Not only that, but it is teaching soldiers how to respawn in 30 seconds if they get killed. (And teaching them to just give up and die when they run out of bullets, because they'll get more when they respawn.)
"How did America become a choice between two nanny-state parties?"
Because when we are on the recieving end of government spending we feel like its free. We sell our freedom for "free" government services.
Become active in your local school districts don't accept the use of federal funds in your schools. Become more active in other local governments and refuse federal funding to build local roads, stimulate local economies, etc. Refusing to accept federal funds will make it much easier to get votes to curtail federal spending. When there is less money in government it will less attractive to empire-building bureaucrats and corrupt politicians. (Note: This is not easy. Nothing that takes forethought and self-control is easy.)
IMO all the problems with national politics come directly from apathy in local (and personal) matters. (ie. Why are we surprised by government debt when consumer debt is so high? Why are we surprised with corruption in Congress when we allow - or participate in - corruption in our neighborhood association politics? Why are we surprised at cheating CEOs when we steal office supplies and give - or recieve - only token punishments for cheating in school?)
----- This in an incomplete thought, and is not meant to fully represent the complexity of the many problems that exist in government, but I think that it addresses important cores of those problems.
From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#lo gicam
"Argumentum ad logicam
This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument."
I assumed that you would notice that I knew the meaning when I said:
"His lecture no more proves the existence of God than the Ontological Argument proves the non-existence of God."
Why did you introduce the phrase, if it wasn't for Mr. Russell's use of the technique? I certainly hadn't asserted (or even suggested) anyting at all about any conclusion, true or false. I merely discussed a couple of fallacies.
I know it is offtopic, but this has been a fun discussion. Thank you.
1. Upon review, perhaps you'll note that I said the link was to the fallacies, not to the analysis.
2. Although I am flattered that you'd assume my analysis was devastating, it wasn't. It was just an easy (thanks to Mr. Russell) homework assignment.
3. I hope that you're not don't believe that Mr. Russell wasn't trying to convince anyone with his rhetorical lecture. (Though I'm not entirely sure whom he was trying to convince, or what he was trying to convince them of.)
4. Argumentum ad Logicam is a nifty and oft used fallacy. Did you bring it up because of its use in "Why I Am Not a Christian?" Perhaps you assumed that I was making that mistake in this case. If I gave that impression, I apologize. I was merely commenting on Mr. Russell and the (slight and unintentional) humor of his lecture, not the conclusion. His lecture no more proves the existence of God than the Ontological Argument proves the non-existence of God.
Bertrand Russel has written some interesting stuff.
I was required to do a paper for a (very interesting) philosophy class, disecting an argument of one of the philosophers that we had studied recently.
I chose Bertrand Russel's "Why I Am Not a Christian" largely for reasons of ease.
That lecture is so stuffed full of logical fallacies I had had more to write about than would fit in the assignment. Two of my favorites are his pervasive ad-hominem reasoning and the obvious self-contradiction in his dice example.
Still, as logically silly as the lecture is, it is still interesting.
Some of his math is interesting too.
Ah, but if the consumers drive the market they will demand higher quality music (more expensive to produce, and available in lower quantities), lower prices, and won't need to buy more music as often (since what we have will be more satisfying for longer).
The huge judgment against tobacco companies is a HUGE boon to the tobacco industry. The more they are a known, visible form of large income to Local, State and Federal governments the industry will be protected at all costs by the budget makers.
Why do you think that the manufacturers don't complain more effectively against 100%+ taxes per pack of cigarettes? They know that the demand is relatively independent of the price, and the higher taxes make the profit margin difference between the cheaper and more expensive products seem relatively smaller.
They do a little token "don't smoke" campaigning and a lot of (much more effective) "please smoke" campaigning, and they come out ahead in the numbers and the image.
If the large corporations of the music industry can get an image of "large tax provider" they will become more protected too. Effective DRM and an internet music tax would be ideal for this.
Good point. Next time I get a job offer, I will ask to see the contract before I make a verbal agreement, quit my old job, move etc.
(My current contract basically says that the company owns everything I produce while I work here. There is no wording about whether it's on work time, with work equipment, or related to the industry. According to my contract, this post belongs to my employer.)
Not that I think that the Iraq war has been very effective in eliminating terrorism, but you have also presented a false dichotomy:
"The choice was between invading Iraq and setting up more of this kind of counter-terrorist cells." That is also not an "either-or" situation, because both are being done.
Still, I thought that your post and the linked article were interesting.
If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it? Give in? That didn't work well with bullies in grade school, and it won't work with bullies now.
(Although I have to admit that all the free publicity and credibility that we give terrorism by watching every little news item about terrorist strikes, and discussing them for hours is a VERY EFFECTIVE way to encourage terrorism.)
There are obvious things, that GAC is certain (or nearly certain) about. There are relatively obsure things that GAC is unsure about. Other things that GAC is likely to be wrong about.
It is a very interesting way to get a sample of common knowledge.
The hard part seems (to me) to be to figure out how to use it.
Then you're silly to trust any of them. Not silly to use them, but silly to trust them very far. Luckily, backups of data are relatively easy, compared to backups of personal property.
I was just imagining: I purchase a copy of each of my personal posessions each month. I keep each backup set in a fireproof storge unit in different parts of the city. When a backup set is 5 years old I destroy it by putting it through a strong magnetic field. The furniture doesn't seem to get very destroyed, though, so I do it twice with the furniture. I've considered incremental backups, but prefer the redundancy of full backups.
If the manufacturer claimed that the lock would be proof against a credit card, then he shares in the fault.
If, however; on the lock package there was a phrase like, "This lock is provided AS IS, and is not warranted nor guaranteed to be fit for any particular use or purpose whatsoever and any loss of personal property or data is all YOUR FAULT!" then you're silly to trust it.
If his book was as ridiculously inflammatory and exaggerated as some of his quoted comments then it should be embarrassing to any scientist.
Just because someone is unpopular doesn't mean that they aren't stupid.
Quote from Holick: "The problem has been that the American Academy of Dermatology has been unchallenged for 20 years," he says. "They have brainwashed the public at every level."
Slashdot Mirror
If they come from Microsoft, they're OK. Microsoft is trustworthy.
Not only that, but it is teaching soldiers how to respawn in 30 seconds if they get killed. (And teaching them to just give up and die when they run out of bullets, because they'll get more when they respawn.)
"How did America become a choice between two nanny-state parties?"
Because when we are on the recieving end of government spending we feel like its free. We sell our freedom for "free" government services.
Become active in your local school districts don't accept the use of federal funds in your schools. Become more active in other local governments and refuse federal funding to build local roads, stimulate local economies, etc. Refusing to accept federal funds will make it much easier to get votes to curtail federal spending. When there is less money in government it will less attractive to empire-building bureaucrats and corrupt politicians.
(Note: This is not easy. Nothing that takes forethought and self-control is easy.)
IMO all the problems with national politics come directly from apathy in local (and personal) matters. (ie. Why are we surprised by government debt when consumer debt is so high? Why are we surprised with corruption in Congress when we allow - or participate in - corruption in our neighborhood association politics? Why are we surprised at cheating CEOs when we steal office supplies and give - or recieve - only token punishments for cheating in school?)
-----
This in an incomplete thought, and is not meant to fully represent the complexity of the many problems that exist in government, but I think that it addresses important cores of those problems.
From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#lo gicam
"Argumentum ad logicam
This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument."
I assumed that you would notice that I knew the meaning when I said:
"His lecture no more proves the existence of God than the Ontological Argument proves the non-existence of God."
Why did you introduce the phrase, if it wasn't for Mr. Russell's use of the technique? I certainly hadn't asserted (or even suggested) anyting at all about any conclusion, true or false. I merely discussed a couple of fallacies.
I know it is offtopic, but this has been a fun discussion.
Thank you.
- QMO
hoping is not the same as waiting
1. Upon review, perhaps you'll note that I said the link was to the fallacies, not to the analysis.
2. Although I am flattered that you'd assume my analysis was devastating, it wasn't. It was just an easy (thanks to Mr. Russell) homework assignment.
3. I hope that you're not don't believe that Mr. Russell wasn't trying to convince anyone with his rhetorical lecture. (Though I'm not entirely sure whom he was trying to convince, or what he was trying to convince them of.)
4. Argumentum ad Logicam is a nifty and oft used fallacy. Did you bring it up because of its use in "Why I Am Not a Christian?" Perhaps you assumed that I was making that mistake in this case. If I gave that impression, I apologize. I was merely commenting on Mr. Russell and the (slight and unintentional) humor of his lecture, not the conclusion. His lecture no more proves the existence of God than the Ontological Argument proves the non-existence of God.
"DJs should have the balls to play what they like because they like it..."
And they make enought that a little extra shouldn't matter. Just like the rest of us.
Bertrand Russel has written some interesting stuff. I was required to do a paper for a (very interesting) philosophy class, disecting an argument of one of the philosophers that we had studied recently.
d .1736/ to see the fallacies.
I chose Bertrand Russel's "Why I Am Not a Christian" largely for reasons of ease.
That lecture is so stuffed full of logical fallacies I had had more to write about than would fit in the assignment. Two of my favorites are his pervasive ad-hominem reasoning and the obvious self-contradiction in his dice example.
Still, as logically silly as the lecture is, it is still interesting.
Some of his math is interesting too.
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.6/booki
Ah, but if the consumers drive the market they will demand higher quality music (more expensive to produce, and available in lower quantities), lower prices, and won't need to buy more music as often (since what we have will be more satisfying for longer).
The huge judgment against tobacco companies is a HUGE boon to the tobacco industry. The more they are a known, visible form of large income to Local, State and Federal governments the industry will be protected at all costs by the budget makers.
Why do you think that the manufacturers don't complain more effectively against 100%+ taxes per pack of cigarettes? They know that the demand is relatively independent of the price, and the higher taxes make the profit margin difference between the cheaper and more expensive products seem relatively smaller.
They do a little token "don't smoke" campaigning and a lot of (much more effective) "please smoke" campaigning, and they come out ahead in the numbers and the image.
If the large corporations of the music industry can get an image of "large tax provider" they will become more protected too. Effective DRM and an internet music tax would be ideal for this.
Good point.
Next time I get a job offer, I will ask to see the contract before I make a verbal agreement, quit my old job, move etc.
(My current contract basically says that the company owns everything I produce while I work here. There is no wording about whether it's on work time, with work equipment, or related to the industry. According to my contract, this post belongs to my employer.)
Kind of like how Windows 97 became Windows 98?
I see how that applies to fingerprint storage, but not recognition.
Can you explain further.
Not that I think that the Iraq war has been very effective in eliminating terrorism, but you have also presented a false dichotomy:
"The choice was between invading Iraq and setting up more of this kind of counter-terrorist cells."
That is also not an "either-or" situation, because both are being done.
Still, I thought that your post and the linked article were interesting.
I won the war on drugs.
I haven't used any.
I win.
I don't know whether you've won, are still fighting or have given up.
Good luck.
"The opposite of war is not always peace. Sometimes the opposite of war is slavery"
If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it?
Give in?
That didn't work well with bullies in grade school, and it won't work with bullies now.
(Although I have to admit that all the free publicity and credibility that we give terrorism by watching every little news item about terrorist strikes, and discussing them for hours is a VERY EFFECTIVE way to encourage terrorism.)
My post (parent) will probably be modded Redundant because it was posted in the same minute as the other 5 first posts. Oh, well.
It's got to be disgruntled New Yorkers, upset over the IOC's decision on the 2012 Olympics.
I think that the idea is VERY interesting.
There are obvious things, that GAC is certain (or nearly certain) about.
There are relatively obsure things that GAC is unsure about.
Other things that GAC is likely to be wrong about.
It is a very interesting way to get a sample of common knowledge.
The hard part seems (to me) to be to figure out how to use it.
Then you're silly to trust any of them.
Not silly to use them, but silly to trust them very far.
Luckily, backups of data are relatively easy, compared to backups of personal property.
I was just imagining:
I purchase a copy of each of my personal posessions each month.
I keep each backup set in a fireproof storge unit in different parts of the city.
When a backup set is 5 years old I destroy it by putting it through a strong magnetic field. The furniture doesn't seem to get very destroyed, though, so I do it twice with the furniture.
I've considered incremental backups, but prefer the redundancy of full backups.
If the manufacturer claimed that the lock would be proof against a credit card, then he shares in the fault.
If, however; on the lock package there was a phrase like, "This lock is provided AS IS, and is not warranted nor guaranteed to be fit for any particular use or purpose whatsoever and any loss of personal property or data is all YOUR FAULT!" then you're silly to trust it.
"look what happened to those products as well."
The annoying paper-clip is still around and as annoying as ever.
On my computer he's called Clippit.
If his book was as ridiculously inflammatory and exaggerated as some of his quoted comments then it should be embarrassing to any scientist.
Just because someone is unpopular doesn't mean that they aren't stupid.
Quote from Holick:
"The problem has been that the American Academy of Dermatology has been unchallenged for 20 years," he says. "They have brainwashed the public at every level."