hire anyone who couldn't use the scientific method either, how could I ever trust the information they give me otherwise?
Using Science isn't a matter of belief. I don't care what you believe, but you'd better know how to produce objective analysis and communicate it objectively. You have to distort this to make your point, which is why your replys are trollish and wrong. Just like Intelligent Design, you don't have an honest argument to make.
BTW, I'm shrill and emotional about this, because your perpetuating fraud. If I know you're disseminating falsehoods and I point it out, then you deny it in light of reasoned evidence, not much else I can do but shun you until you choose to behave like an adult. You've obviously been around long enough, this is a forum for science enthusiasts, either make an honest argument or go find someone else to annoy. You're just generating noise and reducing the signal here.
"very few science oriented individuals consider how evolution might be falsified"
Irrelavent and incorrect. All scientific theories are falsifiable, so at least some thought went into how they could be falsified. Evolution is considered to be a fairly reliable theory because it has managed to not be falsified so many times. Since you cannot know what it is that you do not know, evolution is evaluated every time new evidence is found. So far, no new evidence has failed rationalization with the theory of evolution. What you see as verification is actually attempted falsification. In fact, evolution is so reliable that you have mistaken it for being accepted as fact and treated as dogma. If that were the case, science would cease to exist as a practice.
Science does have a truth, that truth is to objectively describe reality. Simply because that goal is unobtainable and has no a priori justification, does not mean one is not capable of evaluating how well certain ideas achieve this goal, compared to other ideas. It just means that you can never be certain that you have obtained "The Truth" aka 'the most efficient means of reaching ones goals'.
Because of this irrational goal (no natural justification for understanding reality, we just find it useful for our other equally irrational goals), science is able to have a truth. Truth is just the most efficient means for reaching unjustified goals, science's truth involves the exclusion of metaphysical theories.
In other words, all "truths" are unjustifiable interpretations, but if your goals are to objectively describe reality (science), then the scientific method (no metaphysical theories, must be falsifiable) produces progress towards absolute truth. If your goals are to unwaveringly believe in an unobjective description of reality, then science is not your truth. The problem isn't that people want to believe in a metaphysical theory, it's that people want to call their metaphysical theories scientific. The only way to do this is to change the definition of science, which is dishonest. Parading metaphysical theories as science is part of an ideology that justifies lying to achieve it's goals. It perpetuates a fraud to claim students were taught science and showed proficiency in the field, when the curiculum specifically undermines the definition by introducing metaphysical theories as scientific.
Your arguments are entirely fucking wrong, the fact that they've been modded up as insightful is just sad. There's really no other way of putting this. Intelligent Design is a metaphysical theory since it cannot be falsified. Scienctific theories are falsifiable, metaphysical theories are not. To teach metaphysical theories as scientific is to teach lies as truth. This has nothing to do with claiming religious or other metaphysical beliefs are whacko. To be a scientist or objective does not require that one disavow any unscientific beliefs, but that one recognize that they are metaphysical and not scientific.
This argument that science is wrong to discriminate against metaphysical theories is wrong. Sectarian disputes are arguments over metaphysical theories, science does not take a position on such theories and therefore cannot be drawn into such debates while retaining it's integrity. This entire attack on science as if it is antagonistic of religious beliefs is provably wrong. Those who make it should be shunned as idiots, regardless of their metaphysical positions.
Atheism is "strong atheism". WTF is weak aethism, agnosticism? The very term means you believe that there are no theistic beings, which in rational terms means provably false. Your playing word games here. Skepticism isn't inherently rational, in fact, it is just as irrational as positive belief. You have no more rational basis in disbelief of something that cannot be falsified than you do in belief of something that cannot be falsified. The question is metaphysical and inherently not rational, all positions are irational. The Agnostic is the only one who doesn't take a position. Look at the words:
.
Theistic : belief in a positive answer to a metaphysical question.
Atheistic: belief in a negative answer to a metaphysical question. Theistic with 'a' on the front, as in opposite.
Agnostic : no belief, a state of not knowing. As in Gnostic, or posessing knowledge with an 'a' on the front, not possesing knowledge.
These are all greek words with greek roots. The meanings of them are consistent with my post and inconsistent with yours.
This is why atheists traditionally stick to logic to denounce theism, since poking holes in definitions is a lot easier than the impossible feat of disproving the existence of
Ever read theistic philosophy? There's a lot of logic in there. Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, they all use logic to argue with one another in sectarian dispute, which is why an Atheist using logic to poke holes is no different than the way a Catholic pokes holes in Protestant thought and vice versa. It's a sectarian argument, entirely irrational. Just as a Catholic or Protestant must resort to dogmatic foundations for their logic, the atheist must do the same, the dogma that there is no theistic being.
Now denouncing a religion with science typically works, since religions make ad hoc explanations of the world, most of which turn out to be wrong, and demonstrably so. But gods are conveniently not subject to any of the standard rules of the universe, such as the tendency of things that exist to leave evidence of their existence.
It doesn't work. You can't prove or disprove metaphysical questions, that's why gods aren't subject to physics. Attempting it is a misrepresentation of science. Science is just as much an ad hoc description, it's goal is to produce an objective and consistent description of the physical world. There is no inherently rational reason for doing this, it's just useful to our other irrational goals. If I'm going to wipe out the heretics, I need ballistics. Science is a tool, it's scope does not include metaphysical questions, those that produce theories which cannot be falsified.
You really should read my post more carefully and reconsider what your saying. You've contradicted yourself a number of times and misused the meanings of several words. David Miller's "Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defense" contains the logical proofs that there are "No Good Reasons". That all goals are equally irrational. Thus rationality is can only be measured in how well one's actions will assist in achieving one's equally irrational goals. To attempt to prove some goal as inherently more rational is to attempt to answer a metaphysical question, which is not scientific.
Atheists have no ground to stand on fighting irrational beliefs. The belief that there is no higher power is just as irrational as believing that there is one. Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, you cannot prove the non-existence of God. Atheism is just a different answer to a metaphysical question. Neither answer is rational since the question cannot be rationally answered. The only "rational" answer to the question is that the answer is unknowable, or that you do not know the answer, which is agnosticism.
Just remember that there are "No Good Reasons". Rationally speaking, there is no basis for doing or believing anything. Yet we know that we have goals and act on goals since we act. Our goals are utterly and always irrational, but the objective method most likely to allow us to reach those goals is our "truth". We when act in accordance with meeting our own goals (including goals like self-preservation, or following one's conscience) we are said to be acting rational. When we act against our own goals (throw logic out the window, etc), we are called irrational.
Belief or disbelief in a higher power is no less a rational fulfillment of a goal than using scientific knowledge to cure cancer. Science simply has very specific and well-defined goals, to objectively describe the physical world, including it's contents, history and future.
When people try to denounce theism with science, they are abusing science and simply engaging in sectarian disputes. In other words, there's no difference between an Atheist admonishing a theist and the Deist Thomas Jefferson calling John Calvin a false prophet who is most suredly burning in Hell.
That being said, anytime you have a debate about what ought to be done or believed, you're fighting against something that doesn't exist.
Consumers Bill of Rights, or rationalization that current statutes regulating trade uphold certian Subjective Rights, that may not be given away. In other words, the contract would be invalid, since it imposed illegal conditions.
Boring old institutional engineering is the answer once again.
I didn't name a specific unit. Mainly because there were "many more instances", secondly, why didn't this happen during Gulf War I, where we took similarly large numbers of prisoners?
Are you forgetting about Bagram, Afghanistan?
From Wikipedia:
Do a few bad apples manage to hide prisoners from the Red Cross without help? Are the CIA operatives involved in "extraordinary rendition" a few bad apples too? How do a few bad apples get use of a private jet to deliver suspects to their torturers, violating both US law and international treaties?
From Wikipedia:
Taguba's report makes it clear that this was a systematic problem. There were a number of military lawyers who objected to these techniques and the careless orders that came down and loosened existing regulations or implied that a different interpretation would be used. These orders came from the civilian leadership. It was also the leadership's responsibility to make sure that these soldiers were not given conflicting orders and that they were given the proper tools to carry out their orders (proper facilities, not dog leashes and chains).
Let's also look at when the abuses started at Abu Ghraib.
Geoffrey Miller then gets transferred to Abu Ghraib:
Until all the world is a civil society, there will be the possibility of war and the need for civil society to defend itself. The solution to the dehumanization and aggression problems that you mention are solvable via the institutions which "manage" these functions in society.
Torture and violations of human rights didn't happen simply because we taught a our guys to kill. They happened because the institutional protections broke down. When Gonzales wrote his memo stating that the Geneva Convention was quaint, the President and the rest of the civilians in charge of the military showed where priorities lay. By not showing the required leadership, they failed to fulfill their duties and minimize the risks of such self-defeating actions taking place.
Had their been leadership shown or at least a sense of accountability within the institution, as there has been in the past, we would not have seen this much abuse, nor would it have weakened our global standing as much. The spin of a few bad apples is fooling no one outside of the US, which makes one wonder why half the population of the US and it's executive institution believe they can bullshit their way through the problem of global terrorism and radical fundamentalists.
the extreme expense it would take to build the massive mass transit systems such a large nation would need
More expensive than invading Iraq or paying off the Saudi's to secure oil?
Even if you had to subsidize Amtrak, the money have a better return on investment to the global economy and our own, than our strategy to secure oil in the Middle East and South America.
The author seems to have a decent grasp on the effects of technological innovation on the market, but he has no grasp of the structure of the market itself. Without centralized artificial restrictions on spectrum usage, the military, commercial radio, emergency services and hobbyists would all have had to wait until radio's tools caught up to make use of it. At the time of the establishment of the FCC, radio much less useful without artifically defining spectrum usage. The barrier to entry would have been too high.
The FCC will always be needed to protect spectrum for low-tech communications, which are still needed. As to the FCC's censorship and their handling of pirate radio, they've totally acted in contradiction to their purpose. However, the FCC is a public institution and can be raigned in, but I doubt that's the approach someone writing for the Von Mises Institute would take. The irrational belief in the 'a priori' axiom leads to a logic that makes throwing the baby out with the bathwater appear rational.
So I should blame any future sexual dysfunction caused by gender confusion on the Atari 5200 and Super Breakout?
Did Grand Theft Auto undue the damage or was that just crass overcompensation?
The way I see it, Bushnell just made himself liable for an entire generation's sexual frustrations. Breakout will now replace Asbestos in high-paying AdSense keywords. If nothing else, I could turn it into a Law & Order script to pay for the enormous lawye^H^H^H^H^Htherapist bill. Hopefully any symptoms will occur before "Law & Order: Class Action Suit" goes into syndication in 2020. I'm sure they'll buy it if the real courts won't.
Today's legal sarcasm brought to you by McScribly's: purveyor of archival quality legal pads; harvested from the finest genuine iguana skin. When your billing $500 an hour, nothing less is acceptable.
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret ambiguous law, not substitute it with the law they'd like to see. A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy. The task of making law should be left up to the legislature, not usurped by the judiciary.
Interpretation of law can easily create derivative law. The entire legal system must be internally consistent, if a law is passed that creates inconsistency, then the courts may need to strike it down, clarify it, change scope or otherwise change the law passed by the legislature.
If precedent cannot be logically consistent without a non-legislated right, such as the right to privacy, then the courts are well within their bounds to surmise that such a right exists for the purpose of maintaining logical consistency. In other words, if the Bill of Rights doesn't make sense without a right to privacy, then the courts are entirely within their official and traditional mandate to declare one exists. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who argues otherwise is either lying or has no reliable knowledge about the history of Western law.
This is the power that balances against the legislature and it is the only way to constrain a legislature. If the legislature or the voters don't like the can of worms they've opened by writing or asking for bad legislation, then they need to think through their actions more carefully.
The courts do not act arbitrarily (except for Bush v. Gore, remember it's not to be used as precedent), legislatures that continuously have anti-choice laws overturned are just throwing a demagogues fodder to the voters. They know that their laws will be overturned, or are otherwise inconsistent with precedent involving the health of the mother, rape, etc. They do this to keep the pro-life PAC checks coming every election cycle.
My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her.
Don't worry, it's the best of both worlds, it will be a right-wing fundamentalist who will be billed as a "Constructionist". Not that "constructionist" really means anything outside of Scalia's deranged mind. The definitions of "Constructionist" by self-proclaimed "Constructionists" varies from loony and lacking historical evidence to being identical to the "original intent" method preferred by Liberals (albeit with different outcomes and ideas of original intent).
The courts do not act arbitrarily (except for Bush v. Gore, remember it's not to be used as precedent), legislatures that continuously have anti-choice laws overturned are just throwing a demogogues fodder to the voters. They know that their laws will be overturned, or are otherwise inconsistent with precedent involving the health of the mother, rape, etc. They do this to keep the pro-life PAC checks coming every election cycle.
My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her.
Don't worry, it's the best of both worlds, it will be a right-wing fundamentalist who will be billed as a "Constructionist". Not that "constructionist" really means anything outside of Scalia's deranged mind. The definitions of "Constructionist" by self-proclaimed "Constructionists" varies from looney and lacking historical evidence to being identical to the "original intent" method preferred by Liberals (albeit with different outcomes and ideas of original intent).
Remember boys and girls: conservative != fundimentalist.
Indeed, fundimentalists would be call "liberals" or "leftists" in any other era.
Maybe you should remind them of this, cause the religious fundies in this country sure like to call themselves conservative and rate "conservatism" along their fundamentalist's measuring stick. Hell, they've got $18 million stockpiled to mount an offensive to get Bush to appoint a religious fundamentalist to the bench under the label "conservative".
As for your linkage of fundies to leftism. If you had noted that the theoretical structure of the extreme left and extreme right are identical, and right-wing fundies are more prevalent now, you'd have been correct. However, if you want to see right-wing fundamentalism in action, look up the history of the Noble Lie.
Fundies are allergic to liberalism, and liberalism tends to just condescendingly pat them on the head. Liberals are moderates by definition and antithetical to fundamentalism. But hey, not like you're the first to confuse leftists and liberals 'round these parts; so don't be surprised when people start confusing religious fundamentalists with conservatives.
I think you'll find that true communism in the spirit of Marx doesn't have anything to do with censorship.
Marx's Communism has everything to do with imposing it's moral view on people. It naively believes in some ultimately authoritative truth that would be revealed to people if the circumstances were correct. That's why all Communist States have legal systems that are structured around the State as a parent, a teacher of morals. It's to fashion the perfect people in order to bring about the "True Communist Revolution", and if it doesn't work out, then the people weren't real Communists. Fascism does the same thing using economics, remember Hitler cursed the Germans, saying they weren't worthy of survival if those mongrel Russians beat them.
Censorship is just a tool of this parenting force, be it through legal or economic means. Marx would have used it in order to bring about the Communist Revolution. It's just that he was in a position of power where censorship was more harmful than good, in other words, he wasn't the censor.
What claim does Sony (or whoever) have on the DVD Decrypter source code?
Terms of extortion. They don't have any rights, in fact, if you read the author's post he states that he's also got to contact anyone who was mirroring the site and ask them to stop, then turn over a copy of that request to Sony (or whomever).
This is what their lawyers came at him with if he wants the gun pointed somewhere besides his temple. I have no clue what license DVD Decrypter was under, but this is why the Free Software Foundation encourages authors who license code under the GPL to turn the copyright over to the Foundation. The FSF has more than $75 (approx conversion), to fight things like this.
If you're going to write cool stuff that might get a legal posse out to lynch you (legally), you should consider a strategy like the one the FSF offers to protect your personal assets. It is still possible to stick it to the man, but you better act smarter than the man.
IANAL, yet.
In the absence of clues to differentiate your usage, I assumed you meant it as it is most commonly used. Even so, my comment still stands. I never claimed there was no "authority," either.
Your comment was that you didn't "believe anyone has ever accurately determined an absolute meaning or purpose". That statement supposes that any objective truth must be a truth that is manifest to all. You claimed that all truth was an equal source of authority, which I did not disagree with. I do not believe that there is any objective truth that is manifest to all.
Hardly. It's unclear to me how you reached that conclusion. I've never argued for a knowable universal truth.
My statement above should show how I reached that conclusion. I have argued for an absolute truth for an individual perspective and that such truth is not capable of being manifest to all.
Certainly they are capable of it. They just don't resemble anything like a hard science currently. The forecast for the future isn't very rosy in that regard, either. That does not preclude the possibility of it happening at some point, though.
You must have some knowledge about the state of the epistemology of these fields that you are not sharing to have such an exact assessment of their futures.
(taking for granted that it does not contradict them, or it wouldn't actually have a net use)
Your parentheses contains the thrust of my attack. I contend that maintaining a falsehood does contradict the moral goals of the US and therefore has no net use.
If something is useful from the standpoint of reaching your moral goals (taking for granted that it does not contradict them, or it wouldn't actually have a net use), and moral constructs are the only absolute truth (the only thing knowable), then usefulness certainly can be equated with truth. You just have to make sure "usefulness" isn't sloppily defined. As for it being a "falsehood," that can only be if it is not a part of one's moral goals. If it is antithetical, it is "false." If it is beneficial, it is "true." For those who see it as having no bearing, it is irrelevant. It may be false from your point of view, but given that you define truth to be composed of only what you have constructed in your mind, your truth or falsehood is functionally irrelevant to anyone else
The "absolute truth" is the "most efficient" means of achieving one's moral goals. If you chose an action that was 50% less efficient in fulfilling your moral goals than another, you could say it was only half-true. I don't know how the definition could be more exact than that. An action that defeated one's moral goals could be considered a falsehood. You can claim a degree of truth as long as the net result is forward movement towards one's moral goals. You could also claim a degree of falsehood as long as the net result is a retreat from one's moral goals.
The truth or falsehood of my moral goals aren't irrelevant if robbing you is part of my "truth". The epistemology I am extending from Popper and Bartley contends that all language is abstract, and that we can only communicate in abstractions. This means that any absolute truth would be impossible to communicate, that there can be no truth that is manifest to all. Moral goals are entirely mental constructs, there is nothing that can be described as naturally good or bad. Such valuations are entirely relative to one's own moral goals and exist entirely in one's mind. However they influence the world around us when we choose to achieve our moral goals.
The poverty of your claim of irrelevancy is further shown if you consider the need to trust me to assist in achieving your moral goals. You need to evaluate my actions against your moral goals as well as those I have stated to ascertain the truthfulness of my statements. As long as we interact, my moral goals are relevant to you.
If tomorrow everyone ceases to understand "government" or any of the extensions of it, nothing physical would cease t
Perhaps you should apply this assertion to your claim that I am imprecise in my language.
I very well may have misspoke and meant unclear instead of imprecise. Regardless, I don't think it's pertinent to the discussion. My point was that language is relative, but that we can verify that each other understands the meaning of the communication. Anything beyond that is probably a debate on semantics.
That's funny. I never said there was no meaning or purpose in existence. I just don't believe anyone has ever accurately determined an absolute meaning or purpose.
I did not make that accusation. Nihilism can also mean there is no authority. That is the nihilism of the relativist who assumes that because everyone's perspective is equal that there can be no absolutes. My own moral goals are absolute. It is ultimately me who is responsible for determining that meaning or purpose. I might be lazy and take a pre-packaged one because it works for me, but I have still made a choice.
As for relativism, you appear firmly on that page as well: I may not be able to know something absolutely and My moral goals, on the other hand, are knowable as they are entirely mental constructs[referring to the basis of "truth"]. If "truth" isn't relative, what is the absolute, unchanging basis for it? Or is it only "absolute" for each person (essentially arbitrary and relative when viewed in general).
Exactly. Truth is only absolute for your own moral goals. Since I cannot falsify your moral goals, yet we all possess them, we must derive a system which allows us to get along, given this conundrum of authority. Your moral goals are the authority for your actions, the state gains authority when we each cede come amount of that political will to the state. By doing so, I give up the right use violence against my fellow citizens to enforce my political will as long as the state, or my fellow citizens do not violate certain defined rights.
A major branch of philosophy that concerns the forms, nature, and preconditions of knowledge.
As a science, it is only concerned with objective knowledge. There is a sociological aspect of epistemology, but that is not what we are discussing here. Plato's forms have long been shown to be metaphysics.
Not necessarily objective knowledge. Part of the search is attempting to answer the question of whether objective knowledge exists and if it exists in a form comprehensible to finite beings.
Firmly inside the realm of metaphysics.
The reasoning behind Natural Law, that all law flows from God given laws, has to do with the nature of reason. The theology goes something like this: The 10 commandments cannot be derived from nature, how can our law be derivative of God if it is not consistent with nature? The answer is that reason itself is one of God's creations; therefore as God gave us reason, God gave us the 10 commandments. We can derive law from the 10 commandments since they were divinely revealed, but we cannot derive the 10 commandments from nature.
We can never truly know anything beyond our perception, which may not record "reality" correctly. Our own moral perceptions can be truly known. They are entirely constructed inside our minds, have no actual attachment to reality, yet through our actions, we impose that vision upon reality in measurable ways. This means that our moral goals are the only objective truth we have. Thus, "The Truth", is whatever means is most-efficient for us to accomplish our moral goals.
As you noted, your question [...of whether objective knowledge exists and if it exists in a form comprehensible to finite beings...] is a metaphysical question. It is like asking what is outside the expanding Universe. I do not ask if we can really know the truth, I ask what we truly know. What we truly know is the truth. To rephrase, asking if you can know about something that you know nothing about is stupid and useless to science. Asking what we know is useful to science.
And provid
I don't see how your example follows. Since you claim to operate with more precision, I would assume you place yourself in the category of the craftsman, and me as the bumbler with a dull knife attempting to recreate your piece.
:)
Only, I was never attempting to recreate any of your positions, only to clarify my own, since you as yet seem to fail to understand my position.
It was a general metaphor, an example, not a description of this conversation. The knife is language, the woodshop would be the historical context. If I were to reproduce a wood cut, I would only need skill and a knife. I wouldn't need to duplicate the type of light that came through the windows, or how much sawdust it refracted against on it's way to light the piece of wood I was carving. Your assertion that language has changed, does not make my usage of it imprecise. Just as historical language was precise in it's historical context, my language can be precise for my context. To say that language cannot be precise is to claim that all of the knowledge we have built up is a product of luck, not some method of progress.
A word can be precisely defined and still fail to communicate the idea, that does not mean it was imprecisely defined. Take any technical acronym. I can precisely define it for my mom, but she probably has no clue what I'm talking about. I have to find another manner to describe the idea, and I know the idea is conveyed when she integrates it properly into other ideas. I can do this without technical language, and it then makes it easier to teach the technical labels for the concepts afterwards, because she has a conceptual model to hang the terms on. From there on out, I can use the efficient technical abstractions with her and she will understand my communication.
The one part I would agree with is that there are multiple paths and different tools one can use to achieve the same result. There are many paths in language to describe the same idea. The only catch is that both parties need to be on the same page. It is still my contention that we are not on the same page.
Agreed. I know which page I'm on, I have a few ideas about which ones you are on, but this assertion is entirely possible.
Perhaps that is enough clarification of my use of the term "manipulate in that sentence? I guess It is an exercise in clarification wasn't enough.
Given the nihilistic and relativist nature of your epistemology, I assumed you meant manipulate in the way one would manipulate public opinion about "inalienable rights". As long as the manipulation is done without guile or deception, I have no argument with restating a position to gain clarity.
Other usage is only fine if you don't care about precise understanding. For precisely conveying an idea, you must exclude other usage so that all parties understand exactly what remains.
False relationship. There need not be only one meaning for a word. There need only be one meaning for a single usage. As long as I am willing to define terms upon examination and stick to those definitions, I may use as many meanings as needed without worrying about deception. One may understand my meanings of constitution dealing with corporal health or with dealing with political matters without losing precision. If there is misunderstanding I can mend it, that does not mean my usage wasn't precise.
Otherwise, there is always the chance that some other meaning of all or part of the language used will be attributed to your message. That is a frequent pitfall of any in-depth discussion, especially those where participants are particularly dug-in to their position, and have a hard time looking at it in terms other than those they most closely associate with (something I am frequently guilty of).
Communication is a different art form than definition. Definition can only happen in a state of arrested change, a context. Since reality changes, that context is temporary and the definition must be translated betwe
It's only a false statement if you take it literally, which is absurd given that Gore is a politician and not a computer scientist. So what if Cerf and Andreesen provided context that clarified the statement instead of Gore? How does that change a damn thing? If he didn't intentionally mislead and both Cerf and Andreesen gave clarifying statements in his defense, why should he even give the subject any more thought?
You're simply refusing to accept Cerf and Andreesen's evidence. You have to in order to continue holding the irrational belief that the statement was vague enough to be a falsehood. By ignoring the impact of Cerf and Andreesen on that judgement, your position becomes irrational. This is like saying Kennedy lied when he said Ich bin ein Berliner!