At a very technical level I see the point, however I notice two main differences. The first is that a browser is not built to circumvent copyrights. Browsers can share pirated goods inadvertently, where some software is built to share intentionally and avoid the copyrights. The second difference is that Google is, and all other web sites are, required to honor take down notices. Just to make sure that the previous statement is qualified, "required" should not imply "honored". The same does not always to apply to software designed for content sharing.
My statements regarding pirates being paid is historically accurate, there is only a differentiation based on an alliance. For example, early in his career Francis Drake was called a privateer by England while Spain called him a Pirate. He even flew the Jolly Rodger as his flag. Perhaps you were implying that privateers were not pirates? My English may not always perfect but my history is usually accurate.
Nitpicking language on a forum is sometimes laughable, and in your case that's exactly what I did. I'm not writing a thesis, I'm posting on/. With that said, I do try to write well. Quotes are often used for emphasis on words. Try reading a bit about the use of quotes here, and perhaps you can learn something. In particular notice this quote. "Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony.:. It should be obvious to anyone with a basic level of philosophical education that my use of quotes is correct. This is especially true with words like "Law" and "Legal" as we question their relevance to data sharing.
I will never claim to be perfect and can always find ways to improve. You should take that as a hint. I'm not surprised you post anonymously however.
I get what they were doing, and understand it's not direct piracy. However, I disagreed with Napster for the same reason I disagree with these guys. They intentionally facilitate piracy. It's one thing to have the ability to back up and copy your own data between devices. It's another thing all together when you allow sharing of data without better control.
A reasonable analogy (and relevant). Guys used to make lots of money customizing the old Pirate ships. Adding more guns, adding more speed, adding better sails, etc... Were they wrong? Unfortunately they were "legally" wrong since what they did was help facilitate crime. They willing did so, and knowingly did so. Their sense of greater good was a bit different than say England's greater good (though to be historically correct, big government mostly paid pirates to screw up the other guys: not much different than today:O).
When two greater goods collide, the ones with the "law" on their side tend to win a whole lot. It takes society to recognize and demand changes to the laws to change those scales.
No often that I agree with ACs, but in this case I do. Nice job AC!
There is an unfortunate reality that the system is currently very broken. Get an attorney, and start gathering evidence to deny their claim. EFF is a great place to go, and there are other sites like Groklaw that help gather patent invalidation evidence. Important: I'm not saying go to Groklaw, it may not work, as the lawsuit needs to be relevant to the site's area of interest.
EFF can help your company file the paperwork to the USPTO, which is required to invalidate the patent. Even if the patent is invalidated in court, the court's hands may be tied as the USPTO still shows the patent as valid.
If you have the resources, why not invalidate more than one of the trolls patents? Sometimes it only takes loud noises to pull the dogs off the trail.
An important thing _not_ to do fight it without legal assistance (and more obviously try to ignore the troll). It's easy to get tripped up in legal protocol and lose before you ever start fighting back, which is a tactic often used by trolls. Remember that while you have a business to run, these people's business is suing people.
Oh, and another quick point. Some forms of music are always condemned to poverty. If it's not popular, people don't listen or buy the music. Comparing "Pop" or "Rock" to Jazz has always showed a wage/income disparity with musicians.
I would not even think of it as transitional. Some big bands did charge Radio stations royalties for playing their songs. Obviously, those fees were payed by Radio stations with revenue from advertisers. This allowed larger radio stations to play "the big new song by...".
Seriously though, this person is getting upset because they don't have a large volume of listeners, not because the songs are not paid enough for listening. Example: A big Radio show in Detroit hits roughly 200,000 listeners every time it's played. For a month, the song gets played a couple times a day, then vanishes from the air as a "new" song takes it's spot. Rather quickly, over the course of a year a "good" song goes from twice daily to never. Such is the way of music.
Now as an artist, I don't count on listeners for revenue and never have. Like you mentioned, I rely on them to like the song enough to go buy it. Whether that's a CD/DVD, Vinyl, or itunes makes no difference. The "PURCHASE" is the revenue. And it's always going to be nothing -> lots -> nothing. This is why artists put out "new songs" and "new records". They even make money from concerts because you know.. people like the artist enough to want to go see them "Live".
This person is complaining about two things: First is revenue that has _NEVER_ been there for artists. The second is that they don't get enough of that revenue that has never been there.
To be a bit more concise, I don't mention royalties intentionally. In fact there are numerous potential revenue boosters I neglect. Not important for what the artist is complaining about.
Simple answer: No. I have loved to cook since the time I was single digits old. I went to 3 years of Culinary school, but found out that I hated cooking at home after working with food all day. So I left culinary school for greener pastures and went to a tech job. At the same time, I'm back to enjoying cooking at home.
While technology can be great, at the same time.. not for food. There are so many variables to look at when cooking. How much butter I use in a saute will change on so many factors only the eyes and nose can catch differences. We are not talking a little either.
Kind of interesting, but I just shared this story with a guy I work with. Making Chicken with Marsala wine and artichokes. The amount of wine is always the same, chicken stock is the same amount, artichokes is roughly the same amount, but butter can go from 2-4Tbsp from one preparation to the next. If the umidity is low, the chicken is moist, the flower was dry, or air temperature was different, all of those things play a factor. Hell, the cooking time differs on items over the course of a day when the weather changes as does how high my flame is on the burner.
I'm not saying you could not build technology that could determine all of that and make adjustments. But why would I want to spend all that money and not do something I take great pride and pleasure in?
That would actually be a great opensource project.. Hmmmm.. the "break my recognition project". "How come this Gerald Whazzisname" looks like a baseball? Well commander, that's what all our searches return.
Sorry man, but you are quite wrong. A poorly funded attacker would have to get their poorly funded missiles in range to be used. Look at the range Iran, who has decent levels of funding, has for missiles. Missile defense at the level being discussed in the article, like the Aegis and Star Wars were made for, is not for "poor" missiles. Like the shoulder fired crap we see Hezbola lob in to Israel. It's for long range ballistic missiles.
Now what Israel just released on their borders, the US has similar systems, is for smaller missiles which are cheaper. But honestly, go look at the numbers of rockets fired into Israel last year and compare that to damage and death. Those "cheap" missiles are not very damaging nor very accurate. Often, they land in the dirt and never explode.
So if you are Joe Turd, the great Commander and Leader of Turdworld Country, and you make half a million fertilizer tipped missiles you have to somehow get them in range of the US to be a threat. Heartily, you brave the waters and bring your tin barge fleet, carrying all of those missiles, within a few hundred miles of the US. We, in the US, would see that threat long before you launched any missiles. Hell, you would probably have to call the US Coast Guard to rescue some of your less equipped barges that are sinking. When we saw your "missile fleet", we would buzz helicopters around your boats to make wake and sink the fleet. The US would wave, and say goodbye to both Joe Turd and the massive missile fleet of Turdworld Country.
This means that the public does not give a rats ass. If they would, they would change it.
Partial truth. You seem to be ignoring the power of propaganda and the ability of the Government to control the reality people see and hear. Don't take my word for that statement, go read Plato's Republic. We have known the power and ability for at least 2,600 years. I say "at least" because I doubt Socrates was the first to say "Ah Ha!". He was however the first to be published showing its use against citizens.
You also neglect the difficulty in changing society once people in power gain a foot hold.
However, there is a tangible difference between socialism and capitalism; the former evens the playing field while the latter makes it uneven.
Historically it is tempting to compare capitalism with aristocracy and feudalism.
Your first sentence is exactly why I stated Capitalism in the ideal it was created with, and not what we see being practiced and called Capitalism. I get that my statement is unrealistic, however: What we have currently being called Capitalism is worse than what we called Mercantilism in the past.
Comparison: I could say something colored red was colored blue. Obviously you know this is false. If I took something like aquamarine and called it blue, you could see that I was at least close.
You sound like you have some knowledge, so I won't risk patronizing you by saying go read what the creator of capitalism said. We had regulations in place for 200 years to prevent what we see running rampant currently. It was not perfect, however AT&T was split up when abusing their monopoly powers, Standard Oil was split up, etc.. etc... Currently, most of those regulations are gone. Of the few that are left, they are not enforced (nor can they be enforced) due to corruptions to the Patent and Copyright systems which were supposed to prevent monopolization.
I don't know, but no communist text I have ever read indicates that no form of currency will exist. Currency is a convenient invention, but this invention is not what capitalism is about either.
I think you misunderstood the context of my statement. The person I responded to was complaining about the use of currency and blamed it's use (indirectly) on Capitalism. My statement was a correction and strong example of currencies use.
No, I still blame it on your theology. If you can't see that the term "creator" signifies an active agent, especially in opposition of a term like "cause" which makes no initial assumption about the possible nature of an agent or system, then there is nothing more to be said on that matter.
The term creator will only conjure up images to those that believe maintain the Theology is in question when asking "is there a creator". I intentionally point to the Greek Philosophers when debating that question. Why? Because they did not have the same hang up.
If you are trying to imply that the question is not important, that's okay. You may never find it interesting enough to study. That does not change the questions validity, nor does it change the importance of the question. Important "to you" makes no difference.
Wrong. Cosmology addresses the question without theological baggage, taking the inquiry as far as it can go. And the answers they are finding conspicuously lack the need for a "creator."
What you repeatedly state is that your belief is the only possible answer. To the point even where you claim that even asking the question is biased.
That is a pretty deep bias you have. There is no other way to put it. Sure, you accuse me of bias but.. you know, psychology and all that. To show the point:
Wrong. Cosmology addresses the question without theological baggage, taking the inquiry as far as it can go. And the answers they are finding conspicuously lack the need for a "creator."
What are you talking about? Where in the big bang was the cause of the mass explained? I won't wait for you to answer, it was not there. But everyone teaching and writing on the big bang said "there is no creator because the big bang made the universe". We have the same with the expanding universe theory. There is no explanation for how the first piece of space came to exist. Go read the link you provided and show me where it's explained. You won't find it. Yet people giving presentations and writing books use the exact same rhetoric denying a creator. "Bully in the sky", "superstitious man in the sky", etc..
So again, if there is nothing to it and no way science can work on it why are they not taking the scientific approach to the question?
I won't even touch the rest. I'm sure if you try you can find all of the fallacy you introduced. I'm not confident you will try..
Do you want the real answer or some spiffy rhetorical bullshit? Save that, I'll give you the real answer. My apologies in advance too, since I'm guessing you already know what follows and are simply asking the rhetorical question. This is really for those that are still sleeping.
The real answer is that the people currently sitting in offices don't give a rats ass about their own Constitution. Don't look at what they say, look at what they do! The Patriot act has not been diminished, it's been extended. Hidden clauses in executive orders remove things from view, and public support. Lets not kid each other, that is a symptom of a much larger problem and not the problem.
Socrates warned that citizens must guard against people in political offices that demand increasing amounts of power. He was the first, but definitely not the last. That quest for power can quickly turn any form of Government into a tyranny.
Now many will say "doom and gloom nonsense", and those people are simply ignorant. They have no idea how much snooping the NSA currently does on them, nor how much that will expand this summer when the new super computer complex opens (which has been designed for exactly the purpose of snooping and reporting on citizens). They have no idea how much of that data is requested and granted currently (in secrecy) to other government agencies, like the CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, DOJ, ATF, etc.. Nobody in the public does, because our government refuses to provide any information at all. Even to the point where they refuse to admit it happens. We know it happens based on events and court cases, not because it's admitted.
This is by the same people in office that will tell you to your face that they want to be open and honest. Does the term "pathological liar" not bother you?
So if the Government ignores the Constitution and Bill of Rights when dealing with it's own citizens do you really expect them to honor the words with non-citizens? The constitution is the foundation for every other aspect of our Government.
Because a company pays people with speculative or borrowed money does not mean that they should pay them on speculative borrowed money. Many of the financial practices we see being used today were illegal in the past. Of those that were not, taking loans to pay people was not a practice by healthy companies. It was done in desperate times sure, but today people think your crazy if you don't borrow money to pay your employees. That is beyond baffling. Not only do you pay your employee wages and taxes, but you pay interest charges to do so? Even if you take those interest charges can be used for a small write off, it's additional expense. (The real reason it's done is to cook the books, not because it's financially responsible)
To the person's point, did you read Amazon.com's latest earnings report showed that the company makes about $10.8 billion per quarter, or about $118 million per day and $4.9 million per hour."?
An outage is not the same thing as a percentage of total revenue for a company. It's not logical to draw such a conclusion. First you have the obvious truth that Amazon makes money from sources other than the internet. The second is that they don't know how much connectivity was lost. It may have been gardener Bob ordering a packet of Sunflowers that could not get on to buy a 1.99 pack of seeds, and nobody else was impacted.
Lastly, it draws a false conclusion that anyone attempting to buy something while the service was down never buys the product. That is absolute nonsense. If I try to buy a book from Amazon and I'm interrupted for any reason I don't abandon Amazon. I go later and buy what I needed. The majority of consumers delay a purchase, which means very little gets lost when a site goes down.
You start with a loaded question("is there a creator") without recognizing the fact that you are making a large assumption just by introducing a "creator" archtype into what you claim is the primordial question. Then you spend some time assuming conspiracy theories, since reality is not matching up with your ideas.
Obviously the first statement is true, I have a position and maintain the position. You don't believe that you have any bias showing?
For the second statement, don't push your biases toward me. If the term creator conjures up images to you, that's not my issue but your issue. My use of the term is correct. At first you blamed the use on Theology, now you just don't like the term I guess. Either way, my use is not incorrect and is very Socratic. (I'll extrapolate on that in a moment)
Why do people not believe anymore? It must be a grand conspiracy to brainwash them through college, the media, etc!
Why do cosmologists consistently reject the notion of creator gods? It must be a grand conspiracy to pay them to lie!
The first statement is a false assumption, I'm sure you missed that. The second is also a false assumption. I didn't claim there was a grand conspiracy, I stated that the actions were easily provable. If your bias leads you to specific conclusions, that is not my issue. I never gave a conclusion, I stated that acts were very provable. As I stated previously, denying evidence does not make the evidence vanish but maintains a delusion.
You quibble about my "space-time bubble" comment, but what about it do you disagree with? The space-time part? Or the bubble, by which I mean expansion?
I specifically gave the answer to that. You either chose to ignore that it was a fallacy based on an old paradox, or failed to read what I wrote.
An expanding space-time universe is central to virtually all of modern cosmology, and so I stand by my comment. For the record, I'm not familiar with Krauss' claims, although I suspect that they are drawn from the same basic theory I believe is true. [wikipedia.org]
Kraus shows the quantum math required to make this theory work, and gets paid for public speaking as a Cosmologist. Yes, the same basic principles.
And, yes, you are punting the question. In fact, you fell into the very logical fallacy that you claim that I did: the Conjunction Fallacy. "The Universe" + "a Creator" is not more likely than "The Universe" alone.
Sorry, but you absolutely wrong. First, lets be clear: Cosmology does not attempt to address the question required. "Did something cause the Universe to exist?" Since that something is extremely complex the term used is normally, and historically, given as "Creator". What cosmology teaches in fact, is to ignore the question and diminish the importance of the question. The inflation theory you posted, and the Big Bang theory taught as gospel for more than half a century never address the question.
Now one may think that science ignores it with prudence. It would be easy for a Cosmologist to say "Since we can't know with science we don't tackle the question, go see the Philosophers". That does not happen however. What happens is that we have speeches about "The bully in the sky", papers discounting theology mixed in to the cosmology, and a taught bias so that people never look at the question. This is a willful delusion, but you won't ever admit it since it would challenge your beliefs.
After reading your posts in the other threads, I don't think that this post will have changed your mind.
That would be correct. I have spent nearly half a century studying and forming my opinion. My opinion is not grounded in fantasy, but facts and Philosophy. I also admit that it is an opinion, and have stated several times that we can never prove what caused t
Probably because anyone can make grammatical errors. I try to re-read before posting and correct the errors I notice, but I am far from perfect. How come people like you use fallacy to attack arguments instead using facts or debate?
As I asked above, did people go read "Fallacy for Dummies" then come post?
You have an absolutely false dilemma. If oil dries up we do not go back to feudalistic monarchies and/or tyrannical governments. Moving to those types of governments happens, and is happening, around you now while oil is abundant.
In fact, I'd argue that if we had less time to sit in front of the TV and computer our Government and quality of life may increase. That is speculation of course, we can't know the future. In the case of oil however, we know it's limited and can plan ahead. We can work within the confines of knowing it's limited and take appropriate actions. It's not doom and gloom unless we do nothing, and of course make it a doom and gloom scenario.
The problem you mention is not that difficult to resolve. I gave the examples and find them to be pretty logical. As I said, if you want to be an individual and not care about the needs of society that's just fine. But society must remove threats to their survival.
Obviously a single individual in societies as large as we have today, with the technology and materials we have today, will not be able to break a society alone. That does not mean that they can't threaten society.
Lastly, the individual and society need to be in harmony. That is why Socrates stated that members of society must be highly educated. Without society, individuals have difficulty surviving. Without individuals, societies can't exist. It's a balancing act. It's not either/or when it comes to rights and both must responsible to each other. If you believe that your wants trump societies needs, get out of society. It can not work that way.
I could see you questioning if I mentioned a particular theology, but I do not. As mentioned, I know a whole lot about theologies but would not be a believer of any.
We know there was an initial event that started the Universe. That question is answered simply by our existence. Did a creator create the Universe or did it just happen is the question.
We know that this particular time-space bubble had a beginning. This says nothing about all of reality. You are just punting the question anyway. It is a groundless assertion to claim that this universe requires an explanation while a deity would not.
Your argument is plain old wrong and based on fallacy. We can not prove there is such a bubble. What we can prove is that the Universe had a starting point. What you have just argued is a slight modification to the paradox of the creators creator. The paradox is not valid to the argument, and is a well known base rate fallacy. Depending on your view, it could be a conjunctive fallacy.
No, this is just your assertion, again caught up in your theological baggage. If this universe is caused by a natural event, then by definition there is no need for a supernatural explanation.
Huh? No, there is no Theology required to come to that conclusion. _If_ a creator did create the universe, they are not bound by this universe. "The creator" must have an existence outside outside of this Universe. This is the definition of supernatural. Now one may argue that "The creator _is_ the Universe" which does not change the fact that they must have existed outside of the Universe to begin with. As I mentioned earlier go read the definition of supernatural. Go read the definition of deity. A creator will fit both definitions and must.
As to the second half of your statement, we have seen no other universes spring up within our own. The damage that would be caused by such an event would most likely have destroyed our Universe. There are numerous methods of simulating this mathematically. So while claiming "it's natural and just happened" is a possibility, it is not probable at all. I don't discount the possibility. I admit that I could be wrong. It's such a small chance that I'm not worried about my position, but it is there.
I understand, and have understood for a long time, that the question of whether there is a creator or not is a Philosophical question. It can only be answered with a Philosophical answer. We can only begin to measure _after_ the universe existed. There is no way to measure or detect anything prior to that movement starting. That is the point that many atheists simply refuse to admit, but this is a reality and limitation that we must consider.
Currently there is a tremendous debate running on whether it was the big bang or Kraus' expanding vacuum that happened to expand the Universe. Both of those theories require that something existed just prior to the Universe starting. If you believe Kraus, it was a chunk of vacuum about the size of the head of a pin. If you believe the big bang it depends on who's theory you like. It's anywhere between the head of a pin and something a few hundred thousand light years in diameter. And if you believe the big bang, you really need to give the specifics. The modelling has changed so drastically in very rapid time that it can't really be considered science any more. It also requires dark energy and dark mass, where Kraus' work does not. Personally I think Kraus' work is more accurate. It does not require up to 98% of the Universe to be made up of invisible magic stuff we can't see or detect (again depends on who's theory you believe). I also find it rather ironic that people believing in magic materials and energy make fun of people that believe in a deity because their magic is "science".
So the question is simple. Did the Universe just happen
A few hundred years ago the police (soldiers) would often beat people bloody in the streets for petty crimes. After your beating, you may be hung up in a nice iron cage for the town to view, or perhaps loaded into the stockades for a few days. Punishments handed out by courts often include the removal of limbs. Sometimes those sentences were passed on innocent people. Using your logic, I guess all police are bad, and governments are bad, and courts are bad as well. Either that, or your logic simply does not work.
Slashdot Mirror
At a very technical level I see the point, however I notice two main differences. The first is that a browser is not built to circumvent copyrights. Browsers can share pirated goods inadvertently, where some software is built to share intentionally and avoid the copyrights. The second difference is that Google is, and all other web sites are, required to honor take down notices. Just to make sure that the previous statement is qualified, "required" should not imply "honored". The same does not always to apply to software designed for content sharing.
My statements regarding pirates being paid is historically accurate, there is only a differentiation based on an alliance. For example, early in his career Francis Drake was called a privateer by England while Spain called him a Pirate. He even flew the Jolly Rodger as his flag. Perhaps you were implying that privateers were not pirates? My English may not always perfect but my history is usually accurate.
Nitpicking language on a forum is sometimes laughable, and in your case that's exactly what I did. I'm not writing a thesis, I'm posting on /. With that said, I do try to write well. Quotes are often used for emphasis on words. Try reading a bit about the use of quotes here, and perhaps you can learn something. In particular notice this quote. "Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony.:. It should be obvious to anyone with a basic level of philosophical education that my use of quotes is correct. This is especially true with words like "Law" and "Legal" as we question their relevance to data sharing.
I will never claim to be perfect and can always find ways to improve. You should take that as a hint. I'm not surprised you post anonymously however.
I get what they were doing, and understand it's not direct piracy. However, I disagreed with Napster for the same reason I disagree with these guys. They intentionally facilitate piracy. It's one thing to have the ability to back up and copy your own data between devices. It's another thing all together when you allow sharing of data without better control.
A reasonable analogy (and relevant). Guys used to make lots of money customizing the old Pirate ships. Adding more guns, adding more speed, adding better sails, etc... Were they wrong? Unfortunately they were "legally" wrong since what they did was help facilitate crime. They willing did so, and knowingly did so. Their sense of greater good was a bit different than say England's greater good (though to be historically correct, big government mostly paid pirates to screw up the other guys: not much different than today :O).
When two greater goods collide, the ones with the "law" on their side tend to win a whole lot. It takes society to recognize and demand changes to the laws to change those scales.
No often that I agree with ACs, but in this case I do. Nice job AC!
There is an unfortunate reality that the system is currently very broken. Get an attorney, and start gathering evidence to deny their claim. EFF is a great place to go, and there are other sites like Groklaw that help gather patent invalidation evidence. Important: I'm not saying go to Groklaw, it may not work, as the lawsuit needs to be relevant to the site's area of interest.
EFF can help your company file the paperwork to the USPTO, which is required to invalidate the patent. Even if the patent is invalidated in court, the court's hands may be tied as the USPTO still shows the patent as valid.
If you have the resources, why not invalidate more than one of the trolls patents? Sometimes it only takes loud noises to pull the dogs off the trail.
An important thing _not_ to do fight it without legal assistance (and more obviously try to ignore the troll). It's easy to get tripped up in legal protocol and lose before you ever start fighting back, which is a tactic often used by trolls. Remember that while you have a business to run, these people's business is suing people.
Oh, and another quick point. Some forms of music are always condemned to poverty. If it's not popular, people don't listen or buy the music. Comparing "Pop" or "Rock" to Jazz has always showed a wage/income disparity with musicians.
I would not even think of it as transitional. Some big bands did charge Radio stations royalties for playing their songs. Obviously, those fees were payed by Radio stations with revenue from advertisers. This allowed larger radio stations to play "the big new song by ...".
Seriously though, this person is getting upset because they don't have a large volume of listeners, not because the songs are not paid enough for listening. Example: A big Radio show in Detroit hits roughly 200,000 listeners every time it's played. For a month, the song gets played a couple times a day, then vanishes from the air as a "new" song takes it's spot. Rather quickly, over the course of a year a "good" song goes from twice daily to never. Such is the way of music.
Now as an artist, I don't count on listeners for revenue and never have. Like you mentioned, I rely on them to like the song enough to go buy it. Whether that's a CD/DVD, Vinyl, or itunes makes no difference. The "PURCHASE" is the revenue. And it's always going to be nothing -> lots -> nothing. This is why artists put out "new songs" and "new records". They even make money from concerts because you know.. people like the artist enough to want to go see them "Live".
This person is complaining about two things: First is revenue that has _NEVER_ been there for artists. The second is that they don't get enough of that revenue that has never been there.
To be a bit more concise, I don't mention royalties intentionally. In fact there are numerous potential revenue boosters I neglect. Not important for what the artist is complaining about.
Simple answer: No. I have loved to cook since the time I was single digits old. I went to 3 years of Culinary school, but found out that I hated cooking at home after working with food all day. So I left culinary school for greener pastures and went to a tech job. At the same time, I'm back to enjoying cooking at home.
While technology can be great, at the same time.. not for food. There are so many variables to look at when cooking. How much butter I use in a saute will change on so many factors only the eyes and nose can catch differences. We are not talking a little either.
Kind of interesting, but I just shared this story with a guy I work with. Making Chicken with Marsala wine and artichokes. The amount of wine is always the same, chicken stock is the same amount, artichokes is roughly the same amount, but butter can go from 2-4Tbsp from one preparation to the next. If the umidity is low, the chicken is moist, the flower was dry, or air temperature was different, all of those things play a factor. Hell, the cooking time differs on items over the course of a day when the weather changes as does how high my flame is on the burner.
I'm not saying you could not build technology that could determine all of that and make adjustments. But why would I want to spend all that money and not do something I take great pride and pleasure in?
That would actually be a great opensource project.. Hmmmm.. the "break my recognition project". "How come this Gerald Whazzisname" looks like a baseball? Well commander, that's what all our searches return.
I should correctly have spelled Hizballah and apologize if anyone is offended or confused by the incorrect spelling.
Sorry man, but you are quite wrong. A poorly funded attacker would have to get their poorly funded missiles in range to be used. Look at the range Iran, who has decent levels of funding, has for missiles. Missile defense at the level being discussed in the article, like the Aegis and Star Wars were made for, is not for "poor" missiles. Like the shoulder fired crap we see Hezbola lob in to Israel. It's for long range ballistic missiles.
Now what Israel just released on their borders, the US has similar systems, is for smaller missiles which are cheaper. But honestly, go look at the numbers of rockets fired into Israel last year and compare that to damage and death. Those "cheap" missiles are not very damaging nor very accurate. Often, they land in the dirt and never explode.
So if you are Joe Turd, the great Commander and Leader of Turdworld Country, and you make half a million fertilizer tipped missiles you have to somehow get them in range of the US to be a threat. Heartily, you brave the waters and bring your tin barge fleet, carrying all of those missiles, within a few hundred miles of the US. We, in the US, would see that threat long before you launched any missiles. Hell, you would probably have to call the US Coast Guard to rescue some of your less equipped barges that are sinking. When we saw your "missile fleet", we would buzz helicopters around your boats to make wake and sink the fleet. The US would wave, and say goodbye to both Joe Turd and the massive missile fleet of Turdworld Country.
Exactly what I was thinking. It's a hypothetical scenario where no numbers are given, and claiming "Math" breaks something.. ugh..
This means that the public does not give a rats ass. If they would, they would change it.
Partial truth. You seem to be ignoring the power of propaganda and the ability of the Government to control the reality people see and hear. Don't take my word for that statement, go read Plato's Republic. We have known the power and ability for at least 2,600 years. I say "at least" because I doubt Socrates was the first to say "Ah Ha!". He was however the first to be published showing its use against citizens.
You also neglect the difficulty in changing society once people in power gain a foot hold.
However, there is a tangible difference between socialism and capitalism; the former evens the playing field while the latter makes it uneven. Historically it is tempting to compare capitalism with aristocracy and feudalism.
Your first sentence is exactly why I stated Capitalism in the ideal it was created with, and not what we see being practiced and called Capitalism. I get that my statement is unrealistic, however: What we have currently being called Capitalism is worse than what we called Mercantilism in the past.
Comparison: I could say something colored red was colored blue. Obviously you know this is false. If I took something like aquamarine and called it blue, you could see that I was at least close.
You sound like you have some knowledge, so I won't risk patronizing you by saying go read what the creator of capitalism said. We had regulations in place for 200 years to prevent what we see running rampant currently. It was not perfect, however AT&T was split up when abusing their monopoly powers, Standard Oil was split up, etc.. etc... Currently, most of those regulations are gone. Of the few that are left, they are not enforced (nor can they be enforced) due to corruptions to the Patent and Copyright systems which were supposed to prevent monopolization.
I don't know, but no communist text I have ever read indicates that no form of currency will exist. Currency is a convenient invention, but this invention is not what capitalism is about either.
I think you misunderstood the context of my statement. The person I responded to was complaining about the use of currency and blamed it's use (indirectly) on Capitalism. My statement was a correction and strong example of currencies use.
No, I still blame it on your theology. If you can't see that the term "creator" signifies an active agent, especially in opposition of a term like "cause" which makes no initial assumption about the possible nature of an agent or system, then there is nothing more to be said on that matter.
The term creator will only conjure up images to those that believe maintain the Theology is in question when asking "is there a creator". I intentionally point to the Greek Philosophers when debating that question. Why? Because they did not have the same hang up.
If you are trying to imply that the question is not important, that's okay. You may never find it interesting enough to study. That does not change the questions validity, nor does it change the importance of the question. Important "to you" makes no difference.
Wrong. Cosmology addresses the question without theological baggage, taking the inquiry as far as it can go. And the answers they are finding conspicuously lack the need for a "creator."
What you repeatedly state is that your belief is the only possible answer. To the point even where you claim that even asking the question is biased.
That is a pretty deep bias you have. There is no other way to put it. Sure, you accuse me of bias but.. you know, psychology and all that. To show the point:
Wrong. Cosmology addresses the question without theological baggage, taking the inquiry as far as it can go. And the answers they are finding conspicuously lack the need for a "creator."
What are you talking about? Where in the big bang was the cause of the mass explained? I won't wait for you to answer, it was not there. But everyone teaching and writing on the big bang said "there is no creator because the big bang made the universe". We have the same with the expanding universe theory. There is no explanation for how the first piece of space came to exist. Go read the link you provided and show me where it's explained. You won't find it. Yet people giving presentations and writing books use the exact same rhetoric denying a creator. "Bully in the sky", "superstitious man in the sky", etc..
So again, if there is nothing to it and no way science can work on it why are they not taking the scientific approach to the question?
I won't even touch the rest. I'm sure if you try you can find all of the fallacy you introduced. I'm not confident you will try..
Read it again, and don't be so narrow minded. It's really not that long of a read from start to finish. In fact it may be enlightening.
yeah, I actually missed that until I saw it pointed out. Makes the "issue" even more of a non-issue as you look at the claim in detail.
Do you want the real answer or some spiffy rhetorical bullshit? Save that, I'll give you the real answer. My apologies in advance too, since I'm guessing you already know what follows and are simply asking the rhetorical question. This is really for those that are still sleeping.
The real answer is that the people currently sitting in offices don't give a rats ass about their own Constitution. Don't look at what they say, look at what they do! The Patriot act has not been diminished, it's been extended. Hidden clauses in executive orders remove things from view, and public support. Lets not kid each other, that is a symptom of a much larger problem and not the problem.
Socrates warned that citizens must guard against people in political offices that demand increasing amounts of power. He was the first, but definitely not the last. That quest for power can quickly turn any form of Government into a tyranny.
Now many will say "doom and gloom nonsense", and those people are simply ignorant. They have no idea how much snooping the NSA currently does on them, nor how much that will expand this summer when the new super computer complex opens (which has been designed for exactly the purpose of snooping and reporting on citizens). They have no idea how much of that data is requested and granted currently (in secrecy) to other government agencies, like the CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, DOJ, ATF, etc.. Nobody in the public does, because our government refuses to provide any information at all. Even to the point where they refuse to admit it happens. We know it happens based on events and court cases, not because it's admitted.
This is by the same people in office that will tell you to your face that they want to be open and honest. Does the term "pathological liar" not bother you?
So if the Government ignores the Constitution and Bill of Rights when dealing with it's own citizens do you really expect them to honor the words with non-citizens? The constitution is the foundation for every other aspect of our Government.
Because a company pays people with speculative or borrowed money does not mean that they should pay them on speculative borrowed money. Many of the financial practices we see being used today were illegal in the past. Of those that were not, taking loans to pay people was not a practice by healthy companies. It was done in desperate times sure, but today people think your crazy if you don't borrow money to pay your employees. That is beyond baffling. Not only do you pay your employee wages and taxes, but you pay interest charges to do so? Even if you take those interest charges can be used for a small write off, it's additional expense. (The real reason it's done is to cook the books, not because it's financially responsible)
To the person's point, did you read Amazon.com's latest earnings report showed that the company makes about $10.8 billion per quarter, or about $118 million per day and $4.9 million per hour."?
An outage is not the same thing as a percentage of total revenue for a company. It's not logical to draw such a conclusion. First you have the obvious truth that Amazon makes money from sources other than the internet. The second is that they don't know how much connectivity was lost. It may have been gardener Bob ordering a packet of Sunflowers that could not get on to buy a 1.99 pack of seeds, and nobody else was impacted.
Lastly, it draws a false conclusion that anyone attempting to buy something while the service was down never buys the product. That is absolute nonsense. If I try to buy a book from Amazon and I'm interrupted for any reason I don't abandon Amazon. I go later and buy what I needed. The majority of consumers delay a purchase, which means very little gets lost when a site goes down.
You are so vain! Er wait, you meant the other kind of mirror...
Your bias is evident all through this reply.
You start with a loaded question("is there a creator") without recognizing the fact that you are making a large assumption just by introducing a "creator" archtype into what you claim is the primordial question. Then you spend some time assuming conspiracy theories, since reality is not matching up with your ideas.
Obviously the first statement is true, I have a position and maintain the position. You don't believe that you have any bias showing?
For the second statement, don't push your biases toward me. If the term creator conjures up images to you, that's not my issue but your issue. My use of the term is correct. At first you blamed the use on Theology, now you just don't like the term I guess. Either way, my use is not incorrect and is very Socratic. (I'll extrapolate on that in a moment)
Why do people not believe anymore? It must be a grand conspiracy to brainwash them through college, the media, etc! Why do cosmologists consistently reject the notion of creator gods? It must be a grand conspiracy to pay them to lie!
The first statement is a false assumption, I'm sure you missed that. The second is also a false assumption. I didn't claim there was a grand conspiracy, I stated that the actions were easily provable. If your bias leads you to specific conclusions, that is not my issue. I never gave a conclusion, I stated that acts were very provable. As I stated previously, denying evidence does not make the evidence vanish but maintains a delusion.
You quibble about my "space-time bubble" comment, but what about it do you disagree with? The space-time part? Or the bubble, by which I mean expansion?
I specifically gave the answer to that. You either chose to ignore that it was a fallacy based on an old paradox, or failed to read what I wrote.
An expanding space-time universe is central to virtually all of modern cosmology, and so I stand by my comment. For the record, I'm not familiar with Krauss' claims, although I suspect that they are drawn from the same basic theory I believe is true. [wikipedia.org]
Kraus shows the quantum math required to make this theory work, and gets paid for public speaking as a Cosmologist. Yes, the same basic principles.
And, yes, you are punting the question. In fact, you fell into the very logical fallacy that you claim that I did: the Conjunction Fallacy. "The Universe" + "a Creator" is not more likely than "The Universe" alone.
Sorry, but you absolutely wrong. First, lets be clear: Cosmology does not attempt to address the question required. "Did something cause the Universe to exist?" Since that something is extremely complex the term used is normally, and historically, given as "Creator". What cosmology teaches in fact, is to ignore the question and diminish the importance of the question. The inflation theory you posted, and the Big Bang theory taught as gospel for more than half a century never address the question.
Now one may think that science ignores it with prudence. It would be easy for a Cosmologist to say "Since we can't know with science we don't tackle the question, go see the Philosophers". That does not happen however. What happens is that we have speeches about "The bully in the sky", papers discounting theology mixed in to the cosmology, and a taught bias so that people never look at the question. This is a willful delusion, but you won't ever admit it since it would challenge your beliefs.
After reading your posts in the other threads, I don't think that this post will have changed your mind.
That would be correct. I have spent nearly half a century studying and forming my opinion. My opinion is not grounded in fantasy, but facts and Philosophy. I also admit that it is an opinion, and have stated several times that we can never prove what caused t
Probably because anyone can make grammatical errors. I try to re-read before posting and correct the errors I notice, but I am far from perfect. How come people like you use fallacy to attack arguments instead using facts or debate?
As I asked above, did people go read "Fallacy for Dummies" then come post?
You have an absolutely false dilemma. If oil dries up we do not go back to feudalistic monarchies and/or tyrannical governments. Moving to those types of governments happens, and is happening, around you now while oil is abundant.
In fact, I'd argue that if we had less time to sit in front of the TV and computer our Government and quality of life may increase. That is speculation of course, we can't know the future. In the case of oil however, we know it's limited and can plan ahead. We can work within the confines of knowing it's limited and take appropriate actions. It's not doom and gloom unless we do nothing, and of course make it a doom and gloom scenario.
The problem you mention is not that difficult to resolve. I gave the examples and find them to be pretty logical. As I said, if you want to be an individual and not care about the needs of society that's just fine. But society must remove threats to their survival.
Obviously a single individual in societies as large as we have today, with the technology and materials we have today, will not be able to break a society alone. That does not mean that they can't threaten society.
Lastly, the individual and society need to be in harmony. That is why Socrates stated that members of society must be highly educated. Without society, individuals have difficulty surviving. Without individuals, societies can't exist. It's a balancing act. It's not either/or when it comes to rights and both must responsible to each other. If you believe that your wants trump societies needs, get out of society. It can not work that way.
It is rarely the case that bias is intentional.
I could see you questioning if I mentioned a particular theology, but I do not. As mentioned, I know a whole lot about theologies but would not be a believer of any.
We know there was an initial event that started the Universe. That question is answered simply by our existence. Did a creator create the Universe or did it just happen is the question.
We know that this particular time-space bubble had a beginning. This says nothing about all of reality. You are just punting the question anyway. It is a groundless assertion to claim that this universe requires an explanation while a deity would not.
Your argument is plain old wrong and based on fallacy. We can not prove there is such a bubble. What we can prove is that the Universe had a starting point. What you have just argued is a slight modification to the paradox of the creators creator. The paradox is not valid to the argument, and is a well known base rate fallacy. Depending on your view, it could be a conjunctive fallacy.
No, this is just your assertion, again caught up in your theological baggage. If this universe is caused by a natural event, then by definition there is no need for a supernatural explanation.
Huh? No, there is no Theology required to come to that conclusion. _If_ a creator did create the universe, they are not bound by this universe. "The creator" must have an existence outside outside of this Universe. This is the definition of supernatural. Now one may argue that "The creator _is_ the Universe" which does not change the fact that they must have existed outside of the Universe to begin with. As I mentioned earlier go read the definition of supernatural. Go read the definition of deity. A creator will fit both definitions and must.
As to the second half of your statement, we have seen no other universes spring up within our own. The damage that would be caused by such an event would most likely have destroyed our Universe. There are numerous methods of simulating this mathematically. So while claiming "it's natural and just happened" is a possibility, it is not probable at all. I don't discount the possibility. I admit that I could be wrong. It's such a small chance that I'm not worried about my position, but it is there.
I understand, and have understood for a long time, that the question of whether there is a creator or not is a Philosophical question. It can only be answered with a Philosophical answer. We can only begin to measure _after_ the universe existed. There is no way to measure or detect anything prior to that movement starting. That is the point that many atheists simply refuse to admit, but this is a reality and limitation that we must consider.
Currently there is a tremendous debate running on whether it was the big bang or Kraus' expanding vacuum that happened to expand the Universe. Both of those theories require that something existed just prior to the Universe starting. If you believe Kraus, it was a chunk of vacuum about the size of the head of a pin. If you believe the big bang it depends on who's theory you like. It's anywhere between the head of a pin and something a few hundred thousand light years in diameter. And if you believe the big bang, you really need to give the specifics. The modelling has changed so drastically in very rapid time that it can't really be considered science any more. It also requires dark energy and dark mass, where Kraus' work does not. Personally I think Kraus' work is more accurate. It does not require up to 98% of the Universe to be made up of invisible magic stuff we can't see or detect (again depends on who's theory you believe). I also find it rather ironic that people believing in magic materials and energy make fun of people that believe in a deity because their magic is "science".
So the question is simple. Did the Universe just happen
A few hundred years ago the police (soldiers) would often beat people bloody in the streets for petty crimes. After your beating, you may be hung up in a nice iron cage for the town to view, or perhaps loaded into the stockades for a few days. Punishments handed out by courts often include the removal of limbs. Sometimes those sentences were passed on innocent people. Using your logic, I guess all police are bad, and governments are bad, and courts are bad as well. Either that, or your logic simply does not work.