Yeah, my web host actually sold on the admin email I gave them to spammers. Thing is it was a unique address traceable to them. Wonder how much they were paid and by whom. They're quite a big outfit too.
Can't name them as still migrating one account away.
false dichotomy...your 'either...or' is invalid. First, providing security IS good customer service...
Yeah but how many of the customers perceive it in this manner? It's about general customer perception. If having to be ID-ed on entry or having to use passcodes all the time is tiresome for customers then they perceive poor service.
The best way to provide a secure environment is to first have educated, savvy personnel at all levels.
And create a service that no-one wants to invest in. Security costs money. Provided the balance between the security and cost of lapses is balanced for investors banks won't care less. We aren't their customers - we're the cattle, the investors are the butchers.
[...] all of the competing browsers currently on the market do what I ask them to. Yes, this includes IE7. Microsoft has vastly improved their browser and I applaud them for it.
I think you'll find that most websites still include hacks to get IE7 to do what Firefox, Opera or Safari will do with valid [X]HTML+CSS[+Javascript].
I could be wrong but in this case your browser doesn't "do what I ask of them" for you, one of them requires the web designer to add hacks.
Sure, there are a lot less of them now, but still a couple required.
Occam's razor does not bring you closer to the truth though it may ease falsification
Fact: my son J has spaghetti around his mouth Hypotheses: 1) he was eating spaghetti 2) his friend was eating spaghetti and smeared it on J's mouth
1 is the simply answer. 2 is the truth. There are some simple tests that can be performed to establish the truth. The friend would become an unnecessary factor only upon establishing the truth of (1) or the falsehood of (2).
The trouble with your use is that you must define when it is unnecessary to introduce new factors. If you can somehow prove that creation of spacetime/ex nihilo/ can be performed without a deity then you have shown that a deity is an unnecessary factor.
But that is the proof you are attempting to avoid and you end up where you started.
And, exactly how is using this service going to facilitate such fair-use action?
Sorry, it was merely a response to the wider assertion that any copying by anyone other than the copyright holder is infringing.
I can see one use of P2P systems (this is just a different way of encoding files on a P2P system from what I've seen) that is within the spirit (if not the letter of the law). Download of alternate formats by a holder of one format of a work - eg download a mp4 of a video for which you have the DVD. Sure you could do your own transcoding but why waste the energy and time when you can download it instead and get the same bits.
It seems when format shifting is allowed that the transcoding is legal if you own one encoding of a work and yet downloading an exact binary copy is still illegal.
But you're right - the intention is probably to facilitate illegal and tortuous activities.
If one does not have the right to make the copy, said right being reserved by law to the owner of the copy right, one has broke copy right law.
The right to copy a work is not the exclusive reserve of the copyright holder. There are some exceptions (and of course copyright monopolies are _supposed_ to expire) - eg in the US I gather you can make a backup or format shift, in the UK we can make a copy of a TV broadcast for timeshifting (provided we immediately delete it when we've watched it!). For books I gather government are allowed to keep a copy in a library (this may be contractual rather than actually embodied in the law, not sure).
Copies for accessibility purposes are also allowed by law.
Question, what's the speed of light in a vacuum, is it constant? Please prove.
"But beyond that everything stands or falls on the basis of evidence."
Gödel's incompleteness theories beg to differ. A standard formulation of the 2nd incompleteness theorem:
"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent."
Gödel's first states (loosely) that in any sufficiently strong first order logic that there will always be a truth which cannot be proven from the axioms of the system.
Hawking's rendering (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/) of the application of Gödel to physics is eminently readable. Hint: he disagrees with your statement on discourse in natural sciences. But he could be wrong, I guess?
Aside: As a 16 year old I naively told a professor of mathematics that I liked maths because of the certainties, that everything could be worked out from basic assumptions. She laughed and told me I was wrong. I wish she'd told me about Gödel then.
Religion is a ritualised observance followed by a group based on the beliefs of the members of that group. I genuinely can't see anything in _religion_ to philosophise about. The groups beliefs, yes, but not the ritual outward signs that are born out of those beliefs.
As for Euthyphro, it's not really a work I've studied in depth. From what I can establish Plato reports Socrates is attempting to determine the nature of the respect (piety) required of the greek peoples for the pantheon. This is a question about being obedient to a social system in order to avoid the legal consequence. It's entirely a question of social artifice - hence my claim that this is sociology. Just because it's attributed to plato doesn't mean it's philosophy (in the narrow academic sense as opposed to the literal sense of philo+sophia), cf The Republic.
"bad cooking, bad building, bad science [...] philosophy" - in the manner used here these all refer to activities. You can perform an activity badly. An idea has no innate value judgement, it's how you use that idea that establishes it's value. Truth and falsehood are not bad and good.
"inner beliefs" - inner here refers to the central position of the beliefs within the persons life. It's a term of common parlance.
The jungian point was (a slight shot in the dark) because my research showed that the P referred several times in forum posts to Jung.
Anyway, they were genuine questions - whilst I studied logic and metaphysics, philosophy of human nature &c. I don't recall the term "philosophy of religion" ever being used. I don't find religious activities that interesting in themselves, theology and metaphysics do interest me. Studying religion seems tantamount to studying a wrapper to establish what the food it contains tastes like - it might give some indications, but it equally may not.
If the GP (or yourself) have proof that ID is wrong, then it's falsifiable - hence scientific (I follow Popper here). So, if you continute your line of argument you can show either it's a false scientific theory or it may be true. Which is it?
Ha, so what you're saying is you don't find any dichotomy between claiming I lack intelligence and countering a statement of belief with an ad-hominem attack, a pretty baseless one at that. Your standards for proof must be exceptional.
Perhaps you should lay of the whisky before posting?
Science couldn't defend itself when the early Christian church burned the Library of Alexandria to the ground and killed the last living people who could read Egyptian heiroglyphics.
The Christians were allowed to run amok and brought down the advanced Greco-Roman culture into the Dark Ages.
I think you mean that people in positions of power abused the faith of the uneducated masses to wield further power and influence. Whether those people were Christians is a matter that can't readily be established - what can be determined is that they didn't follow Christ's example.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
This was pretty much my opinion. Except I termed it "God is your copout answer for everything you can't find a proper answer for". Within months I became a Christian.
It's not very good philosophy, though. In fact, it's really bad philosophy, but you need to know the mistakes of the past to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Which is why it is taught in the classroom.
Assuming the antecedent is Intelligent Design, I'd like to hear a summary of your logical process (assuming you ascribe to a standard logic) highlighting anything you believe is axiomatic.
Your ascribing a value to an idea, per se, is intriguing to. Ideas can have many outworkings - the idea of trapping your nuts in a vice doesn't actually hurt, it merely allows you to speculate that it hurts and to avoid acting out the idea.
I've never heard of a philosophy of religion class (but I've never been to Tulsa). Theology, yes. But surely study of the machinations of religion is sociology as religion is the process by which groups act out their shared inner beliefs. Strange that that should comprise near to 100% of a computer science/philosophy students time? Jung-ian psychology doesn't appear to fit under phil.rel. either.
For now it shant be a problem especially if the new names are expected to cost over $100,000. So there's no problem if only the major capitalist players can afford to get in on the action. Who should have the TLD.eco? Greenpeace or some other environmental charity - they won't be able to afford it... Exxon, Shell, BP, Texaco - that's going to be a great little platform for FUD.
[...] discusses a sane way to handle a TLD free-for-all [...] ICANN will likely opt for the profitable way not the sane way if the general consensus on/. about ICANN's greed is at all accurate.[...] If they allow a free for all then domain "hijackers" won't be able to ransom the domains to associated companies. The hijacking market will bomb (except for that established for the current TLDs) no company will be able to buy _all_ the domain.tld's possible.
No, ICANN will keep a tight control releasing only a few every year to ensure that they, and the scammers they are co-depend on, maximise their profits.
ICANN really do have a license to print money here, who can stop them?
[...] a few popular sites that use "unusual" TLDs like last.fm, del.icio.us and blip.tv and it never struck me as a problem. Those aren't unusual TLDs they're entirely generic and fit in the system of geographic TLDs.
Basically they are going to screw up the system to allow anything that makes more money for the ICANN executives. No?
There's still hope I think. If the major search engines chose to give a negative weighting to these new TLDs then ICANN wouldn't be able to screw quite so much out of the entire globes businesses - businesses can't afford to not control the website at theirdomain.tld, especially if there's a chance it can rank higher than theirdomain.com (eg if hte TLD is a keyword for that business).
I wonder how they're going to open bidding and how I can pounce ".sex", ".money", etc.. Presumably they'll auction it as that's the most evil way to maximise their profits.
If ICANN are going to follow this route then they could just go the whole hogg and allow alpha string with spaces as delimiters. Oh but I'm forgetting, artificial scarcity inflates the price for them.... capitalist pigs.
As Ben Franklin said: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." The 2nd amendment is intended to protect the sheep. If the wolves have the right to carry weapons, how does that protect the sheep? If you instead de-clawed and de-fanged the wolves or alternatively physically segragated them, wouldn't those be the sort of measures that could protect the sheep?
Kama Sutra is not porn. It is a manual. Calling the Kama Sutra porn is like calling Dr Ruth a hooker! Just because something was created with one intention, doesn't mean it can't be used with another. If it's used as pornography, then it is.
Personally I'd imagine that the Kama Sutra[of Vatsyayana] was written both to titillate and inform.
I do find it weird that they'd be building these out in the Ocean so that people can't see them. They're not unsightly, and the increased initial cost and access costs for maintenance seems counter productive. Ah well. It's a step in the right direction anyways. I think that such wind turbines look rather majestic, but then I like pylons too.
One reason to site of shore, land costs; second, failed blades are less likely to cut people in half.
And if there is a 1-hours downtime, EVER, you just blew through the scheduled downtime for the next 120 years. Nah, you include some extra clause that obscurely says not counting scheduled downtime. Then add another few clauses that enable scheduling of downtime to be retrospective... et viola!
...eventually you have to stop using Geocities. Ha!
I've had my hotmail account since what about 1996, GeoCities too. Geocities was my first shot at web pages on the WWW (previously only on intranet). Curiously the most recent permutations of those pages still exist! Apparently I moved to CSS in 2001.
Can't imagine who looks at those pages now, but Yahoo is paying for the server. The stats package moved from NedStat to someone I never even heard of, wonder if I can still find a login?
I've just had a snoop around GeoCities and can date the early content to 1996 at least (teasing my flatmate about liking the Spice Girls!).
My father. I was planning to update his laptop with FF3 when he comes back from his annual trip to Alaska, but he's been using Hotmail for his email for quite a while and it would be a real hassle to get him to change it. He's 80 years old and doesn't like to change things.
That's fine then because the "classic" Hotmail still works fine it's the new and improved (changed) version that doesn't work with FF3.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, my web host actually sold on the admin email I gave them to spammers. Thing is it was a unique address traceable to them. Wonder how much they were paid and by whom. They're quite a big outfit too.
Can't name them as still migrating one account away.
They pay to send it to me, and they pay to get it all back from me.
Don't forget to tape the reply envelope to a brick before you mail it back.
false dichotomy...your 'either...or' is invalid. First, providing security IS good customer service...
Yeah but how many of the customers perceive it in this manner? It's about general customer perception. If having to be ID-ed on entry or having to use passcodes all the time is tiresome for customers then they perceive poor service.
The best way to provide a secure environment is to first have educated, savvy personnel at all levels.
And create a service that no-one wants to invest in. Security costs money. Provided the balance between the security and cost of lapses is balanced for investors banks won't care less. We aren't their customers - we're the cattle, the investors are the butchers.
[...] all of the competing browsers currently on the market do what I ask them to. Yes, this includes IE7. Microsoft has vastly improved their browser and I applaud them for it.
I think you'll find that most websites still include hacks to get IE7 to do what Firefox, Opera or Safari will do with valid [X]HTML+CSS[+Javascript].
I could be wrong but in this case your browser doesn't "do what I ask of them" for you, one of them requires the web designer to add hacks.
Sure, there are a lot less of them now, but still a couple required.
Occam's razor does not bring you closer to the truth though it may ease falsification
Fact: my son J has spaghetti around his mouth
Hypotheses:
1) he was eating spaghetti
2) his friend was eating spaghetti and smeared it on J's mouth
1 is the simply answer. 2 is the truth. There are some simple tests that can be performed to establish the truth. The friend would become an unnecessary factor only upon establishing the truth of (1) or the falsehood of (2).
The trouble with your use is that you must define when it is unnecessary to introduce new factors. If you can somehow prove that creation of spacetime /ex nihilo/ can be performed without a deity then you have shown that a deity is an unnecessary factor.
But that is the proof you are attempting to avoid and you end up where you started.
And, exactly how is using this service going to facilitate such fair-use action?
Sorry, it was merely a response to the wider assertion that any copying by anyone other than the copyright holder is infringing.
I can see one use of P2P systems (this is just a different way of encoding files on a P2P system from what I've seen) that is within the spirit (if not the letter of the law). Download of alternate formats by a holder of one format of a work - eg download a mp4 of a video for which you have the DVD. Sure you could do your own transcoding but why waste the energy and time when you can download it instead and get the same bits.
It seems when format shifting is allowed that the transcoding is legal if you own one encoding of a work and yet downloading an exact binary copy is still illegal.
But you're right - the intention is probably to facilitate illegal and tortuous activities.
If one does not have the right to make the copy, said right being reserved by law to the owner of the copy right, one has broke copy right law.
The right to copy a work is not the exclusive reserve of the copyright holder. There are some exceptions (and of course copyright monopolies are _supposed_ to expire) - eg in the US I gather you can make a backup or format shift, in the UK we can make a copy of a TV broadcast for timeshifting (provided we immediately delete it when we've watched it!). For books I gather government are allowed to keep a copy in a library (this may be contractual rather than actually embodied in the law, not sure).
Copies for accessibility purposes are also allowed by law.
Curiously enough things like this are exactly why "conspiracy to commit" crimes exist.
I thought copyright infringement was a tort, not a crime per se., no IANAL.
Question, what's the speed of light in a vacuum, is it constant? Please prove.
"But beyond that everything stands or falls on the basis of evidence."
Gödel's incompleteness theories beg to differ. A standard formulation of the 2nd incompleteness theorem:
"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent."
Gödel's first states (loosely) that in any sufficiently strong first order logic that there will always be a truth which cannot be proven from the axioms of the system.
Hawking's rendering (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/) of the application of Gödel to physics is eminently readable. Hint: he disagrees with your statement on discourse in natural sciences. But he could be wrong, I guess?
Aside: As a 16 year old I naively told a professor of mathematics that I liked maths because of the certainties, that everything could be worked out from basic assumptions. She laughed and told me I was wrong. I wish she'd told me about Gödel then.
Religion is a ritualised observance followed by a group based on the beliefs of the members of that group. I genuinely can't see anything in _religion_ to philosophise about. The groups beliefs, yes, but not the ritual outward signs that are born out of those beliefs.
As for Euthyphro, it's not really a work I've studied in depth. From what I can establish Plato reports Socrates is attempting to determine the nature of the respect (piety) required of the greek peoples for the pantheon. This is a question about being obedient to a social system in order to avoid the legal consequence. It's entirely a question of social artifice - hence my claim that this is sociology. Just because it's attributed to plato doesn't mean it's philosophy (in the narrow academic sense as opposed to the literal sense of philo+sophia), cf The Republic.
"bad cooking, bad building, bad science [...] philosophy" - in the manner used here these all refer to activities. You can perform an activity badly. An idea has no innate value judgement, it's how you use that idea that establishes it's value. Truth and falsehood are not bad and good.
"inner beliefs" - inner here refers to the central position of the beliefs within the persons life. It's a term of common parlance.
The jungian point was (a slight shot in the dark) because my research showed that the P referred several times in forum posts to Jung.
Anyway, they were genuine questions - whilst I studied logic and metaphysics, philosophy of human nature &c. I don't recall the term "philosophy of religion" ever being used. I don't find religious activities that interesting in themselves, theology and metaphysics do interest me. Studying religion seems tantamount to studying a wrapper to establish what the food it contains tastes like - it might give some indications, but it equally may not.
If the GP (or yourself) have proof that ID is wrong, then it's falsifiable - hence scientific (I follow Popper here). So, if you continute your line of argument you can show either it's a false scientific theory or it may be true. Which is it?
I should lay off the typo's too!
Ha, so what you're saying is you don't find any dichotomy between claiming I lack intelligence and countering a statement of belief with an ad-hominem attack, a pretty baseless one at that. Your standards for proof must be exceptional.
Perhaps you should lay of the whisky before posting?
Science couldn't defend itself when the early Christian church burned the Library of Alexandria to the ground and killed the last living people who could read Egyptian heiroglyphics.
Got a citation for that assertion?
[cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_alexandria%5D
The Christians were allowed to run amok and brought down the advanced Greco-Roman culture into the Dark Ages.
I think you mean that people in positions of power abused the faith of the uneducated masses to wield further power and influence. Whether those people were Christians is a matter that can't readily be established - what can be determined is that they didn't follow Christ's example.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
This was pretty much my opinion. Except I termed it "God is your copout answer for everything you can't find a proper answer for". Within months I became a Christian.
Careful!
And this is precisely why it isn't science. Creationism says "God did it" without any way to test it.
Ever heard of an axiom? It's the basis of all logic, mathematics and scientific discourse. This is an axiom, it's objectively untestable.
It's not very good philosophy, though. In fact, it's really bad philosophy, but you need to know the mistakes of the past to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Which is why it is taught in the classroom.
Assuming the antecedent is Intelligent Design, I'd like to hear a summary of your logical process (assuming you ascribe to a standard logic) highlighting anything you believe is axiomatic.
Your ascribing a value to an idea, per se, is intriguing to. Ideas can have many outworkings - the idea of trapping your nuts in a vice doesn't actually hurt, it merely allows you to speculate that it hurts and to avoid acting out the idea.
I've never heard of a philosophy of religion class (but I've never been to Tulsa). Theology, yes. But surely study of the machinations of religion is sociology as religion is the process by which groups act out their shared inner beliefs. Strange that that should comprise near to 100% of a computer science/philosophy students time? Jung-ian psychology doesn't appear to fit under phil.rel. either.
No, ICANN will keep a tight control releasing only a few every year to ensure that they, and the scammers they are co-depend on, maximise their profits.
ICANN really do have a license to print money here, who can stop them?
Basically they are going to screw up the system to allow anything that makes more money for the ICANN executives. No?
There's still hope I think. If the major search engines chose to give a negative weighting to these new TLDs then ICANN wouldn't be able to screw quite so much out of the entire globes businesses - businesses can't afford to not control the website at theirdomain.tld, especially if there's a chance it can rank higher than theirdomain.com (eg if hte TLD is a keyword for that business).
I wonder how they're going to open bidding and how I can pounce ".sex", ".money", etc.. Presumably they'll auction it as that's the most evil way to maximise their profits.
If ICANN are going to follow this route then they could just go the whole hogg and allow alpha string with spaces as delimiters. Oh but I'm forgetting, artificial scarcity inflates the price for them .... capitalist pigs.
Personally I'd imagine that the Kama Sutra[of Vatsyayana] was written both to titillate and inform.
One reason to site of shore, land costs; second, failed blades are less likely to cut people in half.
...eventually you have to stop using Geocities. Ha!I've had my hotmail account since what about 1996, GeoCities too. Geocities was my first shot at web pages on the WWW (previously only on intranet). Curiously the most recent permutations of those pages still exist! Apparently I moved to CSS in 2001.
Can't imagine who looks at those pages now, but Yahoo is paying for the server. The stats package moved from NedStat to someone I never even heard of, wonder if I can still find a login?
I've just had a snoop around GeoCities and can date the early content to 1996 at least (teasing my flatmate about liking the Spice Girls!).
My father. I was planning to update his laptop with FF3 when he comes back from his annual trip to Alaska, but he's been using Hotmail for his email for quite a while and it would be a real hassle to get him to change it. He's 80 years old and doesn't like to change things.
That's fine then because the "classic" Hotmail still works fine it's the new and improved (changed) version that doesn't work with FF3.Install away.