"Nice try at a point. However the error that caused the problem in appollo 13 had already happened before the mission was even started."
So you think that whatever alien organization that backed "Project Earth" would be free from all of the problems organizations face here?
"And I am not saying in any way that we are equivalent to a race that could travel between star systems. We aren't."
How could you possibly know that? Are you and alien-contactee yourself?
" I say not that they might be better then us, only that they couldn't cover the unbelievable distances involved without knowing far more and being a lot better at not failing."
I don't see why you think interstellar travel as a project or technology would be any different than any other human project we have developed here on Earth.
Time was, about 100 years ago, very few people believed that humans could fly. It was something totally impossible, like time-travel or eternal life. It just could never happen. Turns out, it's actually not that difficult, once you know the particulars.
Certainly if aliens can do instellar travel, they must know more than us, but I don't see why they have to be 'perfect'. Instead of failing less, they just try more often? Maybe flying to Earth is more like a Tourist off-road adventure in the Serengeti than a "Put a man on the moon before the end of this decade" project? I see no reason to believe one over the other.
"Did we allow idiots to go to the moon? Or was it serious, professional pilots with years of proven track record..."
Isn't NASA manned by serious professionals? Yet NASA is not free of mistakes and accidents. Did you ever hear the story of Apollo 13?
Why would you assume that aliens are better than us in any way? They could be just like human beings, emotionally and intellectually; maybe they just had a few centuries headstart and figured out interstellar travel.
We have everyday, average joes driving cars. Perhaps interstellar travel is so common-place in other civilizations that everyday, average joes are piloting saucers, flying straight into black holes and stars, crashing into meteors and planet.
On what basis would you assume that any aliens who would be visiting us would be 'professional pilots'? Why not cow-tipping joyriders?
Well, if you've never driven a car for a serious amount of time, perhaps that's why you can't imagine someone having an accident.
There is a great difference between doing equations on paper and piloting a moving vehicle in real-time. Did you ever make a mistake in calculating your equations? On paper, you can just erase it. In real life, there is no 'rewind'.
"If these aliens evolved on a planet with an atmosphere they'd have had to work the mechanics out in order to get into orbit around their own planet. Even if an alien species could evolve in some completly different environment gravity is a fundermental universal force."
If they evolved in space, say like in an interstellar dust cloud, they wouldn't need to know much about gravity. Other forces, such as electromagnetism, would have a much greater effecting in their everyday life. Because we evolved on a planet, we have a hard-wired, native understanding of gravity. Only relatively recently have we begun to understand the other fundamental forces. Perhaps for a dust-cloud being, they understand electromagnetism quite well, but gravity, not so much;)
"1: Any race lacking in the ability to calculate the basic math of gravitational calculations would probably never get into space in the first place."
What if they started in space, evolving in an interstellar dust could? They might have mastered 0G vacuum flight, but still have problems with landing.
And if they evolved without gravity, they may not have any intuitive ability to understand gravity, thus hampering their ability to do research into gravity phenomena, just as we have trouble understanding floating in a space station, or quantum physics. Sure, we can eventually figure out the math, but we figured out gravity first because we have a hard-wired understanding of it.
Didn't Ridley Scott simply create a trite, cheap, and weak rip-off of George Orwell's 1984? Orwell wrote what became a classic novel about fascism and society in the 20th century, and Scott made a commercial for a corporation. Scott plucked almost every element straight out of the novel.
The problem is that European regulators can't introduce competition into the marketplace by throwing out MS. There is nobody who can step up and replace them. All of the software that runs on Windows depends on Windows, and there is no competitor that runs windows software without a hitch. If the EU said, "OK Microsoft, no more sales in Europe for you!" then all of the European computer users would hate the EU for taking away their software, and there would have no replacement.
In order for siome company to create a competing OS that can actually run Windows software well enough, MS would have to release their specs. That's why the EU is playing softball -- ultimately they need MS' co-operation for there to even *be* a competitor. If MS leaves or is thrown out of the market, the users are SOL.
"You cannot provide evidence to support an assertion that "The FBI can't just willy-nilly go requesting tax records from the IRS -- they have to have a warrant to do so." (emphasis added) Substitute shouldn't and we agree, but now we're talking about the world we want, rather than the world we have."
Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean "can't legally", not "unable to do so".
"It stands to reason that science grew out of practical applications."
That's a reasonable theory, but it's not supported by historical fact;) Science, and I mean modern western science, as E. O. Wilson was talking about, not just anybody's attempt to figure something out, grew out of the philosophy traditions of the Greeks. For most of the history of philosophy and science, there was little to no practical application. It was great if you could predict where Mercury would be a month from now, or when the next eclipse would occur, but that doesn't help you eat. It was great if you knew that the world was really created by God and not Gaia, but that doesn't really help you eat, either, regardless of what the worshippers of God or Gaia might tell you.
Now, the people who were doing philosophy were the wealthy elite, who had the time and resources to sit around and argue about the origin of the world, and didn't have to farm the fields. The scientific method that we use now, which we have found so may practical applications, came directly from this navel-gazing philosophical debate, where Aristotle was telling us that the world was made out of five elements, or that vision was a result of rays shooting out of human eyes. Meanwhile the common peasant was eking out their life in the fields without any standardized method, paying their taxes so that the local lord could send his son to the seminary, where that son learned about the epicycles of the planets and disease-causing demons. But the natural philosophy never trickled down to help the average peasant improve their everyday life. It really wasn't until the 18th and 19th century that people starting applying the scientific method to various areas of life, including manufacturing, metallurgy, and farming.
" Technology, albeit primitive and driven by trial and error, has been around almost since humans became human."
Yes, but we and E.O. Wilson are talking about is science, not trial-and-error. The scientific method is not trial-and-error, and it did not come from trial-and-error. The scientific method has recently been applied to technology in the past two centuries, to the great progress of technology. But I'm not aware of any evidence of people using the scientific method before the 18th century. Again, science is not trial-and-error.
"Do you really think our neolithic ancesters studied mechanics, climatology, geology, zoology and botany for the pure pursuit of knowledge?"
I think that some of them did. Certainly the Greeks and European philosophers, who gave rise to our modern science, were engaged in a pure pursuit of knowledge, without practical application. I also think that some of our Neolithic ancestors studied these so that they could be better hunters and gatherers. But they weren't using the scientific method.
"why we should apply the scientific method to all field, even humanities, and why we should try to speak about all fields with a common language."
I agree with you on that point. We should apply the scientific method to all fields. It sounds like you are saying that Wilson is saying that if we apply the scientific method to more areas of thought, that knowledge would be more useful, and it would make our daily lives easier. I agree with that. However, that only covers one motivation to do science, or any other knowledge-gathering endeavor. Some people want to make things easier; others want to know more and understand our world. Science began as an investigation for "The Truth", not any particular practical application of The Truth, though that would be a bonus.
However, I think we should also continue to do non-scientific study of appropriate fields. I'm not talking about ESP research or stuff like that, but the field of history comes to mind. A couple of thoughts:
Generally, the scientific method has a certain presuppositions. These aren't strictly defined anywhere, and they have morphed a little throughout the centuries. But, basically, scientific investigation assumes that - the universe is governed by laws, - these laws are logical, consistent, and eternal throughout time and space, and - these laws are knowable. Furthermore, there is the 'method' part of the scientific method where you do an experiment. Typically this involves eliminated variables, a control group and an experimental group, double-blind methodology, etc. etc.
I think there are some parts of the universe that can't really be investigated or understood scientifically. One example is the past. In history, we are writing about what people did in the past ( even if you are writing about 'present' events, there is some lag between the event itself and the time of writing.) Are there historians who say that the course of human events are governed by laws? If so, what are some of those laws ( or at least one )? I've heard of the laws of physics, but I've never heard of the laws of history. If we did have a guess as to what one of those laws might be, how could we construct an experiment to test that law? We can't go back in time to see how Genghis Khan would have reacted to any change we might introduce. I've heard it said that a scientific theory can explain the past ( i.e. why was Mercury observed to be in this part of the sky 1000 years ago? ) and predict the future ( i.e. where will Mercury be on 8 PM Oct. 11th 2014? ) -- and I've certainly never heard of any serious historian claiming they could predict the future. So how would you do a scientific investigation of history?
I'm guessing Wilson has an answer, so I will get out his book. But perhaps you could put it in a nutshell for me? Perhaps Wilson is defining science so it's not the science we are typically familiar with?
"Don't get me wrong: I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect better of the telcos.
I'm just telling you why it's not going to happen..."
I have to grudgingly respect your point. I think there was a time in very recent American history ( i.e. before 9/11 ) when people would have raised a huge outcry is this story had broken. I think it was probably that way for the past 100 years. But like they kept telling us, "9/11 changed everything". I guess they were trying to hypnotize us with a mantra. It worked.
So now, you are right. After torture, extraordinary renderings, illicit war, warrantless wiretaps, FBI sneak-and-peaks, nobody is surprised that telcos are sharing information with the government. I hope someday I'll be able to return to the country that I grew up in.
"The FBI can't just willy-nilly go requesting tax records from the IRS -- they have to have a warrant to do so.
I don't suppose you'd care to offer some evidence to support this negative assertion?"
In the US, citizens have a right to privacy provided by the fourth amendment to the constitution. The government can't just enter our house, open our mail, get a copy of our medical records, or review our tax records. They have to have a reason to do so; a constitutionally valid reason. The only reason the FBI can go through your tax records is in the investigation of a crime.
Here's some evidence for you: one of the impeachment charges to be brought against Nixon was that he reviewed the tax records of his political adversaries*. He wasn't investigating any crime; he was just on a fishing expedition for stuff he could use against his opponents. As president, Nixon was in charge of the IRS, since it is an executive agency, as you say. Here's a question: if Nixon, as the head of the executive branch, wasn't allowed to go snooping through tax records, by what authority would the FBI be able to do so? The answer is only in the investigation of a crime.
"Though people often complain that this is bureaucratic waste and government inefficiency, this actually protects your rights because it is separation of powers.
Unfortunately, no. Both the FBI and the Treasury are Executive branch organizations; there's no Constitutional Separation of Powers involved."
I was very careful not to state that this was a separation of powers ordained by the constitution. All I'm saying is that bureaucratic infighting functions as a separation of powers. In other words, in the strictest sense, yes, both the FBI and the IRS are under the control of the president. If it ever went to court, there would be a decision and one party would have to take orders from the other. But in real life, the FBI doesn't get to tell the IRS what to do.
And in any case, the constitution never mentions "separation of powers", so strictly speaking, there aren't any "Constitutional Separation of Powers" at all.
* "[Nixon] has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner. From Here.
The phone companies may have a lot of interaction with the government at various levels, but that doesn't mean that the government is one big happy record-sharing institution.
The FBI can't just willy-nilly go requesting tax records from the IRS -- they have to have a warrant to do so. Neither can the IRS request your FBI file, if one exists. Government agencies, from local county registrars to Federal agencies are notorious for petty squabbles and infighting, and plain old bureaucratic machinations. Though people often complain that this is bureaucratic waste and government inefficiency, this actually protects your rights because it is separation of powers.
So I don't see why people expecting the telcos not to share personal data with the government is so unreasonable. Plenty of businesses deal with government regulation to varying degrees, either in their favor or not; that doesn't mean they have to jump when the FBI says so.
It's easier to find a job when you have one. There is some kind of psychology that happens when you are interviewed -- if you have a job, it looks like you are successful and worth having at a company. If you have no job, it looks like you are a loser. Not saying that either is true, but that's the basic idea someone gets when you are in an interview. You can convince them otherwise during the interview process, but why not start things off on the right foot?
Also, you will have to figure out how to fit work into your life from this point on. You're a long way from retirement. I don't recommend voluntarily leaving employment for non-employment. Have your next thing lined up -- go back to school, travel and do some soul-searching, take on a new job, do something other than just 'moving back home'.
Oh, and you can never go home. You won't be happy if you go back home ( especially if you're not working ). Everything has changed -- including you. You're not a child anymore, and you have to start learning how to take care of yourself. It's tough, but the more you tough it out, the quicker you will find your niche.
"philosophy has metaphysics which really gets awful close to astrology for my liking."
Metaphysics contains the philosophical foundations of modern scientific physics. In short, physics is a subset of metaphysics. The claims that "The universe is governed by law", "These laws are universal, i.e. the same everywhere, throughout time", "these laws are knowable and logical" are metaphysical claims that are part of the basis of physics. How do you feel about that?
"But some of that context used to be handled by education as well--you had to read the classics, you had to study some philosophy, you had to know history. My aero engineer friend has really never done any of that, so he's an engineer who doesn't know what "empiricism" means. Is this also a failing by our educational system? Isn't such education necessary to be a good researcher?
It goes the other way too. Ask a philosophy student to explain lift and drag and see how far you get."
Yes, but the requirements are not symmetrical. I'll bet the philosophy that deals with lift and drag is a very small part of the sum total of philosophy. In short, you can be a genuine, successful philosopher and know nothing about lift and drag.
In contrast, for a modern scientific engineer ( not, say, the mathematical-mystical engineers who build the pyramids in Egypt or Mexico), his or her whole enterprise is based on empiricism. If they don't understand empiricism, they don't understand one of the fundamentals of modern scientific engineering.
It's like complaining about a graphic designer who doesn't understand color theory, and then saying, "Yeah, but there are some Art Historians who have no idea about kerning Adobe's font library". One concept forms the basis of the area of study, while the other concept concerns a very small area.
IIRC, there was some theory that the universe goes through oscillations of crunches and bangs. I don't remember exactly what it was, nor did I understand it fully, but it was in some popular science magazine a few years ago.
For a great history of scratch, check out the documentary Scratch.
I'm been a fan of scratch technology ever since DJ Qbert made the album Wavetwisters completely from scratch, and later made the animated film Wavetwisters from scratch. Now they're making the internet from scratch technology. Which makes sense -- in my mind, scratching is basically analog computation.
"Why do doctors act like you're Satan if you ask questions based on knowledge you've gathered on the internet about your condition?"
Probably because it sounds exactly like a secretary telling that all of the spyware got into her computer when the techs upgraded her monitor.
Bodies are complex system and doctors study for a decade. We all know how silly it sounds when people who use their computers everyday try to diagnose their computer problems. Patients probably sound a million times sillier.
Yes, and the statement "Nothing is not" is also false. We can't talk about nothing without creating logical absurdities;)
You also said, "It is the absence of existence". Isn't that the same as saying "Nothing is the absence of existence", which begins with "Nothing is", which you have already claimed is false?
"Nothing is not the absence of some-thing. It is the absense [sic] of existance [sic]"
If there is existence, doesn't that imply that there is some thing, anything, which exists? Can there be existence without anything actually existing? If there can be existence without anything existing, then what is the difference between nothingness and existence?
If 'existence' means that something exists, and if nothing is the opposite of existence, then doesn't that imply that nothing then is simply the absence of some-thing?
"Nothingness and beingness (isness) are opposites."
Whatever 'opposite' means here, I guess is fine. However, nothingness and beingness are not mutually exclusive. You have already defined nothingness as the absence of existence. There is a glass here on my desk. Also, there is not an elephant on my desk. The existence of the glass on my desk and the non-existence of the elephant are simultaneous realities. Nothingness and beingness are real, without canceling each other out.
Well, I thuink you just wind up creating logical paradoxes when you try to talk about 'nothing'. Because of the way language works, whatever you talk about is automatically something, but nothing is not something... well, you get the point!
"He used the analogy that they were like bubbles in the water. Ok, where did the water come from?
This sounds a lot like... *drumroll* blind faith to me"
What do you think blind faith means? It means accepting without question. Blind, as in unseeing, not looking at the evidence.
Blind faith is if somebody on the street comes up to you and says, "This is how the universe was made: one day...", and you say "Okay", and totally believe it, without questioning the guy or his source, without looking at the evidence.
Studying physics, using the scientific method, designing experiments, submitting your research to peer-reviewed journals, constantly questioning your ideas, and constantly submitting yourself to the harsh questioning of others is hardly blind faith. There may be some faith elements in it ( such as, why does logic work? Why should the universe obey laws), but I don't see how you can seriously call it 'blind'.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't claim to know anything about aliens or their technologies. Therefore, not being in a position to judge, I will take your word for it ; )
"Nice try at a point. However the error that caused the problem in appollo 13 had already happened before the mission was even started."
So you think that whatever alien organization that backed "Project Earth" would be free from all of the problems organizations face here?
"And I am not saying in any way that we are equivalent to a race that could travel between star systems. We aren't."
How could you possibly know that? Are you and alien-contactee yourself?
" I say not that they might be better then us, only that they couldn't cover the unbelievable distances involved without knowing far more and being a lot better at not failing."
I don't see why you think interstellar travel as a project or technology would be any different than any other human project we have developed here on Earth.
Time was, about 100 years ago, very few people believed that humans could fly. It was something totally impossible, like time-travel or eternal life. It just could never happen. Turns out, it's actually not that difficult, once you know the particulars.
Certainly if aliens can do instellar travel, they must know more than us, but I don't see why they have to be 'perfect'. Instead of failing less, they just try more often? Maybe flying to Earth is more like a Tourist off-road adventure in the Serengeti than a "Put a man on the moon before the end of this decade" project? I see no reason to believe one over the other.
"Did we allow idiots to go to the moon? Or was it serious, professional pilots with years of proven track record..."
Isn't NASA manned by serious professionals? Yet NASA is not free of mistakes and accidents. Did you ever hear the story of Apollo 13?
Why would you assume that aliens are better than us in any way? They could be just like human beings, emotionally and intellectually; maybe they just had a few centuries headstart and figured out interstellar travel.
We have everyday, average joes driving cars. Perhaps interstellar travel is so common-place in other civilizations that everyday, average joes are piloting saucers, flying straight into black holes and stars, crashing into meteors and planet.
On what basis would you assume that any aliens who would be visiting us would be 'professional pilots'? Why not cow-tipping joyriders?
Well, if you've never driven a car for a serious amount of time, perhaps that's why you can't imagine someone having an accident.
There is a great difference between doing equations on paper and piloting a moving vehicle in real-time. Did you ever make a mistake in calculating your equations? On paper, you can just erase it. In real life, there is no 'rewind'.
"If these aliens evolved on a planet with an atmosphere they'd have had to work the mechanics out in order to get into orbit around their own planet. Even if an alien species could evolve in some completly different environment gravity is a fundermental universal force."
;)
If they evolved in space, say like in an interstellar dust cloud, they wouldn't need to know much about gravity. Other forces, such as electromagnetism, would have a much greater effecting in their everyday life. Because we evolved on a planet, we have a hard-wired, native understanding of gravity. Only relatively recently have we begun to understand the other fundamental forces. Perhaps for a dust-cloud being, they understand electromagnetism quite well, but gravity, not so much
"1: Any race lacking in the ability to calculate the basic math of gravitational calculations would probably never get into space in the first place."
What if they started in space, evolving in an interstellar dust could? They might have mastered 0G vacuum flight, but still have problems with landing.
And if they evolved without gravity, they may not have any intuitive ability to understand gravity, thus hampering their ability to do research into gravity phenomena, just as we have trouble understanding floating in a space station, or quantum physics. Sure, we can eventually figure out the math, but we figured out gravity first because we have a hard-wired understanding of it.
Didn't Ridley Scott simply create a trite, cheap, and weak rip-off of George Orwell's 1984? Orwell wrote what became a classic novel about fascism and society in the 20th century, and Scott made a commercial for a corporation. Scott plucked almost every element straight out of the novel.
The problem is that European regulators can't introduce competition into the marketplace by throwing out MS. There is nobody who can step up and replace them. All of the software that runs on Windows depends on Windows, and there is no competitor that runs windows software without a hitch. If the EU said, "OK Microsoft, no more sales in Europe for you!" then all of the European computer users would hate the EU for taking away their software, and there would have no replacement.
In order for siome company to create a competing OS that can actually run Windows software well enough, MS would have to release their specs. That's why the EU is playing softball -- ultimately they need MS' co-operation for there to even *be* a competitor. If MS leaves or is thrown out of the market, the users are SOL.
"You cannot provide evidence to support an assertion that "The FBI can't just willy-nilly go requesting tax records from the IRS -- they have to have a warrant to do so." (emphasis added) Substitute shouldn't and we agree, but now we're talking about the world we want, rather than the world we have."
Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean "can't legally", not "unable to do so".
"It stands to reason that science grew out of practical applications."
;) Science, and I mean modern western science, as E. O. Wilson was talking about, not just anybody's attempt to figure something out, grew out of the philosophy traditions of the Greeks. For most of the history of philosophy and science, there was little to no practical application. It was great if you could predict where Mercury would be a month from now, or when the next eclipse would occur, but that doesn't help you eat. It was great if you knew that the world was really created by God and not Gaia, but that doesn't really help you eat, either, regardless of what the worshippers of God or Gaia might tell you.
That's a reasonable theory, but it's not supported by historical fact
Now, the people who were doing philosophy were the wealthy elite, who had the time and resources to sit around and argue about the origin of the world, and didn't have to farm the fields. The scientific method that we use now, which we have found so may practical applications, came directly from this navel-gazing philosophical debate, where Aristotle was telling us that the world was made out of five elements, or that vision was a result of rays shooting out of human eyes. Meanwhile the common peasant was eking out their life in the fields without any standardized method, paying their taxes so that the local lord could send his son to the seminary, where that son learned about the epicycles of the planets and disease-causing demons. But the natural philosophy never trickled down to help the average peasant improve their everyday life. It really wasn't until the 18th and 19th century that people starting applying the scientific method to various areas of life, including manufacturing, metallurgy, and farming.
" Technology, albeit primitive and driven by trial and error, has been around almost since humans became human."
Yes, but we and E.O. Wilson are talking about is science, not trial-and-error. The scientific method is not trial-and-error, and it did not come from trial-and-error. The scientific method has recently been applied to technology in the past two centuries, to the great progress of technology. But I'm not aware of any evidence of people using the scientific method before the 18th century. Again, science is not trial-and-error.
"Do you really think our neolithic ancesters studied mechanics, climatology, geology, zoology and botany for the pure pursuit of knowledge?"
I think that some of them did. Certainly the Greeks and European philosophers, who gave rise to our modern science, were engaged in a pure pursuit of knowledge, without practical application. I also think that some of our Neolithic ancestors studied these so that they could be better hunters and gatherers. But they weren't using the scientific method.
"why we should apply the scientific method to all field, even humanities, and why we should try to speak about all fields with a common language."
I agree with you on that point. We should apply the scientific method to all fields. It sounds like you are saying that Wilson is saying that if we apply the scientific method to more areas of thought, that knowledge would be more useful, and it would make our daily lives easier. I agree with that. However, that only covers one motivation to do science, or any other knowledge-gathering endeavor. Some people want to make things easier; others want to know more and understand our world. Science began as an investigation for "The Truth", not any particular practical application of The Truth, though that would be a bonus. However, I think we should also continue to do non-scientific study of appropriate fields. I'm not talking about ESP research or stuff like that, but the field of history comes to mind. A couple of thoughts:
Generally, the scientific method has a certain presuppositions. These aren't strictly defined anywhere, and they have morphed a little throughout the centuries. But, basically, scientific investigation assumes that - the universe is governed by laws, - these laws are logical, consistent, and eternal throughout time and space, and - these laws are knowable. Furthermore, there is the 'method' part of the scientific method where you do an experiment. Typically this involves eliminated variables, a control group and an experimental group, double-blind methodology, etc. etc.
I think there are some parts of the universe that can't really be investigated or understood scientifically. One example is the past. In history, we are writing about what people did in the past ( even if you are writing about 'present' events, there is some lag between the event itself and the time of writing.) Are there historians who say that the course of human events are governed by laws? If so, what are some of those laws ( or at least one )? I've heard of the laws of physics, but I've never heard of the laws of history. If we did have a guess as to what one of those laws might be, how could we construct an experiment to test that law? We can't go back in time to see how Genghis Khan would have reacted to any change we might introduce. I've heard it said that a scientific theory can explain the past ( i.e. why was Mercury observed to be in this part of the sky 1000 years ago? ) and predict the future ( i.e. where will Mercury be on 8 PM Oct. 11th 2014? ) -- and I've certainly never heard of any serious historian claiming they could predict the future. So how would you do a scientific investigation of history?
I'm guessing Wilson has an answer, so I will get out his book. But perhaps you could put it in a nutshell for me? Perhaps Wilson is defining science so it's not the science we are typically familiar with?
"Don't get me wrong: I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect better of the telcos.
I'm just telling you why it's not going to happen..."
I have to grudgingly respect your point. I think there was a time in very recent American history ( i.e. before 9/11 ) when people would have raised a huge outcry is this story had broken. I think it was probably that way for the past 100 years. But like they kept telling us, "9/11 changed everything". I guess they were trying to hypnotize us with a mantra. It worked.
So now, you are right. After torture, extraordinary renderings, illicit war, warrantless wiretaps, FBI sneak-and-peaks, nobody is surprised that telcos are sharing information with the government. I hope someday I'll be able to return to the country that I grew up in.
"The FBI can't just willy-nilly go requesting tax records from the IRS -- they have to have a warrant to do so.
I don't suppose you'd care to offer some evidence to support this negative assertion?"
In the US, citizens have a right to privacy provided by the fourth amendment to the constitution. The government can't just enter our house, open our mail, get a copy of our medical records, or review our tax records. They have to have a reason to do so; a constitutionally valid reason. The only reason the FBI can go through your tax records is in the investigation of a crime.
Here's some evidence for you: one of the impeachment charges to be brought against Nixon was that he reviewed the tax records of his political adversaries*. He wasn't investigating any crime; he was just on a fishing expedition for stuff he could use against his opponents. As president, Nixon was in charge of the IRS, since it is an executive agency, as you say. Here's a question: if Nixon, as the head of the executive branch, wasn't allowed to go snooping through tax records, by what authority would the FBI be able to do so? The answer is only in the investigation of a crime.
"Though people often complain that this is bureaucratic waste and government inefficiency, this actually protects your rights because it is separation of powers.
Unfortunately, no. Both the FBI and the Treasury are Executive branch organizations; there's no Constitutional Separation of Powers involved."
I was very careful not to state that this was a separation of powers ordained by the constitution. All I'm saying is that bureaucratic infighting functions as a separation of powers. In other words, in the strictest sense, yes, both the FBI and the IRS are under the control of the president. If it ever went to court, there would be a decision and one party would have to take orders from the other. But in real life, the FBI doesn't get to tell the IRS what to do.
And in any case, the constitution never mentions "separation of powers", so strictly speaking, there aren't any "Constitutional Separation of Powers" at all.
* "[Nixon] has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
From Here.
The phone companies may have a lot of interaction with the government at various levels, but that doesn't mean that the government is one big happy record-sharing institution.
The FBI can't just willy-nilly go requesting tax records from the IRS -- they have to have a warrant to do so. Neither can the IRS request your FBI file, if one exists. Government agencies, from local county registrars to Federal agencies are notorious for petty squabbles and infighting, and plain old bureaucratic machinations. Though people often complain that this is bureaucratic waste and government inefficiency, this actually protects your rights because it is separation of powers.
So I don't see why people expecting the telcos not to share personal data with the government is so unreasonable. Plenty of businesses deal with government regulation to varying degrees, either in their favor or not; that doesn't mean they have to jump when the FBI says so.
It's easier to find a job when you have one. There is some kind of psychology that happens when you are interviewed -- if you have a job, it looks like you are successful and worth having at a company. If you have no job, it looks like you are a loser. Not saying that either is true, but that's the basic idea someone gets when you are in an interview. You can convince them otherwise during the interview process, but why not start things off on the right foot?
Also, you will have to figure out how to fit work into your life from this point on. You're a long way from retirement. I don't recommend voluntarily leaving employment for non-employment. Have your next thing lined up -- go back to school, travel and do some soul-searching, take on a new job, do something other than just 'moving back home'.
Oh, and you can never go home. You won't be happy if you go back home ( especially if you're not working ). Everything has changed -- including you. You're not a child anymore, and you have to start learning how to take care of yourself. It's tough, but the more you tough it out, the quicker you will find your niche.
"philosophy has metaphysics which really gets awful close to astrology for my liking."
Metaphysics contains the philosophical foundations of modern scientific physics. In short, physics is a subset of metaphysics. The claims that "The universe is governed by law", "These laws are universal, i.e. the same everywhere, throughout time", "these laws are knowable and logical" are metaphysical claims that are part of the basis of physics. How do you feel about that?
"But some of that context used to be handled by education as well--you had to read the classics, you had to study some philosophy, you had to know history. My aero engineer friend has really never done any of that, so he's an engineer who doesn't know what "empiricism" means. Is this also a failing by our educational system? Isn't such education necessary to be a good researcher?
It goes the other way too. Ask a philosophy student to explain lift and drag and see how far you get."
Yes, but the requirements are not symmetrical. I'll bet the philosophy that deals with lift and drag is a very small part of the sum total of philosophy. In short, you can be a genuine, successful philosopher and know nothing about lift and drag.
In contrast, for a modern scientific engineer ( not, say, the mathematical-mystical engineers who build the pyramids in Egypt or Mexico), his or her whole enterprise is based on empiricism. If they don't understand empiricism, they don't understand one of the fundamentals of modern scientific engineering.
It's like complaining about a graphic designer who doesn't understand color theory, and then saying, "Yeah, but there are some Art Historians who have no idea about kerning Adobe's font library". One concept forms the basis of the area of study, while the other concept concerns a very small area.
IIRC, there was some theory that the universe goes through oscillations of crunches and bangs. I don't remember exactly what it was, nor did I understand it fully, but it was in some popular science magazine a few years ago.
For a great history of scratch, check out the documentary Scratch.
I'm been a fan of scratch technology ever since DJ Qbert made the album Wavetwisters completely from scratch, and later made the animated film Wavetwisters from scratch. Now they're making the internet from scratch technology. Which makes sense -- in my mind, scratching is basically analog computation.
"Why do doctors act like you're Satan if you ask questions based on knowledge you've gathered on the internet about your condition?"
Probably because it sounds exactly like a secretary telling that all of the spyware got into her computer when the techs upgraded her monitor.
Bodies are complex system and doctors study for a decade. We all know how silly it sounds when people who use their computers everyday try to diagnose their computer problems. Patients probably sound a million times sillier.
"Ah, but you forget that this is Monsanto corn. The corporation's aura of sheer evil caused the toxicity!"
I love how this got modded +5 insightful.
Yes, and the statement "Nothing is not" is also false. We can't talk about nothing without creating logical absurdities ;)
You also said, "It is the absence of existence". Isn't that the same as saying "Nothing is the absence of existence", which begins with "Nothing is", which you have already claimed is false?
"Nothing is not the absence of some-thing. It is the absense [sic] of existance [sic]"
If there is existence, doesn't that imply that there is some thing, anything, which exists? Can there be existence without anything actually existing? If there can be existence without anything existing, then what is the difference between nothingness and existence?
If 'existence' means that something exists, and if nothing is the opposite of existence, then doesn't that imply that nothing then is simply the absence of some-thing?
"Nothingness and beingness (isness) are opposites."
Whatever 'opposite' means here, I guess is fine. However, nothingness and beingness are not mutually exclusive. You have already defined nothingness as the absence of existence. There is a glass here on my desk. Also, there is not an elephant on my desk. The existence of the glass on my desk and the non-existence of the elephant are simultaneous realities. Nothingness and beingness are real, without canceling each other out.
Well, I thuink you just wind up creating logical paradoxes when you try to talk about 'nothing'. Because of the way language works, whatever you talk about is automatically something, but nothing is not something... well, you get the point!
"He used the analogy that they were like bubbles in the water. Ok, where did the water come from?
This sounds a lot like... *drumroll* blind faith to me"
What do you think blind faith means? It means accepting without question. Blind, as in unseeing, not looking at the evidence.
Blind faith is if somebody on the street comes up to you and says, "This is how the universe was made: one day...", and you say "Okay", and totally believe it, without questioning the guy or his source, without looking at the evidence.
Studying physics, using the scientific method, designing experiments, submitting your research to peer-reviewed journals, constantly questioning your ideas, and constantly submitting yourself to the harsh questioning of others is hardly blind faith. There may be some faith elements in it ( such as, why does logic work? Why should the universe obey laws), but I don't see how you can seriously call it 'blind'.