What the problem is partially that philosophy in the US withdrew from historical- or cultural-scaled problems, and started turning itself into the boundary between mathematics and cognitive science. The framing of the question of "free will" thus become wrapped up in the question of decision-making. Too many trivial examples ("whether I decide to wash the dishes", "freedom to decided whether to drop this glass," etc) displaced actual existential decisions (do I fight against an occupying army and risk death, or do I keep a low profile, collaborate possibly, and survive? Do I pursue a career over family, over vice-versa) which are the places where "will" and "choice" really matter.
What is your point of reference for a claim of superiority or inferiority?
Nietzsche thought that simple "truth" was a less important category for the value of a statement or belief that whether that statement or belief affirmed and enhanced life.
Putting aside the absolutely historically and empirically incorrect claim that there is no logic behind Buddhism, on what basis do you privilege what you are calling, here, logic as making anything superior or inferior?
I know continental philosophy isn't popular in the US, but Alain Badiou's account of the emergence of a subject in what he calls a "situation" which calls forth a deliberative reorganization of one's worldview, one's priorities, etc. is probably going to be the best you can get for "free will." The continent gave up on free will for decision-making ages ago, and Heidegger recognized the rote nature of most so-called "decisions."
Unless you hold a very strong mind-body dualist account, everything psychological is physical.
The glib distinction between the two is simply incorrect. It is more accurate to say that certain types of addiction have different mechanisms from others.
It's not off-topic. It is speculation about the nature and cause of the observed phenomenon. If the study finds "large quantities of smoke in town," the suggestions "maybe it's because something is on fire" is not off-topic.
I've read my Foucault, and it is something of an overstatement to say that "sexual preference is socially constructed."
For one thing, Foucault would claim that it is historically constructed. And it wouldn't be "sexual preference" that was constructed that way, it would "heterosexuality" as a kind of clinical term which places the gender of the love-object as the foregrounded element in sexual identity. Language is often an indicator of the way that sexuality is organized: often, it is whether the male is active or receptive that is more important as a marker of sexual identity, than whether the sex partner is male or female.
But he - and no informed contemporary commentator - would say that all sexual preferences are "socially constructed." Only that there is a lot that happens between infantile and childhood pre-sexual drives and their organization in adults, and that the process of what happens is one that has developed historically, and now takes a primarily diagnostic shape.
In that case, the counter-claim should be at least as effective. The city has been using apples in logos and campaigns since at least the early 1970s, and if they want to pursue technology initiatives, they may want to "keep their options open."
No, I'm sorry. This action merits all the ridicule it is receiving.
It will be the "system working as intended" if they find against Apple. Likewise, if I sue you for something utterly ridiculous and it is thrown out, then the system is "working as intended."
That doesn't make the initial filing any less worthy of ridicule or critique.
I actually don't think Apple has a stake in each and every use of an apple in a logo or other iconic circumstance, any more than T-Mobile does with the color magenta or IBM with stripes.
Not being able to use a logo you developed is "damage." And there are substantial legal costs involved in contesting a challenge. Of course, they have a "right" to do it. They have a "right" to send C&D letters to bloggers and to file a lawsuit against anyone they want. The question is whether it is ethical, reasonable, or even necessary.
It has nothing to do with "Apple-haters." I use a MacBook and run MacOS X. Your enthusiastic defense of a massive corporation against criticism does earn you the title of "rabid fanboi," though.
As the original submitter, I used the word "suit" when I should have used the word "claim." Otherwise, however, I think you incorrectly minimalize the effectively litigious and serious nature of a trademark opposition:
The owner of the pending application is given a copy of the claim, termed a âoenotice of oppositionâ. The applicant is given thirty days to file an answer, If no answer is filed, the application is dismissed. Therefore receipt of an opposition notice must be taken seriously.
The opposition procedure is similar to civil litigation. There is first a discovery period. The time period for discovery is set by the TTAB. The deadlines may be extended on written request. The discovery comprises depositions, interrogatories, production of records, and request for admissions. These are the typical tools used in civil litigation.
The TTAB has specific rules governing the conduct of an opposition, including the discovery phase. Similar to civil litigation, motions can be filed addressing alleged failure of one party or the other to comply with the TTAB rules of procedure.
What is unlike civil litigation, is the use of testimonial depositions, which are separate from discovery depositions. The TTAB does not conduct open or oral hearings. All matters are resolved by written record.
It is somewhat misleading to think this is just a casual "business as usual" action on the part of Apple. It is as serious as a regular lawsuit, will involve similar legal mobilizations, and ultimately will determine whether or not GreeNYC can trademark (and use) their logo.
I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-stupid bravado and an overwillingness to use them. This guy has a Dirty Harry fantasy in his head, and it will end in tragedy.
I'm just suspicious of this rather convenient "oh, both parties are just as bad" cliche that pops up after stories like these. I don't know any serious observers who claim that a Gore or Kerry administration would have gotten us into the predicament.
The 2006 election was, indeed, a referendum on the war. But it was obvious then that it would be insufficient to end the war, and indeed it is debatable whether we really can unilaterally just pull out. In any case, it is a political non-starter to simply refuse to fund the operation - the venomous charge, "you won't support the troops" makes that gesture impossible in most constituencies.
Electing Republicans at this point will only reward their behavior. My own politics are a heady and complicated view - I'm not a Democrat per se, and I'm under no illusions about who the Democrats are (crudely, i think Republicans are the party of agrarian/mid-nation elites and Democrats are the party of urban/coastal elites, and then they divvy up the populace as best they can.) But this stink is clearly the making of a bloc of neoconservatives well-entrenched in the Republican party, a bloc that came together during the closing years of the Nixon administration.
Actually, you misunderstood me completely. I'm actually describing the rhetoric that is checking even those elements of Congress that oppose the war: the accusations of lack of patriotism, often mobilized by the executive branch.
The weak partner in the balance of powers at this point is the legislative.
The long campaign against Nicaragua (dating back all the way to William Walker!); the annexation of Hawaii; the Philippine war; the invasion of Grenada; the fall of Mossadeq; support for Pinochet's coup, the Uruguayan junta, and early support for the Argentine military dictatorship. This is just off the top of my head.
What checks Congress at this point? The almost meaningless, yet incredibly powerful phrase "Support the Troops!" Which goes to prove my original point: that critics of the war and its related expansion of domestic policing powers are held captive by accusations of anti-patriotism and treason.
I think you have to look why many principled conservatives are now supporting Obama: people like Andrew Bacevich, Lew Rockwell, and Douglas Kmiec. I really believe that only a neo-conservative administration - and except for Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, all the neocons are Republican and the majority of Republicans are neo-con - would have gotten us into Iraq.
Douglas Kmiec's basis for supporting Obama is an interesting one, as well, because it seems he is one of the few people who actually has been listening to what Obama has been saying and watching what he has been doing. Obama is a Democrat who tells the underclass to stop relying on the state, being particularly critical of the culture of dependence that has harmed the African American poor over the past several decades. This doesn't make Obama a conservative. He's not. But then, who is? Certainly not McCain.
Like I said above, I protested against Clinton's military adventures. But none of the things you describe amount to the pervasive expansion of federal police power under the Republicans - from the creation of a "Department of Homeland Security" (my God, what an Orwellian phrase) to the defense of torture, extraordinary renditions, no-fly lists, etc. By creating institutions like DHS, these changes are built into the government, rather than being rogue operations of otherwise reasonable organizations.
This isn't even really a left/right thing (well, the right as an actual cultural force, if not as the political expression of conservatism, is closer to the cultural of nationalist values and bellicosity, but..) It's what the Republicans have chosen to exploit for political capital. I attribute it to Rove's neo-conservatism, not to the historical Republican party. But them's still the facts on the ground. (And Rove, Rumsfeld, etc all share origins in the Nixon administration's realignment of the Republican party.)
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you are referring to, oh, I don't know, continental philosophy.
What the problem is partially that philosophy in the US withdrew from historical- or cultural-scaled problems, and started turning itself into the boundary between mathematics and cognitive science. The framing of the question of "free will" thus become wrapped up in the question of decision-making. Too many trivial examples ("whether I decide to wash the dishes", "freedom to decided whether to drop this glass," etc) displaced actual existential decisions (do I fight against an occupying army and risk death, or do I keep a low profile, collaborate possibly, and survive? Do I pursue a career over family, over vice-versa) which are the places where "will" and "choice" really matter.
What is your point of reference for a claim of superiority or inferiority?
Nietzsche thought that simple "truth" was a less important category for the value of a statement or belief that whether that statement or belief affirmed and enhanced life.
Putting aside the absolutely historically and empirically incorrect claim that there is no logic behind Buddhism, on what basis do you privilege what you are calling, here, logic as making anything superior or inferior?
I know continental philosophy isn't popular in the US, but Alain Badiou's account of the emergence of a subject in what he calls a "situation" which calls forth a deliberative reorganization of one's worldview, one's priorities, etc. is probably going to be the best you can get for "free will." The continent gave up on free will for decision-making ages ago, and Heidegger recognized the rote nature of most so-called "decisions."
Trust me, not only do some of us early-accounters make typos, we care almost nothing that we do.
We still remain the eminence grise. Our typos are more correct than the not-typoes of the epigones.
Unless you hold a very strong mind-body dualist account, everything psychological is physical.
The glib distinction between the two is simply incorrect. It is more accurate to say that certain types of addiction have different mechanisms from others.
It's not off-topic. It is speculation about the nature and cause of the observed phenomenon. If the study finds "large quantities of smoke in town," the suggestions "maybe it's because something is on fire" is not off-topic.
I've read my Foucault, and it is something of an overstatement to say that "sexual preference is socially constructed."
For one thing, Foucault would claim that it is historically constructed. And it wouldn't be "sexual preference" that was constructed that way, it would "heterosexuality" as a kind of clinical term which places the gender of the love-object as the foregrounded element in sexual identity. Language is often an indicator of the way that sexuality is organized: often, it is whether the male is active or receptive that is more important as a marker of sexual identity, than whether the sex partner is male or female.
But he - and no informed contemporary commentator - would say that all sexual preferences are "socially constructed." Only that there is a lot that happens between infantile and childhood pre-sexual drives and their organization in adults, and that the process of what happens is one that has developed historically, and now takes a primarily diagnostic shape.
And predatory people seek out fearful ones. Often, it is their very paranoia that makes them a target.
In that case, the counter-claim should be at least as effective. The city has been using apples in logos and campaigns since at least the early 1970s, and if they want to pursue technology initiatives, they may want to "keep their options open."
No, I'm sorry. This action merits all the ridicule it is receiving.
There is an implicit "to develop an atmosphere that might have been conducive to creating life" after the "too quickly."
Besides, is geo-planetary change really "evolution?"
It will be the "system working as intended" if they find against Apple. Likewise, if I sue you for something utterly ridiculous and it is thrown out, then the system is "working as intended."
That doesn't make the initial filing any less worthy of ridicule or critique.
I actually don't think Apple has a stake in each and every use of an apple in a logo or other iconic circumstance, any more than T-Mobile does with the color magenta or IBM with stripes.
Not being able to use a logo you developed is "damage." And there are substantial legal costs involved in contesting a challenge. Of course, they have a "right" to do it. They have a "right" to send C&D letters to bloggers and to file a lawsuit against anyone they want. The question is whether it is ethical, reasonable, or even necessary.
It has nothing to do with "Apple-haters." I use a MacBook and run MacOS X. Your enthusiastic defense of a massive corporation against criticism does earn you the title of "rabid fanboi," though.
It is somewhat misleading to think this is just a casual "business as usual" action on the part of Apple. It is as serious as a regular lawsuit, will involve similar legal mobilizations, and ultimately will determine whether or not GreeNYC can trademark (and use) their logo.
You really don't get it.
I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-stupid bravado and an overwillingness to use them. This guy has a Dirty Harry fantasy in his head, and it will end in tragedy.
Sadly, the UK is somewhat less litigious than the US, and the chances of any more than a "So sorry, better luck next time" are small.
Do you have any idea how much tragedy has been preceded by your kind of posturing bluster?
I'm just suspicious of this rather convenient "oh, both parties are just as bad" cliche that pops up after stories like these. I don't know any serious observers who claim that a Gore or Kerry administration would have gotten us into the predicament.
The 2006 election was, indeed, a referendum on the war. But it was obvious then that it would be insufficient to end the war, and indeed it is debatable whether we really can unilaterally just pull out. In any case, it is a political non-starter to simply refuse to fund the operation - the venomous charge, "you won't support the troops" makes that gesture impossible in most constituencies.
Electing Republicans at this point will only reward their behavior. My own politics are a heady and complicated view - I'm not a Democrat per se, and I'm under no illusions about who the Democrats are (crudely, i think Republicans are the party of agrarian/mid-nation elites and Democrats are the party of urban/coastal elites, and then they divvy up the populace as best they can.) But this stink is clearly the making of a bloc of neoconservatives well-entrenched in the Republican party, a bloc that came together during the closing years of the Nixon administration.
Mossadeq was Iran. We backed Zahedi against him.
Actually, you misunderstood me completely. I'm actually describing the rhetoric that is checking even those elements of Congress that oppose the war: the accusations of lack of patriotism, often mobilized by the executive branch.
The weak partner in the balance of powers at this point is the legislative.
The long campaign against Nicaragua (dating back all the way to William Walker!); the annexation of Hawaii; the Philippine war; the invasion of Grenada; the fall of Mossadeq; support for Pinochet's coup, the Uruguayan junta, and early support for the Argentine military dictatorship. This is just off the top of my head.
What checks Congress at this point? The almost meaningless, yet incredibly powerful phrase "Support the Troops!" Which goes to prove my original point: that critics of the war and its related expansion of domestic policing powers are held captive by accusations of anti-patriotism and treason.
Gingrich is kind of a weirdo hybrid and not really a major player. Rush is a circus sideshow who makes a cheap buck by stirring up the cheap seats.
You really know nothing about the conservative movement you think you are part of.
I think you have to look why many principled conservatives are now supporting Obama: people like Andrew Bacevich, Lew Rockwell, and Douglas Kmiec. I really believe that only a neo-conservative administration - and except for Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, all the neocons are Republican and the majority of Republicans are neo-con - would have gotten us into Iraq.
Douglas Kmiec's basis for supporting Obama is an interesting one, as well, because it seems he is one of the few people who actually has been listening to what Obama has been saying and watching what he has been doing. Obama is a Democrat who tells the underclass to stop relying on the state, being particularly critical of the culture of dependence that has harmed the African American poor over the past several decades. This doesn't make Obama a conservative. He's not. But then, who is? Certainly not McCain.
Like I said above, I protested against Clinton's military adventures. But none of the things you describe amount to the pervasive expansion of federal police power under the Republicans - from the creation of a "Department of Homeland Security" (my God, what an Orwellian phrase) to the defense of torture, extraordinary renditions, no-fly lists, etc. By creating institutions like DHS, these changes are built into the government, rather than being rogue operations of otherwise reasonable organizations.
This isn't even really a left/right thing (well, the right as an actual cultural force, if not as the political expression of conservatism, is closer to the cultural of nationalist values and bellicosity, but..) It's what the Republicans have chosen to exploit for political capital. I attribute it to Rove's neo-conservatism, not to the historical Republican party. But them's still the facts on the ground. (And Rove, Rumsfeld, etc all share origins in the Nixon administration's realignment of the Republican party.)