Hey mods, what's with the Flaimbait? This sounds like +5 insightful to me. Then again, the mod probably IS in high school. Grow up and do moderation right. The man has a genuine point, even if you're too immature to see it.
I'm glad it worked for you. You must be one of the lucky people who doesn't have to deal with the slithering abomination known as "pulseaudio" that Ubuntu's devs hardwired into gnome.
9.10 has, in fact, been one of the buggier releases that Ubuntu has made. I've been using Ubuntu since 6 or 7, I think, and 9.10 has made me seriously consider going to Fedora. And I hate bloody rpm.:)
I'm sorry, Linux does indeed "just work", but only "just". I'm willing to go through the arcana - I think it's worth it. But as you get older, your time available for tinkering with BS gui issues shrinks and you wish to hell someone had done elementary QA.
So - at least one of your contentions is that this will provide less bureaucracy? You've obviously never worked for any form of civil service. There will be more bureaucracy, because you can't fire the old guys (who won't know what to do with this fancy new technology), so you'll have to hire new people. The old corps will still do what they've always done, duplicating the efforts of the electronic systems on paper.
Your emphasis on the "use of" id is also flawed - a centralized infrastructure will inevitably be used for purposes not originally envisioned. The "big deal" is preventing that infrastructure from coming into existence. Tomorrow, the Dems get booted out, the Reps come back in and decide to datamine this toy for "terrorist trends". Next thing you know, people are getting harassed and interrogated because a computer said so (you don't need evil intent - simple bugs will work just fine). Ever hear of false positives?
All of these measures are a threat to freedom, in the aggregate.
Next time, please do try to write something worth reading...possibly making a point.
Claiming a "yada-yada fail" is a wonderful meme - but you're rapidly devolving into a troll with it.
And if your original reply had anything more valuable to contribute than a "I'll be clever by latching onto the fact of generalization and not the content", followed by a statement of general ennui, I'd love to hear it. I really would.
Awww, aren't your kneejerk anti-generalizations cute too! We can have a little mutual admiration society meeting right here!
That said, the last principled social reform that I can clearly recall was that of the Gracchi brothers. Look up sometime what happened to them.
(Yes, for the record, sometimes the government manages to do the right thing - interstate highways, for instance. But someone still benefited, and not just in the hazy future. That's the real point here. And if you're claiming that self-interest and money are not a useful metric for evaluating government decisions...well, I just want to know what exactly is in that kool-aid you're drinking)
You're talking about government. The US government in particular. The day they change the law because they "realize it's stupid", pigs will fly in line abreast over the Capitol.
The only time the law changes is when there is an advantage for those in power to do so (e.g. more money, more power, avoiding a nation-wide civil revolt, etc..) The question, as always, is "qui bono"?
I think that's a fantastic gesture on their part. Yes, it's all in good fun, but look - one of Redmond's lawyer types could've gotten a hold of this, and gotten some judge to issue an injunction based on a combination of ip violation/unfair competition/market image tarnishing/some other frankly-my-dear-I-just-don't-give-a-damn excuse. Yeah, it'd never hold up, but nothing stopping them from just being dicks.
Instead, they took it in good fun, and did the human thing - exhibited humor. Yes, they're still evil, blah blah. But this has that WWI 1914 Christmas Eve soccer-game feel. So let's acknowledge it with good cheer.
This is straight out of "Little Heroes" by Norman Spinrad: a novel about a future where all music creation is controlled by Muzik Inc.. They wish to get rid of human artists who are too expensive, and replace them with APs - Artificial Personalities, synthesized entirely on machines - voice, style, video, the works. However, they are having trouble convincing people to buy this "music", since the stuff the APs produce, while conforming to the desired demographic parameters, is vapid, uninspired and boring.
One thing I've heard is that the placebo effect can actually manifest even when the subject explicitly does not believe in it. However, in such a case the efficacy is generally diminished.
Is there any actual study, however, which tested how "accessible" placebo is to atheists vs. believers? Much of the effectiveness, from what I've read, relies on the person believing that the (fake) treatment works. I don't find that strength of belief is necessarily greater for believers - after all, a convicted atheist will believe very strongly in the nonexistence of god.
Have we noticed a substantive increase in the health of the "gullible believers" who follow every quack doctor? After all, there are many quacks, they're not hurting financially...if believers have a more pronounced affinity toward placebo effectiveness (and given that many Americans are believers), have we noticed general American health improving?
You mentioned placebo becoming more pronounced in animals (according to some observers). Would you conclude that dogs are getting religion?
It's an appealing theory (believers being able to believe better), but I'm not sure we have quantitative evidence to support this. Unless there's further sourcing.
Oh, and yes. Sorry about the "Skippy" part. I got carried away on the wings of misperception (I thought you were bashing my atheist homies:) ) My fault.
Your rational points are well made. About things like limits of applicability. I was with you until you seriously suggested the possibility that an actual, real God intentionally placed a revelation scroll into the ground for Josiah to find as affirmation of his program. That's when you jumped the shark for me.
I must ask, tremulously: do you truly believe that? That such a story can be considered a rational part of an argument?
You are correct in so far as I can not claim to know for a fact that this could not have happened. It's the "anything is possible at the rainbow end of the probability curve" appeal, but fine, have at it. But are you really trying to introduce that into a discussion? In earnest? Forgive my shock - I had thought that religious rationalists, however far the term can go, would at least have some reality filters. I suppose I've yet to encounter an actual literalist argument.
I will grant that you may be making an argument, but if, indeed, you are defending such a position, then I'm afraid I'll have to insist on the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and perpetual motion. Also tolerant fundamentalists of any religion.
And as to being welcomed back into the fold...back in my Sunday school days, I read in a catechism book that "of course Christ works with everyone, but especially with Catholics". That's the day I walked out and never came back. Something similar applies here.
I fear I am too naive: all along I've thought that the religious folks were just putting one over on us, that they really were rational, human beings, and were just engaged in a drawn-out elaborate prank. Oh wait...I see what you're doing here...:)
Perhaps my use of "earnest inquiry" was unclear. To be precise - it is not the case that Protestantism welcomes a full, unreserved examination of faith, when such examination leads to its rejection. That, were the questioner to reject the faith, his ex-brothers/sisters would rejoice for him and affirm his choice. As you said, they would "pray for him". To me, that says they disagree with his choice. Perhaps they won't stone him/her to death (we hope). But the (approved) goal of the questioning is to come to a stronger faith (as you said "with open arms"), not to embrace its rejection. Were such openness really embraced, Protestantism would be one of the most liberal ideologies on the planet - yet the impression I have of the various Baptist, Episcopalian, Born-Again, etc.. variations is that they don't exactly welcome the "exit strategy".
And to be clear, the "welcomed back into the fold" referred specifically to someone who had rejected the faith, not re-found it. (Of course they welcome the stray sheep back! No one's quite as much a zealot as a repentant heretic).
Now, as to the Bible's provenance...hoo boy. Read Ecclesiastes. If the person who wrote that wasn't suffering from heatstroke, I don't know what medical criteria to use. (Ok ok, I am being hyperbolic, but read the text: you can see the Old Testament "prophet" wandering around, pointing a finger, his eyes standing out, and screaming "you're all filthy sinners! repent!")
As to Deuteronomy, I am exactly on the money. The Deuteronomy text was conveniently "found" in a cave, right around the time Josiah was carrying out his religious reforms. And wouldn't you know it - this "discovered" volume just happened to reaffirm what the good king's reforms were all about. Ain't that just convenient. Clearly, it's a divine sign! Hallelujah! (The discovery as well as the attendant discussion on heat- and hunger- induced hallucinations is detailed in Sagan's "Demon Haunted World").
Genesis. Cosmogeny, theogeny and The Fall. If modern copyright/IP law existed back in the heady days of Moses, the Bible would've been sued into oblivion by the RTAME (Religious Text Association of the Middle East) for blatantly plagiarizing such elements as light from darkness/great flood/garden of eden/fall of man/angels/the 7 fat/7 lean cow story, etc.. I doubt Moses could build a fair use case.
I could go on with the Old Testament, but I think I've made my point. Oh, and the New Testament: to quote a favorite author of mine "There is not a single middle eastern religion where a virgin did not give birth to a god". Specifically a god that comes from a line of kings, is born to a virgin, has no adolescence, does his work for 3 years, heals the sick, raises the dead, and dies on a hill, to rise again 3 days later. The kindest thing you can say about the Bible is that it is unoriginal. To say that, except a bunch of re-iterated "savior coming forth" text, the Bible justifies intolerance, genocide, murder, territorial conquest, etc., with the occasional softcore poetry thrown in for good measure would be alot closer to the mark.
When you argue for a "rational" argument on the basis of this text, or of rational people believing in it...well, I'm not sure how to categorize that except through snarky medical Latin.
Yes, Protestantism is based on questioning your faith. But somehow, you don't find many ex-Protestants-turned-atheists at revival meetings, do you? The "questioning" is not earnest inquiry: suppose you do wind up rejecting the Bible for the badly cribbed ramblings of sunstroke-addled "prophets" (and the occasional self-serving insertion such as Deuteronomy) that it really is. You're not going to be welcomed back into the fold. The truth is that the "questioning" in faith is like teenage girls going to a bar on the slightly sleazy side of town to feel like a risk-taker: technically true, but no one's actually expecting anything to happen.
If your questioning gets you to a re-affirmed belief, then you've "succeeded". If it turns you away you're an evil heretic and need to be burned. (And before anyone says anything, yes, the Protestants did burn people. For one among many examples, look up the Calvinists).
In contrast, groups of people who believe in some unseen being that helps them, won't need another person to actually give them the "sugar pill", they can more often self-administer it. This can help the survival of their group.
So...you're saying Fox "News" can stop its broadcasting? Its target audience is already rather "self-administering", don't you think?
There may be advantages? Some claim? We'll see? Seriously, you just appeared to defend mass delusion by saying that it has beneficial applications in regard to placebo? (I used "defend" because your last paragraph is full of disclaimers with respect to atheism while no such qualifications appear in regard to religion). Basically, if you're used to lying to yourself, you're better at doing it. Brilliant!
Let me save you some time there, Skippy. We've got that society right here. Now, all we need to answer is this: assuming for the sake of argument, that placebo effect is less pronounced in atheists (I, for one, think that's crap), we have to consider the question: is occasional effectiveness of the placebo effect, which, at most, will affect approx. 1/3 of the people over a range of certain diseases worth the general damage that religion does to a modern, scientific society. E.g. the uncritical credulity, the anti-intelligence bias, the anti-geek hostility, the criticism of science as being "too rational", the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, the Senate's membership, the Congressional membership, Fox News, Oprah, and "the ice capades". You know, Bill O'Reilly's audience, that lowest common denominator with whom our society's leadership purports to identify by calling them "real Americans".
Dystopias are not typically aimed as "brilliant insights": they are a cautionary exploration of what certain uncorrected trends may yield. A speculative reductio ad absurdum.
Also, "real history" demonstrates that while humans, on average, get smarter, the witch-hunting/burning traditions of our ancestors are alive and well today. Perhaps less with the bone-breaking and the other refinements, but certainly the mental delusions are still there.
The advance of skeptical, critical thinking is very slow, is almost everywhere opposed by well-intentioned moralists harking for a never-extant halcyon age. So no, I don't believe cautionary dystopias are excessive or unnecessary. Some may even be brilliant. No one's running around screaming "the sky is falling". Just that you consider the tale and its implications.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey mods, what's with the Flaimbait? This sounds like +5 insightful to me. Then again, the mod probably IS in high school. Grow up and do moderation right. The man has a genuine point, even if you're too immature to see it.
...Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
I'm glad it worked for you. You must be one of the lucky people who doesn't have to deal with the slithering abomination known as "pulseaudio" that Ubuntu's devs hardwired into gnome.
9.10 has, in fact, been one of the buggier releases that Ubuntu has made. I've been using Ubuntu since 6 or 7, I think, and 9.10 has made me seriously consider going to Fedora. And I hate bloody rpm. :)
I'm sorry, Linux does indeed "just work", but only "just". I'm willing to go through the arcana - I think it's worth it. But as you get older, your time available for tinkering with BS gui issues shrinks and you wish to hell someone had done elementary QA.
So - at least one of your contentions is that this will provide less bureaucracy? You've obviously never worked for any form of civil service. There will be more bureaucracy, because you can't fire the old guys (who won't know what to do with this fancy new technology), so you'll have to hire new people. The old corps will still do what they've always done, duplicating the efforts of the electronic systems on paper.
Your emphasis on the "use of" id is also flawed - a centralized infrastructure will inevitably be used for purposes not originally envisioned. The "big deal" is preventing that infrastructure from coming into existence. Tomorrow, the Dems get booted out, the Reps come back in and decide to datamine this toy for "terrorist trends". Next thing you know, people are getting harassed and interrogated because a computer said so (you don't need evil intent - simple bugs will work just fine). Ever hear of false positives?
All of these measures are a threat to freedom, in the aggregate.
Agreed :)
Next time, please do try to write something worth reading...possibly making a point.
Claiming a "yada-yada fail" is a wonderful meme - but you're rapidly devolving into a troll with it.
And if your original reply had anything more valuable to contribute than a "I'll be clever by latching onto the fact of generalization and not the content", followed by a statement of general ennui, I'd love to hear it. I really would.
Awww, aren't your kneejerk anti-generalizations cute too! We can have a little mutual admiration society meeting right here!
That said, the last principled social reform that I can clearly recall was that of the Gracchi brothers. Look up sometime what happened to them.
(Yes, for the record, sometimes the government manages to do the right thing - interstate highways, for instance. But someone still benefited, and not just in the hazy future. That's the real point here. And if you're claiming that self-interest and money are not a useful metric for evaluating government decisions...well, I just want to know what exactly is in that kool-aid you're drinking)
Oh, and she won't have sex with you either.
You're talking about government. The US government in particular. The day they change the law because they "realize it's stupid", pigs will fly in line abreast over the Capitol.
The only time the law changes is when there is an advantage for those in power to do so (e.g. more money, more power, avoiding a nation-wide civil revolt, etc..) The question, as always, is "qui bono"?
I suppose they really did start the fire.
I think that's a fantastic gesture on their part. Yes, it's all in good fun, but look - one of Redmond's lawyer types could've gotten a hold of this, and gotten some judge to issue an injunction based on a combination of ip violation/unfair competition/market image tarnishing/some other frankly-my-dear-I-just-don't-give-a-damn excuse. Yeah, it'd never hold up, but nothing stopping them from just being dicks.
Instead, they took it in good fun, and did the human thing - exhibited humor. Yes, they're still evil, blah blah. But this has that WWI 1914 Christmas Eve soccer-game feel. So let's acknowledge it with good cheer.
I think the shells were already sufficiently "petrified"...
F1RST SKR4TCH!
The pink one says "ZOMG, Z3BR4Z!"
The book was written in 1989. He may have been ahead of his time :)
This is straight out of "Little Heroes" by Norman Spinrad: a novel about a future where all music creation is controlled by Muzik Inc.. They wish to get rid of human artists who are too expensive, and replace them with APs - Artificial Personalities, synthesized entirely on machines - voice, style, video, the works. However, they are having trouble convincing people to buy this "music", since the stuff the APs produce, while conforming to the desired demographic parameters, is vapid, uninspired and boring.
+1 Insightful
No worries, it was well done :)
One thing I've heard is that the placebo effect can actually manifest even when the subject explicitly does not believe in it. However, in such a case the efficacy is generally diminished.
You're right about the access - I did misread it.
Is there any actual study, however, which tested how "accessible" placebo is to atheists vs. believers? Much of the effectiveness, from what I've read, relies on the person believing that the (fake) treatment works. I don't find that strength of belief is necessarily greater for believers - after all, a convicted atheist will believe very strongly in the nonexistence of god.
Have we noticed a substantive increase in the health of the "gullible believers" who follow every quack doctor? After all, there are many quacks, they're not hurting financially...if believers have a more pronounced affinity toward placebo effectiveness (and given that many Americans are believers), have we noticed general American health improving?
You mentioned placebo becoming more pronounced in animals (according to some observers). Would you conclude that dogs are getting religion?
It's an appealing theory (believers being able to believe better), but I'm not sure we have quantitative evidence to support this. Unless there's further sourcing.
Oh, and yes. Sorry about the "Skippy" part. I got carried away on the wings of misperception (I thought you were bashing my atheist homies :) ) My fault.
Your rational points are well made. About things like limits of applicability. I was with you until you seriously suggested the possibility that an actual, real God intentionally placed a revelation scroll into the ground for Josiah to find as affirmation of his program. That's when you jumped the shark for me.
I must ask, tremulously: do you truly believe that? That such a story can be considered a rational part of an argument?
You are correct in so far as I can not claim to know for a fact that this could not have happened. It's the "anything is possible at the rainbow end of the probability curve" appeal, but fine, have at it. But are you really trying to introduce that into a discussion? In earnest? Forgive my shock - I had thought that religious rationalists, however far the term can go, would at least have some reality filters. I suppose I've yet to encounter an actual literalist argument.
I will grant that you may be making an argument, but if, indeed, you are defending such a position, then I'm afraid I'll have to insist on the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and perpetual motion. Also tolerant fundamentalists of any religion.
And as to being welcomed back into the fold...back in my Sunday school days, I read in a catechism book that "of course Christ works with everyone, but especially with Catholics". That's the day I walked out and never came back. Something similar applies here.
I fear I am too naive: all along I've thought that the religious folks were just putting one over on us, that they really were rational, human beings, and were just engaged in a drawn-out elaborate prank. Oh wait...I see what you're doing here... :)
You thought it went away forever. That they would never come back.
You Were Wrong.
I Still Know Whom You Sued Last Summer.
Coming in 2010 to a courtroom near You.
Perhaps my use of "earnest inquiry" was unclear. To be precise - it is not the case that Protestantism welcomes a full, unreserved examination of faith, when such examination leads to its rejection. That, were the questioner to reject the faith, his ex-brothers/sisters would rejoice for him and affirm his choice. As you said, they would "pray for him". To me, that says they disagree with his choice. Perhaps they won't stone him/her to death (we hope). But the (approved) goal of the questioning is to come to a stronger faith (as you said "with open arms"), not to embrace its rejection. Were such openness really embraced, Protestantism would be one of the most liberal ideologies on the planet - yet the impression I have of the various Baptist, Episcopalian, Born-Again, etc.. variations is that they don't exactly welcome the "exit strategy".
And to be clear, the "welcomed back into the fold" referred specifically to someone who had rejected the faith, not re-found it. (Of course they welcome the stray sheep back! No one's quite as much a zealot as a repentant heretic).
Now, as to the Bible's provenance...hoo boy.
Read Ecclesiastes. If the person who wrote that wasn't suffering from heatstroke, I don't know what medical criteria to use. (Ok ok, I am being hyperbolic, but read the text: you can see the Old Testament "prophet" wandering around, pointing a finger, his eyes standing out, and screaming "you're all filthy sinners! repent!")
As to Deuteronomy, I am exactly on the money. The Deuteronomy text was conveniently "found" in a cave, right around the time Josiah was carrying out his religious reforms. And wouldn't you know it - this "discovered" volume just happened to reaffirm what the good king's reforms were all about. Ain't that just convenient. Clearly, it's a divine sign! Hallelujah! (The discovery as well as the attendant discussion on heat- and hunger- induced hallucinations is detailed in Sagan's "Demon Haunted World").
Genesis. Cosmogeny, theogeny and The Fall. If modern copyright/IP law existed back in the heady days of Moses, the Bible would've been sued into oblivion by the RTAME (Religious Text Association of the Middle East) for blatantly plagiarizing such elements as light from darkness/great flood/garden of eden/fall of man/angels/the 7 fat/7 lean cow story, etc.. I doubt Moses could build a fair use case.
I could go on with the Old Testament, but I think I've made my point. Oh, and the New Testament: to quote a favorite author of mine "There is not a single middle eastern religion where a virgin did not give birth to a god". Specifically a god that comes from a line of kings, is born to a virgin, has no adolescence, does his work for 3 years, heals the sick, raises the dead, and dies on a hill, to rise again 3 days later. The kindest thing you can say about the Bible is that it is unoriginal. To say that, except a bunch of re-iterated "savior coming forth" text, the Bible justifies intolerance, genocide, murder, territorial conquest, etc., with the occasional softcore poetry thrown in for good measure would be alot closer to the mark.
When you argue for a "rational" argument on the basis of this text, or of rational people believing in it...well, I'm not sure how to categorize that except through snarky medical Latin.
So lose? I think not. Your move :)
Well...yes and no...
Yes, Protestantism is based on questioning your faith. But somehow, you don't find many ex-Protestants-turned-atheists at revival meetings, do you? The "questioning" is not earnest inquiry: suppose you do wind up rejecting the Bible for the badly cribbed ramblings of sunstroke-addled "prophets" (and the occasional self-serving insertion such as Deuteronomy) that it really is. You're not going to be welcomed back into the fold. The truth is that the "questioning" in faith is like teenage girls going to a bar on the slightly sleazy side of town to feel like a risk-taker: technically true, but no one's actually expecting anything to happen.
If your questioning gets you to a re-affirmed belief, then you've "succeeded". If it turns you away you're an evil heretic and need to be burned. (And before anyone says anything, yes, the Protestants did burn people. For one among many examples, look up the Calvinists).
So no, his claim is correct.
While there are indeed some who do, I earnestly hope that in the preponderance of such cases, there are misplaced <irony> or <sarcasm> tags missing :)
In contrast, groups of people who believe in some unseen being that helps them, won't need another person to actually give them the "sugar pill", they can more often self-administer it. This can help the survival of their group.
So...you're saying Fox "News" can stop its broadcasting? Its target audience is already rather "self-administering", don't you think?
There may be advantages? Some claim? We'll see?
Seriously, you just appeared to defend mass delusion by saying that it has beneficial applications in regard to placebo? (I used "defend" because your last paragraph is full of disclaimers with respect to atheism while no such qualifications appear in regard to religion). Basically, if you're used to lying to yourself, you're better at doing it. Brilliant!
Let me save you some time there, Skippy. We've got that society right here. Now, all we need to answer is this: assuming for the sake of argument, that placebo effect is less pronounced in atheists (I, for one, think that's crap), we have to consider the question: is occasional effectiveness of the placebo effect, which, at most, will affect approx. 1/3 of the people over a range of certain diseases worth the general damage that religion does to a modern, scientific society. E.g. the uncritical credulity, the anti-intelligence bias, the anti-geek hostility, the criticism of science as being "too rational", the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, the Senate's membership, the Congressional membership, Fox News, Oprah, and "the ice capades". You know, Bill O'Reilly's audience, that lowest common denominator with whom our society's leadership purports to identify by calling them "real Americans".
So, is it worth it?
Dystopias are not typically aimed as "brilliant insights": they are a cautionary exploration of what certain uncorrected trends may yield. A speculative reductio ad absurdum.
Also, "real history" demonstrates that while humans, on average, get smarter, the witch-hunting/burning traditions of our ancestors are alive and well today. Perhaps less with the bone-breaking and the other refinements, but certainly the mental delusions are still there.
The advance of skeptical, critical thinking is very slow, is almost everywhere opposed by well-intentioned moralists harking for a never-extant halcyon age. So no, I don't believe cautionary dystopias are excessive or unnecessary. Some may even be brilliant. No one's running around screaming "the sky is falling". Just that you consider the tale and its implications.
To find bad shit in the US you can just look at now, why bother going back :)