His point was that experts shouldn't have to spend more time than trolls to keep an article 'clean'. Very few experts are going to be willing to spend a lot of time keeping an article correct, what with them generally having something worthwhile to do with their life, while there are lots of people who have no life and no skills who will waste their time trolling.
Essentially, he wants there to be a trade - expertise for time. Right now, if you spend a ton of time working on the wiki, even if you aren't an expert, your changes are likely to get through and stick. He wants to allow an expert to spend less time, in exchange for that (somehow proven) expertise, and still have their change get through and stick.
Linux kernel: code changes are, at the highest level, approved or disapproved by 'experts' - Linus, AC, etc. High-quality output./.: No high-level approval process, anyone can moderate, overrun by trolls.
Gee, did I point out that Linux email worms would do less damage due to proper privilege structures? Yes, Virginia, I did. Are you a clueless Linux zealot who doesn't read? Yes, FrostedChaos, you are!
Screwing up the system is usually less damaging than destroying all of a user's document, and privileges won't protect against that. If Linux gets to a point of popularity where it becomes worth attacking, even a simple shell script (if the user can be tricked into running it, which given an assumption of popularity isn't that dumb an assumption - see the current crop of Windows worms that people have to unzip with provided password and then run for proof) is enough to do massive damage to the users documents.
See, everyone keeps saying "Is not affected", when we all know damn well that if enough people move to Linux, there will be Linux viruses and worms. They'll be lower impact, less common, so on, but Linux doesn't make you immune, it just makes you more secure. Ramen? Lion? Mighty and Slapper? And of these ringing a bell here? All Linux worms.
W/r/t to email worms, wherever you have users dumb enough to run attachments, you will have e-mail worms. As I said - give the authors a reason to target Linux (a non-miniscule market share, for instance) and they will.
Most people haven't, so you really shouldn't be that surprised.
(MMORPGs aren't that successful as a mass-market thing, at least compared to traditional 'buy-once' games, reinforcing the whole "People don't want to pay monthly for their software" idea.)
The correct phrase would have been "do not experience the virus problem because no one is currently writing viruses for them, and even if people did they would necessarily be limited in damage they could cause by proper use of privilege schemes."
My prof for that course was a Conservative rabbi. Read the work I cited, and then you can comment about his argument construction; I'm not going to try to condense a 200 page philosophical treatise + footnotes into a 2 paragraph slashdot post.
The disproof of DCM comes from him, and does not require the assumption; using the disproof of DCM and the concurrent disproof of weak dependence to eliminate the need for (and therefore, by Ockham, presence of) God does require the assumption.
However, although my definition of free will is not the Biblical one, it's one that I believe in, because I believe anything less rigorous isn't actually free will.
The whole point of disproving DCM is to detach God from morality; that lays the foundation for using principles of logic (the Razor, which is quite applicable to non-physical situations - its simply the principle that things tend towards the simplest explanation) to remove the necessity of God as source or influence on morals. If God can neither act nor affect, then he is unnecessary and most likely doesn't exist.
Assumption: God is omnipotent/omniscient. This means that he knows what my response to subtle stimulus will be. Thus, if he provides that stimulus to me, he has effectively negated my free will. Under the assumption of true free will, which is significantly more rigorous than many people treat it as, he can't do that. Since just about every event (sole exception: events unwitnessed and unwitnessable by man) is going to have a known effect (remember: omniscient) on humans, if God truly wants to leave us free will, he *cannot* interfere. If you assert free will rigorously in combination with an omnipotent and omniscient God, you run into this contradiction which prevents him from acting.
Also, you missed how that proof is constructed: the moral doesn't apply to God. The point is, as moral humans, we cannot conceive of a world which allows the murder of innocents to be a moral obligation (we don't have advanced knowledge to say "This will be Hitler"). However, under DCM, such a world is possible. If an omnipotent being is the sole source of morals, that world will always be possible. Therefore, DCM cannot be true, if we live in a world where certain baseline morals are held to be.
How does "the negative effects of planned and exploitative capitalism" have anything to do with this?
The rest of the world is under no obligation to help SE Asia. They're doing it because they feel it's the right thing to do. Do you bitch at your mom when she shorts you on a Christmas present, too? The developed world doesn't owe them anything; calling us stingy is unlikely to help loosen our pursestrings.
It's been about 6 years since I took a course in ethics and morality (being that I'm an engineer, we don't exactly take a lot of them), but those were the names I recalled off the top of my head. Turns out I had confused two terms into one. The correct terms, going back to textbooks, are divine command morality and the variant terms strong and weak (not hard and soft) dependence. I will use ethics and moral interchangeable here. Strong dependence is the argument that all morals are moral because God said they are. Weak dependence argues that morals are moral in and of themselves, and God is simply trying to lead humans to those morals.
The basic argument requires the assumption of non-interfering free will. As I've said in prior posts, anyone who truly believes we have free will has to believe God will never interfere, as interference makes free will meaningless. Without that assumption, the arguments don't hold.
Argument against strong dependence: God is omnipotent and omniscient, unlimited. The murder of an innocent person can never be a moral/ethical obligation. If God's desires are the sole arbiter of morality/ethics (divine command), then it would be possible for this to be true. Thus, God is not the source of morality/ethics.
That's a very, very trimmed down version of the rebuttal of DCM/strong dependence. For a full version, see Sagi/Statman's "Religion and Morality".
The rebuttal for weak dependence is, if the morals exist independent of God and we have unrestrained (non-interfering) free will, there is no requirement for God at all. He cannot interfere to drive us toward morality, and he cannot be the source of morality; he is unneeded in the theory. Ockham's Razor implies that if something is unneeded to explain a theory, it is probably not part of the theory. As such, weak dependence combined with unrestrained free will yields a weak proof of non-existence.
That's the basic argument, but it's been 6 years since I've had to deliver it in earnest, so it's a bit rusty. Now, if you had asked me about the argument principle applied to the Nyquist plot for stability analysis, I could go into serious detail.
And what saddens me is that people believe that its an issue of race, rather than an issue of nationality and event.
Natural disasters just don't get that much coverage, because there's nothing new about them. I bet if I quote the two biggest ones (notwithstanding this one, which still only ranks in #2) in the past 30 years, you won't even remember the names:
Tang Shan Nevado del Ruiz
Did you? Didn't think so. But when there's a small bombing in Iraq, it makes the news. 25 people die there in a bombing, it makes the front page. 25 people die in the US from a building fire, it makes page 3. Maybe. The type of event makes a difference, and to use "media terminology", terrorism and murder are "sexy", while major natural disasters aren't.
It probably also didn't hurt that the majority of the media have a large presence in New York City, which was directly affected by 9/11, and have almost no presence in Indonesia. We always ascribe more importance to our own.
No, I didn't. I explicitly said that you can't ask that question. I asked it as a rhetorical device, and then promptly followed by calling it an apples-to-oranges question.
And intent is absolutely a relevant distinction; trying to compare an intentional action to an unavoidable event is an unfair comparison. We shouldn't be comparing the two, because no valid comparison is possible. 9/11 was an awful event, caused by awful people. This is also an awful event. However, trying to say "This is so much worse than 9/11" ignores intent. It's more (directly) damaging than 9/11, the death toll is higher, the infrastructure hit is greater... but comparison of the events as a whole is meaningless, due to the origin of the events being so different.
Again: is a single hiker being murdered worse than 40 being killed in a landslide?
But the fact remains: (almost) no one wanted this to happen, and even the crazies who claim they did probably didn't really want it to occur. Further, no one did, or even could have done, anything to cause it to occur.
9/11 was caused. That's a major difference, and as such trying to directly compare them is meaningless. Compare it to Krakatoa, to Columbia (the volcano), to Tang Shan. But don't try to compare it to WW2, 9/11, Auschwitz, or Pearl Harbor. The comparison is meaningless.
You're off by a factor of 10: population of Sweden is roughly 9 million. A half percent of 9 million is 45,000, not 4500.
Re:MODDED TROLL! What more could we expect from Am
on
Tsunami Satellite Images
·
· Score: -1, Troll
God damn you French people! After all, all you ever do is surrender and eat fucking cheese, except when you're busy defacing Jewish cemetaries and murdering each other in the streets. And let's not forget how bad you smell. After all, if one Frenchman is like that, they all must be, right? RIGHT?
(Parent was a troll. Get over it. Stop pretending all Americans are exactly the same.)
Because if God overrules free will, even once, he's made the entire thing meaningless. If he, even once, says "Hey, humans, I'll save you from the consequences of your collective choices", he's just made free will meaningless, because its no longer free - its free 'to a point'. By giving us free will, God inherently relinquishes both his right and his duty to overrule our actions.
Trying to make a valid philosophical argument by comparing police to God is bunk, man. The police aren't omnipotent, omniscient, and they aren't the ones who have the ability to decide whether or not we get free will. Of course, anyone who stands by is partly culpable. However, if God intervenes, he destroys the idea of free will. The only way to maintain free will is to stay out of it; as such, by rigorously asserting free will, God becomes non-culpable - he has, in essence, said "I will not interfere, because the consequence of interfering once is to mean that I must take responsibility for all of your actions that I allow to occur." It is, in an odd sort of way, similar to the search engine DMCA exemption - software that indexes material is legal and non-culpable, even if it indexes illegal material, except if it ever filters out some undesirable material on basis of copyright or legality, at which point it immediately becomes culpable for all such infringing material found on the service.
This is just one more reason why God is a bunch of crap. Study the origin of ethics and look into hard vs. soft command, and you'll begin to come towards my point of view, which is that ethics in and of themselves point to the non-existence of God via contradiction.
I couldn't find any figures for even a rough total of US private donations, but, as of 12/29, American donations to the Red Cross *alone* stood at USD18 million. That does not count donations to other charities or the last day and a half of donations. Pfizer alone (corporations count as private to me) donated 10 million, plus an additional 25 million in medical supplies.
Slashdot Mirror
His point was that experts shouldn't have to spend more time than trolls to keep an article 'clean'. Very few experts are going to be willing to spend a lot of time keeping an article correct, what with them generally having something worthwhile to do with their life, while there are lots of people who have no life and no skills who will waste their time trolling.
/.: No high-level approval process, anyone can moderate, overrun by trolls.
Essentially, he wants there to be a trade - expertise for time. Right now, if you spend a ton of time working on the wiki, even if you aren't an expert, your changes are likely to get through and stick. He wants to allow an expert to spend less time, in exchange for that (somehow proven) expertise, and still have their change get through and stick.
Linux kernel: code changes are, at the highest level, approved or disapproved by 'experts' - Linus, AC, etc. High-quality output.
Gee, did I point out that Linux email worms would do less damage due to proper privilege structures? Yes, Virginia, I did. Are you a clueless Linux zealot who doesn't read? Yes, FrostedChaos, you are!
Screwing up the system is usually less damaging than destroying all of a user's document, and privileges won't protect against that. If Linux gets to a point of popularity where it becomes worth attacking, even a simple shell script (if the user can be tricked into running it, which given an assumption of popularity isn't that dumb an assumption - see the current crop of Windows worms that people have to unzip with provided password and then run for proof) is enough to do massive damage to the users documents.
YES!
Which was my point - safer, but not immune.
See, everyone keeps saying "Is not affected", when we all know damn well that if enough people move to Linux, there will be Linux viruses and worms. They'll be lower impact, less common, so on, but Linux doesn't make you immune, it just makes you more secure. Ramen? Lion? Mighty and Slapper? And of these ringing a bell here? All Linux worms.
W/r/t to email worms, wherever you have users dumb enough to run attachments, you will have e-mail worms. As I said - give the authors a reason to target Linux (a non-miniscule market share, for instance) and they will.
Jackass, the point was that while OS X and Linux are, in fact, *more* secure by design, they are by no means virus-immune.
Most people haven't, so you really shouldn't be that surprised.
(MMORPGs aren't that successful as a mass-market thing, at least compared to traditional 'buy-once' games, reinforcing the whole "People don't want to pay monthly for their software" idea.)
Really?
What OS?
The correct phrase would have been "do not experience the virus problem because no one is currently writing viruses for them, and even if people did they would necessarily be limited in damage they could cause by proper use of privilege schemes."
You aren't immune.
"This" in P3 refers back to P2, yes.
My prof for that course was a Conservative rabbi. Read the work I cited, and then you can comment about his argument construction; I'm not going to try to condense a 200 page philosophical treatise + footnotes into a 2 paragraph slashdot post.
The disproof of DCM comes from him, and does not require the assumption; using the disproof of DCM and the concurrent disproof of weak dependence to eliminate the need for (and therefore, by Ockham, presence of) God does require the assumption.
However, although my definition of free will is not the Biblical one, it's one that I believe in, because I believe anything less rigorous isn't actually free will.
The whole point of disproving DCM is to detach God from morality; that lays the foundation for using principles of logic (the Razor, which is quite applicable to non-physical situations - its simply the principle that things tend towards the simplest explanation) to remove the necessity of God as source or influence on morals. If God can neither act nor affect, then he is unnecessary and most likely doesn't exist.
Assumption: God is omnipotent/omniscient. This means that he knows what my response to subtle stimulus will be. Thus, if he provides that stimulus to me, he has effectively negated my free will. Under the assumption of true free will, which is significantly more rigorous than many people treat it as, he can't do that. Since just about every event (sole exception: events unwitnessed and unwitnessable by man) is going to have a known effect (remember: omniscient) on humans, if God truly wants to leave us free will, he *cannot* interfere. If you assert free will rigorously in combination with an omnipotent and omniscient God, you run into this contradiction which prevents him from acting.
Also, you missed how that proof is constructed: the moral doesn't apply to God. The point is, as moral humans, we cannot conceive of a world which allows the murder of innocents to be a moral obligation (we don't have advanced knowledge to say "This will be Hitler"). However, under DCM, such a world is possible. If an omnipotent being is the sole source of morals, that world will always be possible. Therefore, DCM cannot be true, if we live in a world where certain baseline morals are held to be.
As of Dec 29, private donations from the US to the Red Cross *alone* had totalled $19 million dollars.
I'm not real worried about us catching up.
Well, I'm a Jew, and I think you're an asshole, so take your particularly ignorant "I must take care of other people" rant somewhere else.
I don't owe people (in the general case) a THING. If I choose to help, great. If I choose not to, suffer in fucking silence.
How does "the negative effects of planned and exploitative capitalism" have anything to do with this?
The rest of the world is under no obligation to help SE Asia. They're doing it because they feel it's the right thing to do. Do you bitch at your mom when she shorts you on a Christmas present, too? The developed world doesn't owe them anything; calling us stingy is unlikely to help loosen our pursestrings.
Fair enough.
It isn't a subtle troll.
It's been about 6 years since I took a course in ethics and morality (being that I'm an engineer, we don't exactly take a lot of them), but those were the names I recalled off the top of my head. Turns out I had confused two terms into one. The correct terms, going back to textbooks, are divine command morality and the variant terms strong and weak (not hard and soft) dependence. I will use ethics and moral interchangeable here. Strong dependence is the argument that all morals are moral because God said they are. Weak dependence argues that morals are moral in and of themselves, and God is simply trying to lead humans to those morals.
The basic argument requires the assumption of non-interfering free will. As I've said in prior posts, anyone who truly believes we have free will has to believe God will never interfere, as interference makes free will meaningless. Without that assumption, the arguments don't hold.
Argument against strong dependence:
God is omnipotent and omniscient, unlimited.
The murder of an innocent person can never be a moral/ethical obligation.
If God's desires are the sole arbiter of morality/ethics (divine command), then it would be possible for this to be true.
Thus, God is not the source of morality/ethics.
That's a very, very trimmed down version of the rebuttal of DCM/strong dependence. For a full version, see Sagi/Statman's "Religion and Morality".
The rebuttal for weak dependence is, if the morals exist independent of God and we have unrestrained (non-interfering) free will, there is no requirement for God at all. He cannot interfere to drive us toward morality, and he cannot be the source of morality; he is unneeded in the theory. Ockham's Razor implies that if something is unneeded to explain a theory, it is probably not part of the theory. As such, weak dependence combined with unrestrained free will yields a weak proof of non-existence.
That's the basic argument, but it's been 6 years since I've had to deliver it in earnest, so it's a bit rusty. Now, if you had asked me about the argument principle applied to the Nyquist plot for stability analysis, I could go into serious detail.
I wish the best of luck to you, and to all those around you, in restoring a normal life after this disaster. I wish I could do more.
And what saddens me is that people believe that its an issue of race, rather than an issue of nationality and event.
Natural disasters just don't get that much coverage, because there's nothing new about them. I bet if I quote the two biggest ones (notwithstanding this one, which still only ranks in #2) in the past 30 years, you won't even remember the names:
Tang Shan
Nevado del Ruiz
Did you? Didn't think so. But when there's a small bombing in Iraq, it makes the news. 25 people die there in a bombing, it makes the front page. 25 people die in the US from a building fire, it makes page 3. Maybe. The type of event makes a difference, and to use "media terminology", terrorism and murder are "sexy", while major natural disasters aren't.
It probably also didn't hurt that the majority of the media have a large presence in New York City, which was directly affected by 9/11, and have almost no presence in Indonesia. We always ascribe more importance to our own.
No, I didn't. I explicitly said that you can't ask that question. I asked it as a rhetorical device, and then promptly followed by calling it an apples-to-oranges question.
And intent is absolutely a relevant distinction; trying to compare an intentional action to an unavoidable event is an unfair comparison. We shouldn't be comparing the two, because no valid comparison is possible. 9/11 was an awful event, caused by awful people. This is also an awful event. However, trying to say "This is so much worse than 9/11" ignores intent. It's more (directly) damaging than 9/11, the death toll is higher, the infrastructure hit is greater... but comparison of the events as a whole is meaningless, due to the origin of the events being so different.
Again: is a single hiker being murdered worse than 40 being killed in a landslide?
But the fact remains: (almost) no one wanted this to happen, and even the crazies who claim they did probably didn't really want it to occur. Further, no one did, or even could have done, anything to cause it to occur.
9/11 was caused. That's a major difference, and as such trying to directly compare them is meaningless. Compare it to Krakatoa, to Columbia (the volcano), to Tang Shan. But don't try to compare it to WW2, 9/11, Auschwitz, or Pearl Harbor. The comparison is meaningless.
You're off by a factor of 10: population of Sweden is roughly 9 million. A half percent of 9 million is 45,000, not 4500.
God damn you French people! After all, all you ever do is surrender and eat fucking cheese, except when you're busy defacing Jewish cemetaries and murdering each other in the streets. And let's not forget how bad you smell. After all, if one Frenchman is like that, they all must be, right? RIGHT?
(Parent was a troll. Get over it. Stop pretending all Americans are exactly the same.)
Because if God overrules free will, even once, he's made the entire thing meaningless. If he, even once, says "Hey, humans, I'll save you from the consequences of your collective choices", he's just made free will meaningless, because its no longer free - its free 'to a point'. By giving us free will, God inherently relinquishes both his right and his duty to overrule our actions.
Trying to make a valid philosophical argument by comparing police to God is bunk, man. The police aren't omnipotent, omniscient, and they aren't the ones who have the ability to decide whether or not we get free will. Of course, anyone who stands by is partly culpable. However, if God intervenes, he destroys the idea of free will. The only way to maintain free will is to stay out of it; as such, by rigorously asserting free will, God becomes non-culpable - he has, in essence, said "I will not interfere, because the consequence of interfering once is to mean that I must take responsibility for all of your actions that I allow to occur." It is, in an odd sort of way, similar to the search engine DMCA exemption - software that indexes material is legal and non-culpable, even if it indexes illegal material, except if it ever filters out some undesirable material on basis of copyright or legality, at which point it immediately becomes culpable for all such infringing material found on the service.
This is just one more reason why God is a bunch of crap. Study the origin of ethics and look into hard vs. soft command, and you'll begin to come towards my point of view, which is that ethics in and of themselves point to the non-existence of God via contradiction.
And also, my reply was to the person replying to you, not so much to your post. And my reply to him was very much on topic.
I couldn't find any figures for even a rough total of US private donations, but, as of 12/29, American donations to the Red Cross *alone* stood at USD18 million. That does not count donations to other charities or the last day and a half of donations. Pfizer alone (corporations count as private to me) donated 10 million, plus an additional 25 million in medical supplies.
That would fall under mitigation. In fact, that would be the definition of mitigation - to lessen the severity of some event or force.