despite my strong civil liberties leanings, I support a sex offenders register and other measures to keep an eye on them.
Well hey, in that case, despite my strong authoritarian leanings and general string-'em-up heavy handed attitude towards criminals, even I oppose a sex offender register.
What's a child doing with unsupervised and unrestricted access to the Internet? What parent let's their child randomly meet "someone they met on the Internet"?
By this logic, we should ban them from using the postal service, in case they become a pen pal with someone under 18.
Well, your program is probably less than 18 years old, in which case you clearly need to be arrested for "virtual" child porn. It doesn't matter that it's just characters, don't you know that this is as bad as raping babies?
Just because it makes sense to have an objective line for age of consent, doesn't mean that everyone who breaks that law should be treated the same.
Or maybe we should put people on these lists for littering too?
I could play your game in reverse: if it's the 5 year difference that makes it not okay, what about a 17 year old and a 22 year old? What about an 18 year old and a 23 year old? What about a 40 year old and a 45 year old? Are they all not okay?
Obviously, in either case, it's not as black and white as 5 year differences.
And if you leave it up to judges, then what do you do with a judge who thinks it is okay for Old Men to marry young girls in those polygamy cults?
Marriage is a separate issue - it's a legal contract, one that should be restricted to adults. Indeed, on that note I find it mad that here in the UK, at 16 people can, as well as simply having sex, enter into a lifelong legal commitment. Yet if a 17 year old takes a naughty photo of him or herself, or his or her partner, they're guilty of possessing "child" porn.
Being raped is endangerment. Ever heard of STDs? Ever heard of the ones that can't be cured and which are eventually fatal? There's a reason why most states (even the liberal blue ones) allow for the use of deadly force when confronted with a would-be rapist. A rapist is arguably every bit as dangerous as a loaded gun pointed at your head or knife at your throat.... I would argue that having your body penetrated against your will is an inherently violent act.
I think the clear argument for it being violent is due to the physical contact.
I mean, consider something like a robbery - it's non-consensual, clearly wrong, but I don't think it would be taboo to say that this should only be referred to as "violent" if someone is harmed or at least threatened. A robbery is not inherently violent.
But rape isn't like robbery. It doesn't matter whether there's threats or not - if it's rape, it's the physical nature of it that makes it violent. Not to mention that rape may well be painful as well anyway, either due to the force used, or because the woman isn't er suitable relaxed as would normally happen during consensual sex.
Put it another way - those saying it isn't violent should consider how it might feel if they were raped, anally. As a bisexual male who knows the value of lube, not to mention that the first time is always that extra bit difficult, believe me, they would find it violent.
That still doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed on websites, since violent offenders aren't banned from using such websites. Indeed, the curious issue is that even for trivial and/or consensual sex offences, they are treated worse than violent offenders by being on a Sex Offender list, so counting them as being violent would be a step up for them...
* People who have, but want to give money to someone and an Internet connection isn't nearby. Not to mention that these days, online banking systems require physical security devices, that most people won't carry around with them.
* People who have online banking, are at home, and the website is down (or their security device has ran out of battery). Indeed, I once had a problem when they introduced these security devices - there was no warning, all of a sudden I was locked out, until they sent me the device through the post. All the while they pull tricks like this, there is no way that Internet banking can be a reliable replacement, so cheques will always have to stay as a backup.
I agree. There was a recent classic case where the BBC covered a "purity ring app" for the Iphone. All it does is display a spinning image. And they get free national advertising, thanks to the licence-funded BBC (which is supposed not to do advertising!).
I am tempted to write such an application for Windows, and ask if the BBC can give me free advertising.
And yes, it annoys me the way they give so much time to a fringe group of lobbyists complaining about violence in games. Heaven forbid what they'd do if the "controversy" came to the Iphone - it'll be the headline on the 9 o' Clock News...
I don't want anyone to believe in God because of my experiences. I want people to see that I say I've had experiences, and then want those experiences themselves - and I'm more than happy to tell them how to do it.
Let's say I do this, and I experience these things - how do we know that this isn't just an hallucination, or other mental experience? That's my point - I don't doubt that you have the experiences, I just question that this is evidence of god, fairies, or whatever else. Making it so that I have the experience won't change anything.
I've had all sorts of experiences - including visitations from the Old Hag, but that doesn't mean I believe the things I see really exist.
For the rest of your post, I have no idea what could constitute "evidence" that wasn't of a scientific form. Do you have an example of something that we found to be true, through your method of "religious evidence"?
There are questions that we can't answer - but that means we can't answer, it doesn't mean a made up answer is correct.
What does "only valid for the person who originally receives it" mean?
There are some questions which don't have objective answers - e.g., "What is your favourite colour". But claims such as "What started the Universe" or "Did Jesus result from a virgin birth" are not questions of personal taste.
So I'll ask: Do you believe Jesus resulted from a virgin birth? And if yes, why do you think that this should be subjected to some kind of "religious evidence", and not scientific evidence? Why should it be held to a different standard to every other factual question we might ask?
If you were accused of murder, would you try to sway the jury with promises of "religious evidence", and say that one person's proof you were guity wasn't valid for other people?
The BBC is reporting that a so called augmented reality has arrived - in the UK at least. From the article: 'Via the audio function of a mobile phone's speaker it is now possible to combine regular hearing with added audio data from the phone just as the fictional Captain Picard was able to overlay his view of the world with vital information about his starship. For example, UK-firm Acrossair has launched an application for the iPhone which allows Londoners to call their nearest friend using their iPhone, and actually speak to them in real time.' The page features an impressive video demonstrating AR in action."
Science - much like your god - is not a sentient being. It doesn't "know" anything.
What happened is that humans knew that some things seemed to have a useful effect - based on observations - and later on we analysed them and finally understood how things works. This is all part of scientific progress. That the Bible documented the earlier stages doesn't mean this is "religion" - people obviously didn't start doing this because it was written in the Bible! You've got it backwards - people discovered it, and the Bible documented people's behaviour.
Let me make the question clear: What method do you propose for finding out about how the universe works, that isn't science? And what knowledge has such a method produced?
Or do you concede that learning about the universe is done through the process of observation, hypothesising, testing (i.e., science), and not religion, magic, or anything else?
Do you actually have an argument, or are you just mistaking ad hominem for a valid debating tactic?
And no, speciation has not been observed unless the definition of species is altered.
What example of speciation are you asking we observe?
No they are not. Science doesn't speak of religion period.
Nor did I. Try again - I said: "Your views are certainly incompatible with the scientific consensus, as supported by overwhelming scientific evidence".
Agreed - sadly this is yet another "For the Iphone" Appledot Slashvertisement, where something that would otherwise be old news, gets front page coverage.
At least the BBC do cover some of these other applications, I'm not sure why Slashdot summarises it as just being about the Iphone.
(So I see that the Iphone finally has video. I thought that was one of the things they didn't include, in order to make it "better"? That's what the Iphone advocates said, so does this mean that by including it, the Iphone has become worse?)
Apple's Mac OS didn't offer preemptive multitasking until Mac OS X
Mac OS - the first OS with that name - never had preemptive multitasking. Apple had to ditch that OS, develop a different one based on Next which was then branded OS X.
(I think the saddest thing is people who seem to maintain a grudge on anyone who uses or used an Amiga - that grudge seems to be far more prevalent here on Slashdot, and as you say, when you look at the alternatives at the time, it seems completely nonsensical now.)
I do still play Civ4 and other such games, but as you grow up you have great amount of other stuff to take care of. Specially in mid-20's, when work and spending time with your gf takes lots of time. This seems to change again 30+ when things get more settled.
I'd love to play more Civ 4, but it's such a shame when gfs take up so much time. I too look forward to that 30+ age, when this is no longer a problem, and I can return to playing Civ all night.
Well there's no reason you can't just play an hour of civ 4 at a time, just hit save and come back to it.
In theory.
In practice, you sit down to play "for an hour", and next thing you know the sun's coming up. "I'll play just one more turn".
(I disagree with TFS that Civ is that much of an intellectual challenge - okay, it's more of a thinking game, but it's fairly straightforward, and although it might be a challenge to beat higher levels, you can also play it more leisurely.)
I realise now I was rather foolish to ask an IDer to cite evidence...
repeat after me.
Which exemplifies how you would rather get people to believe - not by examining evidence, but by repeating without question something they are told.
Evolution can also be split into two categories, macro and micro, with the difference being a real speciation. We have never observed speciation unless we butcher the definition of species and add artificial restrictions.
Speciation, and hence macroevolution, has been observed. Check out talk.origins.
Science isn't incompatible with religion
Your views are certainly incompatible with the scientific consensus, as supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.
I guess reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit is it?
Actually I was just hoping you were practicing your skills on Slashdot before moving onto somewhere like RichardDawkins.net. Poe's Law strikes again.
Right, so you agree with me that homeopathy is no better than a placebo - case closed.
No one is arguing that placebos have no effect - on the contrary, they do seem to have a real effect, and this is certainly something that is worthy of placebos. But it doesn't matter whether you pick homeopathy, water, sugar pills or magic beans.
It might sound ludicrous now, but in a few decades it could be science.
The placebo effect is already in the realm of science, in that there is evidence that it has an effect. We'll hopefully understand the placebo better in the future too. Homeopathy however will not be science in a few decades, anymore than magic beans, except in that they are placebos.
More generally, you seem to be appealing to the fallacy of "Some things we know to be true, we once didn't know, therefore we should consider that this thing which I claim might one day turn out to be true". Right, and I claim that there are invisible pixies in my garden. One day we'll discover them, just you wait.
As you first mentioned - keep an open mind.
(Did I say that?) I do keep an open mind - show me the evidence, and I'll believe it.
"Just because something alleviates a fear does not mean it's some nefarious plot to prey on that fear."
Yes, but the "something happening" is the important distinction between your $100K analogy, and religion.
Now sure, you could argue that so long as it alleviates a fear, it's still okay. But the analogy isn't fair. A better analogy would be, if it's okay to alleviate people's fear of poverty, even if you never give them the money in the end?
People like you ask for evidence, but then refuse to accept anything remotely resembling it
I don't refuse to accept your evidence, I just disagree with what it represents. A "personal experience" is a personal experience. I agree you had a personal experience, but that isn't evidence of whatever you claim it is. Just as me saying I had a dream about fairies last night - would you accept this as evidence of fairies existing?
So sure, go ahead, ask for evidence in your most sarcastic voice, but you're going to have to convince me you're genuinely interested in evidence.
How about you show me that you're genuinely interested in finding scientific evidence, rather than expecting people to believe your "experiences" as being what you assume them to be?
Can a GPL web browser like Arora communicate with a proprietary web server like IIS? Of course it can!
Since Microsoft don't distribute Arora with IIS, there is no possible argument that they have to abide by Arora's licence, and this is no analogy to situtations where people are distributing other people's licences, and asking if they don't have to follow it.
Can the authors of Arora distribute IIS in violation of its licence? Of course they can't. Why is it a different rule for the GPL?
Slashdot Mirror
Can anyone in the US just walk into a shop and own a gun? Or are there restrictions, or licences required, in some states?
The state has no involvement when it comes to accessing a site like Facebook - not even age restrictions.
despite my strong civil liberties leanings, I support a sex offenders register and other measures to keep an eye on them.
Well hey, in that case, despite my strong authoritarian leanings and general string-'em-up heavy handed attitude towards criminals, even I oppose a sex offender register.
Okay, I'll stop being liberal.
I know, let's ban you from posting to Slashdot. No one could possibly oppose, unless you're one of those liberal types, right?
What's a child doing with unsupervised and unrestricted access to the Internet? What parent let's their child randomly meet "someone they met on the Internet"?
By this logic, we should ban them from using the postal service, in case they become a pen pal with someone under 18.
Well, your program is probably less than 18 years old, in which case you clearly need to be arrested for "virtual" child porn. It doesn't matter that it's just characters, don't you know that this is as bad as raping babies?
Just because it makes sense to have an objective line for age of consent, doesn't mean that everyone who breaks that law should be treated the same.
Or maybe we should put people on these lists for littering too?
I could play your game in reverse: if it's the 5 year difference that makes it not okay, what about a 17 year old and a 22 year old? What about an 18 year old and a 23 year old? What about a 40 year old and a 45 year old? Are they all not okay?
Obviously, in either case, it's not as black and white as 5 year differences.
And if you leave it up to judges, then what do you do with a judge who thinks it is okay for Old Men to marry young girls in those polygamy cults?
Marriage is a separate issue - it's a legal contract, one that should be restricted to adults. Indeed, on that note I find it mad that here in the UK, at 16 people can, as well as simply having sex, enter into a lifelong legal commitment. Yet if a 17 year old takes a naughty photo of him or herself, or his or her partner, they're guilty of possessing "child" porn.
Being raped is endangerment. Ever heard of STDs? Ever heard of the ones that can't be cured and which are eventually fatal? There's a reason why most states (even the liberal blue ones) allow for the use of deadly force when confronted with a would-be rapist. A rapist is arguably every bit as dangerous as a loaded gun pointed at your head or knife at your throat. ... I would argue that having your body penetrated against your will is an inherently violent act.
I think the clear argument for it being violent is due to the physical contact.
I mean, consider something like a robbery - it's non-consensual, clearly wrong, but I don't think it would be taboo to say that this should only be referred to as "violent" if someone is harmed or at least threatened. A robbery is not inherently violent.
But rape isn't like robbery. It doesn't matter whether there's threats or not - if it's rape, it's the physical nature of it that makes it violent. Not to mention that rape may well be painful as well anyway, either due to the force used, or because the woman isn't er suitable relaxed as would normally happen during consensual sex.
Put it another way - those saying it isn't violent should consider how it might feel if they were raped, anally. As a bisexual male who knows the value of lube, not to mention that the first time is always that extra bit difficult, believe me, they would find it violent.
Okay, so disallow them from bearing arms.
That still doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed on websites, since violent offenders aren't banned from using such websites. Indeed, the curious issue is that even for trivial and/or consensual sex offences, they are treated worse than violent offenders by being on a Sex Offender list, so counting them as being violent would be a step up for them...
Cheques are still useful for:
* People who haven't set up online banking.
* People who have, but want to give money to someone and an Internet connection isn't nearby. Not to mention that these days, online banking systems require physical security devices, that most people won't carry around with them.
* People who have online banking, are at home, and the website is down (or their security device has ran out of battery). Indeed, I once had a problem when they introduced these security devices - there was no warning, all of a sudden I was locked out, until they sent me the device through the post. All the while they pull tricks like this, there is no way that Internet banking can be a reliable replacement, so cheques will always have to stay as a backup.
I agree. There was a recent classic case where the BBC covered a "purity ring app" for the Iphone. All it does is display a spinning image. And they get free national advertising, thanks to the licence-funded BBC (which is supposed not to do advertising!).
I am tempted to write such an application for Windows, and ask if the BBC can give me free advertising.
And yes, it annoys me the way they give so much time to a fringe group of lobbyists complaining about violence in games. Heaven forbid what they'd do if the "controversy" came to the Iphone - it'll be the headline on the 9 o' Clock News...
I don't want anyone to believe in God because of my experiences. I want people to see that I say I've had experiences, and then want those experiences themselves - and I'm more than happy to tell them how to do it.
Let's say I do this, and I experience these things - how do we know that this isn't just an hallucination, or other mental experience? That's my point - I don't doubt that you have the experiences, I just question that this is evidence of god, fairies, or whatever else. Making it so that I have the experience won't change anything.
I've had all sorts of experiences - including visitations from the Old Hag, but that doesn't mean I believe the things I see really exist.
For the rest of your post, I have no idea what could constitute "evidence" that wasn't of a scientific form. Do you have an example of something that we found to be true, through your method of "religious evidence"?
There are questions that we can't answer - but that means we can't answer, it doesn't mean a made up answer is correct.
What does "only valid for the person who originally receives it" mean?
There are some questions which don't have objective answers - e.g., "What is your favourite colour". But claims such as "What started the Universe" or "Did Jesus result from a virgin birth" are not questions of personal taste.
So I'll ask: Do you believe Jesus resulted from a virgin birth? And if yes, why do you think that this should be subjected to some kind of "religious evidence", and not scientific evidence? Why should it be held to a different standard to every other factual question we might ask?
If you were accused of murder, would you try to sway the jury with promises of "religious evidence", and say that one person's proof you were guity wasn't valid for other people?
The BBC is reporting that a so called augmented reality has arrived - in the UK at least. From the article: 'Via the audio function of a mobile phone's speaker it is now possible to combine regular hearing with added audio data from the phone just as the fictional Captain Picard was able to overlay his view of the world with vital information about his starship. For example, UK-firm Acrossair has launched an application for the iPhone which allows Londoners to call their nearest friend using their iPhone, and actually speak to them in real time.' The page features an impressive video demonstrating AR in action."
Science - much like your god - is not a sentient being. It doesn't "know" anything.
What happened is that humans knew that some things seemed to have a useful effect - based on observations - and later on we analysed them and finally understood how things works. This is all part of scientific progress. That the Bible documented the earlier stages doesn't mean this is "religion" - people obviously didn't start doing this because it was written in the Bible! You've got it backwards - people discovered it, and the Bible documented people's behaviour.
Let me make the question clear: What method do you propose for finding out about how the universe works, that isn't science? And what knowledge has such a method produced?
Or do you concede that learning about the universe is done through the process of observation, hypothesising, testing (i.e., science), and not religion, magic, or anything else?
Do you actually have an argument, or are you just mistaking ad hominem for a valid debating tactic?
And no, speciation has not been observed unless the definition of species is altered.
What example of speciation are you asking we observe?
No they are not. Science doesn't speak of religion period.
Nor did I. Try again - I said: "Your views are certainly incompatible with the scientific consensus, as supported by overwhelming scientific evidence".
Agreed - sadly this is yet another "For the Iphone" Appledot Slashvertisement, where something that would otherwise be old news, gets front page coverage.
At least the BBC do cover some of these other applications, I'm not sure why Slashdot summarises it as just being about the Iphone.
(So I see that the Iphone finally has video. I thought that was one of the things they didn't include, in order to make it "better"? That's what the Iphone advocates said, so does this mean that by including it, the Iphone has become worse?)
Indeed, though this is misleading:
Apple's Mac OS didn't offer preemptive multitasking until Mac OS X
Mac OS - the first OS with that name - never had preemptive multitasking. Apple had to ditch that OS, develop a different one based on Next which was then branded OS X.
(I think the saddest thing is people who seem to maintain a grudge on anyone who uses or used an Amiga - that grudge seems to be far more prevalent here on Slashdot, and as you say, when you look at the alternatives at the time, it seems completely nonsensical now.)
Indeed - it's also unclear on what grounds you can prove that a bunch of random data isn't in fact encrypted data in the first place.
And you could say exactly the same thing, swapping GPL with BSD in your post.
This story is one such example of such a person.
I do still play Civ4 and other such games, but as you grow up you have great amount of other stuff to take care of. Specially in mid-20's, when work and spending time with your gf takes lots of time. This seems to change again 30+ when things get more settled.
I'd love to play more Civ 4, but it's such a shame when gfs take up so much time. I too look forward to that 30+ age, when this is no longer a problem, and I can return to playing Civ all night.
Well there's no reason you can't just play an hour of civ 4 at a time, just hit save and come back to it.
In theory.
In practice, you sit down to play "for an hour", and next thing you know the sun's coming up. "I'll play just one more turn".
(I disagree with TFS that Civ is that much of an intellectual challenge - okay, it's more of a thinking game, but it's fairly straightforward, and although it might be a challenge to beat higher levels, you can also play it more leisurely.)
I don't need to cite anything.
I realise now I was rather foolish to ask an IDer to cite evidence...
repeat after me.
Which exemplifies how you would rather get people to believe - not by examining evidence, but by repeating without question something they are told.
Evolution can also be split into two categories, macro and micro, with the difference being a real speciation. We have never observed speciation unless we butcher the definition of species and add artificial restrictions.
Speciation, and hence macroevolution, has been observed. Check out talk.origins.
Science isn't incompatible with religion
Your views are certainly incompatible with the scientific consensus, as supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.
I guess reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit is it?
Actually I was just hoping you were practicing your skills on Slashdot before moving onto somewhere like RichardDawkins.net. Poe's Law strikes again.
Right, so you agree with me that homeopathy is no better than a placebo - case closed.
No one is arguing that placebos have no effect - on the contrary, they do seem to have a real effect, and this is certainly something that is worthy of placebos. But it doesn't matter whether you pick homeopathy, water, sugar pills or magic beans.
It might sound ludicrous now, but in a few decades it could be science.
The placebo effect is already in the realm of science, in that there is evidence that it has an effect. We'll hopefully understand the placebo better in the future too. Homeopathy however will not be science in a few decades, anymore than magic beans, except in that they are placebos.
More generally, you seem to be appealing to the fallacy of "Some things we know to be true, we once didn't know, therefore we should consider that this thing which I claim might one day turn out to be true". Right, and I claim that there are invisible pixies in my garden. One day we'll discover them, just you wait.
As you first mentioned - keep an open mind.
(Did I say that?) I do keep an open mind - show me the evidence, and I'll believe it.
Some rules that religion sets are sensible rules - e.g., do not kill.
Some things that religious people believe happen to be good advice - e.g., washing hands etc.
No one is disputing this, so that's a straw man.
There are lots of traditional behaviours that work. The way to distinguish methods which work, from those that don't, is by scientific evidence.
But unless you have evidence that this information came from a god, this is not support for any method other than science.
"Just because something alleviates a fear does not mean it's some nefarious plot to prey on that fear."
Yes, but the "something happening" is the important distinction between your $100K analogy, and religion.
Now sure, you could argue that so long as it alleviates a fear, it's still okay. But the analogy isn't fair. A better analogy would be, if it's okay to alleviate people's fear of poverty, even if you never give them the money in the end?
People like you ask for evidence, but then refuse to accept anything remotely resembling it
I don't refuse to accept your evidence, I just disagree with what it represents. A "personal experience" is a personal experience. I agree you had a personal experience, but that isn't evidence of whatever you claim it is. Just as me saying I had a dream about fairies last night - would you accept this as evidence of fairies existing?
So sure, go ahead, ask for evidence in your most sarcastic voice, but you're going to have to convince me you're genuinely interested in evidence.
How about you show me that you're genuinely interested in finding scientific evidence, rather than expecting people to believe your "experiences" as being what you assume them to be?
Can a GPL web browser like Arora communicate with a proprietary web server like IIS? Of course it can!
Since Microsoft don't distribute Arora with IIS, there is no possible argument that they have to abide by Arora's licence, and this is no analogy to situtations where people are distributing other people's licences, and asking if they don't have to follow it.
Can the authors of Arora distribute IIS in violation of its licence? Of course they can't. Why is it a different rule for the GPL?