God is by definition infinitely complex. Any finite explanation of the universe, no matter how complex, is simpler than an explanation by God. Occam's Razor, correctly stated, is that the hypothesis with the smallest new assumptions is generally the one to be desired. The hypothesis of God is the ultimate assumption since it is supra-rational. Essentially, a million finite (provable) assumptions is still less than one infinite (unprovable) assumption. Is this a problem? Not necessarily since you're already talking about the value of faith, but using Occam's Razor in your argument is dubious at best.
Thank you for pointing out the difference between simple and simplistic.
He also presented a valid and functional reason to disable it.
No, he presented a ridiculous reason. If he worked for me and didn't immediately grasp why it's a poor idea once I explained it, then he would be on his way out the door.
I'm not sure who you would fire, but it seems absurd in either situation. So would you fire an employee of thirty years for not using the recycle bin correctly? Or would you fire a sysadmin for creating a minor inconvenience that prevents that 30 year employee from losing her work?
Forgive me if I am being redundant, but I as a comcast customer, am paying for the right to connect to the internet. Netflix is paying some other provider for the right to connect to the internet. So, if we're both connected to the same network, and we have both paid, then what is unpaid fee that comcast is going on about? Why are they blaming netflix for providing a service that makes me want to use the bandwidth I already paid for?
It seems to me that comcast is basically a mail man who wants to take credit for everything good that happens. If you get a paycheck, "ooh, the mailman gave you money. You should at least buy him a nice dinner". If the letter is to inform you that your grandmother won the lottery, then "the mailman made it happen. He demands half". But comcast is really nothing more than a mailman with delusions of grandeur, and a monopoly that allows him to get away with it.
Maybe it is because it is so difficult to quantify quality, but price is a simple, universal, metric that can always be evaluated on an apples-to-apples basis.
But an admin disabling the Recycle Bin because he thinks it's a shitty metaphor is just fucking stupid. Your users might except the recycle bin to be there, or they might even *gasp* use it correctly!
He also presented a valid and functional reason to disable it. Some users were having problems because they weren't using it correctly. By hiding the icon, he assured that the functionality works for everybody, not just those who use it "correctly".
... that there should be more of these stories taken from the point-of-view of different characters. Wicked was incredibly clever, as was Ender's Shadow. I'd also like to see it done with movies.
As long as they don't get in the habit of just doing "Wicked" style remakes; it could get old quickly. I personally loved the White Wolf campaign set (although I haven't read it since they ended the world and redid everything). What was great about it was that for every setting, you were presented with a one-sided view of the world, in which your group is the heroes, and everybody else is a bunch of monsters, savages, or people who have been corrupted by power. Then you read the other books, and find out that you only saw a superficial view of that group, and that they had a good reason for their stance.
Perhaps an action film from the 'villain's' POV, or maybe it could follow a civilian who gets screwed over by every car chase and explosion.
Those are two very good ideas, although the later sounds like it would be a Will Farrel movie.
Actually, we are in the process of defunding public broadcasting which is our only non-cable educational station. Then again rather than funding things we pay for what we want to consume. It is more responsive to viewers as whole that way.
And that is why all our privatized educational channels are obsessed with sharks and Hitler, present UFO stories as if plausible, and are producing reality shows now.
EDIT: I don't pay $100 a month for cable television. There may be a few good channels that are only available to super premium subscribers. Science may be one of them.
In all fairness, they did start a rebellion against their country. If some guys from Alaska started destroying federal equipment and threatening to kill federal employees who entered the "United Alaska Colony", then I would expect our government to strike back. I would hope for them to get a fair trial, but ultimately, I would have no problem with the death penalty for someone who kills a dozen federal agents to "liberate" his territory.
I'm not sure you read the same summary or article I did. Expensive R-rated SCI-FI fantasy movies don't make much money, so movie studios aren't interested in doing them. Why is that a conspiracy theory?
anybody remember VCRs? Those were awesome in their own way. You buy one, and it belongs to you. You don't need anybody's permission to record*, you don't have to pay a subscription fee, and the total package costs less than a low-end PC. (Granted, you can have a cheap Tivo with a subscription fee, or an expensive one without).
So why is homebrewed mythTV the only open Tivo alternative available now?
I will as soon as I finish sending out this self-righteous email about Obama's proposal to beat up civil war veterans to further Kenyan flag burning efforts against the troops.
Can't believe that Obama...That's some bullshit, right there!
Mike Reagan is also on the anti-internet bandwagon, introducing his own email. The reason is
Well, every time you use your email from companies like Google, AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Apple and others, you are helping the liberals. These companies are, and will continue, to be huge supporters financially and with technology of those that are hurting our country.
So, I am wondering if a segment of the right is going to dig in their heels and become anti-internet now. He's going so far as to expect people to pay $40 per year for an email address.
Your question has an implicit assumption that you should think about.
No. If they say the purpose of the bill is to compete economically and technologically, we can't just assume they're lying. If you want to claim laws are unconstitutional, you need something more than "general distrust of the man"
Slashdot Mirror
God is by definition infinitely complex. Any finite explanation of the universe, no matter how complex, is simpler than an explanation by God. Occam's Razor, correctly stated, is that the hypothesis with the smallest new assumptions is generally the one to be desired. The hypothesis of God is the ultimate assumption since it is supra-rational. Essentially, a million finite (provable) assumptions is still less than one infinite (unprovable) assumption. Is this a problem? Not necessarily since you're already talking about the value of faith, but using Occam's Razor in your argument is dubious at best.
Thank you for pointing out the difference between simple and simplistic.
No sarcasm intended by by that.
I can agree to that. The real story is that people aren't very smart about how they use FB, not that FB breaks up marriages.
You're starting to piece it together. It all falls apart when your wife logs onto Facebook one day and sees:
NevarMore likes the gays
Another way to read this:
20% of men dumb enough to cheat via facebook.
And all sexting sounded non-consensual.
A better analogy is that divorces are linked to facebook in the same way divorces are linked to the telephone, or to strip clubs.
He also presented a valid and functional reason to disable it.
No, he presented a ridiculous reason. If he worked for me and didn't immediately grasp why it's a poor idea once I explained it, then he would be on his way out the door.
I'm not sure who you would fire, but it seems absurd in either situation. So would you fire an employee of thirty years for not using the recycle bin correctly? Or would you fire a sysadmin for creating a minor inconvenience that prevents that 30 year employee from losing her work?
Forgive me if I am being redundant, but I as a comcast customer, am paying for the right to connect to the internet. Netflix is paying some other provider for the right to connect to the internet. So, if we're both connected to the same network, and we have both paid, then what is unpaid fee that comcast is going on about? Why are they blaming netflix for providing a service that makes me want to use the bandwidth I already paid for?
It seems to me that comcast is basically a mail man who wants to take credit for everything good that happens. If you get a paycheck, "ooh, the mailman gave you money. You should at least buy him a nice dinner". If the letter is to inform you that your grandmother won the lottery, then "the mailman made it happen. He demands half". But comcast is really nothing more than a mailman with delusions of grandeur, and a monopoly that allows him to get away with it.
Maybe it is because it is so difficult to quantify quality, but price is a simple, universal, metric that can always be evaluated on an apples-to-apples basis.
But an admin disabling the Recycle Bin because he thinks it's a shitty metaphor is just fucking stupid. Your users might except the recycle bin to be there, or they might even *gasp* use it correctly!
He also presented a valid and functional reason to disable it. Some users were having problems because they weren't using it correctly. By hiding the icon, he assured that the functionality works for everybody, not just those who use it "correctly".
... that there should be more of these stories taken from the point-of-view of different characters. Wicked was incredibly clever, as was Ender's Shadow. I'd also like to see it done with movies.
As long as they don't get in the habit of just doing "Wicked" style remakes; it could get old quickly. I personally loved the White Wolf campaign set (although I haven't read it since they ended the world and redid everything). What was great about it was that for every setting, you were presented with a one-sided view of the world, in which your group is the heroes, and everybody else is a bunch of monsters, savages, or people who have been corrupted by power. Then you read the other books, and find out that you only saw a superficial view of that group, and that they had a good reason for their stance.
Perhaps an action film from the 'villain's' POV, or maybe it could follow a civilian who gets screwed over by every car chase and explosion.
Those are two very good ideas, although the later sounds like it would be a Will Farrel movie.
Actually, we are in the process of defunding public broadcasting which is our only non-cable educational station. Then again rather than funding things we pay for what we want to consume. It is more responsive to viewers as whole that way.
And that is why all our privatized educational channels are obsessed with sharks and Hitler, present UFO stories as if plausible, and are producing reality shows now.
EDIT: I don't pay $100 a month for cable television. There may be a few good channels that are only available to super premium subscribers. Science may be one of them.
Why do criminals get a free island while educated employees are lucky to have a cubicle and an apartment?
I wonder if some of those people are foreign-born, since the word "liberal" tends to mean "libertarian" in the rest of the world.
In all fairness, they did start a rebellion against their country. If some guys from Alaska started destroying federal equipment and threatening to kill federal employees who entered the "United Alaska Colony", then I would expect our government to strike back. I would hope for them to get a fair trial, but ultimately, I would have no problem with the death penalty for someone who kills a dozen federal agents to "liberate" his territory.
I often wonder if films like "Taxi Driver" could ever be made today.
Why not? We see plenty of movies about assassins, serial killers, or antiheroes. What would prevent Taxi Driver from being remade?
There's no need to look for a broader conspiracy
I'm not sure you read the same summary or article I did. Expensive R-rated SCI-FI fantasy movies don't make much money, so movie studios aren't interested in doing them. Why is that a conspiracy theory?
anybody remember VCRs? Those were awesome in their own way. You buy one, and it belongs to you. You don't need anybody's permission to record*, you don't have to pay a subscription fee, and the total package costs less than a low-end PC. (Granted, you can have a cheap Tivo with a subscription fee, or an expensive one without).
So why is homebrewed mythTV the only open Tivo alternative available now?
* MPAA, I can't hear you...NA NA NA!
I will as soon as I finish sending out this self-righteous email about Obama's proposal to beat up civil war veterans to further Kenyan flag burning efforts against the troops.
Can't believe that Obama...That's some bullshit, right there!
You would also have job security, as no one else could read your code.
There's not a search box on stackoverflow's site or anything, is there?
They were going to implement one, but couldn't figure out how.
<ducks>
Mike Reagan is also on the anti-internet bandwagon, introducing his own email. The reason is
Well, every time you use your email from companies like Google, AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Apple and others, you are helping the liberals. These companies are, and will continue, to be huge supporters financially and with technology of those that are hurting our country.
So, I am wondering if a segment of the right is going to dig in their heels and become anti-internet now. He's going so far as to expect people to pay $40 per year for an email address.
Your question has an implicit assumption that you should think about.
No. If they say the purpose of the bill is to compete economically and technologically, we can't just assume they're lying. If you want to claim laws are unconstitutional, you need something more than "general distrust of the man"
So, what you're saying is, maybe the poor should start investing as well?
Let them invest in cake!
It's unfortunate that the general welfare clause and regulating trade among the states clause have been so badly abused
If trying to stay competitive economically and technologically are not part of the "general welfare" of the country, then what is?