I was joking: The lawyer takes the picture as evidence, which then enables the lawyer to win a lawsuit and profit. The lawyer profits off the photo. Does this violate copyright?
There are ideas out there. But all the review and strategy boards take the minimum risk strategy choice. New ideas may make it big, but they are risky. One may lose their nifty plush executive job on a bad risk.
Good point. In fact, it is the same reasoning that, according to Christianity, we need Jesus as a savior. The argument goes: God cannot be both perfectly compassionate and just toward us when faced with our imperfection. The compassionate forgives, but the just judges us guilty. The perfect God, who has 100% observational powers, cannot abide the imperfect. We are not perfect, so the compassionate aspect of God provided a savior that removes that spiritual imperfection from us. What is left is innocent in the eyes of the Justice aspect of God. In this way does He show both compassion and justice. Anyway, that is what Christians believe.
Away from those matters..It is because we are not perfect that I would submit to a perfect just and compassionate all-observing governing body. I think such observation would lead us to become better people. However, such power should not be held by an imperfect governing body, because it is too tempting for the corrupted.
If such a perfect governing body did exist, and it found me guilty, (and I am sure they would), then I would plead for their compassion. But this is moot. Such a body does not exist on this earth.. In the heavens only, maybe.
Actually, religious people are quit pro-social. In fact, on average they donate twice the percentage of their income on charities than non-religious people. Also, I have not promoted anything of the sort. I do not say, "The wind blows because God is breathing." If there is to be a final conclusion to seeking the cause of some effect, and then the cause for that cause, and so on, something drastic has to happen. No matter what, we can keep asking, "So, where did that come from?" Then we find out. Then we ask the same damn question again.
In physics it might be phenomenon->laws of the universe-->natural selection of values for the various constants over big bangs.-->Why is there this repeating Big Bang?--oh, funny green particles! -->purple-pinky-quantum-boom-boom -->... -->quantum DNA-->....,...,... lol.
Where does this end? Is there some initial cause that defines all other effects? Maybe so, maybe so. But I don't see how that cause cannot have some other cause behind it.
Well spoken. Also, I was merely playing devil advocate to test your knowledge of the theory of evolution. However, in principle I am in complete agreement with you. The threshold for fitness is much lower today and thus changes the course of our evolution. In some ways this may be a good thing since it ensures more diversity in our genome. Perhaps conditions may arise where some of those conditions will increase reproductive success for those individuals.
Perhaps we're going through a period of intense group selection. Indeed, a nuke would be devastating to many, regardless of genetic makeup.
Thanks. Sorry if I seemed rude myself. I've gotten bashed on the last bunch of posts and was being defensive.
Furthermore, I see the point of the Gandhi example. Often our best behavior occurs when we are in the public eye. My point was slightly of a different nature. I would willingly submit to constant observation by a ruling body that was fair and just. Since there is no such ruling body, I am wary of submitting to total observation by a governing body because it would be likely that it would abuse that power. However, making yourself available to the whole public when acting as an example of morality or when fighting for justice is a good thing. The key difference here is that in one only the government has this access.
No. Natural evolution doesn't have a goal. Surely, it does not take as much today to have the required fitness for reproductive success, but this evolution is negated. Rather it is being fulfilled.
Philosophy, I hear, is stuck today on such profound issues as the precise meaning of the word 'is' and the word 'the'. Its pathetic.
Community colleges usually don't teach much computer science. They often, however, have strong math departments.
If you looked at psychology today, then you'd find that Computer Science is a heavy contributor to their theories. Furthermore, I've taken a number of CS courses, chemistry, physics, calculus, linear algebra, and so on at UC Davis.
May I suggest that your response to me has nothing to do with my actual argument, but is instead based off your prior experiences with Christians etc. You cannot even see it.
Yes, there are a lot of morons in the psych program. I am at the top of my class. As far as psychology, it is a rapidly changing field. It is very unfortunate that its beginnings were so unscientific, meaning Freud. Fuck Freud! There is good science being done now. They feel the heat from neuro-science.
Psychology is more difficult than physics. The problems are very difficult. Complex systems are difficult. The hard sciences attack more tractable, well defined problems. Surely, these can be very difficult. I'm just saying that the complexity of the human brain is daunting. Unfortunately in the soft sciences, progress can't be made and people will try to sell their bullshit with fancy language. That much harder to do in the hard sciences.
It doesn't matter much to me, but I have more than one +5 comment recently, but perhaps they've gone out of view in all the posting I've done today.
Oh and its unfortunate that you believe that by me having a belief in God precludes me from conducting good science. I can discern between my beliefs, contemplate doubts on my belief, and give up my belief if it faces evidence that contradicts it. There is none, so my belief stands. Moreover, I do not claim that it is a scientific belief. ah ha! Maybe this will get it right. If you are suggesting that a scientist, as a person, must base every belief he has upon scientific evidence, and cannot include any other beliefs that do not come out of evidence then I feel quite sorry for you.
I'll say this one more time. Science only deals with the testable. Belief in something that is not testable is unscientific. But you think if something is not testable, then it cannot be real. That, my friend, is unscientific. If you can argue against this last paragraph go for it. Else, I tire of the personal attacks.
Sheeze, a little bit of an over reaction. Here we go again. I just meant that the only way I'd want to submit to total observation would be to an entity that I can trust without question to do the right thing. There is no such body, so I do not willingly submit to total observation. I am not, however an idiot. I do know that the influence that society has on an individual is very important. This is why I submit to some observation.
As far as your example of Gandhi. What the hell are you talking about? Gandhi was a public figure, yes, but he didn't peek into everyone's bedroom did he? No. I think you are confusing the issue.
My view is this. If we had a perfect government with perfectly just and compassionate laws, then I would submit to total observation by the government. But we don't have a perfect government or a perfect world. Therefore, I do not want total observation.
I did not mention either position. Personally, Big brother means control. So, I agree. My point was this: If there is a big brother controlling us today, it is one that is an emergent property of millions of smaller decisions.
Right. There isn't an evil, all powerful, super intelligent group of people controlling the world. Its the emergent effect of millions of smaller scale decisions by many many people.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. My post did not make such a claim.
I was not endorsing. I was just showing the ridiculousness of the parents idea.
That was all there was to it.
Hint: Opposite of relevant.
There are ideas out there. But all the review and strategy boards take the minimum risk strategy choice. New ideas may make it big, but they are risky. One may lose their nifty plush executive job on a bad risk.
So in this case, the lawyer can't take the photo?
Recently, I believe, the court struck down the legal requirement to read the suspect the Miranda.
If they were concerned about that they would wear masks. Think before you post.
Parent worse than flamebait. More like: (Score:-1, Traitor to the American people)
Away from those matters..It is because we are not perfect that I would submit to a perfect just and compassionate all-observing governing body. I think such observation would lead us to become better people. However, such power should not be held by an imperfect governing body, because it is too tempting for the corrupted.
If such a perfect governing body did exist, and it found me guilty, (and I am sure they would), then I would plead for their compassion. But this is moot. Such a body does not exist on this earth.. In the heavens only, maybe.
In physics it might be phenomenon->laws of the universe-->natural selection of values for the various constants over big bangs.-->Why is there this repeating Big Bang?--oh, funny green particles! -->purple-pinky-quantum-boom-boom -->... -->quantum DNA-->.... ,..., ... lol.
Where does this end? Is there some initial cause that defines all other effects? Maybe so, maybe so. But I don't see how that cause cannot have some other cause behind it.
Perhaps we're going through a period of intense group selection. Indeed, a nuke would be devastating to many, regardless of genetic makeup.
Thanks. Sorry if I seemed rude myself. I've gotten bashed on the last bunch of posts and was being defensive.
Furthermore, I see the point of the Gandhi example. Often our best behavior occurs when we are in the public eye. My point was slightly of a different nature. I would willingly submit to constant observation by a ruling body that was fair and just. Since there is no such ruling body, I am wary of submitting to total observation by a governing body because it would be likely that it would abuse that power. However, making yourself available to the whole public when acting as an example of morality or when fighting for justice is a good thing. The key difference here is that in one only the government has this access.
have a great day.
As much as I love Gandhi's movement, Hitler would have slaughtered them.
No. Natural evolution doesn't have a goal. Surely, it does not take as much today to have the required fitness for reproductive success, but this evolution is negated. Rather it is being fulfilled.
So in the end, you misunderstand me.
Excuse me, he was replying to my comment. My response was telling him that his comment did not understand my comment.
Community colleges usually don't teach much computer science. They often, however, have strong math departments.
If you looked at psychology today, then you'd find that Computer Science is a heavy contributor to their theories. Furthermore, I've taken a number of CS courses, chemistry, physics, calculus, linear algebra, and so on at UC Davis.
May I suggest that your response to me has nothing to do with my actual argument, but is instead based off your prior experiences with Christians etc. You cannot even see it.
Psychology is more difficult than physics. The problems are very difficult. Complex systems are difficult. The hard sciences attack more tractable, well defined problems. Surely, these can be very difficult. I'm just saying that the complexity of the human brain is daunting. Unfortunately in the soft sciences, progress can't be made and people will try to sell their bullshit with fancy language. That much harder to do in the hard sciences.
It doesn't matter much to me, but I have more than one +5 comment recently, but perhaps they've gone out of view in all the posting I've done today.
Oh and its unfortunate that you believe that by me having a belief in God precludes me from conducting good science. I can discern between my beliefs, contemplate doubts on my belief, and give up my belief if it faces evidence that contradicts it. There is none, so my belief stands. Moreover, I do not claim that it is a scientific belief. ah ha! Maybe this will get it right. If you are suggesting that a scientist, as a person, must base every belief he has upon scientific evidence, and cannot include any other beliefs that do not come out of evidence then I feel quite sorry for you.
I'll say this one more time. Science only deals with the testable. Belief in something that is not testable is unscientific. But you think if something is not testable, then it cannot be real. That, my friend, is unscientific. If you can argue against this last paragraph go for it. Else, I tire of the personal attacks.
As far as your example of Gandhi. What the hell are you talking about? Gandhi was a public figure, yes, but he didn't peek into everyone's bedroom did he? No. I think you are confusing the issue.
My view is this. If we had a perfect government with perfectly just and compassionate laws, then I would submit to total observation by the government. But we don't have a perfect government or a perfect world. Therefore, I do not want total observation.
I did not mention either position. Personally, Big brother means control. So, I agree. My point was this: If there is a big brother controlling us today, it is one that is an emergent property of millions of smaller decisions.
Right. There isn't an evil, all powerful, super intelligent group of people controlling the world. Its the emergent effect of millions of smaller scale decisions by many many people.
So you won't see much at any one spot. Its thin and everywhere.
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/contri b/clari.txt
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
And a bunch of others.