The really sad part is, I don't even think you're a troll-I know people who really do think like you do.
Interestingly, those people wonder why their departments steadily decline in productivity and increase greatly in turnover. Treating people like dirt is not just bad ethics, it's ultimately bad business. There's no substitute for having employees who genuinely like and respect you, and look forward to waking up for work in the morning. Your style will get you a bunch of drones who will do what they absolutely have to, never innovate or try to think of how they can help more, leave the moment they can get away with it, and play cover-my-ass for half the workday in the meantime. That's not conducive to productivity.
So even in a business sense, yes, decency has a place in the workplace. Those you have "helped to the door" probably have looked back on that as the one good thing that happened at that job. As that reputation spreads, it will turn away well-qualified candidates who have heard nothing but bad things about working for your company. You are not doing your company a favor by treating workers as disposable.
Aside from the fact that what you're saying shows a total lack of humanity, it's also wrong.
If I saw another employee I worked with being treated that way, believe me, I'm looking for a new job the moment I get off work that day. And then all of the training, experience, etc., that they've paid me well to develop, walks right out the door.
That aside, loyalty is meant to be reciprocal. As long as a company is "paying the bills" adequately, a little decency for those undergoing tough times and have spent years of their lives helping to build the company is not exactly uncalled for. I have worked several places that coworkers were more than happy to pick up some slack for someone in a tough situation, especially since it was well understood they could accept the same in return. That type of environment is far more productive than one where everyone spends half the day looking over their shoulder.
"It's just business" is not an excuse for unconscionable behavior, and it's been used that way for far too long.
Non-trivial? Seriously, it can't be more than a pittance; they just speak loudly in certain areas.
I wish you were right, but I'm not making that up. It's right around half, see this column for some more detail. I would say 45-50% can be classified as nontrivial.
On top of that I resent the implication that refusing to accept traditional evolutionary theory makes you scientifically illiterate.
Terribly sorry for implying it. Let me say it more clearly, then: If you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that humans resulted from evolution by natural selection, you either have a case for your own hypothesis that should be winning you a Nobel next year, or you are ignorant and scientifically illiterate, at least on that particular topic. If you've got the evidence, please direct me to the journal you published in.
Thanks for bringing up the Y2K bug! It's actually an excellent case in point.
The reason that Y2K wasn't a disaster is specifically because it was recognized and addressed in time. If it hadn't been, there would have been significant issues. Since it was, and reasonable steps were taken to ensure it wasn't a problem, it went out with a whimper. And now people assert there never was a problem in the first place.
I would love to see global warming addressed satisfactorily, the harm mitigated, and in a half a century people saying "See! It was never that bad!". Unfortunately, we might be in for a little harsher lesson this time around.
Weather is far from predictable-- as a pilot I find the weather predictions can rarely be trusted more than one day out... How can we possibly make predictions for *decades* in the future?
Weather != climate. Saying that Seattle has a wet climate is far different from saying it will rain in Seattle on Tuesday.
If you'd like to have the abortion debate, I'm game, but it'd be inflammatory and offtopic here. If you do want to, respond and I'll start a journal entry for the purpose.
Uh...I know a lot of people who have made shifts like that. And incidentally, it makes for a more pleasant life.
The only piece I really haven't done is "stop eating meat," I've tried vegetarianism, and even the suggested diet leaves me tired and hungry. As to the rest? I bike or take public transit almost everywhere-I still have a car, I think I put maybe 1500 miles on it last year. This year will probably be even less. I very rarely fly. If I need to log into a client's system to troubleshoot it, that's what remoting in is for. I don't need to personally be there.
As an added bonus, it's better! Biking is much more pleasant than sitting stuck in traffic, as is reading a book on the train, and the cycling part of it is good for your health to boot. Remoting in to a client's system rather than physically going out there saves the client paying for travel costs, and saves me having to deal with the hassle of it. Win-win.
Totally agreed on hybrid cars. If people want to make a difference, they don't need a different car, they need to drive the car less. Someone with the worst gas-guzzler SUV in the world that they rarely ever start is doing much more good than a Prius owner commuting in it daily. There is one thing, though, that encourages people (including the most ardent climate-change denialists) to leave that car in the garage more often-higher gas prices. I'm not sorry at all to see them rising.
When we have a nontrivial portion of the population who does not believe that humanity resulted from evolution by natural selection, and that the universe is less than ten thousand years old, did we really expect people to accept science that something bad is going to happen if they do not change their behavior?
Our failure to insist on scientific literacy rates as high as written-word literacy rates is going to be something that comes back to bite us, I'm afraid. I'm not sure there is anything to be done for the problem now, except educate as well as we can.
Maybe we can have some scientists say that a god revealed to them that it dislikes the smell of vehicle exhaust and is angrily heating up the planet as a result. Unfortunately, I'm only half-kidding.
The claim wasn't that you hold irrational beliefs, but that you held beliefs irrationally (beliefs without evidence).
I'm not clear on the distinction between the two. How would a belief held irrationally not be an irrational belief?
There is nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" -- but we're not talking about knowledge, we're talking about belief. In the case I mention, if you believe that the mind is a product of the brain, that belief is irrational as you don't have sufficient evidence to hold that belief to the degree that it is typically held. That you can also say "I don't know" is an entirely different matter. (emphasis in original)
In the particular case (mind as an emergent property of the brain), I would say the evidence is certainly leaning toward it, but we cannot yet assert it with certainty, so the answer is still "We don't know." That's both what I know and what I believe-again, I'm unclear on the distinction between the two. Young earthers "know" the earth was created 6000 years ago, and they also believe it. Their knowledge is faulty, but since they've shut out all correction, they're stuck "knowing," and believing, something inconsistent with reality.
If I don't know something for certain but have some evidence, I both know and believe that I cannot be certain but have some evidence. If I've no idea whatsoever, I both know and believe I've no idea whatsoever.
My contention was that you do hold beliefs without sufficient evidence to support them, you merely refuse to acknowledge them or believe that you have sufficient evidence even when this is not the case.
I will concede that this is probably true. I certainly do not have perfect knowledge in all cases, nor perfect analysis of what I do know. It is likely that I have some beliefs more strongly than the evidence warrants, others more weakly than the evidence would indicate, and in some cases, new evidence may require that I go a different direction entirely.
But if that scenario comes to my attention, I change my beliefs to fit reality, I do not try to deny reality to fit my beliefs. I suppose it would be better said that I endeavor to only have beliefs supported by sufficient evidence, that I'm usually pretty successful at it given the necessarily limited human intellectual capacity, and that I correct failures as soon as I learn of them.
It's a relatively new pseudo-intellectual movement prevalent in the atheist community. (Hence, the capital R. I assumed that you'd be familiar with it, given your post.) It's a misnomer, however, as many supposed Rationalists actually reject epistemological rationalism!
I vaguely recall hearing the term now that you clarify the context, but I've never looked them up. I may have to. If what you say is correct, a group calling itself "Rationalist" and basing itself upon irrational principles could be quite amusing.
If you are a functional human being you believe in things you have inadequate or no evidence for.
In some cases, we must, on the basis of risk-benefit analysis, act without sufficient evidence, because to fail to act would have worse consequences than even a poor action, or an act will benefit us greatly if it succeeds and cost little or nothing if it fails. But those aren't irrational actions at that point.
You just said you're married - do you have evidence that you picked the best spouse you could? Do you believe you did?
My evidence leading up to it was that we'd already lived together for several years by that point, and found ourselves to remain very compatible, and to have very little friction. There are, of course, no absolute guarantees in something like marriage, but that's about as good of a litmus test as you get. The evidence afterward, of course, is that after a couple of years so far, we still love each other very much and enrich one another's lives. Even if somehow that were to change and one day we split up, the time spent with her would be well worth the effort expended, and I had good indications that it would be so. So yes, I think that was a rational decision.
I don't think I could ever say with absolute certainty that I picked "the best I could," nor could she, as there just is no way to know something like that. What we can both say is that we're still very happy with the choice we made, we chose well, and we both approached the whole thing with eyes wide open and wanting to ensure we would be able to deal with the stresses of day to day life together. Once we determined we could (gathered evidence), we took the next step.
We're constantly making underdetermined but pragmatic decisions and then believing we actually made the optimum choice and not looking back.
I've made many far less than optimum choices, especially under time pressure. When I know I had to make a hasty decision on very little evidence, I always take a look over my shoulder afterwards. Figuring out what I anticipated or extrapolated incorrectly can prevent me from making the same mistake again. We'll always be forced into snap judgments by circumstances sometimes, but presuming you were right without looking back to see if you were is passing up a very valuable learning opportunity. If you were right, learn from that so you can do it again. If you were wrong, learn from that so you don't.
We make value and aesthetic judgements and believe them wholeheartedly. It's part of being human.
Of course! There's this perception that being rational makes one a robot, devoid of emotion or the ability to appreciate the world. It couldn't be farther from the truth-those things enrich our lives greatly, as well as contributing tremendously to our ability to think and act in creative and innovative ways, and giving them up entirely would be irrational on that basis. Rather, we must learn how to control our urges, and just as importantly, when to cut them loose and just enjoy a breathtaking sunset, or good sex, or a gourmet meal, or a complex painting, or whatever happens to appeal to you. Because yes, that is a part of being human, and a very valuable part. But if it leads you into trouble, like the appeal of one more score to the junkie, rationality has to step in front of that powerful urge. Nothing else will.
It's arrogant to assume that you don't believe in things that you have inadequate or no evidence for -- you just refuse to acknowledge those beliefs or assume that you have adequate evidence, even if that's not the case.
Well, I can't of course prove you wrong, and certainly I've been wrong before. But your attempt to provide an example, below, falls rather flat. If you could demonstrate that I do, I'd be forced to rethink my position, just like anything. But I'm not going to figure there must be something irrational in there somewhere, because you said it is so.
Go on, take a minute and you'll find that you have a ridiculous number of beliefs that have inadequate or no evidence. It's difficult to function day-to-day otherwise!
Just took a minute, and I can't think of how irrational beliefs would make it easier for me to function day to day. It seems rather the opposite.
Take something as simple as the belief that the mind is a product of the brain. Even if you're a credentialed neuroscientist, you notice immediately that this is based on a set of metaphysical assumptions and that you don't actually have adequate evidence to support such a belief to the absolute degree that that belief is held.
You're right, we don't fully understand the brain yet. The available evidence to date does support that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, but certainly, we have not conclusively nailed down how that works. So the answer is "We're not certain yet." That's the answer to a lot of things, and there's nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" if you lack sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion with reasonable certainty.
There's a reason that rational people stay away from the "Rationalists". They're typically the most irrational and poorly educated people you'll meet -- having little more than a superficial understanding of science and philosophy.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "rationalist" here. If you mean rational people stay away from people who lack irrational beliefs, then...well, this is a time to say I don't know, because I just don't know what to say to that one, except that it makes no sense at all.
I'm also not certain where you get "irrational and poorly educated," since as far as I know, superstition correlates very strongly with a lack of education and a poor understanding of science and philosophy.
The arrogance of this line of thinking always gets me. "I believe in things I have inadequate or no evidence for, so everyone else must too!"
It doesn't work like that, at least not for me. I got married on Friday the 13th and it didn't bother me a bit (and it went off perfectly), and while I do have some objects I like for no other reason than the memories they call to mind, I certainly do not think they are "lucky" or have any especial significance other than to me. Nor do I have any other beliefs based upon anything other than sufficient evidence to support them.
Not all of us are superstitious, just because far too many are.
I don't think using an occasional anthropomorphic expression in jest reflects "magical thinking." If you really believe that the car consciously dislikes going full throttle before getting warm, or the bottle has made a choice to hang onto the cap, that's magical thinking. But I don't think most who use those expressions mean them literally.
Where in the constitution is the federal government granted the authority to restrict to whom and how much corporations can give money?
The federal government has laws against bribery of federal judges, inspectors, law enforcement agents, the list goes on and on. Those laws are not remotely controversial, and constitutional challenges to them would be laughed out of court. Why should Senators/Reps get special dispensation to accept bribes, or corporations special dispensation to bribe them, when it's prohibited for every other type of federal official with no trouble at all?
Absolutely agreed. I've told my boss on several occasions that client requests would violate our audit requirements if we fulfill them. I just approach it very calmly, pointing out what we would be doing and what that would breach. He's been nothing but appreciative of that, even when it's led to the necessity of a difficult conversation with the client. In other cases, I've been able to find ways to get the client what they want without causing a violation.
Accidentally making such a request without understanding its full implications is one thing. It's likely the person asking the original question here had nothing more than a clueless marketing department who have no idea astroturfing is prohibited by almost every site/app host out there, and hopefully, cluing them in will be all that's needed to put an end to it. On the other hand, if they're so ethically challenged that they'd persist or try to go under the radar even knowing that, it's time to blow the whistle.
Even Obama had to give his opinion. "If I had a son he'd look like Trayon (sic)". Please Mr. President throw more gasoline on the fire. This is before Obama knew of the facts of the case.
I don't know how Obama would have to "know the facts of the case" to state that if he had a son, his son would be black. I think he could pretty safely say that at any point whatsoever. Racism is still a real problem in America, and I'm sure it is an issue Obama has had to consider personally. Let's give you a moment to consider why that might be.
This event is exposing the worst of this country. A perfect storm of all that is wrong with where we are today. The media being anything but objective.
The media has been anything but objective for a very long time now. Glad you caught on. We'd do well to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, require that news reporting actually be factually accurate, and amend the Constitution to definitively state that corporations are not people and therefore have no inherent human rights. Guess what the chances of any of those are?
The politics doing nothing but making everything racial and partisan.
To be quite honest, that's been happening since Obama's election. I've seen a tremendous increase in blatant, open racism, as well as the subtler types, ever since he became a serious candidate, let alone won. Whatever you think of him (and I don't have a particularly high opinion of him on a lot of things), we should judge him on the merits of his policies and actions, not anything else. But the "anyone but Obama" rhetoric is sure showing what the real trouble is here, when even someone as crazy as Santorum could ever be under serious consideration. Anyone who thinks Santorum is a better choice than...really, anyone...has something else going on besides evaluating a candidate on their merits and platform.
For the climate change denialists, I wonder which one of these you think isn't so?
Burning a hydrocarbon generates CO2 and H2O. This is basic chemistry.
CO2 in a planet's atmosphere causes it to become warmer by trapping heat. This is basic planetary science.
We burn a whole lot of hydrocarbons. That's basic reality.
So tell me, those of you who deny climate change? The exact extent of it requires complex models, but the fact of it only requires basic chemistry, basic planetary science, and a basic look around you. Which of those do you deny?
I guess I didn't have that experience. My wife does like to text, but likes to talk face to face, as well. We do like to ping back and forth with one another while we're both working, when something particularly interesting/insane happens at one of our jobs. But we've also always liked to sit down and talk with one another, and still do.
That doesn't seem to me to be an isolated experience, either. I go up to brunch every Sunday with a group of developers I've worked with in the past and some I still do at present, because we enjoy the face-to-face conversation, especially since some of them no longer work with us and it's the only chance we get to see them.
That being said, I think the use of technology to communicate is part of what's included in that slippery term "normal" now. If a coworker needs me to look over a block of code that's acting up, the easiest thing is to IM or email it, even if they're sitting just across the office. And often, sending back my responses will be most easily done the same way. It's just another tool available to us, and like any tool, it's not the best one for every job, but it should be used when it is. Teaching kids how to determine that should be part of any parent's priorities, and should be part of a school curriculum as well. There are times when there's no substitute for a face-to-face meetup.
A "theist" believes there is a God. Adding the 'a' prefix makes it the opposite. An "atheist", then, believes there is no God.
Actually, that's not correct. An atheist does not necessarily believe there is no god (though that's one possibility), an atheist does not believe there is a god. That may seem to be saying the same thing two ways, but it's not.
I reject the claims of gods in the same way I reject claims of the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs: It's an extraordinary claim without corresponding extraordinary proof. That does mean I'm an atheist, since I do not believe in any gods, but it's always possible someone will come along and prove me wrong, just as it's possible someday someone will find convincing evidence for Nessie or extraterrestrials visiting Earth. If that were to happen on any of the three, I'd change my mind. Personally, the extraterrestrials are the only one I foresee any reasonable likelihood of that happening for, but in all those cases, I do not believe the claims until and unless they are demonstrated to be true.
That's not a positive claim or belief, it's just the rejection of unproven and extraordinary claims. We all do that all the time. When Prince Somescammer of Nigeria emails me desperately needing my help fleeing the country, and is willing to reward me handsomely if I'll just give him a bit up front, I cannot, with 100% certainty, say the claim is untrue (99.999...% with a lot of 9s, perhaps, but it's conceivable). That aside, lacking evidence that it is, and the claim being astonishing and extraordinary, I reject it. And princes are, at the very least, known and proven to exist.
"Crazy people made up crazy story"? How on earth does that warrant being posted as news? Is the next article going to be about a guy who believe he telepathically communicates with aliens?
Doesn't this show one more reason we need to get rid of software patents?
There are a limited number of ways to make a usable smartphone interface, especially when competing with an already-established method. Of course they're going to be similar. There are a limited number of ways to make a handheld device that comfortably fits in the hand and pocket. Of course they're going to look similar.
Didn't we used to require "non-obviousness" as a requirement for a patent? Aren't these things obvious?
No, it's not a matter of intentions. All the companies listed above (hard drive manufacturers) and many others (computer manufacturers, broadband ISPs, component manufacturers, encryption providers, etc.), directly or indirectly benefit from piracy, because to a significant portion of their users, that's a main or sole reason for using their product/service. That does not mean they are responsible for the actions of their users, any more than the telephone company can be sued under anti-telemarketing laws even though they very well know some users are violating them.
Also, your naming bit fails to make sense. The site was called "MegaUpload". "Mega" is a very common prefix, and "Upload" is exactly what the site allowed its users to do. I fail to see how that connotes illegal activity. Nor do I see how the internal emails matter-I'm sure any site that allows user uploads discusses internally the likelihood that some of those are copyright violations and what to do about them. I imagine you'd find similar emails at Flickr or Youtube, and I know you'd find discussions of that sort on Wikipedia. It's an inevitability of running a user-generated content site.
Faking compliance with DMCA requests, on the other hand, is likely to land you in trouble-and is the only thing you list that should land you in trouble. I haven't seen anything about that though, could you please provide your source for that?
Slashdot Mirror
The really sad part is, I don't even think you're a troll-I know people who really do think like you do.
Interestingly, those people wonder why their departments steadily decline in productivity and increase greatly in turnover. Treating people like dirt is not just bad ethics, it's ultimately bad business. There's no substitute for having employees who genuinely like and respect you, and look forward to waking up for work in the morning. Your style will get you a bunch of drones who will do what they absolutely have to, never innovate or try to think of how they can help more, leave the moment they can get away with it, and play cover-my-ass for half the workday in the meantime. That's not conducive to productivity.
So even in a business sense, yes, decency has a place in the workplace. Those you have "helped to the door" probably have looked back on that as the one good thing that happened at that job. As that reputation spreads, it will turn away well-qualified candidates who have heard nothing but bad things about working for your company. You are not doing your company a favor by treating workers as disposable.
Aside from the fact that what you're saying shows a total lack of humanity, it's also wrong.
If I saw another employee I worked with being treated that way, believe me, I'm looking for a new job the moment I get off work that day. And then all of the training, experience, etc., that they've paid me well to develop, walks right out the door.
That aside, loyalty is meant to be reciprocal. As long as a company is "paying the bills" adequately, a little decency for those undergoing tough times and have spent years of their lives helping to build the company is not exactly uncalled for. I have worked several places that coworkers were more than happy to pick up some slack for someone in a tough situation, especially since it was well understood they could accept the same in return. That type of environment is far more productive than one where everyone spends half the day looking over their shoulder.
"It's just business" is not an excuse for unconscionable behavior, and it's been used that way for far too long.
I wish you were right, but I'm not making that up. It's right around half, see this column for some more detail. I would say 45-50% can be classified as nontrivial.
Terribly sorry for implying it. Let me say it more clearly, then: If you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that humans resulted from evolution by natural selection, you either have a case for your own hypothesis that should be winning you a Nobel next year, or you are ignorant and scientifically illiterate, at least on that particular topic. If you've got the evidence, please direct me to the journal you published in.
There, no more implying it. Happy now?
Thanks for bringing up the Y2K bug! It's actually an excellent case in point.
The reason that Y2K wasn't a disaster is specifically because it was recognized and addressed in time. If it hadn't been, there would have been significant issues. Since it was, and reasonable steps were taken to ensure it wasn't a problem, it went out with a whimper. And now people assert there never was a problem in the first place.
I would love to see global warming addressed satisfactorily, the harm mitigated, and in a half a century people saying "See! It was never that bad!". Unfortunately, we might be in for a little harsher lesson this time around.
Weather != climate. Saying that Seattle has a wet climate is far different from saying it will rain in Seattle on Tuesday.
You added an extraneous "their". Religion is not compatible with the modern age, and it is a huge problem.
If you'd like to have the abortion debate, I'm game, but it'd be inflammatory and offtopic here. If you do want to, respond and I'll start a journal entry for the purpose.
Uh...I know a lot of people who have made shifts like that. And incidentally, it makes for a more pleasant life.
The only piece I really haven't done is "stop eating meat," I've tried vegetarianism, and even the suggested diet leaves me tired and hungry. As to the rest? I bike or take public transit almost everywhere-I still have a car, I think I put maybe 1500 miles on it last year. This year will probably be even less. I very rarely fly. If I need to log into a client's system to troubleshoot it, that's what remoting in is for. I don't need to personally be there.
As an added bonus, it's better! Biking is much more pleasant than sitting stuck in traffic, as is reading a book on the train, and the cycling part of it is good for your health to boot. Remoting in to a client's system rather than physically going out there saves the client paying for travel costs, and saves me having to deal with the hassle of it. Win-win.
Totally agreed on hybrid cars. If people want to make a difference, they don't need a different car, they need to drive the car less. Someone with the worst gas-guzzler SUV in the world that they rarely ever start is doing much more good than a Prius owner commuting in it daily. There is one thing, though, that encourages people (including the most ardent climate-change denialists) to leave that car in the garage more often-higher gas prices. I'm not sorry at all to see them rising.
When we have a nontrivial portion of the population who does not believe that humanity resulted from evolution by natural selection, and that the universe is less than ten thousand years old, did we really expect people to accept science that something bad is going to happen if they do not change their behavior?
Our failure to insist on scientific literacy rates as high as written-word literacy rates is going to be something that comes back to bite us, I'm afraid. I'm not sure there is anything to be done for the problem now, except educate as well as we can.
Maybe we can have some scientists say that a god revealed to them that it dislikes the smell of vehicle exhaust and is angrily heating up the planet as a result. Unfortunately, I'm only half-kidding.
I'm not clear on the distinction between the two. How would a belief held irrationally not be an irrational belief?
In the particular case (mind as an emergent property of the brain), I would say the evidence is certainly leaning toward it, but we cannot yet assert it with certainty, so the answer is still "We don't know." That's both what I know and what I believe-again, I'm unclear on the distinction between the two. Young earthers "know" the earth was created 6000 years ago, and they also believe it. Their knowledge is faulty, but since they've shut out all correction, they're stuck "knowing," and believing, something inconsistent with reality.
If I don't know something for certain but have some evidence, I both know and believe that I cannot be certain but have some evidence. If I've no idea whatsoever, I both know and believe I've no idea whatsoever.
I will concede that this is probably true. I certainly do not have perfect knowledge in all cases, nor perfect analysis of what I do know. It is likely that I have some beliefs more strongly than the evidence warrants, others more weakly than the evidence would indicate, and in some cases, new evidence may require that I go a different direction entirely.
But if that scenario comes to my attention, I change my beliefs to fit reality, I do not try to deny reality to fit my beliefs. I suppose it would be better said that I endeavor to only have beliefs supported by sufficient evidence, that I'm usually pretty successful at it given the necessarily limited human intellectual capacity, and that I correct failures as soon as I learn of them.
I vaguely recall hearing the term now that you clarify the context, but I've never looked them up. I may have to. If what you say is correct, a group calling itself "Rationalist" and basing itself upon irrational principles could be quite amusing.
In some cases, we must, on the basis of risk-benefit analysis, act without sufficient evidence, because to fail to act would have worse consequences than even a poor action, or an act will benefit us greatly if it succeeds and cost little or nothing if it fails. But those aren't irrational actions at that point.
My evidence leading up to it was that we'd already lived together for several years by that point, and found ourselves to remain very compatible, and to have very little friction. There are, of course, no absolute guarantees in something like marriage, but that's about as good of a litmus test as you get. The evidence afterward, of course, is that after a couple of years so far, we still love each other very much and enrich one another's lives. Even if somehow that were to change and one day we split up, the time spent with her would be well worth the effort expended, and I had good indications that it would be so. So yes, I think that was a rational decision.
I don't think I could ever say with absolute certainty that I picked "the best I could," nor could she, as there just is no way to know something like that. What we can both say is that we're still very happy with the choice we made, we chose well, and we both approached the whole thing with eyes wide open and wanting to ensure we would be able to deal with the stresses of day to day life together. Once we determined we could (gathered evidence), we took the next step.
I've made many far less than optimum choices, especially under time pressure. When I know I had to make a hasty decision on very little evidence, I always take a look over my shoulder afterwards. Figuring out what I anticipated or extrapolated incorrectly can prevent me from making the same mistake again. We'll always be forced into snap judgments by circumstances sometimes, but presuming you were right without looking back to see if you were is passing up a very valuable learning opportunity. If you were right, learn from that so you can do it again. If you were wrong, learn from that so you don't.
Of course! There's this perception that being rational makes one a robot, devoid of emotion or the ability to appreciate the world. It couldn't be farther from the truth-those things enrich our lives greatly, as well as contributing tremendously to our ability to think and act in creative and innovative ways, and giving them up entirely would be irrational on that basis. Rather, we must learn how to control our urges, and just as importantly, when to cut them loose and just enjoy a breathtaking sunset, or good sex, or a gourmet meal, or a complex painting, or whatever happens to appeal to you. Because yes, that is a part of being human, and a very valuable part. But if it leads you into trouble, like the appeal of one more score to the junkie, rationality has to step in front of that powerful urge. Nothing else will.
Well, I can't of course prove you wrong, and certainly I've been wrong before. But your attempt to provide an example, below, falls rather flat. If you could demonstrate that I do, I'd be forced to rethink my position, just like anything. But I'm not going to figure there must be something irrational in there somewhere, because you said it is so.
Just took a minute, and I can't think of how irrational beliefs would make it easier for me to function day to day. It seems rather the opposite.
You're right, we don't fully understand the brain yet. The available evidence to date does support that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, but certainly, we have not conclusively nailed down how that works. So the answer is "We're not certain yet." That's the answer to a lot of things, and there's nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" if you lack sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion with reasonable certainty.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "rationalist" here. If you mean rational people stay away from people who lack irrational beliefs, then...well, this is a time to say I don't know, because I just don't know what to say to that one, except that it makes no sense at all.
I'm also not certain where you get "irrational and poorly educated," since as far as I know, superstition correlates very strongly with a lack of education and a poor understanding of science and philosophy.
The arrogance of this line of thinking always gets me. "I believe in things I have inadequate or no evidence for, so everyone else must too!"
It doesn't work like that, at least not for me. I got married on Friday the 13th and it didn't bother me a bit (and it went off perfectly), and while I do have some objects I like for no other reason than the memories they call to mind, I certainly do not think they are "lucky" or have any especial significance other than to me. Nor do I have any other beliefs based upon anything other than sufficient evidence to support them.
Not all of us are superstitious, just because far too many are.
I don't think using an occasional anthropomorphic expression in jest reflects "magical thinking." If you really believe that the car consciously dislikes going full throttle before getting warm, or the bottle has made a choice to hang onto the cap, that's magical thinking. But I don't think most who use those expressions mean them literally.
No, but they never taught us it was brought down by zombies!
The federal government has laws against bribery of federal judges, inspectors, law enforcement agents, the list goes on and on. Those laws are not remotely controversial, and constitutional challenges to them would be laughed out of court. Why should Senators/Reps get special dispensation to accept bribes, or corporations special dispensation to bribe them, when it's prohibited for every other type of federal official with no trouble at all?
Absolutely agreed. I've told my boss on several occasions that client requests would violate our audit requirements if we fulfill them. I just approach it very calmly, pointing out what we would be doing and what that would breach. He's been nothing but appreciative of that, even when it's led to the necessity of a difficult conversation with the client. In other cases, I've been able to find ways to get the client what they want without causing a violation.
Accidentally making such a request without understanding its full implications is one thing. It's likely the person asking the original question here had nothing more than a clueless marketing department who have no idea astroturfing is prohibited by almost every site/app host out there, and hopefully, cluing them in will be all that's needed to put an end to it. On the other hand, if they're so ethically challenged that they'd persist or try to go under the radar even knowing that, it's time to blow the whistle.
That, at least, should not be news to anyone.
I don't know how Obama would have to "know the facts of the case" to state that if he had a son, his son would be black. I think he could pretty safely say that at any point whatsoever. Racism is still a real problem in America, and I'm sure it is an issue Obama has had to consider personally. Let's give you a moment to consider why that might be.
The media has been anything but objective for a very long time now. Glad you caught on. We'd do well to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, require that news reporting actually be factually accurate, and amend the Constitution to definitively state that corporations are not people and therefore have no inherent human rights. Guess what the chances of any of those are?
To be quite honest, that's been happening since Obama's election. I've seen a tremendous increase in blatant, open racism, as well as the subtler types, ever since he became a serious candidate, let alone won. Whatever you think of him (and I don't have a particularly high opinion of him on a lot of things), we should judge him on the merits of his policies and actions, not anything else. But the "anyone but Obama" rhetoric is sure showing what the real trouble is here, when even someone as crazy as Santorum could ever be under serious consideration. Anyone who thinks Santorum is a better choice than...really, anyone...has something else going on besides evaluating a candidate on their merits and platform.
For the climate change denialists, I wonder which one of these you think isn't so?
So tell me, those of you who deny climate change? The exact extent of it requires complex models, but the fact of it only requires basic chemistry, basic planetary science, and a basic look around you. Which of those do you deny?
I guess I didn't have that experience. My wife does like to text, but likes to talk face to face, as well. We do like to ping back and forth with one another while we're both working, when something particularly interesting/insane happens at one of our jobs. But we've also always liked to sit down and talk with one another, and still do.
That doesn't seem to me to be an isolated experience, either. I go up to brunch every Sunday with a group of developers I've worked with in the past and some I still do at present, because we enjoy the face-to-face conversation, especially since some of them no longer work with us and it's the only chance we get to see them.
That being said, I think the use of technology to communicate is part of what's included in that slippery term "normal" now. If a coworker needs me to look over a block of code that's acting up, the easiest thing is to IM or email it, even if they're sitting just across the office. And often, sending back my responses will be most easily done the same way. It's just another tool available to us, and like any tool, it's not the best one for every job, but it should be used when it is. Teaching kids how to determine that should be part of any parent's priorities, and should be part of a school curriculum as well. There are times when there's no substitute for a face-to-face meetup.
Actually, that's not correct. An atheist does not necessarily believe there is no god (though that's one possibility), an atheist does not believe there is a god. That may seem to be saying the same thing two ways, but it's not.
I reject the claims of gods in the same way I reject claims of the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs: It's an extraordinary claim without corresponding extraordinary proof. That does mean I'm an atheist, since I do not believe in any gods, but it's always possible someone will come along and prove me wrong, just as it's possible someday someone will find convincing evidence for Nessie or extraterrestrials visiting Earth. If that were to happen on any of the three, I'd change my mind. Personally, the extraterrestrials are the only one I foresee any reasonable likelihood of that happening for, but in all those cases, I do not believe the claims until and unless they are demonstrated to be true.
That's not a positive claim or belief, it's just the rejection of unproven and extraordinary claims. We all do that all the time. When Prince Somescammer of Nigeria emails me desperately needing my help fleeing the country, and is willing to reward me handsomely if I'll just give him a bit up front, I cannot, with 100% certainty, say the claim is untrue (99.999...% with a lot of 9s, perhaps, but it's conceivable). That aside, lacking evidence that it is, and the claim being astonishing and extraordinary, I reject it. And princes are, at the very least, known and proven to exist.
"Crazy people made up crazy story"? How on earth does that warrant being posted as news? Is the next article going to be about a guy who believe he telepathically communicates with aliens?
Doesn't this show one more reason we need to get rid of software patents?
There are a limited number of ways to make a usable smartphone interface, especially when competing with an already-established method. Of course they're going to be similar. There are a limited number of ways to make a handheld device that comfortably fits in the hand and pocket. Of course they're going to look similar.
Didn't we used to require "non-obviousness" as a requirement for a patent? Aren't these things obvious?
No, it's not a matter of intentions. All the companies listed above (hard drive manufacturers) and many others (computer manufacturers, broadband ISPs, component manufacturers, encryption providers, etc.), directly or indirectly benefit from piracy, because to a significant portion of their users, that's a main or sole reason for using their product/service. That does not mean they are responsible for the actions of their users, any more than the telephone company can be sued under anti-telemarketing laws even though they very well know some users are violating them.
Also, your naming bit fails to make sense. The site was called "MegaUpload". "Mega" is a very common prefix, and "Upload" is exactly what the site allowed its users to do. I fail to see how that connotes illegal activity. Nor do I see how the internal emails matter-I'm sure any site that allows user uploads discusses internally the likelihood that some of those are copyright violations and what to do about them. I imagine you'd find similar emails at Flickr or Youtube, and I know you'd find discussions of that sort on Wikipedia. It's an inevitability of running a user-generated content site.
Faking compliance with DMCA requests, on the other hand, is likely to land you in trouble-and is the only thing you list that should land you in trouble. I haven't seen anything about that though, could you please provide your source for that?