After all, if all Truth is relative, then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth.
That's exactly the right question. Once you acknowledge the arbitrariness of various views, you can ask yourself this question and quickly come to the conclusion that single-mindedly choosing one (especially an easy, comfortable, convenient one) is morally bankrupt. It's very important in human moral development to get into the space where you can make that judgment.
It seems to me that you weren't comfortable with making that judgment, so you decided revert to a more comfortable zone, appealing to ancient authority. Boo.
Absolute truth exists, but is of remarkably limited utility.
There is a fundamental difference between entities who acquired the power to control the scope of your life through use of guns and entities who have done so through economic power. That doesn't make it suck less.
"I'm a Libertarian, and I lost the game fair and square, possibly before I was even born, so I'm just going to stick my torso in this barrel, take it up the ass, and call it freedom. WHOO!"
I've seen such thanklessness quite often. A relative of mine gave birth to an infant with a serious congenital heart defect. Many members of the church took several hours out of their week to hold prayerful vigils. That's a tremendous expenditure of effort. But do you think one of them bothered to write a thank you note to the surgeon who performed heroic surgery? Relatedly, do you think any one of those die-hard conservatives praised the government policies that gave my relative additional coverage for the operation?
These failings are understandable. On a very fundamental level, people need to feel a measure of control. Prayer gives that to people on the cheap. Acknowledging the relevancy of the secular actors involved takes that sense of control away; it's emotionally crippling. On the other hand, this ultimately skews public policy and turns us into graceless cretins.
Where does "I don't believe in a god, and my broad experience and knowledge suggests to me that you don't have a good reason to believe in a god either" fit on that strong-weak spectrum?
This is one of those issues that should prompt people to make a mental leap. A large institution is using its power to attach strings to the content we want to see. If we were as organized as that institution, we could broker a deal that would cause them to stop. Due to a trick of fate or of legislation passed in the 40's, the only organization we have today as consumers is governmental.
Unfortunately, especially among the technically oriented, there's this idea that we're not allowed to use that organizational power, so we sit on our hands, get screwed, and call it freedom. Thanks, Libertarians. Thanks.
I'm leery of the pervasive suggestion that observational inference is not "as valid" as empiricism. Inference has its roots in Bayesian theory, which is really good at coming up with hard degrees of certainty based on collected data. The idea is that if a model still holds after removing independent random data points, you've effectively tested it. In a very real sense, properly done inference is empiricism.
While not all kinds of observational inference lend themselves to a strictly quantitative framework, the concepts are the same and just as valid.
Of course I'm complicit in the problem. That doesn't mean I can't be part of the solution. While I would briefly tender the point that information distribution in search and communication is a special problem, picking your battles is about what's attainable given the current climate, not relative "evil."
I'm not being argumentative for argument's sake. There's a pervasive culture on Slashdot and other thoughtful corners of the Internet that downplays real issues on an ideological basis. In my mind, that's a big problem, but it's one that I feel can be addressed in a productive way. Another case of picking one's battles, I guess.
Rather I'm pointing out that one shouldn't engage in transferring the blame from the government of China to Google.
You're still playing ideology games. There's a good case against Google complying with the Chinese government. There's also a good case for it in some instances. I'll assign culpability as I see fit, and if you use ideology to give Google an unmitigated pass, you're part of the f&*king problem.
There is nothing obliging Google as a company to engage in this fight.
By that logic, nothing obliges Congressmen from accepting huge contributions from lobbyists in exchange for votes.
Pro tip: Libertarianism is one ideological model among many. Choosing it is an arbitrary moral choice. If you use it to handicap yourself when powerful entities do terrible things, then maybe you should revisit your choice. Models are never Right(TM). Sometimes they are instructive/useful. Fight, damn it.
Stock ownership is about two things: financial speculation and power. Why can't consumer interests snap up controlling interests? You know, through user-directed 401k's and coordinated pension funds? Oh right, the Republicans murdered that option with the Taft-Hartley Act after WWII.
Having a car is a choice. The health insurance mandate is a mandate that will be imposed just by virtue of being born on American soil. If you draw breath then you will be subject to this mandate. If you can't see the difference between the two then there's no point in discussing this matter with you.
If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself. The old "You can always just live in a shack in Montana" ploy is worse than the "Love it or leave it" ploy.
This ignores the reality of where Google (or at least this schizophrenic mind-fragment of Google) is trying to take the Web.
My faith in Google's ability to tame HTML/CSS/JavaScript into a truly effective persistent application medium? Super-low. The safe money is on smartphone apps.
I wonder if this update is why my 360 has started to RRoD in the last few days?
Quick note: For RRoD's, Microsoft has extended the warranty to 3 years. Free shipping both ways, and they give you a full one-year warranty to boot. All you need is the serial number on the unit.
Asking a question about the ethnicity of a name does not automatically make one a racist.
+5 Insightful? What the hell? Raising questions of ethnicity that would be irrelevant to anything but a racist sentiment is, in fact, racist. Take your rules-lawyer morality and shove it up your ass.
I'm glad Apple isn't letting the app store become a breeding ground for JavaScript proxy apps. We're finally getting to the point where widely used web-services are being turned into serviceable API layers, employed by beautiful native apps in a client-server paradigm. Anything that subverts that model on the iPhone needs a kick in the teeth, even if it amounts to corporate thuggery.
Sounds like the only libertarians you respect are not libertarians.
There is nothing anti-libertarian about collective bargaining. The sooner we get past this absurd meme and stop pretending that being shat on is part of the natural order, the better.
Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.
I care, but I know that what I do won't make a difference. The only libertarians I respect are the ones that acknowledge that we need improved means for private-sector collective bargaining. Bonus pragmatism points for espousing a (strictly temporary) government role in the formation of said means.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the right question. Once you acknowledge the arbitrariness of various views, you can ask yourself this question and quickly come to the conclusion that single-mindedly choosing one (especially an easy, comfortable, convenient one) is morally bankrupt. It's very important in human moral development to get into the space where you can make that judgment.
It seems to me that you weren't comfortable with making that judgment, so you decided revert to a more comfortable zone, appealing to ancient authority. Boo.
Absolute truth exists, but is of remarkably limited utility.
Sounds like another one of Maxwell's Demons. "If something were smart enough to assess the properties of a local particle..."
There is a fundamental difference between entities who acquired the power to control the scope of your life through use of guns and entities who have done so through economic power. That doesn't make it suck less.
"I'm a Libertarian, and I lost the game fair and square, possibly before I was even born, so I'm just going to stick my torso in this barrel, take it up the ass, and call it freedom. WHOO!"
I've seen such thanklessness quite often. A relative of mine gave birth to an infant with a serious congenital heart defect. Many members of the church took several hours out of their week to hold prayerful vigils. That's a tremendous expenditure of effort. But do you think one of them bothered to write a thank you note to the surgeon who performed heroic surgery? Relatedly, do you think any one of those die-hard conservatives praised the government policies that gave my relative additional coverage for the operation?
These failings are understandable. On a very fundamental level, people need to feel a measure of control. Prayer gives that to people on the cheap. Acknowledging the relevancy of the secular actors involved takes that sense of control away; it's emotionally crippling. On the other hand, this ultimately skews public policy and turns us into graceless cretins.
Where does "I don't believe in a god, and my broad experience and knowledge suggests to me that you don't have a good reason to believe in a god either" fit on that strong-weak spectrum?
This is one of those issues that should prompt people to make a mental leap. A large institution is using its power to attach strings to the content we want to see. If we were as organized as that institution, we could broker a deal that would cause them to stop. Due to a trick of fate or of legislation passed in the 40's, the only organization we have today as consumers is governmental.
Unfortunately, especially among the technically oriented, there's this idea that we're not allowed to use that organizational power, so we sit on our hands, get screwed, and call it freedom. Thanks, Libertarians. Thanks.
I'm leery of the pervasive suggestion that observational inference is not "as valid" as empiricism. Inference has its roots in Bayesian theory, which is really good at coming up with hard degrees of certainty based on collected data. The idea is that if a model still holds after removing independent random data points, you've effectively tested it. In a very real sense, properly done inference is empiricism.
While not all kinds of observational inference lend themselves to a strictly quantitative framework, the concepts are the same and just as valid.
Of course I'm complicit in the problem. That doesn't mean I can't be part of the solution. While I would briefly tender the point that information distribution in search and communication is a special problem, picking your battles is about what's attainable given the current climate, not relative "evil."
I'm not being argumentative for argument's sake. There's a pervasive culture on Slashdot and other thoughtful corners of the Internet that downplays real issues on an ideological basis. In my mind, that's a big problem, but it's one that I feel can be addressed in a productive way. Another case of picking one's battles, I guess.
Cheers.
You're still playing ideology games. There's a good case against Google complying with the Chinese government. There's also a good case for it in some instances. I'll assign culpability as I see fit, and if you use ideology to give Google an unmitigated pass, you're part of the f&*king problem.
By that logic, nothing obliges Congressmen from accepting huge contributions from lobbyists in exchange for votes.
Pro tip: Libertarianism is one ideological model among many. Choosing it is an arbitrary moral choice. If you use it to handicap yourself when powerful entities do terrible things, then maybe you should revisit your choice. Models are never Right(TM). Sometimes they are instructive/useful. Fight, damn it.
I borked the link:
Taft-Hartley Act
Stock ownership is about two things: financial speculation and power. Why can't consumer interests snap up controlling interests? You know, through user-directed 401k's and coordinated pension funds? Oh right, the Republicans murdered that option with the Taft-Hartley Act after WWII.
It's not a strawman. You've cultivated an exceptionally convenient ideology. If you don't see how that's morally precarious, that's a problem.
If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself. The old "You can always just live in a shack in Montana" ploy is worse than the "Love it or leave it" ploy.
This ignores the reality of where Google (or at least this schizophrenic mind-fragment of Google) is trying to take the Web.
My faith in Google's ability to tame HTML/CSS/JavaScript into a truly effective persistent application medium? Super-low. The safe money is on smartphone apps.
Quick note: For RRoD's, Microsoft has extended the warranty to 3 years. Free shipping both ways, and they give you a full one-year warranty to boot. All you need is the serial number on the unit.
+5 Insightful? What the hell?
Raising questions of ethnicity that would be irrelevant to anything but a racist sentiment is, in fact, racist. Take your rules-lawyer morality and shove it up your ass.
You're thinking of another comment. My comment wasn't a quote.
In any event, a viral license is the work of a pragmatist.
Purists are just pragmatists who believe that moral imperatives are an adequate tool for achieving effective collective bargaining.
When the bargain fails to materialize, the purists blame a defective culture. And the pragmatists just roll their eyes.
I'm glad Apple isn't letting the app store become a breeding ground for JavaScript proxy apps. We're finally getting to the point where widely used web-services are being turned into serviceable API layers, employed by beautiful native apps in a client-server paradigm. Anything that subverts that model on the iPhone needs a kick in the teeth, even if it amounts to corporate thuggery.
That's not paired programming, though. This guy needs some kind of shared VNC + microphone setup.
There is nothing anti-libertarian about collective bargaining. The sooner we get past this absurd meme and stop pretending that being shat on is part of the natural order, the better.
I care, but I know that what I do won't make a difference. The only libertarians I respect are the ones that acknowledge that we need improved means for private-sector collective bargaining. Bonus pragmatism points for espousing a (strictly temporary) government role in the formation of said means.
Can you point to any articles, framework sample code, or discussions of best practices that reflect the methodology you're describing?