Yeah, every one of us needs to get ourselves one of these so that, in the event that one day we're stuck in front of the Traffic Light o' Doom at 3AM, we can save ourselves five minutes without incurring the wrath of The Law. And we all promise never to use them except in those circumstances. Yep, every one of us. Cross our hearts and hope to spit.
[end sarcasm]
Sorry, I do see your point. I recognize that there are some situations where it would be perfectly understandable for a civillian to use such a device. But I don't think they rise to the level of "substantial non-infringing use."
Let's face it, the real solution is to make the traffic lights smarter. You know, give them enough situational awareness so that it can plan out the best strategies for getting cars through the intersection. It should be able to recognize how many cars are in either direction, how fast they're coming and how long stopped cars have been waiting. The image analysis would be the hardest part, obviously, but it doesn't need to be perfect. All it has to decide is when to change the light, a decision we used to leave to a thirty second timer.
Re:Does adding every ingredient make it better?
on
C# 2.0 Spec Released
·
· Score: 1
"That's crazy. Universities don't teach programming languages except as tools to teach more important concepts."
Which university do you go to? I'll transfer.
Seriously, aside from the occasional muttering about "algorithmic complexity," I think most of my courses have focused entirely on the language being used. The system is boke. It would take a few million in grant money just to get the 'r' installed.
1) Standard emission checks are error-prone, and also prone to things like gasoline doping. They're also a pain to get done.
2) Most of the pollution is caused by a relative handful of cars. I think that the worst-polluting cars emit about 200 times as much pollution as the average car.
3) California has a serious pollution problem which needs to be curbed.
BTW, what sort of troll are you? I mean, the whole "central server" concept is outlandish enough, but refusing to start your car? If anything, the system would have to give the driver a couple of weeks to get the problem fixed. And unless you're driving uninsured, I don't see how this situation would call for an insurance premium. There, I just saved you $535.
I'm sorry if this system tramples your God-given American right to drive a broken, polluting car. But the fact is, no such right exists. If the system does away with emission inspections, all power to it.
M1.5 has a very plain (almost boring) dinosaur-free splash screen, if that's important to you.
Too bad the same "professional look and design" rules don't apply to Microsoft, or they might have had to make IE6 look like something other than the candy-colored eyesore that it is. My opinion is that it's only slightly less obnoxious than Netscape's old Toybox theme.
Okay, to be fair, they're also planning even more ways to lock their products together so tightly that no competitor can fit between them, and working on DRM to ensure maximum profitability for starving boy bands. I'm sure there are at least a couple of points on the roadmap with big red X's, signifying where they can drive another herd of consumers over a cliff.
I'll admit that I've had more than my share of SCO-based revenge fantasies. While I'm most decidedly not going to organize a tactical strike against Lindon, Utah, I think that it's perfectly fine to be upset, even outraged. What SCO is doing is nothing but an immoral and greedy attempt to enrich their company by co-opting the intellectual property of others.
Yeah, I've met people who are exactly like Enderle describes. I've met incompetent zealots who don't seem to understand Linux, but can spout off unsubstantiated anti-Microsoft FUD for pages and pages on end. Hell, I've been one on occasion. But there are also a great many people--like me--who are willing to accept that Microsoftware may sometimes be superior when compared on technical merits, but still shy away because of the freedom issues.
According to Enderle (the author of the original flamebait), pro-Linux zealots represent a huge threat to the Open Source movement. I find this ironic, since Enderle is basically the prototypical pro-Microsoft zealot. He's produced some of the most wrongheaded FUD I've ever had the misfortune to witness. If you check out "The Enderle Group's" website, you'll note that one of the services his group provides is called "Counterpoint." It seems to say: you send us an article that says something bad about your product, and a bunch of money, and we'll issue a press release showing why it's all a bunch of lies, and how your product cures cancer of the puppy.
Next patch to Internet Explorer, they should throw in some code that brings up their own search page whenever a domain name resolves to Verisign's computers.
I have few complaints with Microsoft's service, because the behavior is happening at the application level, not the infrastructure level. I mean, what good is having a 95% browser share if you can't smack down the little bastards that try to muscle in on your turf?:)
One doesn't need to believe in God in order to have a belief that some actions are objectively good and some are objectively evil. For example, my moral beliefs are a (probably not entirely consistent) mish-mash of "The Golden Rule" (which Jesus espoused but did not invent), evolution, extreme skepticism, and game theory. God never enters into it.
From a purely objective standpoint, it is impossible for me to demonstrate that I am somehow more important to the world than some unspecified other human being. Therefore, if I value my own needs and feelings, I should value those of others. Inflicting pain on others is therefore bad, and bringing joy to others is therefore good. Thus, it seems clear to me that the Golden Rule can be part of an "objective" morality.
Evolution: Many creatures lead solitary lives. But humans, by and large, do not. Instead, they exist as members of societies. Furthermore, these societies exist because they provide certain advantages over humans living singly. While these societies are vastly different from each other in many ways, and may vary wildly in their thoughts on what constitutes a moral or immoral act, there is an undeniable baseline morality which every society adheres to. Murder of innocents is always seen as a bad thing. Private property exists in most (implying a taboo against theft), and even in societies which don't have private property per se, there is a strong taboo against waste and hogging. Protecting children is always important. Some sexual practices are nearly universally forbidden.
The fact that these rules exist everywhere, along with the evolutionary principle that these sort of rules tend to persist when they provide competitive advantages to the society as a whole, would indicate that these universals are a serviceable basis for an objective morality.
Extreme skepticism: Any action based on a faulty understanding of the world around me can have serious and negative consequences. Therefore, believing something just because it's comforting to do so is immoral. Every belief must be provisional, and following this principle gives me the ability to adapt myself to new knowledge.
Game theory: Decisions which might seem advantageous in the short run may lead to non-optimal outcomes in the long run. Further, the advantages an action provides to me may be smaller than the harm done to someone else. Game theory demonstrates that, given certain rules and assumptions, certain actions will lead to better outcomes than others. Again we have a possible basis for an objective morality.
My cosmological beliefs are as follows: The Big Bang happened. It created the Universe. The cause of said Bang is unknowable. ex nihilo with no God and no contradictions.
These walls that you're trying to create for the non-believers don't actually exist.
Your arguments would be more convincing if the Christian world were able to come to some sort of agreement about what is right and wrong. But when it comes to things outside the universals I mentioned earlier, there is nothing but chaos and confusion. Some say that homosexuality is okay, others say it's a sin. Some say that all alcohol is bad, others say that it's okay in moderation. Christianity as a whole cannot agree on the morality of abortion, birth control, blood transfusions, hunting for sport, population control, drug use, killing in self-defense, polygamy... you'll find Christians on both sides of every debate. Unsurprisingly, just about everyone believes that God hates the same people they do.
In my view, the only advantage your "objective morality" provides is the ability to say that those who disagree with your positions are evil.
Finally, Christian morality suffers from an important dilemma: If these rules of morality are right just because God says they're right, then the rules are arbitrary. If the rules are objective and beyond God's ability to change, then God isn't needed for "objective morality" to exist.
Before you can say what it would take to disprove God, you have to decide what you mean by "God."
Examples: If you define God as the Universe itself (or whatever catchall term would ordinarily be used to describe the fundamental forces of the universe), then you can prove that God exists. But since God == The Universe, proving the existence of that particular God is trivial, almost tautological.
Now, if you define God as some intelligent entity which created the universe through mechanisms unknown, and watches the universe with non-interfering curiosity, there would be no way to disprove the claim that this God exists.
Now, if you define God in the common Judeo-Christian sense, then you imbue this concept of God with very specific attributes. Some philosophers and other religious thinkers argue that these attributes are by definition logically contradictory. Hence, no being possessing all these attributes can possibly exist. Others (most notably George Smith in "Atheism: The Case Against God") have argued that the conception of the Christian God is logically incoherent.
I don't care to go into detail about the specifics of those arguments. I find them less interesting than I once did. But the main point is that while God cannot be proven or disproven, specific conceptions may or may not be subject to disproof.
This myth [that secular humanism is a religion] is based on a misunderstanding about how Supreme Court decisions are written, and was finally laid to rest by a Federal Circuit Court ruling issued in 1994.
In the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Such footnotes, known as "dicta," are written to provide factual background to the legal principles in a decision. These dicta never have the force of law. They are merely comments.
The claim that secular humanism can be considered a religion for legal purposes was finally considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District. In this 1994 case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case; they refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion.
Short version: The claim that "secular humanism" is a religion was part of the dicta of a Supreme Court ruling, which are for background purposes only), and it was essentially wrong. Furthermore, secular humanism--unlike atheism--is in fact a belief system, yet it still doesn't qualify as a religion because it doesn't directly address any supernatural beliefs.
Nor is an atheist required to have "some cosmology to support that belief," despite your assertion. An atheist needn't have any underpinnings for disbelief. "I just don't" is sufficient to require you to accept that an atheist does in fact hold the belief. It doesn't matter that the "reason" is logically unconvincing.
If you went and asked somebody about their belief in God, and the only information you can get out of him is "I figger he's out there somewhere," it's not enough to say that this person follows a religion, even a private one.
Your assertion that any contradiction to your prior assertion constitutes a theological apology is very nearly the stupidest thing I've heard today.
Not exactly. It takes more than one belief to create a belief system.
What you describe as "atheism" is actually a sub-category called "positive atheism" (a belief that there is no God). Atheism can also be expressed as negative atheism, which simply means "lacking a belief in God." Both are distinct from agnosticism, which is an active belief that either God's existence cannot be determined, or the specifics of His character are unknowable. In either case, a person must actively come to conclusions.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The short version: The states are not allowed to infringe upon the rights granted to citizens of the United States under the Constitution. This "The states have the right to do whatever they want" argument hasn't been valid for centuries.
Excellent point. But it is not the proper role of government to do the exposing. I don't mind that street preachers go around telling people that they should believe in God, but I do mind when a public institution does the same.
First, atheism is a category, not a religion. Atheism has no dogmas, no creeds, no forms of worship, no heresies, and no principles. To be an atheist, you simply cannot believe that there is a God. Any principle you try to add to that (and it certainly does need more in order to become a belief system, much less a religion) requires a new word.
Atheism has no position on morality (except so far as an atheist cannot logically follow the "divine command" principle of morality). It has no opinion on abortion. It has no opinion on evolution. Atheism does not require belief in the Big Bang, or moral relativism, or the existence of the soul. Given non-belief in a God, some positions appear more likely than others, but none are required. I can be a pro-life, anti-evolution, moral objectivist who believes that he will be reincarnated as Steven Segal after he dies, and still be an atheist.
Glad that's cleared up.
Now, if "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" somehow supports the atheist "religion," what else is it implicitly endorsing through its silence? Well, it doesn't say anything against child-mulching machines, so it must be implying that they should be built and used to keep down the population. It doesn't say "one nation, with no nuclear strikes called in on Lindon, Utah," so the pledge is implicitly endorsing the annihilation of SCO's headquarters. To which I say, "Rock on!"
"Under God" doesn't belong in the pledge, and removing it simply remedies an inappropriate use of government power to promote a sectarian agenda.
When did the bicameral legislature become a "Christian principle?"
The fact is, the Constitution doesn't mention God. If this country were based upon "Christian principles," the Preamble should have included some mention of the fact.
The idea of inalienable human rights was not developed by Christianity, but came many centuries after. The idea of common law (laws which apply to everyone regardless of status) didn't originate with Christianity either. Voting? Nope. Government of the people, by the people, for the people? Nope.
Christians love to tell the story of Benjamin Franklin. The oldest and arguably most famous member of the Constitutional Convention, his presence lent credibility to the entire undertaking. When it looked like the convention was at an impasse, Franklin made an impassioned plea asking that the convention begin starting its days with a morning prayer.
Christians love telling this story, showing the depth of religious conviction amongst our founding fathers (in reality, Franklin came to his religious beliefs rather late in life). Yet somehow they never mention the critical fact that the convention refused to adopt Franklin's proposal, believing it would be controversial and divisive. This alone would indicate that the Founders were uncomfortable with the idea of "Christian principles" underpinning the government.
Yes, many of the Founding Fathers were deeply religious. And the ideas that underly the United States did arise within predominantly Christian Europe. But they exist independent of Christianity, much the same way that astronomy doesn't need to accept the astrological principles from which it evolved.
I'm sure many others have pointed this out, but the "under God" phrase wasn't in the original Pledge of Allegiance. It was added in the 1950's along with the "In God We Trust" on our coinage, back when we were trying to prove that we were better than the godless Communists over in the USSR.
More important, I question the utility of having kids repeat the Pledge every day. Perhaps it instills patriotism, but patriotism of an unquestioning and unimaginative sort. Personally, I'd rather see kids being taught to love their country, and to pin the bastards in Washington to the wall if they do anything to undermine it. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence and whatnot.
Actually, it would have been possible for Linksys to partition its own code off from the main kernel by using modules. Proprietary modules are perfectly all right under the GPL: all they would have had to release was the changes to the kernel itself.
Since Linksys had the option, why didn't they? Maybe it was for performance reasons? By migrating the drivers into the kernel itself, maybe they saved some performance, and were able to save money by using less beefy hardware.
But they made this design decision while the product was still being built, and if they were unaware of their obligations, that can only be attributed to gross negligence on their part. So I have no sympathy for them. Take 'em to court.
I thought to myself, "Hmm, sounds like this might have potential." So I asked Google, and it pointed me to a quick tutorial. I clicked immediately on "how to write a loop in Unlambda," and was met with the following example code:
```s``sii`ki
``s``s`ks
``s``s`ks``s`k`s`kr
``s`k`si``s`k`s`k
`d````````````.H.e.l.l.o.,..w.o.r.l.d.!
k
k
`k``s``s`ksk`k.*
I never thought I would find a language more intimidating than Intercal, but this may have it beat.
When he says "I would like to see Linux survive," what he really means is "I would like to see Linux survive as our own personal $699/processor cash cow." Removing any infringing IP from Linux would not do anything for Yarro's goals for Linux survival.
Government initiatives that advanced the human condition? How about mass distribution of the polio vaccine? Public sanitation and clean water systems?* The patent system (before it turned evil)? National parks? Environmental protection? Fundamental scientific research?
Let's play the s/// game:
The private sector is not about bettering mankind, its about power and many private sector businesspeople are not averse to using very dubious, and in many cases downright criminal methods to achieve their aims.
Funny how it still works, no?
I find myself defending government a lot these days. It's not because government is wholly noble, or because the private sector is an unmitigated cesspool of greed and corruption. Neither is the case; good and bad is done on both sides. But somehow certain right-winger types are willing to give free enterprise a free pass and criticize even the best of government programs as bureaucratic tinkering. Strange, since they criticize liberals for heaping criticism on the private sector and expecting the government to solve all our problems.
Oh, and don't complain about how "government" missed the boat on the horseless carriage when Bill Gates didn't discover the Internet until 1996. And don't tell me about the history of the railroads. The railroads weren't a product of private sector know-how and gumption, and to say otherwise is to ignore the massive government subsidies that made the railroads happen. Hell, companies were blissfully building railroad spurs into the middle of nowhere, hoping that maybe a town would spring up at the end of the line. All this because the feds were providing huge incentives for new track.
*I listened to a speech from some honcho at the National Academy of Science, who claimed that of the extra 30 years Americans live when compared to 1900, 20 of them can be attributed to access to clean water.
Did you read the article? Obviously not, so I'll summarize. The "insane punitive damages" amounted to approximately two days worth of coffee sales for McCorp. McDonalds has a policy of serving their coffee at 180 degrees, 20 degrees hotter than any of the other stores the prosecution looked at. And the victim only sued after McDonalds refused to pay a few hundred worth of medical bills. Finally, the 2.7M you saw in the headlines was reduced to less than a half-million on appeal.
You also make quite an absurd argument. If McDonalds keeps getting raped by evil trial lawyers every time somebody spills coffee on themselves, why would they need a judicial order to turn the temperature down? It's fully within their power to turn it down voluntarily. The reason they don't is simple: They think that they're making more money by selling a liquid that can cause third degree burns in seven seconds, even taking the lawsuits into account.
Oh, and for the record: Your spelling and grammar both suck, and you are a corporate shill.
So your thesis is that capitalism is the sole factor determining America's success? All I can say is, "huh?"
The U.S. isn't a purely capitalistic enterprise, and never has been. Especially since the 1960s, there has been an unmistakable trend towards socialism. Government has a large say in how money gets spent, which channels wealth in different directions than a purely free-market system would.
This isn't a bad thing.
Capitalism has its limitations. Whenever one player within the system can profit by pushing the costs of his or her actions onto bystanders, capitalism fails. Stealing a car, for example, might net you $10,000 in wealth while depriving the owner of same. In the same way, if I can save myself the $500 it would cost to properly dispose of a toxic chemical by dumping it into a river that I don't drink out of, the $20,000 in increased medical bills to the families downriver will never come back on me. From the overall perspective, I've made myself $500 richer, but destroyed $19,500 in wealth in order to do it.
Capitalism also suffers a tendency towards monopolies, whose anti-competitive natures drive up costs, slow the rate at which products improve, and give individuals access to an unconscionable amount of wealth at the expense of the overall economay.
That's where regulation (both by government and private associations) enter into the picture. Yes, complying with regulation is burdensome, and some regulations are misguided and make no sense. But the point of every regulation is to close some perceived loophole in the purely free-market system, which could otherwise be exploited to the detriment of everyone not doing the exploiting.
It is possible for non-capitalistic societies to succeed. If I haven't convinced you that America is actually a good example of this, what about the heavily socialized countries like Sweden and Norway? Unlike the former Soviet Union (whose economy did "stand on its own two feet," though it wasn't exactly setting the dance floor on fire) they seem to be getting along pretty well even with their enormous tax rate.
Meanwhile, there is a substantial list of highly capitalistic countries that are chaotic messes. I'm not saying that capitalism is to blame for their troubles, but it's not a cure-all by any means.
Your post is little more than good old-fashioned flag-waving. America deserves the amount of wealth that it has because unique factors X, Y, and Z make it somehow superior to the rest of the world. Somehow the sheer "Americanness" of the American coder adds so much value to the code that they're worth more than ten Indian coders.
It may turn out that factors like communication, quality control, and intellectual property enforcement turn outsourcing into a devil's bargain. That's the hope that keeps me grinding through my CS program. But the "we have it so we must deserve it" attitude, coupled with the blind worship of an American economic system that turns too many of us into wage slaves while giving vast wealth to a small handful of us, frustrates me to no end.
Some McNuggets about the Coffee Lawsuit. I agree with your general sentiments, but I really hate to see this lawsuit used to show how screwed up our legal system is. The case really resulted from a calculation on the part of McDonalds: make the coffee hotter, so they could purchase lower-quality beans, thereby earning more than enough to pay off the potential lawsuits.
The last time one of Rob Enderle's stories hit Slashdot, I went and did some googling around. An hour later, I had absolutely no evidence that the set of analysts comprising the Enderle group was any larger than the set composing Rob Enderle himself.
He probably has a stuffed penguin as a technical advisor, and I'd also bet that his technical advisor frequently gets pins stuck in him.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, every one of us needs to get ourselves one of these so that, in the event that one day we're stuck in front of the Traffic Light o' Doom at 3AM, we can save ourselves five minutes without incurring the wrath of The Law. And we all promise never to use them except in those circumstances. Yep, every one of us. Cross our hearts and hope to spit.
[end sarcasm]
Sorry, I do see your point. I recognize that there are some situations where it would be perfectly understandable for a civillian to use such a device. But I don't think they rise to the level of "substantial non-infringing use."
Let's face it, the real solution is to make the traffic lights smarter. You know, give them enough situational awareness so that it can plan out the best strategies for getting cars through the intersection. It should be able to recognize how many cars are in either direction, how fast they're coming and how long stopped cars have been waiting. The image analysis would be the hardest part, obviously, but it doesn't need to be perfect. All it has to decide is when to change the light, a decision we used to leave to a thirty second timer.
Seriously, aside from the occasional muttering about "algorithmic complexity," I think most of my courses have focused entirely on the language being used. The system is boke. It would take a few million in grant money just to get the 'r' installed.
Consider:
1) Standard emission checks are error-prone, and also prone to things like gasoline doping. They're also a pain to get done.
2) Most of the pollution is caused by a relative handful of cars. I think that the worst-polluting cars emit about 200 times as much pollution as the average car.
3) California has a serious pollution problem which needs to be curbed.
BTW, what sort of troll are you? I mean, the whole "central server" concept is outlandish enough, but refusing to start your car? If anything, the system would have to give the driver a couple of weeks to get the problem fixed. And unless you're driving uninsured, I don't see how this situation would call for an insurance premium. There, I just saved you $535.
I'm sorry if this system tramples your God-given American right to drive a broken, polluting car. But the fact is, no such right exists. If the system does away with emission inspections, all power to it.
M1.5 has a very plain (almost boring) dinosaur-free splash screen, if that's important to you.
Too bad the same "professional look and design" rules don't apply to Microsoft, or they might have had to make IE6 look like something other than the candy-colored eyesore that it is. My opinion is that it's only slightly less obnoxious than Netscape's old Toybox theme.
What sort of roadmap does Ballmer have in mind? Where does he want us to go today?
FOUND IT!
Okay, to be fair, they're also planning even more ways to lock their products together so tightly that no competitor can fit between them, and working on DRM to ensure maximum profitability for starving boy bands. I'm sure there are at least a couple of points on the roadmap with big red X's, signifying where they can drive another herd of consumers over a cliff.
Cranky? Me?
I'll admit that I've had more than my share of SCO-based revenge fantasies. While I'm most decidedly not going to organize a tactical strike against Lindon, Utah, I think that it's perfectly fine to be upset, even outraged. What SCO is doing is nothing but an immoral and greedy attempt to enrich their company by co-opting the intellectual property of others.
Yeah, I've met people who are exactly like Enderle describes. I've met incompetent zealots who don't seem to understand Linux, but can spout off unsubstantiated anti-Microsoft FUD for pages and pages on end. Hell, I've been one on occasion. But there are also a great many people--like me--who are willing to accept that Microsoftware may sometimes be superior when compared on technical merits, but still shy away because of the freedom issues.
According to Enderle (the author of the original flamebait), pro-Linux zealots represent a huge threat to the Open Source movement. I find this ironic, since Enderle is basically the prototypical pro-Microsoft zealot. He's produced some of the most wrongheaded FUD I've ever had the misfortune to witness. If you check out "The Enderle Group's" website, you'll note that one of the services his group provides is called "Counterpoint." It seems to say: you send us an article that says something bad about your product, and a bunch of money, and we'll issue a press release showing why it's all a bunch of lies, and how your product cures cancer of the puppy.
My opinion: if Enderle wrote it, it's flamebait.
Will Tomb Raider help me overcome my fear of girls?
Couldn't help myself.
I think we should have Microsoft crusherize them.
:)
Next patch to Internet Explorer, they should throw in some code that brings up their own search page whenever a domain name resolves to Verisign's computers.
I have few complaints with Microsoft's service, because the behavior is happening at the application level, not the infrastructure level. I mean, what good is having a 95% browser share if you can't smack down the little bastards that try to muscle in on your turf?
One doesn't need to believe in God in order to have a belief that some actions are objectively good and some are objectively evil. For example, my moral beliefs are a (probably not entirely consistent) mish-mash of "The Golden Rule" (which Jesus espoused but did not invent), evolution, extreme skepticism, and game theory. God never enters into it.
From a purely objective standpoint, it is impossible for me to demonstrate that I am somehow more important to the world than some unspecified other human being. Therefore, if I value my own needs and feelings, I should value those of others. Inflicting pain on others is therefore bad, and bringing joy to others is therefore good. Thus, it seems clear to me that the Golden Rule can be part of an "objective" morality.
Evolution: Many creatures lead solitary lives. But humans, by and large, do not. Instead, they exist as members of societies. Furthermore, these societies exist because they provide certain advantages over humans living singly. While these societies are vastly different from each other in many ways, and may vary wildly in their thoughts on what constitutes a moral or immoral act, there is an undeniable baseline morality which every society adheres to. Murder of innocents is always seen as a bad thing. Private property exists in most (implying a taboo against theft), and even in societies which don't have private property per se, there is a strong taboo against waste and hogging. Protecting children is always important. Some sexual practices are nearly universally forbidden.
The fact that these rules exist everywhere, along with the evolutionary principle that these sort of rules tend to persist when they provide competitive advantages to the society as a whole, would indicate that these universals are a serviceable basis for an objective morality.
Extreme skepticism: Any action based on a faulty understanding of the world around me can have serious and negative consequences. Therefore, believing something just because it's comforting to do so is immoral. Every belief must be provisional, and following this principle gives me the ability to adapt myself to new knowledge.
Game theory: Decisions which might seem advantageous in the short run may lead to non-optimal outcomes in the long run. Further, the advantages an action provides to me may be smaller than the harm done to someone else. Game theory demonstrates that, given certain rules and assumptions, certain actions will lead to better outcomes than others. Again we have a possible basis for an objective morality.
My cosmological beliefs are as follows: The Big Bang happened. It created the Universe. The cause of said Bang is unknowable. ex nihilo with no God and no contradictions.
These walls that you're trying to create for the non-believers don't actually exist.
Your arguments would be more convincing if the Christian world were able to come to some sort of agreement about what is right and wrong. But when it comes to things outside the universals I mentioned earlier, there is nothing but chaos and confusion. Some say that homosexuality is okay, others say it's a sin. Some say that all alcohol is bad, others say that it's okay in moderation. Christianity as a whole cannot agree on the morality of abortion, birth control, blood transfusions, hunting for sport, population control, drug use, killing in self-defense, polygamy... you'll find Christians on both sides of every debate. Unsurprisingly, just about everyone believes that God hates the same people they do.
In my view, the only advantage your "objective morality" provides is the ability to say that those who disagree with your positions are evil.
Finally, Christian morality suffers from an important dilemma: If these rules of morality are right just because God says they're right, then the rules are arbitrary. If the rules are objective and beyond God's ability to change, then God isn't needed for "objective morality" to exist.
That depends.
Before you can say what it would take to disprove God, you have to decide what you mean by "God."
Examples: If you define God as the Universe itself (or whatever catchall term would ordinarily be used to describe the fundamental forces of the universe), then you can prove that God exists. But since God == The Universe, proving the existence of that particular God is trivial, almost tautological.
Now, if you define God as some intelligent entity which created the universe through mechanisms unknown, and watches the universe with non-interfering curiosity, there would be no way to disprove the claim that this God exists.
Now, if you define God in the common Judeo-Christian sense, then you imbue this concept of God with very specific attributes. Some philosophers and other religious thinkers argue that these attributes are by definition logically contradictory. Hence, no being possessing all these attributes can possibly exist. Others (most notably George Smith in "Atheism: The Case Against God") have argued that the conception of the Christian God is logically incoherent.
I don't care to go into detail about the specifics of those arguments. I find them less interesting than I once did. But the main point is that while God cannot be proven or disproven, specific conceptions may or may not be subject to disproof.
Short version: The claim that "secular humanism" is a religion was part of the dicta of a Supreme Court ruling, which are for background purposes only), and it was essentially wrong. Furthermore, secular humanism--unlike atheism--is in fact a belief system, yet it still doesn't qualify as a religion because it doesn't directly address any supernatural beliefs.
Nor is an atheist required to have "some cosmology to support that belief," despite your assertion. An atheist needn't have any underpinnings for disbelief. "I just don't" is sufficient to require you to accept that an atheist does in fact hold the belief. It doesn't matter that the "reason" is logically unconvincing.
If you went and asked somebody about their belief in God, and the only information you can get out of him is "I figger he's out there somewhere," it's not enough to say that this person follows a religion, even a private one.
Your assertion that any contradiction to your prior assertion constitutes a theological apology is very nearly the stupidest thing I've heard today.
Not exactly. It takes more than one belief to create a belief system.
What you describe as "atheism" is actually a sub-category called "positive atheism" (a belief that there is no God). Atheism can also be expressed as negative atheism, which simply means "lacking a belief in God." Both are distinct from agnosticism, which is an active belief that either God's existence cannot be determined, or the specifics of His character are unknowable. In either case, a person must actively come to conclusions.
The short version: The states are not allowed to infringe upon the rights granted to citizens of the United States under the Constitution. This "The states have the right to do whatever they want" argument hasn't been valid for centuries.
Excellent point. But it is not the proper role of government to do the exposing. I don't mind that street preachers go around telling people that they should believe in God, but I do mind when a public institution does the same.
First, atheism is a category, not a religion. Atheism has no dogmas, no creeds, no forms of worship, no heresies, and no principles. To be an atheist, you simply cannot believe that there is a God. Any principle you try to add to that (and it certainly does need more in order to become a belief system, much less a religion) requires a new word.
Atheism has no position on morality (except so far as an atheist cannot logically follow the "divine command" principle of morality). It has no opinion on abortion. It has no opinion on evolution. Atheism does not require belief in the Big Bang, or moral relativism, or the existence of the soul. Given non-belief in a God, some positions appear more likely than others, but none are required. I can be a pro-life, anti-evolution, moral objectivist who believes that he will be reincarnated as Steven Segal after he dies, and still be an atheist.
Glad that's cleared up.
Now, if "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" somehow supports the atheist "religion," what else is it implicitly endorsing through its silence? Well, it doesn't say anything against child-mulching machines, so it must be implying that they should be built and used to keep down the population. It doesn't say "one nation, with no nuclear strikes called in on Lindon, Utah," so the pledge is implicitly endorsing the annihilation of SCO's headquarters. To which I say, "Rock on!"
"Under God" doesn't belong in the pledge, and removing it simply remedies an inappropriate use of government power to promote a sectarian agenda.
When did the bicameral legislature become a "Christian principle?"
The fact is, the Constitution doesn't mention God. If this country were based upon "Christian principles," the Preamble should have included some mention of the fact.
The idea of inalienable human rights was not developed by Christianity, but came many centuries after. The idea of common law (laws which apply to everyone regardless of status) didn't originate with Christianity either. Voting? Nope. Government of the people, by the people, for the people? Nope.
Christians love to tell the story of Benjamin Franklin. The oldest and arguably most famous member of the Constitutional Convention, his presence lent credibility to the entire undertaking. When it looked like the convention was at an impasse, Franklin made an impassioned plea asking that the convention begin starting its days with a morning prayer.
Christians love telling this story, showing the depth of religious conviction amongst our founding fathers (in reality, Franklin came to his religious beliefs rather late in life). Yet somehow they never mention the critical fact that the convention refused to adopt Franklin's proposal, believing it would be controversial and divisive. This alone would indicate that the Founders were uncomfortable with the idea of "Christian principles" underpinning the government.
Yes, many of the Founding Fathers were deeply religious. And the ideas that underly the United States did arise within predominantly Christian Europe. But they exist independent of Christianity, much the same way that astronomy doesn't need to accept the astrological principles from which it evolved.
I'm sure many others have pointed this out, but the "under God" phrase wasn't in the original Pledge of Allegiance. It was added in the 1950's along with the "In God We Trust" on our coinage, back when we were trying to prove that we were better than the godless Communists over in the USSR.
More important, I question the utility of having kids repeat the Pledge every day. Perhaps it instills patriotism, but patriotism of an unquestioning and unimaginative sort. Personally, I'd rather see kids being taught to love their country, and to pin the bastards in Washington to the wall if they do anything to undermine it. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence and whatnot.
Actually, it would have been possible for Linksys to partition its own code off from the main kernel by using modules. Proprietary modules are perfectly all right under the GPL: all they would have had to release was the changes to the kernel itself.
Since Linksys had the option, why didn't they? Maybe it was for performance reasons? By migrating the drivers into the kernel itself, maybe they saved some performance, and were able to save money by using less beefy hardware.
But they made this design decision while the product was still being built, and if they were unaware of their obligations, that can only be attributed to gross negligence on their part. So I have no sympathy for them. Take 'em to court.
I so hate you.
.w.o.r.l.d.!
I thought to myself, "Hmm, sounds like this might have potential." So I asked Google, and it pointed me to a quick tutorial. I clicked immediately on "how to write a loop in Unlambda," and was met with the following example code:
```s``sii`ki
``s``s`ks
``s``s`ks``s`k`s`kr
``s`k`si``s`k`s`k
`d````````````.H.e.l.l.o.,.
k
k
`k``s``s`ksk`k.*
I never thought I would find a language more intimidating than Intercal, but this may have it beat.
When he says "I would like to see Linux survive," what he really means is "I would like to see Linux survive as our own personal $699/processor cash cow." Removing any infringing IP from Linux would not do anything for Yarro's goals for Linux survival.
Let's play the s/// game:
Funny how it still works, no?
I find myself defending government a lot these days. It's not because government is wholly noble, or because the private sector is an unmitigated cesspool of greed and corruption. Neither is the case; good and bad is done on both sides. But somehow certain right-winger types are willing to give free enterprise a free pass and criticize even the best of government programs as bureaucratic tinkering. Strange, since they criticize liberals for heaping criticism on the private sector and expecting the government to solve all our problems.
Oh, and don't complain about how "government" missed the boat on the horseless carriage when Bill Gates didn't discover the Internet until 1996. And don't tell me about the history of the railroads. The railroads weren't a product of private sector know-how and gumption, and to say otherwise is to ignore the massive government subsidies that made the railroads happen. Hell, companies were blissfully building railroad spurs into the middle of nowhere, hoping that maybe a town would spring up at the end of the line. All this because the feds were providing huge incentives for new track.
*I listened to a speech from some honcho at the National Academy of Science, who claimed that of the extra 30 years Americans live when compared to 1900, 20 of them can be attributed to access to clean water.
Did you read the article? Obviously not, so I'll summarize. The "insane punitive damages" amounted to approximately two days worth of coffee sales for McCorp. McDonalds has a policy of serving their coffee at 180 degrees, 20 degrees hotter than any of the other stores the prosecution looked at. And the victim only sued after McDonalds refused to pay a few hundred worth of medical bills. Finally, the 2.7M you saw in the headlines was reduced to less than a half-million on appeal.
You also make quite an absurd argument. If McDonalds keeps getting raped by evil trial lawyers every time somebody spills coffee on themselves, why would they need a judicial order to turn the temperature down? It's fully within their power to turn it down voluntarily. The reason they don't is simple: They think that they're making more money by selling a liquid that can cause third degree burns in seven seconds, even taking the lawsuits into account.
Oh, and for the record: Your spelling and grammar both suck, and you are a corporate shill.
So your thesis is that capitalism is the sole factor determining America's success? All I can say is, "huh?"
The U.S. isn't a purely capitalistic enterprise, and never has been. Especially since the 1960s, there has been an unmistakable trend towards socialism. Government has a large say in how money gets spent, which channels wealth in different directions than a purely free-market system would.
This isn't a bad thing.
Capitalism has its limitations. Whenever one player within the system can profit by pushing the costs of his or her actions onto bystanders, capitalism fails. Stealing a car, for example, might net you $10,000 in wealth while depriving the owner of same. In the same way, if I can save myself the $500 it would cost to properly dispose of a toxic chemical by dumping it into a river that I don't drink out of, the $20,000 in increased medical bills to the families downriver will never come back on me. From the overall perspective, I've made myself $500 richer, but destroyed $19,500 in wealth in order to do it.
Capitalism also suffers a tendency towards monopolies, whose anti-competitive natures drive up costs, slow the rate at which products improve, and give individuals access to an unconscionable amount of wealth at the expense of the overall economay.
That's where regulation (both by government and private associations) enter into the picture. Yes, complying with regulation is burdensome, and some regulations are misguided and make no sense. But the point of every regulation is to close some perceived loophole in the purely free-market system, which could otherwise be exploited to the detriment of everyone not doing the exploiting.
It is possible for non-capitalistic societies to succeed. If I haven't convinced you that America is actually a good example of this, what about the heavily socialized countries like Sweden and Norway? Unlike the former Soviet Union (whose economy did "stand on its own two feet," though it wasn't exactly setting the dance floor on fire) they seem to be getting along pretty well even with their enormous tax rate.
Meanwhile, there is a substantial list of highly capitalistic countries that are chaotic messes. I'm not saying that capitalism is to blame for their troubles, but it's not a cure-all by any means.
Your post is little more than good old-fashioned flag-waving. America deserves the amount of wealth that it has because unique factors X, Y, and Z make it somehow superior to the rest of the world. Somehow the sheer "Americanness" of the American coder adds so much value to the code that they're worth more than ten Indian coders.
It may turn out that factors like communication, quality control, and intellectual property enforcement turn outsourcing into a devil's bargain. That's the hope that keeps me grinding through my CS program. But the "we have it so we must deserve it" attitude, coupled with the blind worship of an American economic system that turns too many of us into wage slaves while giving vast wealth to a small handful of us, frustrates me to no end.
Some McNuggets about the Coffee Lawsuit. I agree with your general sentiments, but I really hate to see this lawsuit used to show how screwed up our legal system is. The case really resulted from a calculation on the part of McDonalds: make the coffee hotter, so they could purchase lower-quality beans, thereby earning more than enough to pay off the potential lawsuits.
The last time one of Rob Enderle's stories hit Slashdot, I went and did some googling around. An hour later, I had absolutely no evidence that the set of analysts comprising the Enderle group was any larger than the set composing Rob Enderle himself.
He probably has a stuffed penguin as a technical advisor, and I'd also bet that his technical advisor frequently gets pins stuck in him.