My main objection was that you didn't seem to be living up to your own standards... something I find rather irritating. It seems, though, that this was just as much a communication failure as anything else.
For full disclosure: I do enjoy a good argument, so part of my motivation is definitely for the argument's sake. Over the years, though, I've learned to pick my battles to actually accomplish things. Hopefully, albeit this is Slashdot, our conflict helped others understand where you're coming from.;)
Slashdot isn't a site for marketers, though. Here, we're nerds, geeks, and dorks. And when we say "Web 2.0", we mean "standards compliant HTML, CSS, Java-/ECMA- Script, and XmlHttpRequest". While the term is used heavily for marketing, it does have a technical description, and, as noted by LKM, people do care.
I went back and re-read your posts in light of this comment, and it seems that my mind intuitively connected your no-statistics comments with your honesty comments. I apologize if this is not, in fact, an appropriate analysis.
But for a film maker to take one (or possibly two) people from the population to back up his claim that "Even here, in Toronto, a city of millions, people just didn't lock their doors." is a bit of a stretch
As you imply, Moore cherry picks responses that suit his argument, as we all do. However, recall the argument in my first response:
Moore's examples were hand-picked to make a point. Chances are, yours are as well.
Your mind, in an effort to support your assertion, has dug up a myriad of memories of theft.
In it, I assert that your mind did some cherry picking in response to Moore's statement. As you mentioned statistics in your other posts, I analyzed your assertions within that scope. However, as you noted, statistics are only tangentially related to our discussion. My argument is that your critique is just as dubious as Moore's--you cherry pick memories; he cherry picks people. Hence, my accusation of dishonesty and, thus, hypocrisy.
If this is not the proper perspective of your argument, then please enlighten me to what is.:)
One could say the same for linux users and their operating systems, particularly on slashdot.;)
I acknowledge that I am quite the Apple Fanboy, but there's a good reason for it. I've used Windows (3.1 to XP Pro), Linux (from Gentoo to Ubuntu), Open & FreeBSD, and a few other operating systems that I presently can't recall. I haven't looked back since purchasing my MacBook. While I won't contend that only Apple can give me this experience, I do contend they're the most successful thus far.
Furthermore, I support their Safari on Windows initiative, but not because Safari is awesome (albeit, I prefer it to FF). No, it's because using Safari furthers the KHTML engine and enhances standard compliance among browsers. It puts more pressure on the browser market, which benefits the industry as a whole.
especially when people so casually call me a hypocrite
I did not levy that accusation casually. I demonstrated the presence of hypocrisy with an argument beforehand. Also, note, that I mentioned the difference between audiences in my post as well. My intent is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your argument, compared to Moore's. You stated in the GGP:
Moore is not being honest in the literal sense OR the figurative sense. Read my arguments if you haven't already. [emphasis added]
I, in fact, read every post you made until that point, and then responded to your assertion in the original thread. My analysis concluded that your information wasn't honest by your own criterion. Also, I made every attempt to judge the argument, not the person:
But, why focus on that when your counterclaims beg this question: what's with the hypocrisy?
Note that "your counterclaims beg the question". While my accusation does imply that you are a hypocrite, my intention was to point out the flaw in your argument, not a flaw in your character. As I don't know you personally, I'm not fit to judge you in that capacity.
It's not like they can injure themselves or get medical problems from a bad diet, because the military control everything they do.
The other poster already noted that they can still cause themselves bodily injury. I'd like to point out a few as well. Bad diet: anorexia & bulimia. Another thing you neglected to mention is the bodily injury they sustain due to "interrogation". I also heard in a documentary or news program (can't remember which) that the restraints cause injury as well.
And one of the downsides about freedom is that the government is no longer obligated to give you free healthcare, at least in the US model.
I don't see the connection you're trying to illustrate here. As I see it, present-day America needs public healthcare so that we, as citizens, can remain a free people. At the moment if you lose your job you typically lose your insurance. This, in a sense, gives corporations the "keys" to your freedom to speak--if they don't like something you said, they can
terminate you, which causes a
loss of insurance, and subsequently the
loss of your healthcare.
This obstacle hurts during early adulthood, but its even worse when you have a family to consider.
12 How. 152: "Necessitous men," says the Lord Chancellor, in Vernon v Bethell, 2 Eden 113 (1762), "are not, truly speaking, free men; but, to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose on them."
Your other posts lambast Moore for presenting only anecdotal evidence and avoiding statistics. Your post, above, asserts this practice is dishonest at best. However, your arguments also lack statistical backing; they are limited to the anecdotal evidence of your acquaintances and yourself. Moore's examples were hand-picked to make a point. Chances are, yours are as well.
Your mind, in an effort to support your assertion, has dug up a myriad of memories of theft. You don't state the interim between these thefts, nor the interim between the "first" and "last" theft you recall. Neither do you discuss the demographics of the neighborhoods where these thefts occurred. Furthermore, you don't present the demographics of yourself or the other victims. You may be a "theft-prone" individual, maybe one neighborhood has a resident kleptomaniac, etc. We can't tell. Thus, we cannot be sure that your experience is the "expected" case for Toronto, or if it's an edge case--statistically, we don't know the deviation of your experience from the theft rate(s) of Toronto.
Insofar as audience is concerned, Moore's offense could be considered more egregious, as he is "lying" to more people. But, why focus on that when your counterclaims beg this question: what's with the hypocrisy?
I imagine that you wouldn't want to give anyone access to that information through Safari. As far as mapping software goes, the phone includes Google Maps. If Google Maps has this built in (which it appears to), why would you need independent navigation software?
Unless, of course, the iPhone uses the same technology the new version of Mail uses to identify phone numbers, etc. If it pulls things that look like phone numbers off of the page, and allows users to call those numbers, then it can remain secure and, what's better, doesn't require developers to explicitly implement "call this number" functionality.
While there is no GPS module in the iPhone, isn't it possible to triangulate your position based on cell towers? Furthermore, isn't it mandatory that cell phones du this (911 support)? It may not be as accurate (I really have no idea, I'm not into that kind of development), but it should suffice until Apple releases the next revision of the hardware.
"If AJAX is that good and the developers don't need an SDK, why has Apple built a dedicated Mail application or Google Maps software into the iPhone? Why not just reformat the CSS on the Web and open a special view to.mac mail, Gmail or Google Maps made just for iPhone Safari users ?"
My guess is integration, personally. Consider google maps: the iPhone could provide GPS data to google maps, by triangulating between cell towers and whatnot. While it's still possible to do this via safari, it would necessitate exposing the internals of the iPhone to internet applications. Say that Apple did that, now we'd be up to our necks in "OMG Privacy!" posts instead of "Wah, no SDK" posts. Furthermore, it would deteriorate the user experience, because the google maps web page wouldn't automatically integrate with the webbrowser. Finally, one must think of offline content, particularly for mapping software. If I decide I want to use google maps to plot a vacation to the Poconos (I live in Pennsylvania, US, it's capable in a weekend), and there's no internet support there, I'll eventually get SOL because my map is located on a webserver somewhere.
When it comes to mail, yeh, I agree that it could be made in safari. But, when you have access to the phone internals, why do that?
Note: I am a fanboy, and I am considering purchasing it. If that makes me a hollow consumerist motivated by the whims of style, so be it. At least I'll have fun with my toys before I die;)
My favorite quote of all this was from an EFF attorney; to paraphrase: if someone steals your iPod, the thief would have the name and email address of the rightful owner!
The bastards that stole my iPod got my name and email, too... I didn't know what else to have engraved on the back.:-p
Ok, so I have another, far more pertinent correction to make. My roommate just pointed out to me that I crossed heliocentrism with geocentrism. Hence, geocentrism was the established theory of the time, not heliocentrism. While this is rather obvious, I completely missed it while posting. I likely made the same error in a number of other posts for this article.
Once again, Slashdot proves that, no matter how much you know, as soon as you post you're wrong.
Then, on top of it all, he insulted his most powerful ally, who had personally asked him to write the book, in the interest of changing Catholic Dogma.
should read
Then, on top of it all, he insulted his most powerful ally, who had personally asked him to write the book in the interest of changing Catholic Dogma.
Just as a note, I am, in fact, not a "religious type". I choose to withhold judgement, which would place me firmly within the agnostic camp. No, I am something far worse. An Armchair Philopsopher.:-p
The Pope asked for a book that presented both sides of the argument with minimal rhetoric. What Galileo gave him was a book chock full of rhetoric. What Galileo should have done is compare his proof to theirs. What Galileo did was compare his proof to a straw man (Simplicio). Then, on top of it all, he insulted his most powerful ally, who had personally asked him to write the book, in the interest of changing Catholic Dogma.
Unlike creationism, heliocentrism was the established theory. Thus, unlike the creationist's debate, the matter was controversial in academic circles*. And finally, unlike the creationist's debate, the Church suspected and/or knew it was wrong and asked for proof. In no way is a study of the Galilean Affair related to Creationism. To say otherwise constitutes a gross distortion of history.
Am I saying the Church is infallible? No. They have made many mistakes, as any large power establishment does. However, what I assert is that you, sir, need to study your history, because your version of events is grossly misinformed at best. And, while I agree with your analysis of creationism, you are committing the same egregious offense that you decry.
Footnotes
* See info on Galileo's rivals, mentioned in my OP.
I never said that Pope Urban VIII asked for a balanced point of view. He asked for an unbiased point of view. One that presented the evidence supporting and contradicting each hypothesis. Galileo, knowingly or not, introduced a heavy level of rhetoric into his writing. This, of itself, demonstrates the biased nature of the book.
As a demonstration, consider Simplicio*. This name resembles "simple" or "simpleton" (latin: simplus), thus mocking the Heliocentric theory from the beginning of the work. Instead of this name, Galileo could have easily used "Ptolemy" and "Copernicus", "Philsie" and "Howard", or other names.
In addition, Simplicio's arguments are misinformed, and his general attitude is that of a fool. Galileo modeled Salviati, the "hero", after himself and Simplicio after two of his rivals (Cesare Cremonini and Ludovico delle Colombe). Also, consider the presentation of the argument: as a dialogue between two people, attempting to convince a third that their respective position is correct. This manner of presentation can be easily laced with rhetoric, as the manner by which each character speaks communicates their level of intelligence. While I have not read the original work, I am willing to bet that the dialogue favored Salviati semantically.
The fact that Simplicio loses is irrelevant to my argument. What is at stake here is Galileo's manner of communication, the rhetoric which laced the pages of the volume. That, my friend, was the bias, the unconscionable act committed by Galileo, whether the decision was consciously made or not. In creating Simplicio, Galileo broke his promise to the Pope, at the time a friend and supporter of his position, and, what's worse, blatantly insulted him by attributing the Pope's words to Simplicio.
To quote Vincent Vega, "Antwan probably didn't expect Marsellus to react like he did, but he had to expect a reaction." (Antwan = Galileo, Marsellus = Urban VIII)
Footnotes
* I apologize for naming Simplicus, rather than Simplicio in my previous post.
How did you discover this incredible dichotomy? Do you have any evidence to support it, or do you merely take it on faith that such a statement is true? And, do you have faith that your reasoning is correct? Or, possibly, is there a reason behind your faith in this assertion? Perchance, Induction? Deduction? Logic? Rhetoric? Coercion?
And, while we're on the subject, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?
Heliocentrism, during Copernicus' life, was adopted as the official doctrine of the church. Thus, while Ptolemy was a heathen, attacking heliocentrism was tantamount to attacking the Church itself. At the time, this, itself, was akin to an attack on the Bible.
Copernicus didn't publish "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" until shortly before his death, likely due to a fear of the Church's response. While this statement isn't contrary to your assertion, it does qualify your account.
the problem with responses like yours(defending the other side) is that you defend an original poster who claims that because his bishop supported him, he was supported by the church, completely ignoring the fact that he was told to not advocate it by a much , much, much higher authority(the pope, several levels above his local bishop).
You've crossed a few things in your summary. The OP was talking about Cardinal Barberini, a "friend and admirer" of Galileo, not "Gailieo's Bishop". Furthermore, the "much, much, much higher authority figure" you describe in your post, Pope Urban VIII, is one and the same man--Cardinal Barberini was elected to the Papal office in 1623. So, effectively, Galileo had the church's support when he started writing "The Dialogue...". However, due largely to the politics of the Church, Urban knew that heliocentrism wouldn't fall easily. Hence, Urban asked Galileo to write a book that did not advocate that point of view.
Those words, did not advocate are incredibly important. Urban in no way asked Galileo to support heliocentrism. It was merely a request to give an unbiased account of both sides of the argument. (And surely my colleagues on Slashdot will appreciate that). Furthermore, Urban's second request, to be allowed to include his own musings in The Dialogue, was another mitigative tactic. Urban, in fact, was attempting to nudge the Church in the right direction, without getting Galileo into more trouble in the process.
Unfortunately, Galileo included an incredible amount of bias in the book, knowingly or not. (Note that the defender was named "Simplicus", and his arguments were portrayed as foolish.) This resulted in the Pope getting royally pissed at Galileo, and the subequent trial and sentence for heresy.
Slashdot Mirror
My main objection was that you didn't seem to be living up to your own standards... something I find rather irritating. It seems, though, that this was just as much a communication failure as anything else.
For full disclosure: I do enjoy a good argument, so part of my motivation is definitely for the argument's sake. Over the years, though, I've learned to pick my battles to actually accomplish things. Hopefully, albeit this is Slashdot, our conflict helped others understand where you're coming from. ;)
Slashdot isn't a site for marketers, though. Here, we're nerds, geeks, and dorks. And when we say "Web 2.0", we mean "standards compliant HTML, CSS, Java-/ECMA- Script, and XmlHttpRequest". While the term is used heavily for marketing, it does have a technical description, and, as noted by LKM, people do care.
I agree that it's over used though. :)
I went back and re-read your posts in light of this comment, and it seems that my mind intuitively connected your no-statistics comments with your honesty comments. I apologize if this is not, in fact, an appropriate analysis.
As you imply, Moore cherry picks responses that suit his argument, as we all do. However, recall the argument in my first response:
In it, I assert that your mind did some cherry picking in response to Moore's statement. As you mentioned statistics in your other posts, I analyzed your assertions within that scope. However, as you noted, statistics are only tangentially related to our discussion. My argument is that your critique is just as dubious as Moore's--you cherry pick memories; he cherry picks people. Hence, my accusation of dishonesty and, thus, hypocrisy.
If this is not the proper perspective of your argument, then please enlighten me to what is. :)
I agree, but I wasn't discussing the capabilities of iWork. I noted that Apple is more likely port their own software instead of work on OO.o.
I doubt Apple would lend too much aid to OO. It's more likely that they'd port iWork to Windows.
One could say the same for linux users and their operating systems, particularly on slashdot. ;)
I acknowledge that I am quite the Apple Fanboy, but there's a good reason for it. I've used Windows (3.1 to XP Pro), Linux (from Gentoo to Ubuntu), Open & FreeBSD, and a few other operating systems that I presently can't recall. I haven't looked back since purchasing my MacBook. While I won't contend that only Apple can give me this experience, I do contend they're the most successful thus far.
Furthermore, I support their Safari on Windows initiative, but not because Safari is awesome (albeit, I prefer it to FF). No, it's because using Safari furthers the KHTML engine and enhances standard compliance among browsers. It puts more pressure on the browser market, which benefits the industry as a whole.
I did not levy that accusation casually. I demonstrated the presence of hypocrisy with an argument beforehand. Also, note, that I mentioned the difference between audiences in my post as well. My intent is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your argument, compared to Moore's. You stated in the GGP:
I, in fact, read every post you made until that point, and then responded to your assertion in the original thread. My analysis concluded that your information wasn't honest by your own criterion. Also, I made every attempt to judge the argument, not the person:
Note that "your counterclaims beg the question". While my accusation does imply that you are a hypocrite, my intention was to point out the flaw in your argument, not a flaw in your character. As I don't know you personally, I'm not fit to judge you in that capacity.
The other poster already noted that they can still cause themselves bodily injury. I'd like to point out a few as well. Bad diet: anorexia & bulimia. Another thing you neglected to mention is the bodily injury they sustain due to "interrogation". I also heard in a documentary or news program (can't remember which) that the restraints cause injury as well.
I don't see the connection you're trying to illustrate here. As I see it, present-day America needs public healthcare so that we, as citizens, can remain a free people. At the moment if you lose your job you typically lose your insurance. This, in a sense, gives corporations the "keys" to your freedom to speak--if they don't like something you said, they can
- terminate you, which causes a
- loss of insurance, and subsequently the
- loss of your healthcare.
This obstacle hurts during early adulthood, but its even worse when you have a family to consider.Source
Your other posts lambast Moore for presenting only anecdotal evidence and avoiding statistics. Your post, above, asserts this practice is dishonest at best. However, your arguments also lack statistical backing; they are limited to the anecdotal evidence of your acquaintances and yourself. Moore's examples were hand-picked to make a point. Chances are, yours are as well.
Your mind, in an effort to support your assertion, has dug up a myriad of memories of theft. You don't state the interim between these thefts, nor the interim between the "first" and "last" theft you recall. Neither do you discuss the demographics of the neighborhoods where these thefts occurred. Furthermore, you don't present the demographics of yourself or the other victims. You may be a "theft-prone" individual, maybe one neighborhood has a resident kleptomaniac, etc. We can't tell. Thus, we cannot be sure that your experience is the "expected" case for Toronto, or if it's an edge case--statistically, we don't know the deviation of your experience from the theft rate(s) of Toronto.
Insofar as audience is concerned, Moore's offense could be considered more egregious, as he is "lying" to more people. But, why focus on that when your counterclaims beg this question: what's with the hypocrisy?
I imagine that you wouldn't want to give anyone access to that information through Safari. As far as mapping software goes, the phone includes Google Maps. If Google Maps has this built in (which it appears to), why would you need independent navigation software?
That's one of the most elegant solutions to torrent aggregation that I've ever heard. :)
Unless, of course, the iPhone uses the same technology the new version of Mail uses to identify phone numbers, etc. If it pulls things that look like phone numbers off of the page, and allows users to call those numbers, then it can remain secure and, what's better, doesn't require developers to explicitly implement "call this number" functionality.
While there is no GPS module in the iPhone, isn't it possible to triangulate your position based on cell towers? Furthermore, isn't it mandatory that cell phones du this (911 support)? It may not be as accurate (I really have no idea, I'm not into that kind of development), but it should suffice until Apple releases the next revision of the hardware.
My guess is integration, personally. Consider google maps: the iPhone could provide GPS data to google maps, by triangulating between cell towers and whatnot. While it's still possible to do this via safari, it would necessitate exposing the internals of the iPhone to internet applications. Say that Apple did that, now we'd be up to our necks in "OMG Privacy!" posts instead of "Wah, no SDK" posts. Furthermore, it would deteriorate the user experience, because the google maps web page wouldn't automatically integrate with the webbrowser. Finally, one must think of offline content, particularly for mapping software. If I decide I want to use google maps to plot a vacation to the Poconos (I live in Pennsylvania, US, it's capable in a weekend), and there's no internet support there, I'll eventually get SOL because my map is located on a webserver somewhere.
When it comes to mail, yeh, I agree that it could be made in safari. But, when you have access to the phone internals, why do that?
Note: I am a fanboy, and I am considering purchasing it. If that makes me a hollow consumerist motivated by the whims of style, so be it. At least I'll have fun with my toys before I die ;)
The bastards that stole my iPod got my name and email, too... I didn't know what else to have engraved on the back. :-p
Ok, so I have another, far more pertinent correction to make. My roommate just pointed out to me that I crossed heliocentrism with geocentrism. Hence, geocentrism was the established theory of the time, not heliocentrism. While this is rather obvious, I completely missed it while posting. I likely made the same error in a number of other posts for this article.
Once again, Slashdot proves that, no matter how much you know, as soon as you post you're wrong.
I misplaced a comma in this post. The line
should read
Just as a note, I am, in fact, not a "religious type". I choose to withhold judgement, which would place me firmly within the agnostic camp. No, I am something far worse. An Armchair Philopsopher. :-p
For the comprehension impaired:
The Pope asked for a book that presented both sides of the argument with minimal rhetoric. What Galileo gave him was a book chock full of rhetoric. What Galileo should have done is compare his proof to theirs. What Galileo did was compare his proof to a straw man (Simplicio). Then, on top of it all, he insulted his most powerful ally, who had personally asked him to write the book, in the interest of changing Catholic Dogma.
Unlike creationism, heliocentrism was the established theory. Thus, unlike the creationist's debate, the matter was controversial in academic circles*. And finally, unlike the creationist's debate, the Church suspected and/or knew it was wrong and asked for proof. In no way is a study of the Galilean Affair related to Creationism. To say otherwise constitutes a gross distortion of history.
Am I saying the Church is infallible? No. They have made many mistakes, as any large power establishment does. However, what I assert is that you, sir, need to study your history, because your version of events is grossly misinformed at best. And, while I agree with your analysis of creationism, you are committing the same egregious offense that you decry.
Footnotes
* See info on Galileo's rivals, mentioned in my OP.
I never said that Pope Urban VIII asked for a balanced point of view. He asked for an unbiased point of view. One that presented the evidence supporting and contradicting each hypothesis. Galileo, knowingly or not, introduced a heavy level of rhetoric into his writing. This, of itself, demonstrates the biased nature of the book.
As a demonstration, consider Simplicio*. This name resembles "simple" or "simpleton" (latin: simplus), thus mocking the Heliocentric theory from the beginning of the work. Instead of this name, Galileo could have easily used "Ptolemy" and "Copernicus", "Philsie" and "Howard", or other names.
In addition, Simplicio's arguments are misinformed, and his general attitude is that of a fool. Galileo modeled Salviati, the "hero", after himself and Simplicio after two of his rivals (Cesare Cremonini and Ludovico delle Colombe). Also, consider the presentation of the argument: as a dialogue between two people, attempting to convince a third that their respective position is correct. This manner of presentation can be easily laced with rhetoric, as the manner by which each character speaks communicates their level of intelligence. While I have not read the original work, I am willing to bet that the dialogue favored Salviati semantically.
The fact that Simplicio loses is irrelevant to my argument. What is at stake here is Galileo's manner of communication, the rhetoric which laced the pages of the volume. That, my friend, was the bias, the unconscionable act committed by Galileo, whether the decision was consciously made or not. In creating Simplicio, Galileo broke his promise to the Pope, at the time a friend and supporter of his position, and, what's worse, blatantly insulted him by attributing the Pope's words to Simplicio.
To quote Vincent Vega, "Antwan probably didn't expect Marsellus to react like he did, but he had to expect a reaction." (Antwan = Galileo, Marsellus = Urban VIII)
Footnotes
* I apologize for naming Simplicus, rather than Simplicio in my previous post.
How did you discover this incredible dichotomy? Do you have any evidence to support it, or do you merely take it on faith that such a statement is true? And, do you have faith that your reasoning is correct? Or, possibly, is there a reason behind your faith in this assertion? Perchance, Induction? Deduction? Logic? Rhetoric? Coercion?
And, while we're on the subject, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?
The world may never know.
If the unicorn is invisible, how can it be pink?
That has got to be the funniest post I have seen here in months. Thanks for brightening my day!
You accurately cite wikipedia in your post, but neglected to accurately account for the activities of Pope Urban VIII. Furthermore, your account of copernicus' activities also mischaraterizes history:
You've crossed a few things in your summary. The OP was talking about Cardinal Barberini, a "friend and admirer" of Galileo, not "Gailieo's Bishop". Furthermore, the "much, much, much higher authority figure" you describe in your post, Pope Urban VIII, is one and the same man--Cardinal Barberini was elected to the Papal office in 1623. So, effectively, Galileo had the church's support when he started writing "The Dialogue...". However, due largely to the politics of the Church, Urban knew that heliocentrism wouldn't fall easily. Hence, Urban asked Galileo to write a book that did not advocate that point of view.
Those words, did not advocate are incredibly important. Urban in no way asked Galileo to support heliocentrism. It was merely a request to give an unbiased account of both sides of the argument. (And surely my colleagues on Slashdot will appreciate that). Furthermore, Urban's second request, to be allowed to include his own musings in The Dialogue, was another mitigative tactic. Urban, in fact, was attempting to nudge the Church in the right direction, without getting Galileo into more trouble in the process.
Unfortunately, Galileo included an incredible amount of bias in the book, knowingly or not. (Note that the defender was named "Simplicus", and his arguments were portrayed as foolish.) This resulted in the Pope getting royally pissed at Galileo, and the subequent trial and sentence for heresy.