Which I will take the liberty of summarizing to "What is the difference between opinion and bias?"
Close enough - I was actually asking for what you believe is the difference, since it seems we use the words very differently.
In short, opinion has a reason behind it, bias is the practice of prejudice.
And you seem to think that you can tell the difference between a statement based on "a reason" (I prefer just "reason") and one based on "bias" when that statement appears in a text-only message from someone you've never met? You can't see the irony here? Let me spell it out for you - your assessment that I show bias is based on such scanty evidence that your view can only be the result of (wait for it, are you ready?) - bias!:-) Weee!:-)
Let me demonstrate:
Saw it. Disregarded it. Why? Not only did it smack of a pre-emptive yet hollow defence... Bias. The very act of "smacking" in your example is the stereotype coming to mind.
Eh? How is this bias? Firstly, the words "smack of" in that sentence merely mean "suggest". You seem to be under the impression I used the words as a pejorative expression. All I meant was "suggest". Now, my use of the term "hollow" was pejorative (well, critical at least), but you didn't address that. Secondly, I indicated the "reason" I thought it was a hollow argument in parentheses - was I unclear or too brief? And what do you mean by "coming to mind" - whose mind, mine or yours? Are you claiming to know my mind? Extraordinary.
I'll snip the next bit as it doidn't address my original questions.
(2) Why is it bigotry to believe that another's religious views are in error?
Because the act of elevating a difference of belief, which is a relative state of understanding, to the condition of error, which is absolute and dependent (sic) on your own point of view is itself the threshold of bias.
(I think you meant to say "independent" above, otherwise there is little difference between the distinctions you were trying to make)
I fail to grasp the distinction you're making here, and the unclear and arbitrary psuedo-definition you make here suggests to me (I won't say smacks of!) that you also are unclear on the difference, but just don't realise it yet. I'm not saying that I know this to be the case, only that your text suggests it. See the way I moderate my opinions based on the small evidence I have? I try to make no one-word statements of certainty about the beliefs of others...
I think we have very different world views, so I'm not sure what can be gained here - we even use words quite differently. You claim live in a world where people often have different and mutually exclusive beliefs, yet no-one is allowed to actually think that anyone else is in error, at least not on the subject of religion, without being "biased". Though quite how that jibes with your post about Mormanism and the one claiming "bias" on slashdot is anyone's guess (aren't you claiming others to be in error?). Perhaps you were just being flippant and I'm reading too much into it.
Or perhaps you don't really live in a world where it's a no-no to think that other religious beliefs are erroneous. Perhaps you actually live in a world quite like mine - where you do think other religious views are in error - but you just don't like it when others think your religious beliefs are in error. I guess I'm accusing you of being human...:-) It would be pretty hard to call yourself a devout Christian and yet be unskeptical of other religions. That would be taking double-think to new depths, and I'm sure you actually are quite skeptical of other religions (as evidenced by your Mormon post).
And after all that, you still haven't said why you think slashdot's views are unfair "bias" rather than worthy "opinion", nor have you convinced me that believing that other's religious beliefs are in error is bias, particularly when you seem so quick to express skepticism yourself.
I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it (and believing it, till I see compelling evidence to the contrary) - we're all skeptics of other people's religions! (okay okay, I'm teasing you a bit now):-)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - we're all skeptics of other people's religions!:-)
You don't read too carefully, do you?
That's always a dangerous allegation, especially when you yourself read stuff into my post that just isn't there (see later). Perhaps I read more closely than you...:-)
A good example of bias would be your having leapt into that statement without taking the time to see this:
I am considerably more critical of the pack of idiots who run my own Methodist church.
Saw it. Disregarded it. Why? Not only did it smack of a pre-emptive yet hollow defence ("I kick my own guys, so it's OK for me to kick yours!"), but it wasn't relevant to my comments - I was commenting on your stated perception of slashdot's "anti-religous bias". There's more to religion (and to criticism of religion, surely?) than the people who run churches. Or perhaps we operate under very different definitions of "religion".
Bias is the exercise of stereotype,
Okay, that will do for a definition for now, though it's a little unclear.
and since the source of your statement is clearly outside of having responded to what I said,
Not so. You are clearly a skeptic of Mormanism the religion (unless I misread your post or we differ on what "religion" means). I put it to you that your stated critical attitude to those that run your church in no way expresses skepticism about your religion itself. Or does it? Are you a skeptic of your own religion? Perhaps I've misread you.
you can only have been speaking to a stereotype rather than to me.
Again - that allegation is double-edged. You seem to be doing some assuming too, hardly surprising given that we've never met. Take a look at the phrasing of my post. I didn't state that slashdot's views on religion were right. I didn't even state that they were opinion. I merely asked if you were open to the idea that slashdot's attitude wasn't bias so much as opinion. That's all (you didn't directly answer that question, by the way). I'm certainly open to the idea that slashdot's views on religion are the result of unthinking bias - but I don't yet see it that way. Heck, I'm not even sure if it's possible to talk about slashdot this way - we're all individuals and all that...:-)
(another assumption you seem to be making is that I share slashdot's opinion/bias on religion... I never said that either!)
Furthermore, your own admission of the frequency of this behavior, "I've said it before and I'll say it again", suggests the pattern of behavior resulting from bias.
YAWN - you're seizing on a figure of speech and using that as evidence of bias? Why not use it as evidence of me having an opinion? Or, more likely, why not use it as a simple recognition that I said something very similar quite recently in a slashdot post and I didn't want to be accused of copy-and-paste posting?:-)
It is possible to have a differing opinion from you that's not the result of bias, isn't it? Are you open to that idea at least?:-)
I am open to any belief,
Well, I doubt any rational person can honestly say that they are open to any belief (for example, I'm not open to the belief that the world is flat, are you?), but I'll take you to mean that you are open to points of view on subjects that decent/rational/whatever people disagree on.
but as for your suggestion that your regard
No - not my regard, slashdot's. I was referring to the same thing you were referring to - slashdot's bias/opinion/views/mad-ramblings. See how your initial statement about me not reading very well can flip back on you?:-)
for religious belief might be a transcendent truth about its very nature, your having so ingracefully tripped over a painfully obvious exception to that belief seriously undermines my ability to accept it.
No tripping, no lack of grace, no exception (not even sure what you mean by exception in this context - you're the exception?). I was just raising what I thought were two very simple (well, simply stated) and interesting (I still think they are interesting) questions:
(1) If slashdot is anti-religion, why is that position a "bias" rather than a valid (defendable, okay to possess) opinion? It is okay to be anti-religion, right? I'm not talking hate here, just firm disagreement. Heck - I didn't even suggest that slashdot was right or that I shared their view/bias, merely that it might be an opinion rather than a bias!
(2) Why is it bigotry to believe that another's religious views are in error? I found that a strange stance to take, especially given your apparent sketicism towards mormanism (or are you a believer in mormanism? If not, then you're a skeptic - see my original quip). You've never encountered anyone possessing beliefs that you genuinely, after some reflection, thought were in error? Or do you (and everyone else) only react on the basis of bias?
These were the two main matters I raised, and I've elaborated a bit on them above in an effort to be more clear. Perhaps my use of rhetorical questions strikes you as argumentative, and you went on the defensive. Such is the peril of text communication. If it helps, imagine me sitting back, relaxed, sipping tea and tapping gently on my keyboard (this is actually true). No agro here.
I am a personally devout follower of Christ and also stridently combat the anti-religious bias that occurs on/.
Are you at least open to the idea that much of what you see on slashdot is not anti-religious bias but simply anti-religious opinion?
Are you able to tell the difference? After all, you claim to "stridently combat" anti-religious views, so how is that not a "bias"? If you deny being "biased", then explain the difference between having strong views on the beliefs of others and "bias".
If you concede that you are biased, then why resent the bias of others?
You said:
I stand behind my Mormon slam
I've said it before and I'll say it again - we're all skeptics of other people's religions!:-)
I believe that while calling into question the behavior of social organizations is more than reasonable, calling into question the way an individual believes is bigotry.
It's hard to imagine attacking a church without one of its members finding that the attack feels like a personal attack on their own beliefs. Besides, what's wrong with saying that you genuinely believe that another person's personal religious beliefs are in error? When did that become bigotry in and of itself? Is it now impossible to disagree with others on the subject of their religious beliefs without being bigoted? When did religious belief get so fragile? Did I miss a meeting?;-)
Skev
Maybe the French should try re-reading the works of French, postmodern writer/philosopher Michel Foucault, who wrote that repression of ideas and restriction of speech leads to discourse.
Eh? Did you really mean to say that repression of ideas and restriction of speech leads to discourse? Or did you mean to say that they lead to the suppression of discourse? Surely...
Or else, maybe certain portions of Mormon belief are just a little shaky.
I love it. Everybody's a skeptic - of other people's religion!
Doubtless you genuinely believe that certain portions of christianity (your belief) are not "just a little shaky", right?:-) Or if you do think christianity is a little shaky in parts, then show a bit more tolerance to other "shaky" beliefs!
Guideposts magazine has a monthly column called His Mysterious Ways
So I went there and read:
I just stepped outside for a look at the backyard. as soon as I heard the door click behind me, I realized I'd locked myself out. (SNIP) Then I saw a gate. Aha! I approached it, only to have my hopes dashed when I saw it was secured with a padlock. (SNIP) Lord, please help me get back in, I prayed. Not for my sake, but for Carole's.
Almost immediately I noticed a key hanging high on a hook. The key to the padlock, I thought. (SNIP) The key slid in easily, and the lock popped open. I was free! (SNIP)
When my friends returned I told them what had happened. I laughed about my ordeal, saying, "And to think that the key to the padlock on the gate was right in front of me the whole time!"
They both looked puzzled. "Padlock?" one of them said. "The only key out there in the yard is the one on the hook for the freezer."
"That can't be so," I insisted.
Together we walked out to the patio, leaving the back door ajar. I took the key from the hook and marched over to the gate. But this time when I tried, the key didn't fit the lock.
Oh boy. You don't really believe that clearly fictitous story do you? That an all-powerful all-loving God would perform such a minor miracle to save Carole's feelings and yet allow all the suffering we see in the world?
>And they narrowly avoid getting >sqashed on the crosswalk between >the business building and the rest >of campus.
Hmmm, and the fact that being on a crosswalk gives them right of way doesn't bother you? As a driver you're supposed to slow down when approaching any crosswalk in case someone steps out onto it.
I'm not suggesting that people should just blindly leap out onto crosswalks without looking for traffic (who cares if you have right of way if you're dead), but it sounds like you need a course on "defensive driving".:-)
I see how this works. Now I will get
pecked to death on irrelevant points.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'm neither pecking you to death, nor did I see it as irrelevant (if you think the point is irrelevant, why bring it up for me to comment on? - I saw an assumption that I thought hurt your argument - that's all).
No, Spetner did not claim that evolution
is "pre-specified".
Fortunately, I didn't claim that you said he did!:-) I merely spotted the fact that you seemed to be assuming pre-specified outcomes (you used the word first).
After all, if the outcome isn't prespecified, then every outcome is equally likely (assuming random chance). Starting at the outcome and working backwards to arrive at a seemingly improbable likelihood of that outcome occuring is getting it backwards. Just as the original reply to you pointed out.
That is a canard that you are bringing up.
YAWN - I used to think it was funny when people who were accused of bringing up straw men then accused their accusers of bringing up canards. Now it just bores me.:-) Either refute my allegation that it was a straw man (ie, show how it's not a straw man), or conceed the point. It can't really be irrelevant AND a canard can it? It's not much of a canard if it's irrelevant! Canards are meant to deceive and mislead.:-)
The point about pre-specification came up
(cough) was brought up by you...
in the context of coin tossing to illustrate a point.
What were you trying to illustrate? If it was what I thought it was (that the outcome we have is impossibly unlikely), then the illustration is flawed and unconvincing since you have it backwards - all outcomes of the coin toss are equally likely (assuming etc etc).
Please read the book (Not By Chance! by Spetner) to
find out the details.
That's not very convincing (I'm assuming you are trying to convince?). Just recommending a book that you found persuasive in the hope that I will too is pretty lazy. It sounds like you're asking the book to make your points for you. If your arguments are any indication (and I accept that they may not be), and if the reviews I've read for the book offer any clue (and I include the pro-creationist reviews I've read that praise the book but inadvertantly outline the many flaws in it), then I have better things to do with my time than read such a book - my shelf of books that I want to read but haven't had time to is too full already.
Evolution doesn't have all the answers to how all the stages of evolution happens, but at least they admit it and are working towards finding the answers. I see no compelling evidence for divine creation - unless that divine creation be via evolution (but that's such a loose definition of divine creation as to be useless).
Our current biological/material state is not impossibly unlikely -- as here we are! Now we just need to find out which explanations are more likely and supported by evidence and do our best to fill in the blanks in our knowledge. Evolution is the best bet for most educated people at this point - they find it far more convincing than what creationists believe. This will only change when a more convincing theory comes along.
The point is that the odds are vanishingly
small of any pre-specified combination coming up
But the outcomes of evolution are not pre-specified. Evolutionists certainly do not claim that they are pre-specified. You've got it backwards, as tgibbs said in his/her post:
No, because every sequence of coins has exactly
the same very low probability, but nevertheless one of
them has to come up. This is the falacy of calcuating
probabilities backwards. Every attempt I've seen to
calculate the probability of evolution falls into that
same basic error.
Your reference to "pre-specified" outcomes is a straw man. Think about it.:-)
>If I have to carve the definitions of law, >fact, hypothesis, and theory backwards on >one more 2x4 and beat one more ignorant >putz who was asleep in science 101 about >the head and shoulders with it, I'm >switching to PT 4x4s for durability.
Why carve the definitions backwards? That way won't they leave an imprint on the putz's forehead the right way around? An imprint which will then appear backwards to the putz when they look in the mirror?
Carve them the right way around! Educate the putz!:-)
Here's two requests for you to put on your future-prediction-hat:
Many people see CGI as competition to actors. But we still need actors to do the voices and even mocap. It's the fate of crews that interests me. Once digital hi def cameras are small and affordable, along with virtual sets etc do you see smaller crews as the norm? Or will standards and expectations rise so that the reverse happens and crews get larger?
Also, if computers and software continue to fall in price (the latter isn't so certain I grant you), do you forsee this technology becoming more available to even the micro-budget film maker? Will these tools help close the gap in the difference between the "look" of low vs high budget films?
I'm relieved - almost all of my film school students call any IEEE1394 devices "firewire" (a few of them used Sony's "iLink"). Now I no longer need to keep constantly reminding them: "No, it's not a firewire cable, it's a 1394 cable".
I can give in with a clear conscience!
Now, if only I can get them to stop calling XLR3 connectors "Canon plugs"...
No, but that's not the point. The point is that the fire was not especially hot or especially hard to put out because of the fuel,
it was only large.
The fact that the fire was large, along with the damage caused by the full-speed impact, meant that it was especially hot and especially hard to put out.
The distinction you're making in this and other posts between the "fuel-based" fire and the "ordinary fire" is a pointless one. It's like saying "guns don't kill people directly, bullets do", to which most people would reply "Well, yeah, but try killing people by throwing bullets at them! Bullets aren't very deadly without guns!".
Similarly, most people would say that the fuel was one of the major reasons that the fire was large (that and the force of impact and design of the building I guess), and its size made it very hot and hard to put out. Was the fuel "directly" to blame for the collapse of the towers? It depends how finely you slice it - one could argue that the "ordinary" fire wasn't the direct cause of the tower's collapse either, it was the falling of the initial floor that caused it all. Or maybe the floor after that... When does one floor collapsing become the tower falling? When does the damage done by the fuel-fire become damage done by the ordinary fire?
There was an Australian government study of the patent system in the 80s and this decided that aside from the fact of international pressure there was no reason to have the system.
And I thought to myself "Wow! My home country has a progressive attitude to patents, even back in the eighties! Good for us!". So I went looking for that study and instead I found this PDF
(here is the Google HTMLised version) of a press release from the Australian Government announcing a more recent (1999-2000) nine-month study into patents, competitiveness, and the "new economy" entitled Inventing Our Future: The link between Australian patenting and basic science. The press release says, in part, that the study found:
The number of Australian-invented US patents in high-tech industries such as biotechnology and pharmaceuticals is growing faster than the world average.
This is a good thing in itself or as an indicator of activity in those sectors? And also:
The report, however, shows that Australia is below the world average in the overall number of patents as a proportion of GDP. Australia must increase its patenting activity by 70% to be at world average level.
This seems to imply that a higher number of patents as a proportion of GDP is a good thing. Is comparing the number of patents in relation to the GDP really a recognised measure of... something?:-)
Here's the PDF of the actual 1999-2000 report, which I have not yet read. Does anyone have a link to the 1980's Australian report into patents that Stallman refers to? It would be interesting to compare them.
Actually, I was referring to the actual slashdot title graphic at the top left of the screen. And the horizontal dividers betweeen posts. They have an iMac look to them.
But now I see that they are only for stories in the "Networking (Apple)" section. Must be a feature I was unaware of.
Looking at Constellation 3D's aged site, I can't help but wonder if they are actually one of those US SEC fake investment sites designed to keep gormless consumers on their guard.
I mean, that shot of a guy's hand holding a transparent disk? Looks like the transparent disks I get when I buy a spindle of 50 CD-Rs.
First, a little bit of fun, paraphrasing your comments:
You're repeating something that's also been said elsewhere in the thread, as well as being a standard doctrine of personal computer technology, which is that this kind of distributed computing (a general-purpose computer in nearly every home) would be cheaper than current specialised super computer techniques. What is the basis for that assertion? The equipment itself is currently quite expensive even in the limited forms which are now available, and there is a floor to the cost (unless you know somewhere I can buy a good computer for $1000?) Then there is energy, time, and waste, as well as distribution of software and the cost of software itself.
I haven't seen any basis for the assumption that all of these can be driven to near zero. If they can be driven way down, then so can the costs of specialised super computing, which could be driven down even further due to economies of scale. A machine that specialises in computing a type of problem is going to process that one thing faster and cheaper than a machine that can process anything. That's true even of theoretical personal computing systems.
Okay okay, I took some liberties, but your comment basically boils down to "it seems counter intuitive, so it can't be true". Nano skeptics are becoming an increasingly endangered species, mainly because the technology looks so promising. And if you think my analogy above is flawed because processing information is qualitively different to processing materials, then I gently suggest you've not thought about nanotech enough.:-)
Your comment: The equipment itself is currently quite expensive even in the limited forms which are now available (...)
Is like pointing to any new technology and saying "it's more expensive than the way we do things now, so it always will be more expensive, so it won't work". Do I really need to point out the flaw here?
Your comment: A machine that only builds one thing is going to produce that one thing faster and cheaper than a machine that can build anything. That's true even of theoretical nanoassembly systems.
No it isn't. Or to use your words - what is the basis for that assertion? A nano-assembler is a nanoassembler, whether it's in a factory or a suburban nano-shop or your basement. Why would we build a nanoasembler that is only able to build one thing?
Sure, I can imagine a big assembler being able to produce goods faster than a small one (it can literally churn out more per second because it is bigger and can suck in and push out more material), but why significantly cheaper?
Besides, this misses the point - with widespread nanotech, the very concept of mass-produced identical items is redundant. Why would we do this? Why fill warehouses with product X and then try to sell it, as we do now? Heck, we're moving away from that model even with current technology, why do it that way with nanotech?
Items could be produced that are individually tailored to the user, and only when needed by the user. These items may cost a little more than an identical item that had been mass-produced, but items tailored to me are not going to be mass-produced, so the comparison is moot.
As nano-tech becomes possible, cheaper, and widespread, the advantages of just-in-time and just-for-you manufacturing will outweigh the advantages of mass-produced for-everyone, I predict. There are other things to worry about (like how to prevent abuse of cheap widespread nanotech assemblers).
Slashdot Mirror
I'll snip the next bit as it doidn't address my original questions.
(I think you meant to say "independent" above, otherwise there is little difference between the distinctions you were trying to make)I fail to grasp the distinction you're making here, and the unclear and arbitrary psuedo-definition you make here suggests to me (I won't say smacks of!) that you also are unclear on the difference, but just don't realise it yet. I'm not saying that I know this to be the case, only that your text suggests it. See the way I moderate my opinions based on the small evidence I have? I try to make no one-word statements of certainty about the beliefs of others...
I think we have very different world views, so I'm not sure what can be gained here - we even use words quite differently. You claim live in a world where people often have different and mutually exclusive beliefs, yet no-one is allowed to actually think that anyone else is in error, at least not on the subject of religion, without being "biased". Though quite how that jibes with your post about Mormanism and the one claiming "bias" on slashdot is anyone's guess (aren't you claiming others to be in error?). Perhaps you were just being flippant and I'm reading too much into it.
Or perhaps you don't really live in a world where it's a no-no to think that other religious beliefs are erroneous. Perhaps you actually live in a world quite like mine - where you do think other religious views are in error - but you just don't like it when others think your religious beliefs are in error. I guess I'm accusing you of being human... :-) It would be pretty hard to call yourself a devout Christian and yet be unskeptical of other religions. That would be taking double-think to new depths, and I'm sure you actually are quite skeptical of other religions (as evidenced by your Mormon post).
And after all that, you still haven't said why you think slashdot's views are unfair "bias" rather than worthy "opinion", nor have you convinced me that believing that other's religious beliefs are in error is bias, particularly when you seem so quick to express skepticism yourself.
I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it (and believing it, till I see compelling evidence to the contrary) - we're all skeptics of other people's religions! (okay okay, I'm teasing you a bit now) :-)
Skev
You said (quoting me):
That's always a dangerous allegation, especially when you yourself read stuff into my post that just isn't there (see later). Perhaps I read more closely than you...
Saw it. Disregarded it. Why? Not only did it smack of a pre-emptive yet hollow defence ("I kick my own guys, so it's OK for me to kick yours!"), but it wasn't relevant to my comments - I was commenting on your stated perception of slashdot's "anti-religous bias". There's more to religion (and to criticism of religion, surely?) than the people who run churches. Or perhaps we operate under very different definitions of "religion".
Okay, that will do for a definition for now, though it's a little unclear.
Not so. You are clearly a skeptic of Mormanism the religion (unless I misread your post or we differ on what "religion" means). I put it to you that your stated critical attitude to those that run your church in no way expresses skepticism about your religion itself. Or does it? Are you a skeptic of your own religion? Perhaps I've misread you.
Again - that allegation is double-edged. You seem to be doing some assuming too, hardly surprising given that we've never met. Take a look at the phrasing of my post. I didn't state that slashdot's views on religion were right. I didn't even state that they were opinion. I merely asked if you were open to the idea that slashdot's attitude wasn't bias so much as opinion. That's all (you didn't directly answer that question, by the way). I'm certainly open to the idea that slashdot's views on religion are the result of unthinking bias - but I don't yet see it that way. Heck, I'm not even sure if it's possible to talk about slashdot this way - we're all individuals and all that...
(another assumption you seem to be making is that I share slashdot's opinion/bias on religion... I never said that either!)
YAWN - you're seizing on a figure of speech and using that as evidence of bias? Why not use it as evidence of me having an opinion? Or, more likely, why not use it as a simple recognition that I said something very similar quite recently in a slashdot post and I didn't want to be accused of copy-and-paste posting?
It is possible to have a differing opinion from you that's not the result of bias, isn't it? Are you open to that idea at least? :-)
Well, I doubt any rational person can honestly say that they are open to any belief (for example, I'm not open to the belief that the world is flat, are you?), but I'll take you to mean that you are open to points of view on subjects that decent/rational/whatever people disagree on.
No - not my regard, slashdot's. I was referring to the same thing you were referring to - slashdot's bias/opinion/views/mad-ramblings. See how your initial statement about me not reading very well can flip back on you?
No tripping, no lack of grace, no exception (not even sure what you mean by exception in this context - you're the exception?). I was just raising what I thought were two very simple (well, simply stated) and interesting (I still think they are interesting) questions:
(1) If slashdot is anti-religion, why is that position a "bias" rather than a valid (defendable, okay to possess) opinion? It is okay to be anti-religion, right? I'm not talking hate here, just firm disagreement. Heck - I didn't even suggest that slashdot was right or that I shared their view/bias, merely that it might be an opinion rather than a bias!
(2) Why is it bigotry to believe that another's religious views are in error? I found that a strange stance to take, especially given your apparent sketicism towards mormanism (or are you a believer in mormanism? If not, then you're a skeptic - see my original quip). You've never encountered anyone possessing beliefs that you genuinely, after some reflection, thought were in error? Or do you (and everyone else) only react on the basis of bias?
These were the two main matters I raised, and I've elaborated a bit on them above in an effort to be more clear. Perhaps my use of rhetorical questions strikes you as argumentative, and you went on the defensive. Such is the peril of text communication. If it helps, imagine me sitting back, relaxed, sipping tea and tapping gently on my keyboard (this is actually true). No agro here.
Skev
You said:
Are you at least open to the idea that much of what you see on slashdot is not anti-religious bias but simply anti-religious opinion?
Are you able to tell the difference? After all, you claim to "stridently combat" anti-religious views, so how is that not a "bias"? If you deny being "biased", then explain the difference between having strong views on the beliefs of others and "bias".
If you concede that you are biased, then why resent the bias of others?
You said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again - we're all skeptics of other people's religions! :-)
It's hard to imagine attacking a church without one of its members finding that the attack feels like a personal attack on their own beliefs. Besides, what's wrong with saying that you genuinely believe that another person's personal religious beliefs are in error? When did that become bigotry in and of itself? Is it now impossible to disagree with others on the subject of their religious beliefs without being bigoted? When did religious belief get so fragile? Did I miss a meeting? ;-)
Skev
techstar25 said:
Eh? Did you really mean to say that repression of ideas and restriction of speech leads to discourse? Or did you mean to say that they lead to the suppression of discourse? Surely...
:-)
JonnyElvis42 said:
I love it. Everybody's a skeptic - of other people's religion!
Doubtless you genuinely believe that certain portions of christianity (your belief) are not "just a little shaky", right? :-) Or if you do think christianity is a little shaky in parts, then show a bit more tolerance to other "shaky" beliefs!
Funny stuff.
You said:
Guideposts magazine has a monthly column called His Mysterious Ways
So I went there and read:
I just stepped outside for a look at the backyard. as soon as I heard the door click behind me, I realized I'd locked myself out. (SNIP) Then I saw a gate. Aha! I approached it, only to have my hopes dashed when I saw it was secured with a padlock. (SNIP) Lord, please help me get back in, I prayed. Not for my sake, but for Carole's.
Almost immediately I noticed a key hanging high on a hook. The key to the padlock, I thought. (SNIP) The key slid in easily, and the lock popped open. I was free! (SNIP)
When my friends returned I told them what had happened. I laughed about my ordeal, saying, "And to think that the key to the padlock on the gate was right in front of me the whole time!"
They both looked puzzled. "Padlock?" one of them said. "The only key out there in the yard is the one on the hook for the freezer."
"That can't be so," I insisted.
Together we walked out to the patio, leaving the back door ajar. I took the key from the hook and marched over to the gate. But this time when I tried, the key didn't fit the lock.
Oh boy. You don't really believe that clearly fictitous story do you? That an all-powerful all-loving God would perform such a minor miracle to save Carole's feelings and yet allow all the suffering we see in the world?
>And they narrowly avoid getting
:-)
>sqashed on the crosswalk between
>the business building and the rest
>of campus.
Hmmm, and the fact that being on a crosswalk gives them right of way doesn't bother you? As a driver you're supposed to slow down when approaching any crosswalk in case someone steps out onto it.
I'm not suggesting that people should just blindly leap out onto crosswalks without looking for traffic (who cares if you have right of way if you're dead), but it sounds like you need a course on "defensive driving".
pecked to death on irrelevant points.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'm neither pecking you to death, nor did I see it as irrelevant (if you think the point is irrelevant, why bring it up for me to comment on? - I saw an assumption that I thought hurt your argument - that's all).
No, Spetner did not claim that evolution
is "pre-specified".
Fortunately, I didn't claim that you said he did! :-) I merely spotted the fact that you seemed to be assuming pre-specified outcomes (you used the word first).
After all, if the outcome isn't prespecified, then every outcome is equally likely (assuming random chance). Starting at the outcome and working backwards to arrive at a seemingly improbable likelihood of that outcome occuring is getting it backwards. Just as the original reply to you pointed out.
That is a canard that you are bringing up.
YAWN - I used to think it was funny when people who were accused of bringing up straw men then accused their accusers of bringing up canards. Now it just bores me. :-) Either refute my allegation that it was a straw man (ie, show how it's not a straw man), or conceed the point. It can't really be irrelevant AND a canard can it? It's not much of a canard if it's irrelevant! Canards are meant to deceive and mislead. :-)
The point about pre-specification came up
(cough) was brought up by you...
in the context of coin tossing to illustrate a point.
What were you trying to illustrate? If it was what I thought it was (that the outcome we have is impossibly unlikely), then the illustration is flawed and unconvincing since you have it backwards - all outcomes of the coin toss are equally likely (assuming etc etc).
Please read the book (Not By Chance! by Spetner) to
find out the details.
That's not very convincing (I'm assuming you are trying to convince?). Just recommending a book that you found persuasive in the hope that I will too is pretty lazy. It sounds like you're asking the book to make your points for you. If your arguments are any indication (and I accept that they may not be), and if the reviews I've read for the book offer any clue (and I include the pro-creationist reviews I've read that praise the book but inadvertantly outline the many flaws in it), then I have better things to do with my time than read such a book - my shelf of books that I want to read but haven't had time to is too full already.
Evolution doesn't have all the answers to how all the stages of evolution happens, but at least they admit it and are working towards finding the answers. I see no compelling evidence for divine creation - unless that divine creation be via evolution (but that's such a loose definition of divine creation as to be useless).
Our current biological/material state is not impossibly unlikely -- as here we are! Now we just need to find out which explanations are more likely and supported by evidence and do our best to fill in the blanks in our knowledge. Evolution is the best bet for most educated people at this point - they find it far more convincing than what creationists believe. This will only change when a more convincing theory comes along.
small of any pre-specified combination coming up
But the outcomes of evolution are not pre-specified. Evolutionists certainly do not claim that they are pre-specified. You've got it backwards, as tgibbs said in his/her post:
No, because every sequence of coins has exactly
the same very low probability, but nevertheless one of
them has to come up. This is the falacy of calcuating
probabilities backwards. Every attempt I've seen to
calculate the probability of evolution falls into that
same basic error.
Your reference to "pre-specified" outcomes is a straw man. Think about it. :-)
>If I have to carve the definitions of law,
:-)
>fact, hypothesis, and theory backwards on
>one more 2x4 and beat one more ignorant
>putz who was asleep in science 101 about
>the head and shoulders with it, I'm
>switching to PT 4x4s for durability.
Why carve the definitions backwards? That way won't they leave an imprint on the putz's forehead the right way around? An imprint which will then appear backwards to the putz when they look in the mirror?
Carve them the right way around! Educate the putz!
Or are you trying to educate the putz's friends?
The mutation added extra control over our vocal chords. So maybe the evolutionary advantage was singing? No words or language required.
:-)
Romantic crooners probably had an advantage in finding mates over their less-musically-endowed competitors...
Hi there,
Here's two requests for you to put on your future-prediction-hat:
Many people see CGI as competition to actors. But we still need actors to do the voices and even mocap. It's the fate of crews that interests me. Once digital hi def cameras are small and affordable, along with virtual sets etc do you see smaller crews as the norm? Or will standards and expectations rise so that the reverse happens and crews get larger?
Also, if computers and software continue to fall in price (the latter isn't so certain I grant you), do you forsee this technology becoming more available to even the micro-budget film maker? Will these tools help close the gap in the difference between the "look" of low vs high budget films?
Thanks!
noda132 said:
Uh, no. It's short for MPEG1 Layer 3. Honest! Truly!
:-)
I'm relieved - almost all of my film school students call any IEEE1394 devices "firewire" (a few of them used Sony's "iLink"). Now I no longer need to keep constantly reminding them: "No, it's not a firewire cable, it's a 1394 cable".
I can give in with a clear conscience!
Now, if only I can get them to stop calling XLR3 connectors "Canon plugs"...
;-)
You said (emphasis mine):
The fact that the fire was large, along with the damage caused by the full-speed impact, meant that it was especially hot and especially hard to put out.
The distinction you're making in this and other posts between the "fuel-based" fire and the "ordinary fire" is a pointless one. It's like saying "guns don't kill people directly, bullets do", to which most people would reply "Well, yeah, but try killing people by throwing bullets at them! Bullets aren't very deadly without guns!".
Similarly, most people would say that the fuel was one of the major reasons that the fire was large (that and the force of impact and design of the building I guess), and its size made it very hot and hard to put out. Was the fuel "directly" to blame for the collapse of the towers? It depends how finely you slice it - one could argue that the "ordinary" fire wasn't the direct cause of the tower's collapse either, it was the falling of the initial floor that caused it all. Or maybe the floor after that... When does one floor collapsing become the tower falling? When does the damage done by the fuel-fire become damage done by the ordinary fire?
In his talk, Stallman says:
And I thought to myself "Wow! My home country has a progressive attitude to patents, even back in the eighties! Good for us!". So I went looking for that study and instead I found this PDF (here is the Google HTMLised version) of a press release from the Australian Government announcing a more recent (1999-2000) nine-month study into patents, competitiveness, and the "new economy" entitled Inventing Our Future: The link between Australian patenting and basic science. The press release says, in part, that the study found:
This is a good thing in itself or as an indicator of activity in those sectors? And also:
This seems to imply that a higher number of patents as a proportion of GDP is a good thing. Is comparing the number of patents in relation to the GDP really a recognised measure of... something? :-)
Here's the PDF of the actual 1999-2000 report, which I have not yet read. Does anyone have a link to the 1980's Australian report into patents that Stallman refers to? It would be interesting to compare them.
Thanks in advance.
Actually, I was referring to the actual slashdot title graphic at the top left of the screen. And the horizontal dividers betweeen posts. They have an iMac look to them.
But now I see that they are only for stories in the "Networking (Apple)" section. Must be a feature I was unaware of.
Or am I the only one that can see them?!? :-)
When did this happen? Is this the new look for the new slashdot? It looks kinda nice but... I don't know...
I mean, that shot of a guy's hand holding a transparent disk? Looks like the transparent disks I get when I buy a spindle of 50 CD-Rs.
Skev
If they are putting in $100,000 of their own money - why not just give 10,000 beta tester $10 each and test it that way?
Sure, a small percentage will just try to pull their $10 out right away, but I bet most would have a go at it.
Sounds like a slightly more entertaining version of a pyramid scam to me.
>Ever seen a black duck?
c k_ duck.html
Erm, yes! Many!
http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/sauvagine/html/bla
First, a little bit of fun, paraphrasing your comments:
Okay okay, I took some liberties, but your comment basically boils down to "it seems counter intuitive, so it can't be true". Nano skeptics are becoming an increasingly endangered species, mainly because the technology looks so promising. And if you think my analogy above is flawed because processing information is qualitively different to processing materials, then I gently suggest you've not thought about nanotech enough. :-)
Your comment:
The equipment itself is currently quite expensive even in the limited forms which are now available (...)
Is like pointing to any new technology and saying "it's more expensive than the way we do things now, so it always will be more expensive, so it won't work". Do I really need to point out the flaw here?
Your comment:
A machine that only builds one thing is going to produce that one thing faster and cheaper than a machine that can build anything. That's true even of theoretical nanoassembly systems.
No it isn't. Or to use your words - what is the basis for that assertion? A nano-assembler is a nanoassembler, whether it's in a factory or a suburban nano-shop or your basement. Why would we build a nanoasembler that is only able to build one thing?
Sure, I can imagine a big assembler being able to produce goods faster than a small one (it can literally churn out more per second because it is bigger and can suck in and push out more material), but why significantly cheaper?
Besides, this misses the point - with widespread nanotech, the very concept of mass-produced identical items is redundant. Why would we do this? Why fill warehouses with product X and then try to sell it, as we do now? Heck, we're moving away from that model even with current technology, why do it that way with nanotech?
Items could be produced that are individually tailored to the user, and only when needed by the user. These items may cost a little more than an identical item that had been mass-produced, but items tailored to me are not going to be mass-produced, so the comparison is moot.
As nano-tech becomes possible, cheaper, and widespread, the advantages of just-in-time and just-for-you manufacturing will outweigh the advantages of mass-produced for-everyone, I predict. There are other things to worry about (like how to prevent abuse of cheap widespread nanotech assemblers).
Skevos
Patent.
Patent.
PATENT. patent. PaTeNt. pAtEnT.
Patentpatentpatentpatent.
Yup - patently absurd!