How did they get to that number? Removing spyware isn't that expensive. For that money you could even replace a bunch of machines and trash the old ones.
What dollar value would you put on the loss of privacy of one's medical records?
See, that's why IBM lost and Microsoft won. IBM was stupid enough to divide their OS in two while Microsoft started with a multiple of 95. The problem is, though, that Microsoft lost their train of thought and are back at OS * 7, but still.
Perhaps not, but they are quite Googlable! Nom nom nom... Fair enough...I can easily believe radio hosts do that, not to mention forum users. It's just a bit disingenuous to use the overlap to discredit everyone who holds one of those grudges against Wikipedia. After all, there are plenty of other, better ways to discredit them...
For years, the same people have been simultaneously complaining about "Wikipedia not being accurate" and "nazis removing my edits". Honestly, how do you appease this sort of mentality?
[Citation needed]. Seriously. It seems there are a lot who just lump others they disagree with into this all-encompassing group People, and then say "Augh! People complain about This and they also complain about That! It's so unfair!" which carries within it the following logic:
I don't like complaints about This or That
All complainers about This are People
All complainers about That are also People
I can't handle the idea that others may have different reasons for doing things I don't like
THEREFORE whoever complains about This must be the same person complaining about That
THEREFORE since This and That are contradictory ideas, whoever complains about This OR That is automatically an irrational hypocritical Evil Person (tm)
But hey, for all I know, maybe this New York Times editor has actually complained about both things in the past... which wouldn't entirely surprise me. So by all means, please give examples...I wanna know who these Evil People (tm) really are! Shun the non-believer... shun... shuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnn....
Sir Lewk was using logic, which is indeed superior to opinion based on lies.
How logical is it to assume things you don't know about the budgetary constraints of game companies? We have to face it that we don't actually know whether or not the games would be more expensive if the ads weren't there, and he has about as much basis for saying they wouldn't as anyone else does for saying they would: no basis. Without hard budgetary data, this discussion is meaningless. It boils down to a bunch of kids in a playground saying "she has cooties!" "No I don't!" "But all girls have cooties, you're a girl, so you have cooties!" Yeah, they have logic...I suppose...:)
As it turned out, I did read the Wikipedia article, and as far as I could tell, it said nothing about them being the starters of the ID movement (perhaps that would be a helpful edit? As it turns out, even in the overview of the "Intelligent Design" article, that point is made) Now it turns out if I'd clicked the authors' names and read their Wikipedia articles, I would have learned something interesting, as helpfully pointed out by notrandomly, here. See? I like what he did, because it was straight, to the point, and mentions something you did not mention in your original post, that the authors of the book were directly involved in creating the "intelligent design" movement. Not only that, his post did all this without a hint of belittling the other person.
I frankly don't much care for either side in this debate, but one thing I do care for is not applying the rules of logic. What I saw was a single example of ID being used to smear the entire movement (which is still true, however significant that example may have turned out to be). I did not realize that the book's authors were central to the promotion of the term "intelligent design" and that therefore it was a legitimate target. I would still say I cringe when people take a single example and use that to judge an entire movement, but at least I can see you had somewhat of a basis for doing so.
However, it doesn't help the discussion if you come across as having a condescending attitude. Please do not assume bad motives and intentions about others... it helps nobody, and you do not serve your cause by doing so. As Wikipedia espouses, try to assume good faith... I do want to learn, but frankly there's a lot of BS floating around (information overload) that makes it hard to sort the good stuff from the bad, and a mob of people on both sides ready to judge and condemn you for the slightest slipup.
I made a reply to myself, in which I acknowledged missing the connection between what you wrote and what BadAnalogyGuy wrote. I guess we posted almost at the same time. Anyway, I did not realize what you said was responding to BadAnalogyGuy's comment about asking why clams are on top of young mountains. Sorry I missed that connection.
Oh and, uh...how would anyone see that post as funny? Unintentionally ignorant, yes, but not funny:)
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
You've only proved that some hack job managed to take a failed book, conduct a sloppy cut-and-paste job to make it "acceptable", and passed it off as ID. hat doesn't really prove anything about the ID movement itself; it just means that someone took advantage of it to gain acceptance. What else is new? In fact, you just gave me a grand idea. Maybe someone should produce a version of "Of Pandas and People" and replace "creationists" with "cevolutionists". Would that prove anything? No.
I just wanted to say I had fun Googling for WHARRGARBL to figure out what in the world you were talking about, then seeing this ridiculous lol-picture of a dog getting hosed in it. What a perfect illustration of some debate styles. Thanks for inspiring some levity:)
I have already posted this elsewhere, but to be fair, here's one of the final exams. It includes the following question, among many:
Make your best argument against intelligent design. In other words, if you were in a debate situation
and had to argue against intelligent design, how would you do it?
Myself, I'm not really impressed with this guy's test, particularly with the loaded eugenics question. However, it's not fair to say he doesn't ask you to think from the other side.
Last I checked there were no secular biology classes that require students to go find ID websites and defend evolution on them... Unless of course you mean making an ass of yourself spreading pseudoscientific bullshit as one of the tenets of the school's beliefs.
Here is another fun requirement for the class.
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?
Source is here. It's a question given in a final exam for the class, which also includes the following question:
Make your best argument against intelligent design. In other words, if you were in a debate situation
and had to argue against intelligent design, how would you do it?
Let's appreciate the context, eh? This is a test, not a syllabus. Obviously asking the second question doesn't mean the professor opposes ID! It could just be a thought exercise. I will agree that the eugenics question is way loaded and rather scary though; if I were a student I'd say the tone of this question ("trace the connections", implying that these connections are common knowledge, when they're not) would lead me to believe that this was how the professor intended to defend ID - and if that's the only leg it has to stand on, making sweeping generalizations... yikes. Not a good way to advance a cause.
Oh...I see what you were replying to in BadAnalogyGuy's post. I think he was trying to say that the rock the mountain was made of is geologically younger than the clams. I don't know what example he's referring to, sounds like something you'd find in a Creationism list of bullet points, but hey if it's real that would be an interesting question to ask; color me skeptical though.
Re-examination of what?
Sometimes it's worth asking questions that we already think we have answers to. That's how science came to be, is it not? We used to have a nice simple "answer" that stated the Earth was gravitationally the center of the universe, and then by reexamining things that were considered common knowledge, we learned that this was not the case. It is never bad to reexamine things as a means of finding truth - it IS bad to reexamine merely as a means to sow FUD, promote an agenda, stonewall debate, without any intention of refining human knowledge. But reexamination is not wrong when one merely wishes to bug-check the theory. Sometimes in the process we might discover something that was missed earlier.
Re-examination of what? Why are clams on top of a mountain? Why, could it be because a bird dropped it there a million years ago, maybe it was because that mountain was at the bottom of the ocean a billion years ago. What the hell does Intelligent Design have to do with real scientists thinking about such things?
I don't believe ID makes any claims against the theory of plate tectonics...
And what? You think there was never time before that was written? Did it exist at the beginning of time?
No, but it existed a good deal earlier than the Catholic church did. The GGP was implying that the Catholic church invented the notion of Mary being a virgin. Rather, the idea of Mary being a virgin seems to have been appealed to early on in Christianity as a means of Jesus fulfilling prophecy, long before Constantine and the Romanization of the church.
* To be fair, I believe the Catholic church (prior to the Schism) did invent the notion of "perpetual virginity", that is, the idea that Mary continued being a virgin and therefore never had any other sons or daughters. This might be what the GGP was thinking of; it's a belief that did not appear until much later, when the church was more organized, and it's fair to wonder if they might have been trying to appeal to these "Germanic tribes" he's talking about.
** BTW - I'd actually like to know if what he's saying about Germanic tribes is true. Did they value virginity?
That does seem to be what it is deliberately designed to do.
Going to a message board and having an actual discussion might, indeed, be an interesting thing to do.
But, no, they have to go somewhere 'hostile' and 'make posts'. Not have a discussion on neutral ground, which does, in fact, exist on the internet. they have to show up in a forum where they aren't welcome, and make posts that are going to get nasty responses.
There is no purpose to this except to get nasty responses, and there is no purpose to nasty responses except to make the students feel like they are persecuted, which is a ridiculously common theme in fundamentalist Christianity.
You know, speaking of persecution complexes, it's entirely possible that they might consider places of neutral ground to be "hostile" by their criteria. In any event, walking into a place with #1. the attitude that they're going to get persecuted and #2. pre-emptively retaliating is a great way to turn a neutral ground into something hostile. I see this happen all the time. The "good guys" get to go home and feel like they got persecuted for Jesus and the "hostiles" wonder why they're always sparring for a fight.
That's not a birth certificate. That's a "Certification of Live Birth", something different.
We already know he was born (duh) - the question that has been asked is where.
And the answer is Honolulu, on Oahu Island, in the state of Hawaii. Once again, please see here. Blow-up picture here. Or were you wanting to know which hospital specifically? That is a question that would require the longer hospital-generated certificate, which the state apparently doesn't hand out copies of.
Legally, the "certification of live birth" and the "birth certificate" are equivalent, as also suggested by the plain-English meaning of these words. For what it's worth, the FactCheck article notes that it appears to be impossible to obtain a hospital-generated long-form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, which would include more details such as birth weight, hospital name/address, etc. The short-form certification carries the same weight legally - in any situation where the government asks for a "birth certificate", they take a "certification of live birth" as being the same thing. On mine (Virginia) it doesn't have all those details and I got a driver's license, passport and everything with it. As Hawaii's notes, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." But again, if you want to know which hospital specifically, you probably have to look elsewhere. It appears Hawaii doesn't provide copies of long-form birth certificates to anyone, as the short-form is enough for any legal purpose.
this is exactly what i'm talking about - i don't agree that a couple of cells constitutes a human being, so why should someone like yourself who this has zero impact on get to deny 100,000's of people potentially life saving treatments?
This stem cell thing seems to lend itself to emotional drama on both sides. "Think of the dying patients in the hospitals!" "Think of the little unborn children!" None of which does anything to settle the question of whether or not they are human. Emotional appeals do nothing to advance an argument or change anyone's opinions, if that's the goal; all they do is radicalize people further into what they already believe. Shoot...I can claim that cigarette butts are human beings and we shouldn't walk on them. I could concoct some sob story about Johnny Cigarette Butt who's life was crushed by the sole of a thoughtless cur on Main St. And on the other extreme, I can't get away with things that are obviously wrong and just say "Well it will help a bunch of other people so that makes it ok." People used to use that to justify slavery, saying that even if it was wrong, it was indispensable to the economy of the south and that therefore the good outweighed the evil. I'm glad we live in an age where questions of one's humanity are debated at the level of the embryo and not one's race, diseased status, disability, moral persuasions, etc. We have truly advanced since then. But back when those questions were on the table, people would sometimes use this kind of logic to justify what they did to oppress others - "I believe they aren't human." "I believe they ARE human" "Yeah? Well it doesn't affect you, so bugger off and let me alone. What you think shouldn't stop my freedom to do what I please." That isn't enough.
I guess what I'm saying is, there needs to be a rationale. For me to wade into a gray area and say it's ok to destroy an egg? If I want a clean conscience, I would need some sort of assurance that we're not going to later find out I was killing people. For me to make a law banning others from doing that also requires a rationale. I need to be able to say there's enough doubt about their status as non-humans that it is justifiable to take the safe road and forbid it. And I guess we also need to realize we're gonna make mistakes as we advance as a society, we are going to mess up and later regret some things we are doing now. We still need to make a good-faith effort to get it right the first time, though.
Slashdot Mirror
How did they get to that number? Removing spyware isn't that expensive. For that money you could even replace a bunch of machines and trash the old ones.
What dollar value would you put on the loss of privacy of one's medical records?
the kind of typo like when you write "the" twice, and noone notices
Wait, I thought Noone was using Windows? He sure does get around!
You could be forgiven for not knowing this, but Noone's a she.
How do you pronounce Noone? Like the time? NOO NEE? NOO UN? Is one of the n's silent? Wich one?
It's new-nee, and it's a she.
See, that's why IBM lost and Microsoft won. IBM was stupid enough to divide their OS in two while Microsoft started with a multiple of 95. The problem is, though, that Microsoft lost their train of thought and are back at OS * 7, but still.
Windows * 2000 - clearly the best OS.
No, but it can supply America with seasonal workers.
Perhaps not, but they are quite Googlable! Nom nom nom... Fair enough...I can easily believe radio hosts do that, not to mention forum users. It's just a bit disingenuous to use the overlap to discredit everyone who holds one of those grudges against Wikipedia. After all, there are plenty of other, better ways to discredit them...
+1
For years, the same people have been simultaneously complaining about "Wikipedia not being accurate" and "nazis removing my edits". Honestly, how do you appease this sort of mentality?
[Citation needed]. Seriously. It seems there are a lot who just lump others they disagree with into this all-encompassing group People, and then say "Augh! People complain about This and they also complain about That! It's so unfair!" which carries within it the following logic:
But hey, for all I know, maybe this New York Times editor has actually complained about both things in the past... which wouldn't entirely surprise me. So by all means, please give examples...I wanna know who these Evil People (tm) really are! Shun the non-believer... shun... shuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnn....
I can understand - I also don't have time to do as much research and/or writing as I'd wish! Thanks for responding, and thanks for your time.
Sir Lewk was using logic, which is indeed superior to opinion based on lies.
How logical is it to assume things you don't know about the budgetary constraints of game companies? We have to face it that we don't actually know whether or not the games would be more expensive if the ads weren't there, and he has about as much basis for saying they wouldn't as anyone else does for saying they would: no basis. Without hard budgetary data, this discussion is meaningless. It boils down to a bunch of kids in a playground saying "she has cooties!" "No I don't!" "But all girls have cooties, you're a girl, so you have cooties!" Yeah, they have logic...I suppose... :)
As it turned out, I did read the Wikipedia article, and as far as I could tell, it said nothing about them being the starters of the ID movement (perhaps that would be a helpful edit? As it turns out, even in the overview of the "Intelligent Design" article, that point is made) Now it turns out if I'd clicked the authors' names and read their Wikipedia articles, I would have learned something interesting, as helpfully pointed out by notrandomly, here. See? I like what he did, because it was straight, to the point, and mentions something you did not mention in your original post, that the authors of the book were directly involved in creating the "intelligent design" movement. Not only that, his post did all this without a hint of belittling the other person.
I frankly don't much care for either side in this debate, but one thing I do care for is not applying the rules of logic. What I saw was a single example of ID being used to smear the entire movement (which is still true, however significant that example may have turned out to be). I did not realize that the book's authors were central to the promotion of the term "intelligent design" and that therefore it was a legitimate target. I would still say I cringe when people take a single example and use that to judge an entire movement, but at least I can see you had somewhat of a basis for doing so.
However, it doesn't help the discussion if you come across as having a condescending attitude. Please do not assume bad motives and intentions about others... it helps nobody, and you do not serve your cause by doing so. As Wikipedia espouses, try to assume good faith... I do want to learn, but frankly there's a lot of BS floating around (information overload) that makes it hard to sort the good stuff from the bad, and a mob of people on both sides ready to judge and condemn you for the slightest slipup.
It does. The people who created the ID movement did this.
Oh really? Did not know that. Interesting...
"willful ignorance"
What brought that on? Care to explain?
I made a reply to myself, in which I acknowledged missing the connection between what you wrote and what BadAnalogyGuy wrote. :)
I guess we posted almost at the same time. Anyway, I did not realize what you said was responding to BadAnalogyGuy's comment about asking why clams are on top of young mountains. Sorry I missed that connection.
Oh and, uh...how would anyone see that post as funny? Unintentionally ignorant, yes, but not funny
(n/t)
No. Creationists who disguise themselves as scientists call themselves "intelligent design proponents", IDers are just dishonest creationists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
You've only proved that some hack job managed to take a failed book, conduct a sloppy cut-and-paste job to make it "acceptable", and passed it off as ID. hat doesn't really prove anything about the ID movement itself; it just means that someone took advantage of it to gain acceptance. What else is new? In fact, you just gave me a grand idea. Maybe someone should produce a version of "Of Pandas and People" and replace "creationists" with "cevolutionists". Would that prove anything? No.
It is a pretty hilarious example though. And sad.
I just wanted to say I had fun Googling for WHARRGARBL to figure out what in the world you were talking about, then seeing this ridiculous lol-picture of a dog getting hosed in it. What a perfect illustration of some debate styles. Thanks for inspiring some levity :)
Make your best argument against intelligent design. In other words, if you were in a debate situation and had to argue against intelligent design, how would you do it?
Myself, I'm not really impressed with this guy's test, particularly with the loaded eugenics question. However, it's not fair to say he doesn't ask you to think from the other side.
Last I checked there were no secular biology classes that require students to go find ID websites and defend evolution on them... Unless of course you mean making an ass of yourself spreading pseudoscientific bullshit as one of the tenets of the school's beliefs.
Here is another fun requirement for the class.
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?
Source is here. It's a question given in a final exam for the class, which also includes the following question:
Make your best argument against intelligent design. In other words, if you were in a debate situation and had to argue against intelligent design, how would you do it?
Let's appreciate the context, eh? This is a test, not a syllabus. Obviously asking the second question doesn't mean the professor opposes ID! It could just be a thought exercise. I will agree that the eugenics question is way loaded and rather scary though; if I were a student I'd say the tone of this question ("trace the connections", implying that these connections are common knowledge, when they're not) would lead me to believe that this was how the professor intended to defend ID - and if that's the only leg it has to stand on, making sweeping generalizations... yikes. Not a good way to advance a cause.
Oh...I see what you were replying to in BadAnalogyGuy's post. I think he was trying to say that the rock the mountain was made of is geologically younger than the clams. I don't know what example he's referring to, sounds like something you'd find in a Creationism list of bullet points, but hey if it's real that would be an interesting question to ask; color me skeptical though.
Re-examination of what?
Sometimes it's worth asking questions that we already think we have answers to. That's how science came to be, is it not? We used to have a nice simple "answer" that stated the Earth was gravitationally the center of the universe, and then by reexamining things that were considered common knowledge, we learned that this was not the case. It is never bad to reexamine things as a means of finding truth - it IS bad to reexamine merely as a means to sow FUD, promote an agenda, stonewall debate, without any intention of refining human knowledge. But reexamination is not wrong when one merely wishes to bug-check the theory. Sometimes in the process we might discover something that was missed earlier.
Re-examination of what? Why are clams on top of a mountain? Why, could it be because a bird dropped it there a million years ago, maybe it was because that mountain was at the bottom of the ocean a billion years ago. What the hell does Intelligent Design have to do with real scientists thinking about such things?
I don't believe ID makes any claims against the theory of plate tectonics...
And what? You think there was never time before that was written? Did it exist at the beginning of time?
No, but it existed a good deal earlier than the Catholic church did. The GGP was implying that the Catholic church invented the notion of Mary being a virgin. Rather, the idea of Mary being a virgin seems to have been appealed to early on in Christianity as a means of Jesus fulfilling prophecy, long before Constantine and the Romanization of the church.
* To be fair, I believe the Catholic church (prior to the Schism) did invent the notion of "perpetual virginity", that is, the idea that Mary continued being a virgin and therefore never had any other sons or daughters. This might be what the GGP was thinking of; it's a belief that did not appear until much later, when the church was more organized, and it's fair to wonder if they might have been trying to appeal to these "Germanic tribes" he's talking about.
** BTW - I'd actually like to know if what he's saying about Germanic tribes is true. Did they value virginity?
That does seem to be what it is deliberately designed to do.
Going to a message board and having an actual discussion might, indeed, be an interesting thing to do.
But, no, they have to go somewhere 'hostile' and 'make posts'. Not have a discussion on neutral ground, which does, in fact, exist on the internet. they have to show up in a forum where they aren't welcome, and make posts that are going to get nasty responses.
There is no purpose to this except to get nasty responses, and there is no purpose to nasty responses except to make the students feel like they are persecuted, which is a ridiculously common theme in fundamentalist Christianity.
You know, speaking of persecution complexes, it's entirely possible that they might consider places of neutral ground to be "hostile" by their criteria. In any event, walking into a place with #1. the attitude that they're going to get persecuted and #2. pre-emptively retaliating is a great way to turn a neutral ground into something hostile. I see this happen all the time. The "good guys" get to go home and feel like they got persecuted for Jesus and the "hostiles" wonder why they're always sparring for a fight.
That's not a birth certificate. That's a "Certification of Live Birth", something different.
We already know he was born (duh) - the question that has been asked is where.
And the answer is Honolulu, on Oahu Island, in the state of Hawaii. Once again, please see here. Blow-up picture here. Or were you wanting to know which hospital specifically? That is a question that would require the longer hospital-generated certificate, which the state apparently doesn't hand out copies of.
Legally, the "certification of live birth" and the "birth certificate" are equivalent, as also suggested by the plain-English meaning of these words. For what it's worth, the FactCheck article notes that it appears to be impossible to obtain a hospital-generated long-form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, which would include more details such as birth weight, hospital name/address, etc. The short-form certification carries the same weight legally - in any situation where the government asks for a "birth certificate", they take a "certification of live birth" as being the same thing. On mine (Virginia) it doesn't have all those details and I got a driver's license, passport and everything with it. As Hawaii's notes, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." But again, if you want to know which hospital specifically, you probably have to look elsewhere. It appears Hawaii doesn't provide copies of long-form birth certificates to anyone, as the short-form is enough for any legal purpose.
I know there's a GWB joke in there, I just know it... too bad he wasn't the one whose birth certificate is missing, that would be a zinger now!
Whose birth certificate is missing? It isn't Obama's.
this is exactly what i'm talking about - i don't agree that a couple of cells constitutes a human being, so why should someone like yourself who this has zero impact on get to deny 100,000's of people potentially life saving treatments?
This stem cell thing seems to lend itself to emotional drama on both sides. "Think of the dying patients in the hospitals!" "Think of the little unborn children!" None of which does anything to settle the question of whether or not they are human. Emotional appeals do nothing to advance an argument or change anyone's opinions, if that's the goal; all they do is radicalize people further into what they already believe. Shoot...I can claim that cigarette butts are human beings and we shouldn't walk on them. I could concoct some sob story about Johnny Cigarette Butt who's life was crushed by the sole of a thoughtless cur on Main St. And on the other extreme, I can't get away with things that are obviously wrong and just say "Well it will help a bunch of other people so that makes it ok." People used to use that to justify slavery, saying that even if it was wrong, it was indispensable to the economy of the south and that therefore the good outweighed the evil. I'm glad we live in an age where questions of one's humanity are debated at the level of the embryo and not one's race, diseased status, disability, moral persuasions, etc. We have truly advanced since then. But back when those questions were on the table, people would sometimes use this kind of logic to justify what they did to oppress others - "I believe they aren't human." "I believe they ARE human" "Yeah? Well it doesn't affect you, so bugger off and let me alone. What you think shouldn't stop my freedom to do what I please." That isn't enough.
I guess what I'm saying is, there needs to be a rationale. For me to wade into a gray area and say it's ok to destroy an egg? If I want a clean conscience, I would need some sort of assurance that we're not going to later find out I was killing people. For me to make a law banning others from doing that also requires a rationale. I need to be able to say there's enough doubt about their status as non-humans that it is justifiable to take the safe road and forbid it. And I guess we also need to realize we're gonna make mistakes as we advance as a society, we are going to mess up and later regret some things we are doing now. We still need to make a good-faith effort to get it right the first time, though.