I replied directly as sarcasm, and perhaps should have added this as an addendum to the same post. I used to do the same at home where I had no concerns if a hacker was actually successful. I never gave free access like you, I was still running both tcpwrappers and an application called Netwatch (similar to fail2ban). I did log everything, and spent a good deal of time probing the people attempting to hack my stuff, tracking their traffic, etc... Partially this was a bit of morbid curiosity, partially learning how hackers operate, but also to give me ideas of what to be protecting at the office..
Assuming you know the risks, which it seems like you do, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. Quite frankly, I learned a lot by doing this and attempting to build honeypots at home.
An office environment is quite different, different actions, different tolerances, and different expectations.
As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.
There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.
No you did not, you completely ignored everything that could possible make this a rational thought.
I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.
When you can not debate rationally, revert to insult and ad hominem to smoke screen. What a surprisingly mature position you maintain. (sarcasm just in case you missed it.)
Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.
Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:
Red Herring, you simply refuse to admit you are wrong. You still have no logical explanation for a soul with an atheist position, because atheism by nature disbelieves in supernatural forces. I have read a whole lot of excellent philosophical works and named 3 authors, you can't name one and can't argue your own position. Not one time in this thread so far have have you done anything except for say "nuh uh" and "look over there!".
No use continuing to debate someone that has zero ability to defend their position rationally. Later.
No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Right away you are ignoring the definition of deity completely. Notice also that you neglected the definition of a soul, and did not explain how a soul can be judged without a deity.
If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain. Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied. I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work. None of the people who publicly debate the atheist position address this point, because belief in a "soul" is irrational without a deity. Perhaps you can do what Marx, Godwin, and Miller can't do.
Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.
As I stated previously, putting different clothing on a deity does not make it anything but a deity. Arguing that Hinduism does not believe in a Abrahamic God does not make their belief that a deity controls the Universe any different. The Hindu religion just gives different clothing to the deity and calls it a different name (different supernatural powers, but not really a different supernatural purpose).
I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.
My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose, you are attempting to cherry pick a fragment to suit your argument. That said, you have not benefited your argument at all. You are trying to compare an action that you can make with a physical object with a measurable result, to an imaginary action on an imaginary object and an imaginary result. I don't consider that puzzling, I consider that irrational.
While I think your point does have some merit, it's because many people are ignorant with Logic and Rhetoric. It would be better to get people to recognize an appeal to emotion logical fallacy, at least occasionally. Reassigning "think of the children" to reductio ad hitlerum would only work if the people in power maintained the same "think of the children" arguments. They already swap this out on occasion with "think of the elderly", "think of the handicapped", or any other item they believe makes a confusing enough logical fallacy that people will fall for it in mass.
Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.
The Wiki article and definition is wrong? The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too? Or perhaps you are attempting to nitpick a fragment of the atheist position so that you can suit a belief that is surely not atheist? Quite possibly attempting to cloth a deity in a disguise so that your version of a deity does not match a more common theological view (without realizing that your deity is still a deity).
I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?
Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again? This is not comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to unicorns.
Also, what makes you think that I'm making a statement about my beliefs?
Fair point, you could be playing devils advocate. However, it was your statements I responded to so a fair response.
Why do think that a belief in a soul, judgement, etc. require a belief in a god?
Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.
Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being? Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.
I never stated that Wikipedia was the definitive source, I said there is an easy to see statement which would have demonstrated that you are wrong. The traditions you attempting to claim are "not religious" happen to be for the purpose of cleansing one's soul. I won't reiterate what gl4ss stated, since it's on point. What _you_ call Hinduism is not the same as what a person practicing Hinduism believes.
How is that belief superstitious and incompatible with atheism?
As previously stated souls, reincarnation, magic, etc.. all fall under supernatural. Being assigned to a deity or mystical energy makes no difference, because neither are scientifically provable and neither relate to a physical scientific world. If you happen to believe in souls and reincarnation and claim to be an atheist, I would suggest that you contemplate your claim of being atheist more thoroughly because you are doing it wrong.
Unfortunately, there are a number of self proclaimed atheists who are not really atheists, what they really believe is the satanic creed "do what thou wilt" and never stop to ask the important questions.
Then you are not atheist, you are agnostic (or Pagan, or something else). A soul, and judgement system for a soul, does not meet atheist criteria of a deity-less universe.
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
You don't have to study the religion very far to know that much. And sure, maybe you live in the backwoods someplace and can't find an Hindu to talk to about Hinduism. You could have had the courtesy of reading past the first paragraph in the Wiki page too, where you would have seen in the first sentence "In Hinduism, dharma signifies behaviors that are considered to be in accord with rta, the order that makes life and universe possible. A soul, reincarnation, and "an order that makes life and universe possible" are all superstitious and incompatible with atheism.
Good grief man, stop believing everything you are told.
I'd normally tell people that it's worth spending a good deal of time contemplating and debating Aristotle's work on causality prior to jumping into something related to Aquinas. I have never read Feser, does he attempt to bridge the gap for a novice? Does not sound that way by your description.
And the answer is "How many logical fallacies can you fit into a paragraph." *ding ding ding*
Perhaps "I'd like Trolling Slashdot for 1000", and the answer is "Mention Religion in a summary, more than one preferably"
No, discussing alien life is not "new" and no, this is not some interesting twist on the discussion. Claiming that "we are going to find alien life by XXXX date" is akin to claiming "the world is going to end by XXXX date". I don't believe in your tarot cards, your phrenology, or what ever else you claim gives you the power to see the future. We all know that the potential is there, but.. well you can read the definition of the word on your own.
You hopefully stopped reading when the guy correlates finding planets with finding life, knowing it was a troll.
From further reading, the ruling is based largely on the Chairman's testimony. There is some corroborating testimony from other employees backing requests from executives to upload "popular" music to their service to seed. Logs and actual evidence are not provided, and searching a bit found nothing. I'm not digging through PACER for this, be my guest if you are inclined:)
Transcripts are not available so it's impossible to know if context, however the Chairman is quoted stating they "bet the company on the fact that [it] is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission” to use plaintiffs’ content. Id. Escape discussed the possibility that its strategy of illegally growing its user base before settling with plaintiffs might permit it to collect information about Grooveshark users’listening habits, which it could then sell to plaintiffs for more than Escape."
This would put liability on the company, but I would suspect that it would require backing evidence which we can't see. Considering that there are personal charges brought against 9 other employees, there is an obvious concern that a plea bargain could contaminate testimony of the Chairman. That said, backing testimony does exist.
The plaintiffs claim that logs and source code were destroyed in discovery, but this is a normal claim by RIA lawyers when facts don't yield what they want. Of course the RIA is mentioned all over the court findings, including the initial lawsuit started by UMG and RIA. The initial law suit was over material that was recorded prior to 1972 and was not subject to copyright protection.
I'm so glad that the Copyright laws are here to ensure that the Hendrix family receives money from Jimmy's works. Oh wait, they fuck over everyone they can and pocket everything.. nevermind.
I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion. Obviously these are opinions which are perspective based, so I'd be happy to have more data on how you came to your conclusion.
IMHO (not really that humble most of the time) I don't believe it's so that they can tell people they are worthless as much as they can claim that certain people and projects are much better than reality dictates. We can claim all of these Government programs really work if we hype small things like this, and of course ignore the fact that people are accomplishing exactly what you could have seen in a school science fair back when I was a kid. Not only that, but you can become a celebrity by doing so.
No matter which of us is closer to the truth in our opinionated conclusion, the fact remains that this is propaganda and not "News for Nerds". The unknown is what the purpose of the propaganda is, which often stays hidden for a very long time.
Before someone ends up jailed, check your state laws regarding this. An emancipated 16 year old can be treated like an adult in the workforce, but that is not because of their age.
It is impossible that you are clueless regarding the term genetics. It is further impossible that you can not know that genetics includes traits such as skin color and slant of eyes. Therefor any claim that genetics makes a person smarter, or dumber, must include racial traits in order to be valid. This is not complex deductive reasoning.
This is explained in the previous posts so you either chose to selectively read what was written or you are just trolling.
No offense is intended, but I refuse to simply take someone's word for it. I'll try to read through the piles of evidence this evening and see what is there. Sure, it may have not been sensational enough to make a headline, but you don't provide any evidence either.
I would not be surprised if there is no evidence, because this would not be the first time we have seen a Kangaroo court in action. I have seen copyright be grandfathered in some cases by the MPAA/RIA so this would surely come as no surprise.
The surprise however is the passivity of the people when these things have occurred in the past.
Whether I like him or not does not make any difference to my point. His fame is due primarily to being a very savvy business person, not because any dish he touches tastes like gold (sorry, I can't come up with a universally acceptable flavor analogy for "awesome").
You mistakenly took my comment as an attack, and that is far from the truth. Chefs are certainly in two categories, and finding pairs working together yields 5 Star dining establishments. The first kind of Chef is the artist, that is the guy that makes food that wins awards. The Artist want's the best of everything all the time, even if he would lose money using the best of everything all the time. The second kind is the business kind, and they get awards for salvaging failing restaurants and making businesses very profitable. Ramsey is the latter kind, and he's very good at it.
And to be sure there is no confusion, I never said his goal was to make money for himself. He has at least one TV series where he is turning financially failing businesses into very profitable ones for other people. He understands the business side of Culinary arts very well, and that is his strength. That does not imply he's not also a competent cook, more that the old saying is correct. A jack of all trades is a master of none.
First a disclaimer, I don't feel like reading everything TFA links. Perhaps there is something incriminating in the details, but at least what the summary states is hardly illegal.
"Please share as much music as possible from outside the office, and leave your computers on whenever you can. This initial content is what will help to get our network started—it’s very important that we all help out!... Download as many MP3’s as possible, and add them to the folders you’re sharing on Grooveshark. Some of us are setting up special 'seed points' to house tens or even hundreds of thousands of files, but we can’t do this alone." He also threatened employees who didn't contribute.
I don't see any statement about stealing MP3s to share, ignoring copyright claims by artists, or copying personally purchased music into the service. Those things would surely be illegal, and perhaps that is in the evidence somewhere and just didn't make the summary.
Been there, and applied a patch from Microsoft and everything starts phoning home again. No, I should not have to constantly chip what we pay for to make it function in a business environment. Ubuntu at least has that as an excuse.
I appreciate the clarification, and happen to agree that interrogation and clarification is severely lacking in dialogue. That said, statements such as "You appear to have a poor understanding of electricity." are purely speculation and opinion and don't seem to match your claim of tendency and interests. This serves as precisely as an appeal which you claim to ignore.
No harm done to my ego, and hopefully not yours either. I enjoy good dialogue, and try to practice as often as I can (not easy on Slashdot either).
So you say that everybody can pick up a skill equally? Look around you, talent is not equally distributed.
"Yes", followed by "There is no evidence that the bias is only, or even measurably, hereditary genetics" (I'll explicitly state "hereditary" since a generic use of "genetics" may be missing the point). The point is, and was, that hereditary genetics is not as big of an impact as economics and social standing. Several sociological experiments were done proving exactly this. In the best experiment, a very young black male was raised in a wealthy English household. Not surprisingly, the black male learned as well as any "white" male and was just as successful as any "white" would have been.
The article hints that it is strongly based on genetics and why should it not be?
Because it's not science, it's bigotry. Anyone claiming that hereditary genetics is the main factor with intelligence is just as wrong as Hitler was, though they will probably refuse to see their own biases (speculation I agree, but fair given history).
Claiming that genetics has nothing to do with it is nonsense.
Many problems with capacity to learn are due to stresses after leaving the womb, but we also know that developmental issues can occur in the womb. This obviously indicates that hereditary genetics don't have as much impact as people wish to claim. I would further agree, and stated in my first post, that deformations change the equation.
Genetics is influenced from the time of conception onwards, and if they used this as a measure somehow it's surely not stated or indicated. TFA does however end on the claim that hereditary genetics is the biggest factor, and that should concern people.
Slashdot Mirror
They seem to have problems with every other vulnerability, why would they want to leave this one out?
Yes, that is *snark* directed against Wordpress and their history of poor security. No, I do not know if there are any actual Wordpress exploits.
I replied directly as sarcasm, and perhaps should have added this as an addendum to the same post. I used to do the same at home where I had no concerns if a hacker was actually successful. I never gave free access like you, I was still running both tcpwrappers and an application called Netwatch (similar to fail2ban). I did log everything, and spent a good deal of time probing the people attempting to hack my stuff, tracking their traffic, etc... Partially this was a bit of morbid curiosity, partially learning how hackers operate, but also to give me ideas of what to be protecting at the office..
Assuming you know the risks, which it seems like you do, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. Quite frankly, I learned a lot by doing this and attempting to build honeypots at home.
An office environment is quite different, different actions, different tolerances, and different expectations.
You can't advertise massive numbers if you throttle or run something like fail2ban!
So replies will include sarcasm and scrutiny instead of fart memes and goatse, got it!
Context is what makes it a logical fallacy, not the platform the speaker is standing on.
As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.
There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.
No you did not, you completely ignored everything that could possible make this a rational thought.
I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.
When you can not debate rationally, revert to insult and ad hominem to smoke screen. What a surprisingly mature position you maintain. (sarcasm just in case you missed it.)
Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.
Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:
Red Herring, you simply refuse to admit you are wrong. You still have no logical explanation for a soul with an atheist position, because atheism by nature disbelieves in supernatural forces. I have read a whole lot of excellent philosophical works and named 3 authors, you can't name one and can't argue your own position. Not one time in this thread so far have have you done anything except for say "nuh uh" and "look over there!".
No use continuing to debate someone that has zero ability to defend their position rationally. Later.
No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Right away you are ignoring the definition of deity completely. Notice also that you neglected the definition of a soul, and did not explain how a soul can be judged without a deity.
If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain. Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied. I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work. None of the people who publicly debate the atheist position address this point, because belief in a "soul" is irrational without a deity. Perhaps you can do what Marx, Godwin, and Miller can't do.
Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.
As I stated previously, putting different clothing on a deity does not make it anything but a deity. Arguing that Hinduism does not believe in a Abrahamic God does not make their belief that a deity controls the Universe any different. The Hindu religion just gives different clothing to the deity and calls it a different name (different supernatural powers, but not really a different supernatural purpose).
I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.
My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose, you are attempting to cherry pick a fragment to suit your argument. That said, you have not benefited your argument at all. You are trying to compare an action that you can make with a physical object with a measurable result, to an imaginary action on an imaginary object and an imaginary result. I don't consider that puzzling, I consider that irrational.
While I think your point does have some merit, it's because many people are ignorant with Logic and Rhetoric. It would be better to get people to recognize an appeal to emotion logical fallacy, at least occasionally. Reassigning "think of the children" to reductio ad hitlerum would only work if the people in power maintained the same "think of the children" arguments. They already swap this out on occasion with "think of the elderly", "think of the handicapped", or any other item they believe makes a confusing enough logical fallacy that people will fall for it in mass.
Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.
The Wiki article and definition is wrong? The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too? Or perhaps you are attempting to nitpick a fragment of the atheist position so that you can suit a belief that is surely not atheist? Quite possibly attempting to cloth a deity in a disguise so that your version of a deity does not match a more common theological view (without realizing that your deity is still a deity).
I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?
Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again? This is not comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to unicorns.
Also, what makes you think that I'm making a statement about my beliefs?
Fair point, you could be playing devils advocate. However, it was your statements I responded to so a fair response.
Why do think that a belief in a soul, judgement, etc. require a belief in a god?
Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.
Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being? Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.
I never stated that Wikipedia was the definitive source, I said there is an easy to see statement which would have demonstrated that you are wrong. The traditions you attempting to claim are "not religious" happen to be for the purpose of cleansing one's soul. I won't reiterate what gl4ss stated, since it's on point. What _you_ call Hinduism is not the same as what a person practicing Hinduism believes.
How is that belief superstitious and incompatible with atheism?
As previously stated souls, reincarnation, magic, etc.. all fall under supernatural. Being assigned to a deity or mystical energy makes no difference, because neither are scientifically provable and neither relate to a physical scientific world. If you happen to believe in souls and reincarnation and claim to be an atheist, I would suggest that you contemplate your claim of being atheist more thoroughly because you are doing it wrong.
Unfortunately, there are a number of self proclaimed atheists who are not really atheists, what they really believe is the satanic creed "do what thou wilt" and never stop to ask the important questions.
Then you are not atheist, you are agnostic (or Pagan, or something else). A soul, and judgement system for a soul, does not meet atheist criteria of a deity-less universe.
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
You don't have to study the religion very far to know that much. And sure, maybe you live in the backwoods someplace and can't find an Hindu to talk to about Hinduism. You could have had the courtesy of reading past the first paragraph in the Wiki page too, where you would have seen in the first sentence "In Hinduism, dharma signifies behaviors that are considered to be in accord with rta, the order that makes life and universe possible. A soul, reincarnation, and "an order that makes life and universe possible" are all superstitious and incompatible with atheism.
Good grief man, stop believing everything you are told.
I'd normally tell people that it's worth spending a good deal of time contemplating and debating Aristotle's work on causality prior to jumping into something related to Aquinas. I have never read Feser, does he attempt to bridge the gap for a novice? Does not sound that way by your description.
And the answer is "How many logical fallacies can you fit into a paragraph." *ding ding ding*
Perhaps "I'd like Trolling Slashdot for 1000", and the answer is "Mention Religion in a summary, more than one preferably"
No, discussing alien life is not "new" and no, this is not some interesting twist on the discussion. Claiming that "we are going to find alien life by XXXX date" is akin to claiming "the world is going to end by XXXX date". I don't believe in your tarot cards, your phrenology, or what ever else you claim gives you the power to see the future. We all know that the potential is there, but.. well you can read the definition of the word on your own.
You hopefully stopped reading when the guy correlates finding planets with finding life, knowing it was a troll.
From further reading, the ruling is based largely on the Chairman's testimony. There is some corroborating testimony from other employees backing requests from executives to upload "popular" music to their service to seed. Logs and actual evidence are not provided, and searching a bit found nothing. I'm not digging through PACER for this, be my guest if you are inclined :)
Transcripts are not available so it's impossible to know if context, however the Chairman is quoted stating they "bet the company on the fact that [it] is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission” to use plaintiffs’ content. Id. Escape discussed the possibility that its strategy of illegally growing its user base before settling with plaintiffs might permit it to collect information about Grooveshark users’listening habits, which it could then sell to plaintiffs for more than Escape."
This would put liability on the company, but I would suspect that it would require backing evidence which we can't see. Considering that there are personal charges brought against 9 other employees, there is an obvious concern that a plea bargain could contaminate testimony of the Chairman. That said, backing testimony does exist.
The plaintiffs claim that logs and source code were destroyed in discovery, but this is a normal claim by RIA lawyers when facts don't yield what they want. Of course the RIA is mentioned all over the court findings, including the initial lawsuit started by UMG and RIA. The initial law suit was over material that was recorded prior to 1972 and was not subject to copyright protection.
I'm so glad that the Copyright laws are here to ensure that the Hendrix family receives money from Jimmy's works. Oh wait, they fuck over everyone they can and pocket everything.. nevermind.
I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion. Obviously these are opinions which are perspective based, so I'd be happy to have more data on how you came to your conclusion.
IMHO (not really that humble most of the time) I don't believe it's so that they can tell people they are worthless as much as they can claim that certain people and projects are much better than reality dictates. We can claim all of these Government programs really work if we hype small things like this, and of course ignore the fact that people are accomplishing exactly what you could have seen in a school science fair back when I was a kid. Not only that, but you can become a celebrity by doing so.
No matter which of us is closer to the truth in our opinionated conclusion, the fact remains that this is propaganda and not "News for Nerds". The unknown is what the purpose of the propaganda is, which often stays hidden for a very long time.
Before someone ends up jailed, check your state laws regarding this. An emancipated 16 year old can be treated like an adult in the workforce, but that is not because of their age.
It is impossible that you are clueless regarding the term genetics. It is further impossible that you can not know that genetics includes traits such as skin color and slant of eyes. Therefor any claim that genetics makes a person smarter, or dumber, must include racial traits in order to be valid. This is not complex deductive reasoning.
This is explained in the previous posts so you either chose to selectively read what was written or you are just trolling.
No offense is intended, but I refuse to simply take someone's word for it. I'll try to read through the piles of evidence this evening and see what is there. Sure, it may have not been sensational enough to make a headline, but you don't provide any evidence either.
I would not be surprised if there is no evidence, because this would not be the first time we have seen a Kangaroo court in action. I have seen copyright be grandfathered in some cases by the MPAA/RIA so this would surely come as no surprise.
The surprise however is the passivity of the people when these things have occurred in the past.
Whether I like him or not does not make any difference to my point. His fame is due primarily to being a very savvy business person, not because any dish he touches tastes like gold (sorry, I can't come up with a universally acceptable flavor analogy for "awesome").
You mistakenly took my comment as an attack, and that is far from the truth. Chefs are certainly in two categories, and finding pairs working together yields 5 Star dining establishments. The first kind of Chef is the artist, that is the guy that makes food that wins awards. The Artist want's the best of everything all the time, even if he would lose money using the best of everything all the time. The second kind is the business kind, and they get awards for salvaging failing restaurants and making businesses very profitable. Ramsey is the latter kind, and he's very good at it.
And to be sure there is no confusion, I never said his goal was to make money for himself. He has at least one TV series where he is turning financially failing businesses into very profitable ones for other people. He understands the business side of Culinary arts very well, and that is his strength. That does not imply he's not also a competent cook, more that the old saying is correct. A jack of all trades is a master of none.
First a disclaimer, I don't feel like reading everything TFA links. Perhaps there is something incriminating in the details, but at least what the summary states is hardly illegal.
"Please share as much music as possible from outside the office, and leave your computers on whenever you can. This initial content is what will help to get our network started—it’s very important that we all help out! ... Download as many MP3’s as possible, and add them to the folders you’re sharing on Grooveshark. Some of us are setting up special 'seed points' to house tens or even hundreds of thousands of files, but we can’t do this alone." He also threatened employees who didn't contribute.
I don't see any statement about stealing MP3s to share, ignoring copyright claims by artists, or copying personally purchased music into the service. Those things would surely be illegal, and perhaps that is in the evidence somewhere and just didn't make the summary.
Been there, and applied a patch from Microsoft and everything starts phoning home again. No, I should not have to constantly chip what we pay for to make it function in a business environment. Ubuntu at least has that as an excuse.
I appreciate the clarification, and happen to agree that interrogation and clarification is severely lacking in dialogue. That said, statements such as "You appear to have a poor understanding of electricity." are purely speculation and opinion and don't seem to match your claim of tendency and interests. This serves as precisely as an appeal which you claim to ignore.
No harm done to my ego, and hopefully not yours either. I enjoy good dialogue, and try to practice as often as I can (not easy on Slashdot either).
So you say that everybody can pick up a skill equally? Look around you, talent is not equally distributed.
"Yes", followed by "There is no evidence that the bias is only, or even measurably, hereditary genetics" (I'll explicitly state "hereditary" since a generic use of "genetics" may be missing the point). The point is, and was, that hereditary genetics is not as big of an impact as economics and social standing. Several sociological experiments were done proving exactly this. In the best experiment, a very young black male was raised in a wealthy English household. Not surprisingly, the black male learned as well as any "white" male and was just as successful as any "white" would have been.
The article hints that it is strongly based on genetics and why should it not be?
Because it's not science, it's bigotry. Anyone claiming that hereditary genetics is the main factor with intelligence is just as wrong as Hitler was, though they will probably refuse to see their own biases (speculation I agree, but fair given history).
Claiming that genetics has nothing to do with it is nonsense.
Many problems with capacity to learn are due to stresses after leaving the womb, but we also know that developmental issues can occur in the womb. This obviously indicates that hereditary genetics don't have as much impact as people wish to claim. I would further agree, and stated in my first post, that deformations change the equation.
Genetics is influenced from the time of conception onwards, and if they used this as a measure somehow it's surely not stated or indicated. TFA does however end on the claim that hereditary genetics is the biggest factor, and that should concern people.