Errr... Personal Freedom? I don't claim the right to make other people listen to me; I do claim the right to say what I please! (In general; willing to accept minor infringements for good reasons. But they better be mighty good reasons.)
Simply not handing someone a microphone is in no way equivalent to locking them up if they say the wrong thing. One is not handing me a power; the other is taking away my rights.
That said, what's to keep a police depart from using thermal imaging to identify grow houses and, with the aid of ANPR networks, locate vehicles observed at that address and pulling them over for failing to signal a lane change or some other minor traffic offense, detain the driver and search the vehicle?
Basically only admissibility in court. If the defense team catches you at it, the judge will throw the case out in a heartbeat; collecting the evidence was only motivated by illegally obtained evidence.
Which basically boils down to: it depends on time, place, and judge. Sometimes you are responsible; sometimes you aren't. A lot of it hinges on what should have been 'obvious' to the defendant. Which is one of those tricky questions... It's worth mentioning that some folks got of at Nuremburg using the defense; basically, low-level guys who shouldn't necessarily have known that this defense had been removed from the laws of war.
The terrestrial solar maximum (insolation on a hot sunny day at noon at the equator) is +/- 1000 watts/m^2.
Hmm. I think we need more greenhouse gasses for those days when solar insolation at the equator is -1000 W/m^2. Keep the heat in a little better.:)
If solar energy is beer, petroleum is whiskey.
More like if solar energy is unfermented apple cider that's been sitting out an hour, petroleum is whisky. You're really looking at several orders of magnitude difference in concentration. And people in temperate climate really ought to get this; it's why you install a furnace instead of simply shovelling the snow off your roof to heat your house in the winter.
News flash; there's quite a few bright people these days with atrocious handwriting. Of course, these days they usually have fair to middling typing skills at the least...
Actually, there was some fairly interesting research on maternal/paternal twins, which (to my mind) conclusively demonstrate a genetic link. They simply compared the standard deviation of the differences of IQ between paternal and maternal twins, and found a significantly higher correlation among maternal twins (who share nearly identical genetics.)
In fact, I'd be quite surprised if genetics played no role at all. By the same token, this article clearly show that nurture dwarfs nature in effect. But they both do influence it.
Well, you might note that this (incedibly persistant popular misconceptions) is a major problem in fields from elementary physics to computer security, to copyright law. I doubt it can be solved when dealing with incredibly complicated stuff like abiogenesis, if it can't be solved for folks believing F = mv.
So, public hygienic awareness campaigns were misguided? I don't think so; we've culturally internalized a lot of unnatural behaviors to limit disease spread in the past. Of course, we've also introduced immunization, disinfectants, etc. It isn't one or the other; both are most effective when used together.
Actually I had better explain my use of the phrase "genetic defect" since you don't seem to grasp genetics well either. Lack of sex drive is considered a defect in that our genetic material is designed to propagate, and clearly not wanting sex is going to prevent that from happening.
Considered by who? Citation most emphatically needed. This logic condemns homosexuals, asexuals, etc. as a genetic defect. While I admit it's an arguable stance, it doesn't have a lot of support.
I rather think that judging other people for the decisions they make in their own personal life is significantly worse that advocating a particular decision as beneficial.
Well, actually, that's (tattoos) in the Jewish national law, which doesn't apply to Christians today. Though you will find a few Christians who disagree with me on that point.
Basically, this is based on Romans 7:1-6 where it says that Christians died (or partook of the death of) Christ, and so the old law no longer applies.
Occam's razor, as usually cited, is purely a heuristic, nothing more.
In it's original form, (not how it's usually cited) it is actually a logically constraining argument. Which, if applied to the premises you put forth, would indicate that God is unnecessary to understanding the system. Not that God does, or doesn't exist.
Folks should really stop abusing Occam's Razor. There are enough cheap ones you can buy at Walmart...
They seem to oppose you only because they're tired of seeing news images of dead children killed by people who assume that it will prove their non-sense is the best non-sense.
You know, I honestly don't care whether folks murdering children believe in creation or not. Or what exactly they believe about abiogenesis.
It might be relevant if they were motivated by their beliefs about the origins of life. But most religious killings (today) are done by Muslims, in response to either violations of their moral code (stoning rape victims, etc.) or folks 'dissing' their religion. None of which violently opposed dissing has focused on the origin of life, the universe, or everything.
I agree it's lamentable; I agree we need to stop it. Hey, I think they deserve the death penalty. But it seems completely irrelevant to creation beliefs.
Pluto's temperature is 44K. Water does not exist in the liquid phase at 44K, regardless of pressure. That I know of, at least: perhaps with some particularly effective antifreeze dissolved in it?
Agreed. This is one of the clearest elaborations of this issue I've read.
The one additional option is Unknown (possibly Uncaused) Cause. Basically, claiming we know something is uncaused implies infinite preexistence. The only way to preclude a cause is to avoid a starting time. An example is, as you mentioned, claiming that the existence of God is an infinite line. This goes back to whole issue of not proving a universal negative. If it is possible for there to be a cause (always true for any event) we can't prove there wasn't one. One example is claiming the Big Bang happened at a particular time: it becomes impossible to demonstrate whether it was a truly uncaused cause, or simply an unknown cause.
Kudos on your username. It brings back fond memories of beating codeblocks into submission...
But I I must disagree with your statement. I've never heard a theologian claim anything of the sort. Proverbs is not primarily concerned with moral instruction, unless you consider all activities in life to be moral. (Certainly an arguable definition, but one which renders your complaint about Proverbs irrelevant.) One of the most common definitions I've heard for wisdom, as used in the book of Proverbs, is: "The art of living skillfully." Yes, it states that knowing God is critical. I would expect nothing less of a religious text. But it also gives loads of practical advice:
"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest."
"Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions."
"In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction."
"As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him."
"There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty. The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself. He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him: but blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it. He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour: but he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him."
Sure, there are loads of Proverbs encouraging 'Righteousness'. I would not wish to deceive anyone into thinking the Bible was an unbiased, nonreligious source, so here's a handful of examples of that:
"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom. The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them."
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. For by me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased. If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it."
"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
90% of the time, when Proverbs speaks of a judgement on something, it's a judgement that is simply the natural course of events: the lazy starve, sleeping with another man's wife will get you a lifelong enemy, the talkative will reveal ignorance, the gullible will be taken advantage of... I mean, you don't really need to be a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out! Remember what proverbs is: the collected aphorisms of a deeply religious people. Some are deeply religious, and I wouldn't expect someone from another religion to agree necessarily. Others are pure folklore, of the same sort we got from our ancestors.
Much of it is simply "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" type stuff...
Ummm.... You could make a short barrel in a mill if you were inclined to. It would be painful, but no worse than half the jury-rigged rifling machines folks stick on standard lathes all the time.
More to the point, we don't care about barrels. Barrels aren't guns. Receivers are. (on the AR, specifically the lower receiver). And there are features on an AR15 lower receiver that would be nearly impossible with just a manual mill. Could be done, with extensive use of form-tools, etc., but way too difficult to be worth considering. It is a CNC mill job.
It wouldn't be particularly hard to design and make a plastic shotgun that could survive a few rounds. If you want long like you'll need to go ceramic/composite, which is an order of magnitude harder.
Believe it or not, a propagandist is exactly how you come across. You take the actions of some of the adherents of a single branch of Christianity, and extrapolate it to all Christianity. When someone points out that secular people have even higher death tolls in the name of their idea of a 'better' society, you ignore and neglect it. When someone points out that the Catholic Church does not bear sole responsibility for those deaths, but nearly always acted through political entities, you point out that the Catholic Church was involved. Way to go, Einstein!
Seriously. My point isn't 'the church is innocent', but 'this problem goes beyond the church, and beyond all religion'. This problem simply isn't solved by eliminating Christianity, or even all religions. Stalin was an idealist: a man who truly believed he could make the lot of the average worker in Russia better. He wasn't religious, but it didn't stop him from murdering millions to try to make the world better. The problem is people, be they religious or no, trying to force us to do what's good for us, to read what's good for us, to do what's good for us. They ARE well-meaning; so were many Catholics who committed atrocities! Freedom is the only defense. Neutrality of Government in ideological fora is critical to maintaining freedom.
Who fought wars? The Catholic church? Or political entities? Also note that even in the so-called wars of religion, which happened after the Dark ages, you had such interesting situations as Catholic France funding Protestant Sweden in its war on Catholic Germany, Bulgaria, etc. The lines were not really cut on religion very well at all; religion served the purposes of ambitious princes.
The Spanish Inquisition was not permitted to execute people. All executions were carried out by the state. Politicians are reluctant to relinquish power, and, as I pointed out, rarely gave the Catholic church the power to give capital punishment.
Did the Catholic church invade Mexico, burning and raping as it went, against Catholic doctrine? I think not! SPAIN invaded the new world, and profited immensely from the silver mines here. Again, primary authority did not rest with the church. Note that when (equally Catholic) France invaded Canada, the result was quite benevolent for the natives. The Church wasn't different; the national policy was.
Mind you, I strongly disagree with the Catholic Church. I think it is a bad influence on the world. But blaming it for actions carried out by politician who claimed membership, is like blaming rappers for murder. Did they encourage? Sure. But to target them is to miss the primary perpetrator: unrestrained governments, determined to provide a tyranny "in the people's best interests". It didn't matter that they based those "best interests" on Catholic dogma. There are dozens of equally bad secular dogmas they could have based it on. See the Nazis for a relatively modern example of just such a would-be benevolent tyranny. THEY didn't base it on religion. But it had the same outcome. It doesn't matter what higher cause people espouse; if they turn to 'fixing' society by coercion, it will end in a terrible tragedy.
Slashdot Mirror
Errr... Personal Freedom? I don't claim the right to make other people listen to me; I do claim the right to say what I please! (In general; willing to accept minor infringements for good reasons. But they better be mighty good reasons.)
Simply not handing someone a microphone is in no way equivalent to locking them up if they say the wrong thing. One is not handing me a power; the other is taking away my rights.
I don't see them as at all morally equivalent.
That said, what's to keep a police depart from using thermal imaging to identify grow houses and, with the aid of ANPR networks, locate vehicles observed at that address and pulling them over for failing to signal a lane change or some other minor traffic offense, detain the driver and search the vehicle?
Basically only admissibility in court. If the defense team catches you at it, the judge will throw the case out in a heartbeat; collecting the evidence was only motivated by illegally obtained evidence.
Perhaps a more relevant citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
Which basically boils down to: it depends on time, place, and judge. Sometimes you are responsible; sometimes you aren't. A lot of it hinges on what should have been 'obvious' to the defendant. Which is one of those tricky questions... It's worth mentioning that some folks got of at Nuremburg using the defense; basically, low-level guys who shouldn't necessarily have known that this defense had been removed from the laws of war.
Real spies never carry a gun.
Well... Maybe. I could see doing it in, say, South Africa. Particularly if safari were something you/your cover liked...
Yup. Of course, you do have to consider that airplanes, airports, etc. are an incredible capital investment which has to be recouped.
The terrestrial solar maximum (insolation on a hot sunny day at noon at the equator) is +/- 1000 watts/m^2.
Hmm. I think we need more greenhouse gasses for those days when solar insolation at the equator is -1000 W/m^2. Keep the heat in a little better. :)
If solar energy is beer, petroleum is whiskey.
More like if solar energy is unfermented apple cider that's been sitting out an hour, petroleum is whisky. You're really looking at several orders of magnitude difference in concentration. And people in temperate climate really ought to get this; it's why you install a furnace instead of simply shovelling the snow off your roof to heat your house in the winter.
Well... It IS true that power consumption goes up roughly with the cube of velocity...
News flash; there's quite a few bright people these days with atrocious handwriting. Of course, these days they usually have fair to middling typing skills at the least...
Actually, there was some fairly interesting research on maternal/paternal twins, which (to my mind) conclusively demonstrate a genetic link. They simply compared the standard deviation of the differences of IQ between paternal and maternal twins, and found a significantly higher correlation among maternal twins (who share nearly identical genetics.)
In fact, I'd be quite surprised if genetics played no role at all. By the same token, this article clearly show that nurture dwarfs nature in effect. But they both do influence it.
This implies a disturbing amount of foresight about probable failure modes...
Interesting. Thanks!
Well, you might note that this (incedibly persistant popular misconceptions) is a major problem in fields from elementary physics to computer security, to copyright law. I doubt it can be solved when dealing with incredibly complicated stuff like abiogenesis, if it can't be solved for folks believing F = mv.
So, public hygienic awareness campaigns were misguided? I don't think so; we've culturally internalized a lot of unnatural behaviors to limit disease spread in the past. Of course, we've also introduced immunization, disinfectants, etc. It isn't one or the other; both are most effective when used together.
Actually I had better explain my use of the phrase "genetic defect" since you don't seem to grasp genetics well either. Lack of sex drive is considered a defect in that our genetic material is designed to propagate, and clearly not wanting sex is going to prevent that from happening.
Considered by who? Citation most emphatically needed. This logic condemns homosexuals, asexuals, etc. as a genetic defect. While I admit it's an arguable stance, it doesn't have a lot of support.
I rather think that judging other people for the decisions they make in their own personal life is significantly worse that advocating a particular decision as beneficial.
Meh. I suppose it's impossible for two different systems to be good. Or for one-line put-downs to be useful slashdot comments.
Well, actually, that's (tattoos) in the Jewish national law, which doesn't apply to Christians today. Though you will find a few Christians who disagree with me on that point.
Basically, this is based on Romans 7:1-6 where it says that Christians died (or partook of the death of) Christ, and so the old law no longer applies.
Occam's razor, as usually cited, is purely a heuristic, nothing more.
In it's original form, (not how it's usually cited) it is actually a logically constraining argument. Which, if applied to the premises you put forth, would indicate that God is unnecessary to understanding the system. Not that God does, or doesn't exist.
Folks should really stop abusing Occam's Razor. There are enough cheap ones you can buy at Walmart...
They seem to oppose you only because they're tired of seeing news images of dead children killed by people who assume that it will prove their non-sense is the best non-sense.
You know, I honestly don't care whether folks murdering children believe in creation or not. Or what exactly they believe about abiogenesis.
It might be relevant if they were motivated by their beliefs about the origins of life. But most religious killings (today) are done by Muslims, in response to either violations of their moral code (stoning rape victims, etc.) or folks 'dissing' their religion. None of which violently opposed dissing has focused on the origin of life, the universe, or everything.
I agree it's lamentable; I agree we need to stop it. Hey, I think they deserve the death penalty. But it seems completely irrelevant to creation beliefs.
* Pluto
Citation needed.
Pluto's temperature is 44K. Water does not exist in the liquid phase at 44K, regardless of pressure. That I know of, at least: perhaps with some particularly effective antifreeze dissolved in it?
Agreed. This is one of the clearest elaborations of this issue I've read.
The one additional option is Unknown (possibly Uncaused) Cause. Basically, claiming we know something is uncaused implies infinite preexistence. The only way to preclude a cause is to avoid a starting time. An example is, as you mentioned, claiming that the existence of God is an infinite line. This goes back to whole issue of not proving a universal negative. If it is possible for there to be a cause (always true for any event) we can't prove there wasn't one. One example is claiming the Big Bang happened at a particular time: it becomes impossible to demonstrate whether it was a truly uncaused cause, or simply an unknown cause.
Kudos on your username. It brings back fond memories of beating codeblocks into submission...
But I I must disagree with your statement. I've never heard a theologian claim anything of the sort. Proverbs is not primarily concerned with moral instruction, unless you consider all activities in life to be moral. (Certainly an arguable definition, but one which renders your complaint about Proverbs irrelevant.) One of the most common definitions I've heard for wisdom, as used in the book of Proverbs, is: "The art of living skillfully." Yes, it states that knowing God is critical. I would expect nothing less of a religious text. But it also gives loads of practical advice:
"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest."
"Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions."
"In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction."
"As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him."
"There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty. The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself. He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him: but blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it. He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour: but he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him."
Sure, there are loads of Proverbs encouraging 'Righteousness'. I would not wish to deceive anyone into thinking the Bible was an unbiased, nonreligious source, so here's a handful of examples of that:
"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom. The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them."
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. For by me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased. If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it."
"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
90% of the time, when Proverbs speaks of a judgement on something, it's a judgement that is simply the natural course of events: the lazy starve, sleeping with another man's wife will get you a lifelong enemy, the talkative will reveal ignorance, the gullible will be taken advantage of... I mean, you don't really need to be a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out! Remember what proverbs is: the collected aphorisms of a deeply religious people. Some are deeply religious, and I wouldn't expect someone from another religion to agree necessarily. Others are pure folklore, of the same sort we got from our ancestors.
Much of it is simply "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" type stuff...
Ummm.... You could make a short barrel in a mill if you were inclined to. It would be painful, but no worse than half the jury-rigged rifling machines folks stick on standard lathes all the time.
More to the point, we don't care about barrels. Barrels aren't guns. Receivers are. (on the AR, specifically the lower receiver). And there are features on an AR15 lower receiver that would be nearly impossible with just a manual mill. Could be done, with extensive use of form-tools, etc., but way too difficult to be worth considering. It is a CNC mill job.
It wouldn't be particularly hard to design and make a plastic shotgun that could survive a few rounds. If you want long like you'll need to go ceramic/composite, which is an order of magnitude harder.
Believe it or not, a propagandist is exactly how you come across. You take the actions of some of the adherents of a single branch of Christianity, and extrapolate it to all Christianity. When someone points out that secular people have even higher death tolls in the name of their idea of a 'better' society, you ignore and neglect it. When someone points out that the Catholic Church does not bear sole responsibility for those deaths, but nearly always acted through political entities, you point out that the Catholic Church was involved. Way to go, Einstein!
Seriously. My point isn't 'the church is innocent', but 'this problem goes beyond the church, and beyond all religion'. This problem simply isn't solved by eliminating Christianity, or even all religions. Stalin was an idealist: a man who truly believed he could make the lot of the average worker in Russia better. He wasn't religious, but it didn't stop him from murdering millions to try to make the world better. The problem is people, be they religious or no, trying to force us to do what's good for us, to read what's good for us, to do what's good for us. They ARE well-meaning; so were many Catholics who committed atrocities! Freedom is the only defense. Neutrality of Government in ideological fora is critical to maintaining freedom.
Who fought wars? The Catholic church? Or political entities? Also note that even in the so-called wars of religion, which happened after the Dark ages, you had such interesting situations as Catholic France funding Protestant Sweden in its war on Catholic Germany, Bulgaria, etc. The lines were not really cut on religion very well at all; religion served the purposes of ambitious princes.
The Spanish Inquisition was not permitted to execute people. All executions were carried out by the state. Politicians are reluctant to relinquish power, and, as I pointed out, rarely gave the Catholic church the power to give capital punishment.
Did the Catholic church invade Mexico, burning and raping as it went, against Catholic doctrine? I think not! SPAIN invaded the new world, and profited immensely from the silver mines here. Again, primary authority did not rest with the church. Note that when (equally Catholic) France invaded Canada, the result was quite benevolent for the natives. The Church wasn't different; the national policy was.
Mind you, I strongly disagree with the Catholic Church. I think it is a bad influence on the world. But blaming it for actions carried out by politician who claimed membership, is like blaming rappers for murder. Did they encourage? Sure. But to target them is to miss the primary perpetrator: unrestrained governments, determined to provide a tyranny "in the people's best interests". It didn't matter that they based those "best interests" on Catholic dogma. There are dozens of equally bad secular dogmas they could have based it on. See the Nazis for a relatively modern example of just such a would-be benevolent tyranny. THEY didn't base it on religion. But it had the same outcome. It doesn't matter what higher cause people espouse; if they turn to 'fixing' society by coercion, it will end in a terrible tragedy.