Every 2nd comment says that. But have you actually looked at the site? As of now, "humour" is way bigger than "sex" or any sex-related word in the tag cloud.
Yup, Apple has redefined how you make a product. It's not about the features it has, but rather those it doesn't have. Even though you ridicule it, you are totally right.
Someone once said that perfection in design isn't reached when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take out.
Apple does, indeed, simplify things and puts a lot of work into questions like "how to do this with less buttons". And you know what? That's one of the things that people love about it. The iPod controls are great, and a lot better than what most other MP3 players offer. There's something in that design, more than meets the eye. For example, spacial information (which humans are very good at parsing) relating to function.
if so, why don't we seen businesses demanding open standards used when they make the buying decisions ? is this uninformed people being in charge or what ? Almost. It's uninformed people who've grown up in an all-windos world, don't understand anything else and were just recently taken to that really nice (and expensive) asian restaurant by that really nice microsoft sales guy with that reaaallly nice assistant (the one with the big tits and the tight-fitting clothes).
Buying decisions in corporate environments - not just IT - are very rarely based on any objective reasons, though the good salesman brings in a slide or two with some that can be used if the need to justify the decision ever comes up.
The model doesn't have to be precise, and maybe it's doing itself a disservice by spitting out seemingly accurate chances.
But - if it is even reliable in the ballpark, say it is within +/-10% in 95% of the cases, then it might well find useage and prevent a war or two. Would the russians have invaded Afghanistan had they known that their success chance is somewhere between 0% and 17% ? Would the US stay in Iraq if it had reliable guesses as to its chances, instead of lots of lobbyists persuading everyone that of course success is just around the corner if just another billion is dumped into whatever they're lobbying for?
if the majority of people think osama bin laden is right, then he right. if the majority think i am right, then i am right. if there is significant difference of opinion, there is war Nonsense. Democracy is a government system, not a method to acertain truth. We don't hold elections over moral questions, and for a very good reason. It's called protection of minorities.
reality doesn't care. Your rote repetition of phrases that you neither explain nor even comment on when challenged is getting tiresome. I commented on that. You can look it up, I won't repeat myself.
who will succeed? me or you? neither of us, to 100% certainty Again, you error is in the words, not in the facts.
None of us will succeed with finger-snapping. However, your implicit conclusion from that is that none of us will succeed with anything, and that's false. I'm a trained hypnotherapist (surprised? Well, you claimed I don't care about people, I never did). I have a pretty good understanding of how quickly people can change, if they want (on any level, not just the surface consciousness).
Second error: You compare apples and oranges, to speak simply. "human beliefs" is an aggregate, while "reality" is an abstraction. The methods of change are different for these different entities.
Oh yes, and you still haven't given me an answer to the simple question of evidence for the "universal" in "universal human rights". I'm going to remind you until you do.
In the UK, impersonating a government official (which includes pretending to be one and looking very much like one) is a felony.
I wonder if the US has a similar law that might apply?
Re:let's see if i can make this as simple for you
on
China Censoring Flickr
·
· Score: 1
the physics of earthquakes is governed by reality. the suffering of slaves is not. reality doesn't care if people suffer For sufficiently limited definitions of "reality", that might be true.
Merriam-Webster says: Main Entry: reality Pronunciation: rE-'a-l&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties 1 : the quality or state of being real 2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs (2) : the totality of real things and events b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily 3 : television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) -- often used attributively - in reality : in actual fact
According to that definition and common consensus, human suffering is very much a part of reality.
True, "reality" doesn't care. That's because "caring" is not a function of abstractions.
i am acting in a different REALM: At least you are writing as if you were from a realm removed from "the totality of real things and events".:-)
Oh, and btw., in this reality, you are still evading my question about the universality of "universal human rights". Conveniently forgotten about that one, because it leaves big, gaping holes in your whole argument?
we both understand reality doesn't care how humans behave, yes? No, we don't.
Reality cares a lot how humans behave. If your behaviour includes killing people, those deaths are very much real. If your behaviour includes fucking people, than that and its consequences is very much real.
we can talk about the evolution of memes and geens that led to a brain that is interested in justice and fairness, but that doesn't matter. On the contrary. It is by history that we understand the present.
nd they DO have a strong sens eo fairness and justice, about how humans SHOULD behave Alas, they don't. Through all of human history there have been major disagreements about exactly that point: How to behave? Endless books have been written about this. Major religions started out as a collection of "how to behave" guidelines.
how we ARE and how we SHOULD BE are completely different avenues of discussion. Of discussion, yes. Of reality, no. Our idea of how we should be is a part of how we are. If we were different, our idea of how we should be would be different. That's not a hypothetical statement - billions of people that are today or were in the past couple thousand years do have a different view of how we should be.
What do you make of the fact that, say, Osama Bin Laden also has a belief as to how humans should be? And it's a bit different from yours.
Call him an idiot and misguided if you want. That only opens you to the question on how to decide who the idiot is and who the righteous man.
morality, right and wrong, has nothing to do with reality. [...] morality is a valid pursuit. based on what? based on the simple fact that pretty much the entire human populace is interested in justice and fairness. I pity you for the barren world you live in. In my world, human desires and human interests are very well a part of reality. Reality is not just what you can touch.
you lose moron There's nothing to win here. How can you lose? And what?
you wish for me to apply to you the logic of physics in the question of human social dynamics Some logic would be a good start.:-) There is no "logic of physics". Logic, like language, is independent of its subject matter.
Humans are a tricky subject to logic not because the laws of logic would not apply, but because they are too complex to describe completely in terms of logic, and too interconnected to get away with doing a partial description.
what you need to do is understand you are using the wrong language for the current subject matter. if you understand the constraints and basic concepts of the subject matter before us, you would find my words more compelling I think we are all listening with interest as you elaborate what generations of semantics failed to reveal. Please, continue.
you insist on the impossible: to talk about humanity's beliefs in terms of math equations That's one of those weird moments. Nowhere anywhere in this discussion has anyone actually used, requested or describe a mathematical equation, except for the "1+1=2" example which in that context could just as well have been "the sky is blue" or any other obvious truth.
let's put it this way: are you familiar with chaos theory? emergent phenomenon? Don't know about the other poster, but for my part, both chaos theory and emergence are a strong yes. Are you? Beyond the buzzwords, I mean? Because you stop too early. Emergence is nice and interesting, but complexity and catastrophe theory are better models to describe human evolution.
human beings are unlike any animal that came before. I agree.
instead of adapting to their environment, they adapt their environment to them. I disagree. That's not what makes us different. Adapting the environment is quite common in the animal kingdom. It starts at digging tunnels and building nests to the famous example of the beavers.
Ideas is what makes us humans special. Our ability to develop an internal concept of the world and communicate it so that others can refine it and over time we as a species can develop intellectually. That enables us to adapt faster and more successful than mutation and selection do. It also allows us to build upon the work of previous generations and develop things like language, mathematics, laws and society in general, which no single generation could create from nothing.
human nature is emergent phenomenon. I agree, again.
it believes in something and MAKES that reality. Sometimes. Sometimes it also believes things that have no relation to reality. See: "Religion".:-)
but sitting on the sidelines, and saying the struggle is for naught, what is that supposed to be? Once again, I do not subscribe to dualism. There is an area inbetween "all" and "nothing". In fact, by definition the area inbetween two points is always larger than the two points.
you apparently have no fucking clue with what you are delaing with when you deal with humanity, yet you choose to talk about it. Yeah, as I said, psychology is merely a major aspect of my job, and the library behind me at this moment is just for show, I merely read those books because it looks good on the train.
So, can we return to the subject matter now? One would think that by now, given that I can assume you are a human being and thus capable of learning, you would have noticed that I don't take your personal attacks seriously.
it's emergent phenomenon: unpredictable, irreducable. and your intent is to make it predictable and static Which you derive from what comment I made? Really, are we having the same conversation? You come up with "you want" and "you intend to" all the time and I can for the life of me not make the connection to what I actually said.
Maybe we can start with you actually answering my questions?
So how about that definition of "universal human rights"? Do you still insist that they have always been and will always been, unlike say the universe? Oh, wait. How can they be universal without a universe? That's a rather more problematic issue than how they can be human rights without humans, I think.
I'm really sorry for you, but you will have to open the floodgates and agree that there's at least some relativism there. And then we can chat about the amount. But your flat-out refusal is simply false-to-facts.
i'm glad you think the struggle to progress in this world amounts for you as little more than entertainment. What? this thread a "struggle to progress"? Geez, I missed the interesting part, where is it?:-))
because of course everyone has to agree on every little metaphysicial semantic before anything can actually be attempted in this world, right? The basics, you know? Because it's no good if you eat the menu, or conquer a map of Iraq. Or confuse "terrorists" (the word) with terrorists (the persons comitting terror acts).
enjoy your tv reruns I don't even own a stupid TV. This is why I find this so funny. You speak about me all the time and almost every verifiable fact you state is simply false. From false-to-facts to anti-survival is a very short loop.
Oh, and don't try to tell anyone you're loading up a battery here. Anger doesn't generate energy, it consumes it.
Re:i think i'm beginning to understand your proble
on
China Censoring Flickr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
universal human rights always existed, exists everywhere now, and always will exist Is that a belief or a fact? If it is a fact, please point me to the evidence of universal human rights, say, 200 million years ago, when there were no humans. Ok, that's an invalid argument you say, so let's kill your second all-quantor. Please point me to the universal human rights in the Andromeda galaxy. Hey, you said "everywhere", not me.:-)
No, I'm not just playing stupid here. There's a point. The point is that your definition lacks. If you agree that "universal human rights" can't have existed before humans did, then how and when (and why!) did they come into existence? Can they change over time? If not, why not? According to what we know of the world, pretty much nothing is that eternally static.
the problem of course, is execution: it's hard to implement. but because something is hard to implement, you seem to take this as an excuse to disavow universal human rights Nope. The main problem isn't even execution. The main problem is definition. Sorry, but I work with lawyers a lot. You mentioned the French Revolution in another reply. A quote from during the French Revolution goes like this: "Give me 10 lines, written by the purest of man, and I will find something in there the hang him." The "universal human rights" are just words. And words are subject to interpretation. And once you move away from the very generic, very abstract to the level of actual life, you find out that it isn't half as easy just to define precisely what you mean. Heck, there's a whole area of science dealing with nothing but that.
pedophilia will never be exterminated. it will always recur in society again and again in low grade percentages because there are always biological and psychological and developmental random events which renders some poor souls pedophiles
now, what to do about them? First, as you expected, I'd request a definition of "pedophilia". Because, you know, our current definition is flawed. In my country, a 16 year old boy sleeping with his girlfriend today can go to jail. Next week, everything will be fine. Why? Because she's got her 16th birthday this weekend.
So, first we need a better definition of the crime. Yes, you can handwave that and talk about extreme cases, so let's do that. A 50 year old sleeping with a 10 year old.
Did I mention that this was fairly common in ancient greece? Plato, Aristotle, all the heroes of western thinking were child-fuckers. And homosexuals.
So, if we are on the level of an individual case, why not treat it that way? Check what the guy says, check what the boy says. Find out what really went on. And then I would strongly suggest not making pedophelia the crime. If the boy was hurt, physically or psychologically, then that is the crime. Pedophelia is just a label.
my pov is: war must be waged agains tpedophilia. forever. and i think it is a war that will never be won. it's simply the maintenance of civilization. the wages of living in society And I don't like war. We already have far too many. The war against drugs, the war against piracy, the war against childfuckers, and so on. At the current rate, in 2-300 years, our entire civilisation will consist of wars against everything.
I'd rather fight for things than against them. Can you re-formulate your POV in a way that states what you're actually for, not just what you're against?
you have this weird break in your mind though where somehow, because a task is difficult, or cloudy and not precisely defined, or not guaranteed, or not easy, that it shouldn't be attempted Not that again, please, it's getting boring. You know nothing about me. You don't even know that my job quite often consists in making a reality what others consider impossible. In fact, I rarely give up. I like difficult. Which is why my view of the world is multi-dimensional. It's more difficult that way.:-) But it's also closer to reality, which also consists of at least four dimensions.
fundamentalism is my enemy That is weird, you know? Because usually the position of absolute moral values is the position of the fundamentalist. Actually, that's pretty much what the word means.
at the same time, i hew to moral equivalency: that humanity has more in common in values than differences. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks. Yes, humanity has lots in common. If more or less depends on how you enumerate, so let's just ignore that. It seems the whole thing is that we approach from different directions. I'm trying to understand humanity by what Korzybski calls extension, while you appear to define the world according to the principle of intension. Which includes why you look for common properties and I look for differences.
The thing with humans is: You don't do them justify if you treat them equal. Because they aren't equal. "Each according to his (needs/abilities/personality/etc)" is more just and ethical to me than "Each the same".
you however, seem prepared to use moral relativism to excuse the most heinous evil. Not to excuse it, to understand it. If we want to prevent another Hitler, Stalin, Bush, etc. we need to understand what's going on, why do the apparently worst people get into power with such frightening regularity? You can't understand that if all the time you're thinking "They shouldn't. This is evil."
you realize these are contradictory positions for you to take, right? No, I don't, because these are not positions I am taking. These are positions you are putting me into, no matter how often I step out of them and say "no, thanks, I feel I'd rather stand over here".
you either CARE about people in iraq, in which case you will wind up getting involved under certain conditions. or you DON'T care about people in iraq, Either with us or against us. Either good or evil. Either white or slave. Either christian or terrorist. Either believer or burn-them-all-heretic.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to dualism anymore. Which is why you will not get a "yes or no" answer out of me, I much prefer pointing out that there are other options besides "yes" and "no".
pick a pov, and stick with it. but your current one foot in one pov and one foot in another is morally and intellectually empty and bankrupt Only if your world is black and white. Once you accept that there are shades of gray, and sometimes even colours, you realize that the only thing that's empty is this stupid dualistic world-view.
and ps: intent is everything. [...] if intent doesn't have any meaning in your judgments See, that's a great example. I didn't say intent has no meaning. I do say that it isn't everything. If you intend to save a child, and you fuck up and press the wrong button and kill a hundred people, I'll not call you a saint because your intent was clean.
But to understand that, you will have to first accept that there are things inbetween the poles of "intent is everything" and "intent is nothing". How about we start simple? Let's say intent is 50% and actual result is 50%. Can you wrap your mind around that?
Because, you know, your example back up backs up me, not you. Yes, we make a difference between murder and manslaughter. But we still put people in jail who kill others, even if it wasn't intentionally or the intent can't be proven. So at least the justice system agrees that intent is not everything.
simply because as soon as you cross the rio grande, POOF, people are worth half what they are worth above it. that's your entire pov No it isn't. Neither the entire, nor at all. But I've given up trying to explain it to you about one level higher up and since then I'm just enjoying the show.
talk about people being killed in iraq (99% at the hands of iraqis, heh) Yeah, funny how the Iraqi suddenly discovered this hidden desire to kill each other shortly after being invaded by the US. I'm sure there is no correlation whatsoever.
so i'm actually talking to an elected official, DOWNGRADING DEMOCRACY That depends on your POV, of course. "down" in relation to what? Down from an absolutist "nothing can ever be higher than this"? Yes, down in that way, totally. Essentially, I'm just telling you that the speed of light is finite, not infinite. Democracy is imperfect. It's better than many alternatives, it's not the end-of-it-all solution.
you're a typical aristocrat: arrogant, smug, superior. part of the ruling class. and yet you somehow pretend to dig against it Makes you think, doesn't it? Wait, change that to: Should make you think. Because if it were true, it would conflict with itself. The ruling class doesn't object to the order that put it where it is. Read 1984 again.
sometime before the french revolution, an aristocrat's carriage ran over a poor kid and killed him. the aristocrat tossed a coin out the window, and was on his way
what happened next?
you'll find out;-) The really interesting part of the story is how he came to that behaviour, and why the french revolution didn't happen in, say, 1689. As I said before: No man lives in a vacuum (at least not for very long). Context, context, context.
i fear for those people. for if they are in YOUR care, they will suffer. because you yourself ascribe to notions that that are rather nihilistic Hihi, baited again. This is getting boring, can't you make it a little more difficult?
I actually hold an elected office. This is my second term, and the people I'm responsible for don't agree with your sentiment, because the last election was pretty much a landslide victory for me, with almost twice as many votes going to me as to the 2nd ranked.
I prefer to think that these people know more about the results of my work than you do.
here it is, the rock of gibraltar that your words cannot move, and defeats your position: True, the rock can not be moved by words alone. Yet your "rock" is just more words, and words are the same level of abstraction. Nevertheless, I'm interested, bring it on.
either you have a positive affirmative belief in humanity, or you don't. if you don't, then you forfeit your right to comment on the efforts on those who are working to improve humanity's lot. for if you don't believe in human potential or human progress, then why are you talking, it's pointless, correct? Wow, so many non-sequiturs in one paragraph. Where to being?
One, your binary view is misguided. There are more alternatives than "either, or". I can have a largely positive belief, with some caution, for example. Or I might question what exactly you mean by "positive".
Two, is the "right to comment" one of the "universal human rights"? If so, I can't forfeit it, according to your definition. If not, then what right exactly is it, on what is it based, and why do I forfeit it by not running with the crowd?
Three, your presupposition that I'm not working to improve humanity is interesting, and has no basis in reality.
Four, potential and progress are not necessarily beliefs, you can well measure much of it. The overlap to the first is also less than clear. More importantly, why would it be pointless to argue? Even if I were totally pessimistic, I might believe that the inevitable fall of mankind can at least be slowed. And again, there's too much binary thinking in this. The real world doesn't work along one dimension from "good" to "bad" or vice versa. That's just judgement calls.
Five, I tend to believe you should stop ripping arguments apart at count five.:-)
you do percieve how this thought on YOUR part is more condescending and arrogant and patronizing than the most warlike neocon talking about iraq, right? Yes, I know my position can come across as arrogant. Then again, I don't kill people for it.
slavery still exists. it always will, under the radar, in some form or another. does this mean you stop fighting slavery? furthermore, at some point in the past, slavery was more prevalent than it was today. so is this proof of progress in the world? It is an excellent argument against your "universal human rights". Because for millenia slavery was perfectly acceptable in most human societies. How do you dig that? By claiming "progress"? That the "universal human rights" have only been discovered recently?
Now, there are only two ways to parse this: Either, progress is inherent and any future state is by definition advanced to any past state. Or, you include a judgement by deciding what you consider progress and what not. Judgements are always based on values. Values are relative. Q.E.D.
and how do i define equal? very simply: equal in rights and priveledges. equal in accountability and responsibility. what's so complicated about that? The words are easy. Making them real is what's complicated. Here, I'll give you an example to chew on: Is discrimination by age ok or not? If it is ok, does that not break your equality request? If it is not ok, do you really believe a 2-year old should have the same rights, privileges, accountability and responsibility as a 20-year old?
Ah, now you'll say "you moron, that distinction is based on biological facts and makes sense!". To which I'll reply either a) yes, but the lines we draw are not, 16, 18 or 21 years are simply arbitrary lines or b) racism is also based on biological facts, and for most of human history, it did make sense (it doesn't anymore, in western society, true).
yes, those people would be upset. bigots, racists, the ignorant: they get upset when you suggest to them that all human beings are equal. and? so what? because a moron or an evil asshole is upset we should let those slaves, greeks, women, etc. continue to live as unequals? huh? See, and that's the point. Those people would say the exact same thing about you.
Now, assuming that I am autistic, have no social sense whatsoever and am completely removed from reality (hey, your assumption, not mine), explain to me in objective terms why you are right and they are assholes. Spare us another back-and-forth and find arguments that they could not use just as well.
Here's a hint: You'll not be able to. Everything you can say is based on values, which are relative.
so what is your problem exactly? are you yourself ignorant or a bigot? My "problem" is that I prefer understanding people to condemning them. Understanding means accepting their values as true for the moment. It doesn't matter if those values are the ten commandments or the belief that women are not really humans. If you want to understand what's going on with someone, you have to take those beliefs and accept them, just for the moment, because your own values get in the way of understanding.
And understanding, to me, is what enables us to live peacefully with each other, on every scale from individuals to nations.
according to you, person a is worse than person b (numerical comparison alone). which is of course, nonsense Yes, but your example is flawed. Driving a schoolbus (a device for travelling) and having an accident (killing someone, which is not what a schoolbus is designed for) is one thing. Throwing a bomb (a device for blowing things up) on a town (a place for people to live) and blowing up some people is not exactly an accident.
A better (though still not good) example would be:
Person A: "Oh, I totally wanted to kill some people, so I took this schoolbus and drove it straight into a group of kids. I think I wacked 10 or so."
vs. Person B: "I just wanted to kill the teacher, so I took this schoolbus and drove it over her while she was out with a class. I think I wacked a couple of the kids as well."
So how does your moral evaluation go in these cases? Not quite that straightforward anymore, is it?
the magical concept your mind is missing of course, is intent. I don't miss intent. What I maybe do miss is the telepathic ability to ascertain the intent of people other than myself. So I value the result of your action more highly than your intent, which I will agree is a debatable philosophical position. But it is far from unique to me, the discussion as to whether intent or result are more important has been going on for at least 2000 years.
well good for you. we're talking about universal human principles, correct? so according to you, if a WASP were to righteously proclaim that rwandans deserved UN proteciton in 1994 from genocide, you would dislike him. does that follow? You've got your levels of abstraction all messed up. I said I dislike certain people. That does not mean I automatically dislike or challenge everything they say. We can assume you dislike me at this point, yet you would not question it if I said that 1+1 equals 2.
that's a funny way to show your dislike for WASPs. by supporting a POV that says they have more right to life and liberty than a nonWASP. Which I never said. For some reason you automatically conclude from the fact that I question moral absolutism that I must fall into some 19th century morality. As I said before: Fundamentalism covers your field of vision towards the future.
So no, there are a lot of WASPs which are the scum of the earth and deserve to be shot, if it weren't for the price of the bullet. In fact, if there were a deal where I could sacrifice 5 WASPs to save one Iraqi or african child, I'd be bringing you about a busload of WASPs.
lots of MINOR issues remain different, but across ALL cultures, ALL times, past present, AND future, certain bedrock principles remain the FUCKING SAME Name one.
that means that say murder is also morally relative? Totally. Even today. When 3000 americans die, it's the worst terror attack in history. When 300,000 iraqis die, it's collateral damage. What do you call that if not relative?
Back in history, there are many, many, many cases of murder that were totally acceptable. Heck, even the stupid bible contains a lot of "if X does Y, kill the fucking bastard".
you must be some sort of racist I have a solid dislike for white anglo-saxon protestants with a subscription to righteousness, yes.:-)
but, like most asperger's syndrome morons, your social sense is utterly zero Hihi, you really fall into every trap someone puts down for you in a flame war, right? It just happens that my day job is ensuring proper social treatment of about 3000 people.
Really, you shouldn't try ad hominem attacks against someone you know nothing about.
leave the commentary on politics to human beings who actually know the fucking BASICS of human nature, ok einstein? Politics and psychology are the main elements of my daily work.
Now, did we lose track of the actual argument entirely? I think it was largely whether or not human rights are a universal truth. Aside from the usual semantic problems about "universal" and "truth" (and "rights", btw.) the counterpoint was that your view is simplistic and ignorant of context. Also, short-sighted.
you want us to not champion democracy, because there is the possibility that SOMEDAY something better may come along I called the bluff on democracy being "the ultimate", "teh best evva" and the other nonsense. I don't mind pointing out its advantages and disadvantages. Once you do that, you start talking about actual content instead of words. Because you, my friend, are trying to fight over the map, which quite frankly amuses me. Here, you can have it. Let's agree that "Democracy" is the ultimate. Then I'll go on to subtly redefine what exactly "Democracy" is, while you can keep the word you value so much.
And as soon as we talk content, you will realize how much of that is relativistic. Also, you will realize that there has never been a true democracy on this planet on any considerable scale either in size or time. Representative democracy is our current way, though even there are many variations. "Democracy" as such does not exist. Kant was another guy who'd rather eat the menu than the food.
all people SHOULD BE equal? That is the current consensus in western society, yes.
is there another way to look at this issue? Hundreds. In fact, mankind has lived 99% of it's existence subscribing to non-equality. The very same way we would call someone antisocial or insane if he claimed that group X is more or less valuable than other humans, the same way you would have been looked at as a nutcase in most of human history. People would be upset and consider you endangering their very morals if you had claimed that slaves, jews, christians, greeks, women or whatever they oppress in their society are equals.
And I'm not even starting to discuss the main problem: How exactly do you define "equal" ?
Apple gives you a no-DRM file, and slaps a watermark on it so that, No, they didn't.
I know this is/. and all, but how about at least getting the basic facts right?
One, it wasn't added, it had been there before. Two, it's not a watermark, it's some embedded text. Three, the text is even embedded in plain text format.
Author suspects that this is to prevent you uploading them to a network. Author is an idiot. There's an important difference between discouraging something and preventing something. The important part being that DRM has lots of fallout and innocent bystanders shot (e.g. you not being able to hear your music on a different machine also owned by you), while discouragement has a human-choice element that prevents most of those troubles.
Besides, embedding personal info is not DRM. Wikipedia sums it up nicely:
Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term referring to technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to or usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device.
Slashdot Mirror
Every 2nd comment says that. But have you actually looked at the site? As of now, "humour" is way bigger than "sex" or any sex-related word in the tag cloud.
We may yet be surprised.
Someone once said that perfection in design isn't reached when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take out.
Apple does, indeed, simplify things and puts a lot of work into questions like "how to do this with less buttons". And you know what? That's one of the things that people love about it. The iPod controls are great, and a lot better than what most other MP3 players offer. There's something in that design, more than meets the eye. For example, spacial information (which humans are very good at parsing) relating to function.
Buying decisions in corporate environments - not just IT - are very rarely based on any objective reasons, though the good salesman brings in a slide or two with some that can be used if the need to justify the decision ever comes up.
Let's face it, in most companies it'll work like this:
If the CEO gets an iPhone, the IT suddenly has a high priority action item to make sure it works with the corporate messaging system.
If any VP gets an iPhone, the IT will have a low priority action item to get it working.
If anyone else gets an iPhone, they'll be told it violates the corporate IT policy and they need to use something else for corporate messaging.
What's with the ticker symbols? Either the submitter did a simple cut&paste from a press release, or he's still lost in the dot-com era.
What information value has the ticker symbol in this news?
The model doesn't have to be precise, and maybe it's doing itself a disservice by spitting out seemingly accurate chances.
But - if it is even reliable in the ballpark, say it is within +/-10% in 95% of the cases, then it might well find useage and prevent a war or two. Would the russians have invaded Afghanistan had they known that their success chance is somewhere between 0% and 17% ? Would the US stay in Iraq if it had reliable guesses as to its chances, instead of lots of lobbyists persuading everyone that of course success is just around the corner if just another billion is dumped into whatever they're lobbying for?
if the majority of people think osama bin laden is right, then he right. if the majority think i am right, then i am right. if there is significant difference of opinion, there is war Nonsense. Democracy is a government system, not a method to acertain truth. We don't hold elections over moral questions, and for a very good reason. It's called protection of minorities. reality doesn't care. Your rote repetition of phrases that you neither explain nor even comment on when challenged is getting tiresome. I commented on that. You can look it up, I won't repeat myself. who will succeed? me or you? neither of us, to 100% certainty Again, you error is in the words, not in the facts.
None of us will succeed with finger-snapping. However, your implicit conclusion from that is that none of us will succeed with anything, and that's false. I'm a trained hypnotherapist (surprised? Well, you claimed I don't care about people, I never did). I have a pretty good understanding of how quickly people can change, if they want (on any level, not just the surface consciousness).
Second error: You compare apples and oranges, to speak simply. "human beliefs" is an aggregate, while "reality" is an abstraction. The methods of change are different for these different entities.
Oh yes, and you still haven't given me an answer to the simple question of evidence for the "universal" in "universal human rights". I'm going to remind you until you do.
In the UK, impersonating a government official (which includes pretending to be one and looking very much like one) is a felony.
I wonder if the US has a similar law that might apply?
Merriam-Webster says:
Main Entry: reality
Pronunciation: rE-'a-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs (2) : the totality of real things and events b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3 : television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) -- often used attributively
- in reality : in actual fact
According to that definition and common consensus, human suffering is very much a part of reality.
True, "reality" doesn't care. That's because "caring" is not a function of abstractions. i am acting in a different REALM: At least you are writing as if you were from a realm removed from "the totality of real things and events".
Oh, and btw., in this reality, you are still evading my question about the universality of "universal human rights". Conveniently forgotten about that one, because it leaves big, gaping holes in your whole argument?
Reality cares a lot how humans behave. If your behaviour includes killing people, those deaths are very much real. If your behaviour includes fucking people, than that and its consequences is very much real. we can talk about the evolution of memes and geens that led to a brain that is interested in justice and fairness, but that doesn't matter. On the contrary. It is by history that we understand the present. nd they DO have a strong sens eo fairness and justice, about how humans SHOULD behave Alas, they don't. Through all of human history there have been major disagreements about exactly that point: How to behave? Endless books have been written about this. Major religions started out as a collection of "how to behave" guidelines. how we ARE and how we SHOULD BE are completely different avenues of discussion. Of discussion, yes.
Of reality, no. Our idea of how we should be is a part of how we are. If we were different, our idea of how we should be would be different. That's not a hypothetical statement - billions of people that are today or were in the past couple thousand years do have a different view of how we should be.
What do you make of the fact that, say, Osama Bin Laden also has a belief as to how humans should be? And it's a bit different from yours.
Call him an idiot and misguided if you want. That only opens you to the question on how to decide who the idiot is and who the righteous man.
There is no "logic of physics". Logic, like language, is independent of its subject matter.
Humans are a tricky subject to logic not because the laws of logic would not apply, but because they are too complex to describe completely in terms of logic, and too interconnected to get away with doing a partial description. what you need to do is understand you are using the wrong language for the current subject matter. if you understand the constraints and basic concepts of the subject matter before us, you would find my words more compelling I think we are all listening with interest as you elaborate what generations of semantics failed to reveal. Please, continue. you insist on the impossible: to talk about humanity's beliefs in terms of math equations That's one of those weird moments. Nowhere anywhere in this discussion has anyone actually used, requested or describe a mathematical equation, except for the "1+1=2" example which in that context could just as well have been "the sky is blue" or any other obvious truth. let's put it this way: are you familiar with chaos theory? emergent phenomenon? Don't know about the other poster, but for my part, both chaos theory and emergence are a strong yes. Are you? Beyond the buzzwords, I mean? Because you stop too early. Emergence is nice and interesting, but complexity and catastrophe theory are better models to describe human evolution.
Ideas is what makes us humans special. Our ability to develop an internal concept of the world and communicate it so that others can refine it and over time we as a species can develop intellectually. That enables us to adapt faster and more successful than mutation and selection do. It also allows us to build upon the work of previous generations and develop things like language, mathematics, laws and society in general, which no single generation could create from nothing. human nature is emergent phenomenon. I agree, again. it believes in something and MAKES that reality. Sometimes. Sometimes it also believes things that have no relation to reality. See: "Religion".
So, can we return to the subject matter now? One would think that by now, given that I can assume you are a human being and thus capable of learning, you would have noticed that I don't take your personal attacks seriously. it's emergent phenomenon: unpredictable, irreducable. and your intent is to make it predictable and static Which you derive from what comment I made? Really, are we having the same conversation? You come up with "you want" and "you intend to" all the time and I can for the life of me not make the connection to what I actually said.
Maybe we can start with you actually answering my questions?
So how about that definition of "universal human rights"? Do you still insist that they have always been and will always been, unlike say the universe? Oh, wait. How can they be universal without a universe? That's a rather more problematic issue than how they can be human rights without humans, I think.
I'm really sorry for you, but you will have to open the floodgates and agree that there's at least some relativism there. And then we can chat about the amount. But your flat-out refusal is simply false-to-facts.
Oh, and don't try to tell anyone you're loading up a battery here. Anger doesn't generate energy, it consumes it.
If it is a fact, please point me to the evidence of universal human rights, say, 200 million years ago, when there were no humans.
Ok, that's an invalid argument you say, so let's kill your second all-quantor. Please point me to the universal human rights in the Andromeda galaxy. Hey, you said "everywhere", not me.
No, I'm not just playing stupid here. There's a point. The point is that your definition lacks. If you agree that "universal human rights" can't have existed before humans did, then how and when (and why!) did they come into existence? Can they change over time? If not, why not? According to what we know of the world, pretty much nothing is that eternally static. the problem of course, is execution: it's hard to implement. but because something is hard to implement, you seem to take this as an excuse to disavow universal human rights Nope. The main problem isn't even execution. The main problem is definition. Sorry, but I work with lawyers a lot. You mentioned the French Revolution in another reply. A quote from during the French Revolution goes like this: "Give me 10 lines, written by the purest of man, and I will find something in there the hang him."
The "universal human rights" are just words. And words are subject to interpretation. And once you move away from the very generic, very abstract to the level of actual life, you find out that it isn't half as easy just to define precisely what you mean. Heck, there's a whole area of science dealing with nothing but that. pedophilia will never be exterminated. it will always recur in society again and again in low grade percentages because there are always biological and psychological and developmental random events which renders some poor souls pedophiles
now, what to do about them? First, as you expected, I'd request a definition of "pedophilia". Because, you know, our current definition is flawed. In my country, a 16 year old boy sleeping with his girlfriend today can go to jail. Next week, everything will be fine. Why? Because she's got her 16th birthday this weekend.
So, first we need a better definition of the crime. Yes, you can handwave that and talk about extreme cases, so let's do that. A 50 year old sleeping with a 10 year old.
Did I mention that this was fairly common in ancient greece? Plato, Aristotle, all the heroes of western thinking were child-fuckers. And homosexuals.
So, if we are on the level of an individual case, why not treat it that way? Check what the guy says, check what the boy says. Find out what really went on. And then I would strongly suggest not making pedophelia the crime. If the boy was hurt, physically or psychologically, then that is the crime. Pedophelia is just a label. my pov is: war must be waged agains tpedophilia. forever. and i think it is a war that will never be won. it's simply the maintenance of civilization. the wages of living in society And I don't like war. We already have far too many. The war against drugs, the war against piracy, the war against childfuckers, and so on. At the current rate, in 2-300 years, our entire civilisation will consist of wars against everything.
I'd rather fight for things than against them. Can you re-formulate your POV in a way that states what you're actually for, not just what you're against? you have this weird break in your mind though where somehow, because a task is difficult, or cloudy and not precisely defined, or not guaranteed, or not easy, that it shouldn't be attempted Not that again, please, it's getting boring. You know nothing about me. You don't even know that my job quite often consists in making a reality what others consider impossible. In fact, I rarely give up. I like difficult.
Which is why my view of the world is multi-dimensional. It's more difficult that way.
But it's also closer to reality, which also consists of at least four dimensions.
The thing with humans is: You don't do them justify if you treat them equal. Because they aren't equal. "Each according to his (needs/abilities/personality/etc)" is more just and ethical to me than "Each the same". you however, seem prepared to use moral relativism to excuse the most heinous evil. Not to excuse it, to understand it. If we want to prevent another Hitler, Stalin, Bush, etc. we need to understand what's going on, why do the apparently worst people get into power with such frightening regularity?
You can't understand that if all the time you're thinking "They shouldn't. This is evil." you realize these are contradictory positions for you to take, right? No, I don't, because these are not positions I am taking. These are positions you are putting me into, no matter how often I step out of them and say "no, thanks, I feel I'd rather stand over here". you either CARE about people in iraq, in which case you will wind up getting involved under certain conditions. or you DON'T care about people in iraq, Either with us or against us. Either good or evil. Either white or slave. Either christian or terrorist. Either believer or burn-them-all-heretic.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to dualism anymore. Which is why you will not get a "yes or no" answer out of me, I much prefer pointing out that there are other options besides "yes" and "no". pick a pov, and stick with it. but your current one foot in one pov and one foot in another is morally and intellectually empty and bankrupt Only if your world is black and white. Once you accept that there are shades of gray, and sometimes even colours, you realize that the only thing that's empty is this stupid dualistic world-view. and ps: intent is everything. [...] if intent doesn't have any meaning in your judgments See, that's a great example. I didn't say intent has no meaning. I do say that it isn't everything. If you intend to save a child, and you fuck up and press the wrong button and kill a hundred people, I'll not call you a saint because your intent was clean.
But to understand that, you will have to first accept that there are things inbetween the poles of "intent is everything" and "intent is nothing". How about we start simple? Let's say intent is 50% and actual result is 50%. Can you wrap your mind around that?
Because, you know, your example back up backs up me, not you. Yes, we make a difference between murder and manslaughter. But we still put people in jail who kill others, even if it wasn't intentionally or the intent can't be proven. So at least the justice system agrees that intent is not everything.
what happened next?
you'll find out
I actually hold an elected office. This is my second term, and the people I'm responsible for don't agree with your sentiment, because the last election was pretty much a landslide victory for me, with almost twice as many votes going to me as to the 2nd ranked.
I prefer to think that these people know more about the results of my work than you do. here it is, the rock of gibraltar that your words cannot move, and defeats your position: True, the rock can not be moved by words alone. Yet your "rock" is just more words, and words are the same level of abstraction. Nevertheless, I'm interested, bring it on. either you have a positive affirmative belief in humanity, or you don't. if you don't, then you forfeit your right to comment on the efforts on those who are working to improve humanity's lot. for if you don't believe in human potential or human progress, then why are you talking, it's pointless, correct? Wow, so many non-sequiturs in one paragraph. Where to being?
One, your binary view is misguided. There are more alternatives than "either, or". I can have a largely positive belief, with some caution, for example. Or I might question what exactly you mean by "positive".
Two, is the "right to comment" one of the "universal human rights"? If so, I can't forfeit it, according to your definition. If not, then what right exactly is it, on what is it based, and why do I forfeit it by not running with the crowd?
Three, your presupposition that I'm not working to improve humanity is interesting, and has no basis in reality.
Four, potential and progress are not necessarily beliefs, you can well measure much of it. The overlap to the first is also less than clear. More importantly, why would it be pointless to argue? Even if I were totally pessimistic, I might believe that the inevitable fall of mankind can at least be slowed. And again, there's too much binary thinking in this. The real world doesn't work along one dimension from "good" to "bad" or vice versa. That's just judgement calls.
Five, I tend to believe you should stop ripping arguments apart at count five.
Now, there are only two ways to parse this: Either, progress is inherent and any future state is by definition advanced to any past state.
Or, you include a judgement by deciding what you consider progress and what not. Judgements are always based on values. Values are relative. Q.E.D. and how do i define equal? very simply: equal in rights and priveledges. equal in accountability and responsibility. what's so complicated about that? The words are easy. Making them real is what's complicated. Here, I'll give you an example to chew on: Is discrimination by age ok or not? If it is ok, does that not break your equality request? If it is not ok, do you really believe a 2-year old should have the same rights, privileges, accountability and responsibility as a 20-year old?
Ah, now you'll say "you moron, that distinction is based on biological facts and makes sense!". To which I'll reply either a) yes, but the lines we draw are not, 16, 18 or 21 years are simply arbitrary lines or b) racism is also based on biological facts, and for most of human history, it did make sense (it doesn't anymore, in western society, true). yes, those people would be upset. bigots, racists, the ignorant: they get upset when you suggest to them that all human beings are equal. and? so what? because a moron or an evil asshole is upset we should let those slaves, greeks, women, etc. continue to live as unequals? huh? See, and that's the point. Those people would say the exact same thing about you.
Now, assuming that I am autistic, have no social sense whatsoever and am completely removed from reality (hey, your assumption, not mine), explain to me in objective terms why you are right and they are assholes. Spare us another back-and-forth and find arguments that they could not use just as well.
Here's a hint: You'll not be able to. Everything you can say is based on values, which are relative. so what is your problem exactly? are you yourself ignorant or a bigot? My "problem" is that I prefer understanding people to condemning them. Understanding means accepting their values as true for the moment. It doesn't matter if those values are the ten commandments or the belief that women are not really humans. If you want to understand what's going on with someone, you have to take those beliefs and accept them, just for the moment, because your own values get in the way of understanding.
And understanding, to me, is what enables us to live peacefully with each other, on every scale from individuals to nations.
A better (though still not good) example would be:
Person A:
"Oh, I totally wanted to kill some people, so I took this schoolbus and drove it straight into a group of kids. I think I wacked 10 or so."
vs.
Person B:
"I just wanted to kill the teacher, so I took this schoolbus and drove it over her while she was out with a class. I think I wacked a couple of the kids as well."
So how does your moral evaluation go in these cases? Not quite that straightforward anymore, is it? the magical concept your mind is missing of course, is intent. I don't miss intent. What I maybe do miss is the telepathic ability to ascertain the intent of people other than myself. So I value the result of your action more highly than your intent, which I will agree is a debatable philosophical position. But it is far from unique to me, the discussion as to whether intent or result are more important has been going on for at least 2000 years. well good for you. we're talking about universal human principles, correct? so according to you, if a WASP were to righteously proclaim that rwandans deserved UN proteciton in 1994 from genocide, you would dislike him. does that follow? You've got your levels of abstraction all messed up. I said I dislike certain people. That does not mean I automatically dislike or challenge everything they say. We can assume you dislike me at this point, yet you would not question it if I said that 1+1 equals 2. that's a funny way to show your dislike for WASPs. by supporting a POV that says they have more right to life and liberty than a nonWASP. Which I never said. For some reason you automatically conclude from the fact that I question moral absolutism that I must fall into some 19th century morality. As I said before: Fundamentalism covers your field of vision towards the future.
So no, there are a lot of WASPs which are the scum of the earth and deserve to be shot, if it weren't for the price of the bullet. In fact, if there were a deal where I could sacrifice 5 WASPs to save one Iraqi or african child, I'd be bringing you about a busload of WASPs.
Back in history, there are many, many, many cases of murder that were totally acceptable. Heck, even the stupid bible contains a lot of "if X does Y, kill the fucking bastard". you must be some sort of racist I have a solid dislike for white anglo-saxon protestants with a subscription to righteousness, yes.
It just happens that my day job is ensuring proper social treatment of about 3000 people.
Really, you shouldn't try ad hominem attacks against someone you know nothing about. leave the commentary on politics to human beings who actually know the fucking BASICS of human nature, ok einstein? Politics and psychology are the main elements of my daily work.
Now, did we lose track of the actual argument entirely? I think it was largely whether or not human rights are a universal truth. Aside from the usual semantic problems about "universal" and "truth" (and "rights", btw.) the counterpoint was that your view is simplistic and ignorant of context. Also, short-sighted. you want us to not champion democracy, because there is the possibility that SOMEDAY something better may come along I called the bluff on democracy being "the ultimate", "teh best evva" and the other nonsense. I don't mind pointing out its advantages and disadvantages. Once you do that, you start talking about actual content instead of words. Because you, my friend, are trying to fight over the map, which quite frankly amuses me. Here, you can have it. Let's agree that "Democracy" is the ultimate. Then I'll go on to subtly redefine what exactly "Democracy" is, while you can keep the word you value so much.
And as soon as we talk content, you will realize how much of that is relativistic.
Also, you will realize that there has never been a true democracy on this planet on any considerable scale either in size or time. Representative democracy is our current way, though even there are many variations. "Democracy" as such does not exist. Kant was another guy who'd rather eat the menu than the food.
And I'm not even starting to discuss the main problem: How exactly do you define "equal" ?
I know this is
One, it wasn't added, it had been there before.
Two, it's not a watermark, it's some embedded text.
Three, the text is even embedded in plain text format.
Besides, embedding personal info is not DRM. Wikipedia sums it up nicely:
Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term referring to technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to or usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device.