Are you saying that it would be unethical for me to, for instance, read The Anarchist's Cookbook to find out how to build improvised explosives and firearms?
Depends on why you're doing it. There's very little -- if anything -- that I object to people reading; the reason why we read is more important. I don't think, for instance, that I could say I'm being ethical if I dream about ways to kill people I don't like -- even if I rationalize it by saying I'd never really do it. This doesn't mean that there might not be legitimate reasons for contemplating how to kill: if I'm a soldier fighting in a just war (skipping that large subject for now), it's perfectly legitimate for me to carefully plan how I am going to kill the enemy.
So I'd have no problem if you read this cookbook (never heard of it before myself) even if you just had a fascination with pyrotechnics or armaments -- but if you did it because you were either planning to actually use them or even just fantasizing about how nice it would be to kill some people you hate...well, that's different.
It's not the simple act of just thinking about something or having a thought cross your mind that is necessarily an ethical issue. The whys of it are important, though not always. For instance, I don't think married men should even entertain the notion of sex with other women (and vice versa for their wives/other men). I don't think this can be properly understood as a legitimate part of an ethical thought life. In other cases, the reasons and circumstances relating to a particular subject we're considering weigh heavily in determining whether it's ethical.
I'm glad you're interested in the matter. Sadly I think it is a matter that is almost completely ignored today, and I don't think our society is the better for it.
If it is pompous and arrogant for Katz to make value judgements about different cultures, what gives you the right to do exactly the same thing?
You're right of course; but see my "Self-Criticism" post above. I already caught it and retracted part of what I wrote (and apologized).
You seem to assume that the particular selection of rights granted in the amendments to the U.S. constitution are some kind of holy writ, in spite of the fact that they are subject to change, have only existed for a few generations, and don't apply to something like 95% of the world population.
Whether I do this or not (I don't really) is irrelevant. The purpose of the reference was comparison. Internet access is so trivial -- like buying a hunk of my favorite kind of cheese -- that it really doesn't compare with one's right to free speech.
Why *not* make Internet access a right, if it turns out to be something essential for participation in civic life? Postal service and literacy are enforced as "rights" via government subsidy in every industrial nation I can think of; universal health care and telephone service are also common. If Internet access became as essential to civic life as mail and reading, *not* making it a right would be absurd.
First off, the fact that governments provide postal service (for a fee) is not the same as providing universal health care. No one even pretends that the postal service is a "right."
Secondly, the common practice is hardly a sufficient justification for doing anything. So what if Europe provides universal health care? Does that make it a human "right"? Does that mean it is right for government to provide it? NO it does not. The question must still be asked and answered irrespective of what anyone else is doing: is it the right and proper role of government to provide Internet access to the people? The answer to that is NO. It is not. To do so would be just the latest in a century-long series of government snitching money from those who have it to give to others. It is theft. It is Robin Hood government, and it is illegitimate.
My single main argument in my second point is that all cultures are not created equal, and that we have the right and even the obligation to judge between them (including being critical of our own). The fact that you would condemn racist culture demonstrates that you agree with me, even if I did a bad job of communicating.
As to Katz: I don't think I can be charitable. It's he who said "No generation has the right to dictate to another what its culture ought to be." I disagree with this. Teenagers are not adults; they do not possess the wisdom nor experience of adults (granted, not all adults do either, but that's another problem). It is absurd to suggest that children's (or anyone's) cultural choices are somehow above criticism.
I certainly did not intend to suggest that everyone Katz discussed was death-obsessed. A segment of them were, however. My apologies if I did not communicate clearly.
Certainly there is no problem with being part of more than one culture, as you say. I don't mean to challenge that. But we still have an obligation to critically evaluate the cultures of which we are a part -- along with any other culture.
I'm stunned that no one pointed out that in my last two paragraphs I am explicitly self-contradictory:-(
So let me clarify, if possible. I retract the following:
It is pomposity on a papal or imperial scale for Katz to arrogate to himself the authority to declare which cultures are legitimate (i.e., "all of them"). It's also absurdly lame.
This paragraph contradicts almost everything else I said, so I apologize to Katz for that.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing other cultures -- unless you have first made a point of saying that all cultures are basically equal. That would be hypocrisy. It is this that I find Katz guilty of, in that he condemns the culture of previous generations but then says in the same breath that all cultures are basically equal, that (to use his words) "No generation has the right to dictate to another what its culture ought to be." He is guilty of the very thing he condemns, and he is also flatly wrong when he says that we shouldn't judge other cultures.
Internet access is no different than having access to a phone line or to a TV broadcast. It's an economic good. While we surely ought to have our freedom of access to these goods protected, it is a completely different thing to suggest that we as a society are somehow obligated to subsidize (or even provide gratis) Internet access for people who cannot otherwise afford it. Neither the constitution nor common sense guarantees this, and it is this that Katz seems to be defending. It's idiotic.
Of course, once you're on the Internet, I'd agree that freedom of assembly must be defended. But the right to freedom of assembly doesn't mean that the millionaire's club has to let me in. They have a right to assemble based upon economic criteria -- or any other criteria they choose. I don't have a right to force my way into their assembly. Freedom of assembly must include the freedom to exclude others (based upon our criteria) from our assembly, or it is no freedom at all. I don't have to let you into my clique; you don't have to let me into yours.
And neither of us should have to pay for someone else to get on the Net.
This is ridiculous. A "death-obsessed" culture is no less ethically legitimate than our current "money-obsessed" culture that we are currently stuck in. Being obsessed with death, or the occult, or cannibalism, or chopping up people into little bitty bits is OK. DOING many of these things is illegal and unethical. I can THINK about whatever the hell I want to.
Sorry, but NO. I'm not about to defend our present culture at all, but there's no way that a death-obsessed one is on an ethical par with it. And while there is of course a difference between thinking and doing, and while there surely should not be laws which pretend to dictate what we may think about (though so-called "hate-crime" laws and political-correctness policies are egregious examples of it), this doesn't mean that ethics doesn't apply to our thinking. It simply means that we have a personal responsibility to monitor what we think about ourselves. While it may be legal for me to do it, is it really ethical for me to spend my free time imagining new ways to make my enemies suffer (so long as I don't actually do it)? I submit that it is not ethical in any way. We shouldn't be prosecuted for it, but that doesn't mean it's okay.
Ethics isn't just interpersonal. It's an internal thing as well. Self-control is an ethical thing. It is determining that you will/will not do X, because it is unethical. The first step on the road to doing unethical things is to give up that ethic of self-control.
So the answer is no: I cannot accept your notion. I don't have the right to think whatever I want. I have an obligation to think ethically. You can't enforce it legally, but it's no less important for all that.
How can you be able to objectively judge another culture based on the precepts of your own? It is all really a relativity issue
Setting aside for the moment your question, let's look at Katz's performance: from his culture he presumes to dictate what MY culture can do. He thereby violates his own ludicrous standard, and he deserves to be called on the carpet for his hypocrisy.
Now back to your question. First, it is practically self-evident that people judge cultures all the time as being superior/inferior to others. Evidence: Vietnamese refugees in the 70s. Cubans or Haitians who climb aboard flimsy rafts in an effort to escape the culture of their homelands. You may claim that these are examples of fleeing oppression rather than culture, but government policies are no less an aspect of culture than what one wears. People judge cultures all the time (witness hypocritical Katz bellyaching about the "stodgy" culture of our parents).
The question is not whether we will judge another culture (or even our own) to be inferior/superior in some way or other (or even in every way, though that seems improbable); the real question is: By what standard shall we make these judgments?
First off -- lest anyone think I'm blind -- let's be clear that the abuse that some kids suffer in school is inexcusable, and it needs to be stopped.
Some of the things Katz says are wrong, laughably wrong. Internet Access is a "right"??? Puh-leeeze! That is the most idiotic thing I've heard today. Internet access is no more a "right" than TV ownership. Sure, if you can afford it there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to have it -- but to speak of Internet access as a "right" is to trivialize the liberties guaranteed us by the Constitution in this country: rights to free speech, a free press, etc. It's not a "right". It's an economic good that ought to be as freely available (as distinguished from free) as any other economic good.
Lastly and more seriously: Katz seems to think all cultures are created equal. I'm sure he'd still think so if we dropped him into a cannibalistic culture or into Incan human sacrifice culture as a victim. "Don't complain, Katz; after all, as you said, 'Each generation has the right to determine its own culture', right? Nice knowing you..."
This is pathetic nonsense. Not all cultures are morally legitimate. They're certainly not all equal.
No generation has the right to dictate to another what its culture ought to be.
Really? Is that what you're dictating to MY culture? How "culturally tolerant" of you to dictate what my culture is allowed to do.
I've rarely read anything that is a more transparent recipe for societal collapse. After we get past the high-sounding words and the libertarian sound bites, what Katz argues for is nothing less than complete anarchy and consequent chaos. It is absurdity itself.
It is pomposity on a papal or imperial scale for Katz to arrogate to himself the authority to declare which cultures are legitimate (i.e., "all of them"). It's also absurdly lame.
A death-obsessed culture is ethically illegitimate.
Well, I suppose it would depend on the way things are set up. If there is a good amount of collaboration and contact with other people, that's perfectly fine. What's not good is if you sit at home all day and never meet anybody (what I'd probably do if I were homeschooled).
And this is exactly what the misconception is: in by far the majority of cases homeschooling parents cooperate with others. Too many critics want to identify (if they can) an isolated case where parents weren't doing the job right and from that argue that homeschooling is unfair to children. This is an illegitimate debating tactic and it is unfair to those millions of parents who are doing right by their children with respect to nurturing their social lives. I'm not saying that you asserted this; it is however a tactic frequently used by garden variety anti-homeschoolers.
I have no problems with Christians. Many of my friends are Christians, and my parents are Christians. I find fundamentalist Christians a bit odd, but I'm acquainted with some of them, and they're not entirely unpleasant to be around. What I do have a problem with is them trying to impose their beliefs on others. If you want to believe that the scientific method and all current scientific theories are fundamentally wrong, that's your choice, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, imposing that choice on others, such as your children, is not ok.
"Imposing beliefs" is exactly what the government schools are all about. They impose their views about evolution on students, and they bitterly rail against those parents who object.
Another fallacy here is that children are capable of making informed choices about subjects like evolution. Not even the average high school student is so equipped. First, they are not provided with all the facts from both sides. They are presented with the evolutionistic position and nothing else. How exactly does this foster making an informed judgment? It doesn't.
Education is about teaching children what they should know and what they should believe and how to think. It is ludicrous to assume that a fifteen year old boy is capable of making competent judgments about origins. They must be taught what to believe, and taught why they ought to believe it, and taught why "the other guy" is wrong.
Lastly, the scientific method seems to be frequently used as a defense by evolutionists, but it is of no help to them. The scientific method is founded upon replicating results. This cannot be done with respect to the origins of the universe. They are asking the scientific method to do the work of a priest, not the work of science, when they bandy it about as "proving" that evolution occurred and that the earth's existence is a product of the "Big Bang."
Did you even bother to read my first post with this subject? It sure doesn't look like it.
In it I said that whether one believes it to be "likely" that there is life elsewhere in this universe is more a function of what they believe about the origin of the universe than it is a function of anything else. This is an observation, not a declaration of dogma. Even if it was, it appears to have been more important to you to heap abuse on me than to even attempt to deal with anything whatsoever that I said. That being the case, don't be surprised if I get bored with you really quick. I'm more than willing to debate the matter, but it doesn't appear to me that you care to do so when you spend your time attacking me rather than anything I said.
You bible-bashers make me laugh!
Well, I'm glad we're good for something.
I think that you should take your own advice before claiming that anyone else is making "Fundamental Assumptions", after all, religion is the number one Fundamental Assumption of all time!
If you had read my original post you would have seen that I do in fact apply this to my own thinking. The more critical point is that evolutionists deny (and dishonestly at that) that they have made comparable fundamental assumptions. Evolution is no less a position held by faith than is belief in the resurrection of Christ.
You have no proof that any god exists
On the contrary: the proof is all around me. It is you who have no proof that he doesn't exist. Yes, I know that it's impossible to prove the negative. Nevertheless, evolutionists routinely make categorical denials of the existence of God. It's not that they can prove it; they don't even care to try. They just declare (without proof) that there is no God. So who's more dishonest?
use your brain and you will see that the only logical deduction is that given the astronomical number of stars and systems that exist in the universe, of which we have discovered but a few, surely there must be life on some of them, and of these surely some of the life forms must have evolved sufficiently (they have after all had as much or more time than us) to form some semblance of a social structure, definitely meeting the criteria for sentience.
Thank you for demonstrating my original point: one's beliefs about life on other planets are colored more by their beliefs about origins than anything else. You assume that life evolved here. Therefore you see no reason that it couldn't happen elsewhere (that in itself is a mighty big assumption, but we'll let it go). On the other hand, I believe that God created us, and that we hold a unique position in creation. Therefore I have no problem believing that there is no other sentient life (like unto human beings) in the universe (personally I doubt that there's any life of any sort elsewhere in the universe, but that's another question).
You fanatics are so ignorant
Thank you. I love you too. I'm so very grateful that you as an evolutionist have risen above petty attacks on others -- oops. My mistake. You haven't.
Keep the religion off/. - lets just stick to the facts eh?
Impossible. First, you and your fellow evolutionist cronies are constantly bashing Christians (see almost anything Jon Katz has ever submitted). Second and more importantly, it cannot be done because people are inherently religious. Yes, you too are religious, my friend. Your god may not be supernatural, but rest assured you have one -- perhaps yourself. The fact that people are religious means that it is utterly impossible to keep religion off Slashdot. Whatever your feelings are about the matter, though, it's evident that a large number of evolutionist zealots on Slashdot love to take gratuitous potshots at Christians, and so there's simply no way to avoid it.
And this bit about "facts" -- hmmmm....You don't really think that there's anything like "facts", which hold their status apart from any human interpretation, do you? How quaint!
The best I've seen for an NT box is approx 11 weeks (78 days or so). This is a machine that gets almost no significant use by its owner. We finally were forced to down it because of some memory leaks (imagine that in a M$ product!).
Of course, without the recent patch Win95 could not stay up longer than ~42 days due to a rollover in the counter, but I never managed better than about two weeks with it (and boy, that machine was dragging by then...).
In contrast, I've managed 7-week uptimes with Linux on a box with a screwy IDE controller -- while NT could barely last a day on it. Linux works better even on broken hardware!
If you spend most of your life at home, with relatives, and with a few close friends, you don't learn how to deal with other people. That could be a serious problem.
I'm a government school product. I know of dozens of homeschooled kids, and know over a dozen very well. Without exception, they are far better socialized than their government-educated peers. The reason ought to be obvious: they are not plunged into the pit of peer-pressure hell. Instead, they interact both with other children (of all ages) and with adults (note: not just their parents; homeschoolers frequently collaborate).
One pair of kids I know was government-educated through 5th or 6th grade. They wouldn't even look you in they eye when they talked with an adult, and they avoided that at all costs. Within 6 months of being homeschooled, they not only would look me in they eye, they would strike up conversations with me!
If you have bible-thumping fundamentalist parents who teach you that evolution is a sinister conspiracy of godless atheist scientists, you're going to be laughed out of college.
Ha ha ha! That was cute -- no, really. I know one homeschooled girl who scored 1400 on her SAT and was an A student in college. She rejects evolution as so much garbage (and rightly so). It obviously didn't hurt her education, and it surely wouldn't, either. But hey, I suppose you had to get in your digs at Christians somehow. Feel better?
Bill Gates is just a geek who found a way to make money and exploited it, pure and simple.
If that were true I would have no objection to Microsoft's power (I already have no objection to his personal wealth). It is indisputable that Microsoft is a monstrous corporation. They don't play by the rules. They break the rules wherever and whenever possible for the sake of their own corporate power. They do not care who they smash; they don't care how much it costs in attorney fees.
They lie. Any disputes?
They cheat.
They steal (Stac).
The corporation gains its character from its leaders. Bill, as founder and chairman, sets the pace and tone. If Microsoft is monstrous (something even I, a rabid capitalist, consider to be self-evident) the logical and necessary conclusion is that Bill Gates is a monster.
Sure, there are lots of other smaller monsters out there -- but that doesn't change the fact. Bill Gates has money. If he and his company played by the rules, I would have zero complaints about their power. They don't.
If I grew up with diseases or crippled limbs, should I pass those on to my children? Of course not. The obvious conclusion is that not everything *I* grew up with is WORTH passing on to my children.
I find it interesting too that you think children can be raised in an "overly sterile environment." Shall I conclude that exposure to "just the right amount" of pornography, or senseless violence, or idiot TV, is somehow BETTER for my kids??????
Amazingly enough (for you, I guess), I actually live in the city. I can't get enough computing power into my house for my tastes. Contrary to your very uninformed opinion, dumping TV is hardly synonymous with being anti-technology. Television is a cesspool at worst and even at best a complete waste of time because there is so very little on it worth seeing. My saying so has nothing whatsoever to do with my attitudes toward technology in general.
Finally, my boy won't be worried about the fact that he doesn't get to waste time watching TV because he will be far too busy actually having a real life.
I don't expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with me about dumping TV. But it's plain ridiculous to criticize anyone for getting rid of it. I can't tell you how many people (I'm thinking it's universal) complain about how "there's nothing to watch on TV" -- and yet they just sit there, staring at it, vegetating as their intelligence is continually insulted. The people who dump it aren't necessarily anti-technology, but they've certainly realized what a complete waste of time TV is. And we've decided not to put up with it anymore.
How much high quality code can you write while watching TV? Let's compare that to what you can do while NOT having your brain drained by the tube....
You are exactly right: dump that useless box. We dumped ours 8 years ago (before we had any kids). We don't miss it a bit.
Television is a waste of time. There are better and less compulsive ways to get entertainment, and there are surely better ways to get your "information" (if you can call TV's various infomercials like 60 Minutes, or the Discover Channel, or whatever, "informative").
If you want entertainment in a box, get a video player that doesn't include a channel changer (we haven't done this, but it's a far cry better way to go than TV).
now taking earth as the basis for the whole universe, why wouldn't God pack life every where else also
First, why should we take the earth as the basis for the whole universe? We have 8 (or 7, if you don't count Pluto...whatever) other planets right in our system that don't have life. On that basis (which I'd say is pretty slender) we could make a better argument that this is the ONLY place with life.
Secondly, no one (well, not me anyway) is suggesting that there positively isn't life of any sort anywhere else in the created universe. God certainly could do this; the question is whether he has done so. We are unlikely to find out in the next couple hundred years.
if he gave us dinosaur bones to dig up and ogle at, why not some intelagent [sic] life to play with also
As I said, "intelligence" is a vague term. Dogs are intelligent, and we play with them. I think that satisfies your question. But I think you're really asking whether God created beings that are like man somewhere else in the universe. Of course, he could do such a thing. But for various theological reasons I doubt you want to hear (correct me if I'm wrong), I seriously doubt that he did so. And it's not our place to question why he did or didn't do something.
anyway, i don't want to be an only child
As with any siblings you do/don't have, that's really up to your parents. So too with God. Our liking/not liking the idea of being unique in the universe really has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether we're unique in the universe.
Whether it's genuinely foolish to believe that ours could be the only planet with life on it is, I believe, more a function of the assumptions one has already made than anything else.
If you assume that life on the earth is a result of chance and evolution, then if it could happen once, it doesn't seem so absurd to think it could happen elsewhere.
On the other hand, if you believe that the earth was created by God, and if you believe that man was created in God's image, then there is really no reason whatsoever to assume that he created other "intelligent" (now there's a vague term) life.
So the real question is not whether there is "intelligent" life on other planets; rather, the question is how those other planets (and this one) were made. The question is how man came to exist.
Personally, I prefer not to make the wild and contradictory leaps of faith required to believe that I'm a product of evolution.
I don't get these numbers. 20,000 lines, in 50 weeks, is just 400 LOC/wk. Just 400 lines? Ha! No problem where I work. Granted, we're not writing C, but heck... I know I do at *least* 400 LOC per week. And there are three of us.
My problem is with replacing content with adverts and trying to trick people into viewing them.
Yes, this is the problem with what they are/will be doing, as I said. They will be lying. They will be deliberately misrepresenting the results of your searches.
Anyone that will do this (and not tell you about it) is implicitly dishonest. The next step is filtering results (as opposed to sorting them, which is what they're doing now) based upon commercial/political criteria.
They're free to do this, and people are free to use it -- but I won't. I want my searches unsorted (at least with respect to commercial concerns) and I certainly want them unfiltered.
How is this any different that the local Bell Telco charging big bucks for a big ad in the Yellow pages?
The user of the Yellow Pages expects to find advertising. The user of Altavista up to now has *not* expected to find search results sorted by how much money Altavista has received from the owner of any given link. This is a significant difference.
But even this is not the problem. The problem exists if and only if Altavista does not clearly and unambiguously make clear that the results of a given search reflect an advertising bias. The effect of failure to do this is to deceive their users.
Altavista is surely free to do this -- but they shouldn't misrepresent what they will be providing to people. The results won't be equal. They are sorted, based upon payment received. Users have a right to know this, as far as I'm concerned -- to know what sort of information they are receiving.
Their objective is to buy as much as possible for the least money and make it look like they are getting robbed. This is what they do.
This kind of thing is why consumers and the internet don't mix well. They want to get everything and give no money in return, but what they don't realize is that they are hurting the internet as a whole by refusing to pay up.
This is why we should support pay sites that offer lots of advertisements (like Altavista).
Okay, that was mildly silly. But the point is: both buyers and sellers try to get the most out of each other, while at the same time giving up as little as possible. It's called the free market, and it works.
This is not the problem with what Altavista is doing. Their site is free. The problem is that they are *lying*. They are presenting "search results" as though they actually are "search results". They aren't. They are advertisements related to what you were seeking. This is a deception, and that's the problem.
They could avoid the deceptiveness if they openly announced what they are doing everytime you search. Then the only question is: do you want search results that are sorted based upon how much money some people have paid to Altavista?
I personally don't. I prefer commercially unprejudiced search results.
And that is why I'm not going to use Altavista anymore.
why is it that when I swap windows in my barely accellerated X-Windows system in rapid succession it can keep up with redraws, and with the same system in win95 it won't?
Because these "benchmarks" are a tissue of lies that could not bear comparison to real world usage of NT vs. Linux. My P120 with 48MB of RAM running Linux is clearly faster than a PPro200 with 64MB RAM running NT. Actually, I think my Linux box is faster than NT on a PII-350 with 64MB of RAM, too -- but that's a tough call. Without question the redraws are handled better with Linux, though. There's no comparison.
The numbers are cooked; the Linux config was hamstrung and hobbled. I've never read a bigger pack of lies in all the days I've run Linux. It's not just anecdotal that Linux is faster. It's simple fact. There isn't a ninny in the world so dense that he couldn't tell the difference.
Unless, of course, that ninny's on Bill's payroll -- but then he's just a liar.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on why you're doing it. There's very little -- if anything -- that I object to people reading; the reason why we read is more important. I don't think, for instance, that I could say I'm being ethical if I dream about ways to kill people I don't like -- even if I rationalize it by saying I'd never really do it. This doesn't mean that there might not be legitimate reasons for contemplating how to kill: if I'm a soldier fighting in a just war (skipping that large subject for now), it's perfectly legitimate for me to carefully plan how I am going to kill the enemy.
So I'd have no problem if you read this cookbook (never heard of it before myself) even if you just had a fascination with pyrotechnics or armaments -- but if you did it because you were either planning to actually use them or even just fantasizing about how nice it would be to kill some people you hate...well, that's different.
It's not the simple act of just thinking about something or having a thought cross your mind that is necessarily an ethical issue. The whys of it are important, though not always. For instance, I don't think married men should even entertain the notion of sex with other women (and vice versa for their wives/other men). I don't think this can be properly understood as a legitimate part of an ethical thought life. In other cases, the reasons and circumstances relating to a particular subject we're considering weigh heavily in determining whether it's ethical.
I'm glad you're interested in the matter. Sadly I think it is a matter that is almost completely ignored today, and I don't think our society is the better for it.
You're right of course; but see my "Self-Criticism" post above. I already caught it and retracted part of what I wrote (and apologized).
You seem to assume that the particular selection of rights granted in the amendments to the U.S. constitution are some kind of holy writ, in spite of the fact that they are subject to change, have only existed for a few generations, and don't apply to something like 95% of the world population.
Whether I do this or not (I don't really) is irrelevant. The purpose of the reference was comparison. Internet access is so trivial -- like buying a hunk of my favorite kind of cheese -- that it really doesn't compare with one's right to free speech.
Why *not* make Internet access a right, if it turns out to be something essential for participation in civic life? Postal service and literacy are enforced as "rights" via government subsidy in every industrial nation I can think of; universal health care and telephone service are also common. If Internet access became as essential to civic life as mail and reading, *not* making it a right would be absurd.
First off, the fact that governments provide postal service (for a fee) is not the same as providing universal health care. No one even pretends that the postal service is a "right."
Secondly, the common practice is hardly a sufficient justification for doing anything. So what if Europe provides universal health care? Does that make it a human "right"? Does that mean it is right for government to provide it? NO it does not. The question must still be asked and answered irrespective of what anyone else is doing: is it the right and proper role of government to provide Internet access to the people? The answer to that is NO. It is not. To do so would be just the latest in a century-long series of government snitching money from those who have it to give to others. It is theft. It is Robin Hood government, and it is illegitimate.
My single main argument in my second point is that all cultures are not created equal, and that we have the right and even the obligation to judge between them (including being critical of our own). The fact that you would condemn racist culture demonstrates that you agree with me, even if I did a bad job of communicating.
As to Katz: I don't think I can be charitable. It's he who said "No generation has the right to dictate to another what its culture ought to be." I disagree with this. Teenagers are not adults; they do not possess the wisdom nor experience of adults (granted, not all adults do either, but that's another problem). It is absurd to suggest that children's (or anyone's) cultural choices are somehow above criticism.
I certainly did not intend to suggest that everyone Katz discussed was death-obsessed. A segment of them were, however. My apologies if I did not communicate clearly.
Certainly there is no problem with being part of more than one culture, as you say. I don't mean to challenge that. But we still have an obligation to critically evaluate the cultures of which we are a part -- along with any other culture.
Good Post, BTW.
So let me clarify, if possible. I retract the following:
It is pomposity on a papal or imperial scale for Katz to arrogate to himself the authority to declare which cultures are legitimate (i.e., "all of them"). It's also absurdly lame.
This paragraph contradicts almost everything else I said, so I apologize to Katz for that.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing other cultures -- unless you have first made a point of saying that all cultures are basically equal. That would be hypocrisy. It is this that I find Katz guilty of, in that he condemns the culture of previous generations but then says in the same breath that all cultures are basically equal, that (to use his words) "No generation has the right to dictate to another what its culture ought to be." He is guilty of the very thing he condemns, and he is also flatly wrong when he says that we shouldn't judge other cultures.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Internet access is no different than having access to a phone line or to a TV broadcast. It's an economic good. While we surely ought to have our freedom of access to these goods protected, it is a completely different thing to suggest that we as a society are somehow obligated to subsidize (or even provide gratis) Internet access for people who cannot otherwise afford it. Neither the constitution nor common sense guarantees this, and it is this that Katz seems to be defending. It's idiotic.
Of course, once you're on the Internet, I'd agree that freedom of assembly must be defended. But the right to freedom of assembly doesn't mean that the millionaire's club has to let me in. They have a right to assemble based upon economic criteria -- or any other criteria they choose. I don't have a right to force my way into their assembly. Freedom of assembly must include the freedom to exclude others (based upon our criteria) from our assembly, or it is no freedom at all. I don't have to let you into my clique; you don't have to let me into yours.
And neither of us should have to pay for someone else to get on the Net.
Sorry, but NO. I'm not about to defend our present culture at all, but there's no way that a death-obsessed one is on an ethical par with it. And while there is of course a difference between thinking and doing, and while there surely should not be laws which pretend to dictate what we may think about (though so-called "hate-crime" laws and political-correctness policies are egregious examples of it), this doesn't mean that ethics doesn't apply to our thinking. It simply means that we have a personal responsibility to monitor what we think about ourselves. While it may be legal for me to do it, is it really ethical for me to spend my free time imagining new ways to make my enemies suffer (so long as I don't actually do it)? I submit that it is not ethical in any way. We shouldn't be prosecuted for it, but that doesn't mean it's okay.
Ethics isn't just interpersonal. It's an internal thing as well. Self-control is an ethical thing. It is determining that you will/will not do X, because it is unethical. The first step on the road to doing unethical things is to give up that ethic of self-control.
So the answer is no: I cannot accept your notion. I don't have the right to think whatever I want. I have an obligation to think ethically. You can't enforce it legally, but it's no less important for all that.
Setting aside for the moment your question, let's look at Katz's performance: from his culture he presumes to dictate what MY culture can do. He thereby violates his own ludicrous standard, and he deserves to be called on the carpet for his hypocrisy.
Now back to your question. First, it is practically self-evident that people judge cultures all the time as being superior/inferior to others. Evidence: Vietnamese refugees in the 70s. Cubans or Haitians who climb aboard flimsy rafts in an effort to escape the culture of their homelands. You may claim that these are examples of fleeing oppression rather than culture, but government policies are no less an aspect of culture than what one wears. People judge cultures all the time (witness hypocritical Katz bellyaching about the "stodgy" culture of our parents).
The question is not whether we will judge another culture (or even our own) to be inferior/superior in some way or other (or even in every way, though that seems improbable); the real question is: By what standard shall we make these judgments?
Some of the things Katz says are wrong, laughably wrong. Internet Access is a "right"??? Puh-leeeze! That is the most idiotic thing I've heard today. Internet access is no more a "right" than TV ownership. Sure, if you can afford it there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to have it -- but to speak of Internet access as a "right" is to trivialize the liberties guaranteed us by the Constitution in this country: rights to free speech, a free press, etc. It's not a "right". It's an economic good that ought to be as freely available (as distinguished from free) as any other economic good.
Lastly and more seriously: Katz seems to think all cultures are created equal. I'm sure he'd still think so if we dropped him into a cannibalistic culture or into Incan human sacrifice culture as a victim. "Don't complain, Katz; after all, as you said, 'Each generation has the right to determine its own culture', right? Nice knowing you..."
This is pathetic nonsense. Not all cultures are morally legitimate. They're certainly not all equal.
No generation has the right to dictate to another what its culture ought to be.
Really? Is that what you're dictating to MY culture? How "culturally tolerant" of you to dictate what my culture is allowed to do.
I've rarely read anything that is a more transparent recipe for societal collapse. After we get past the high-sounding words and the libertarian sound bites, what Katz argues for is nothing less than complete anarchy and consequent chaos. It is absurdity itself.
It is pomposity on a papal or imperial scale for Katz to arrogate to himself the authority to declare which cultures are legitimate (i.e., "all of them"). It's also absurdly lame.
A death-obsessed culture is ethically illegitimate.
And this is exactly what the misconception is: in by far the majority of cases homeschooling parents cooperate with others. Too many critics want to identify (if they can) an isolated case where parents weren't doing the job right and from that argue that homeschooling is unfair to children. This is an illegitimate debating tactic and it is unfair to those millions of parents who are doing right by their children with respect to nurturing their social lives. I'm not saying that you asserted this; it is however a tactic frequently used by garden variety anti-homeschoolers.
I have no problems with Christians. Many of my friends are Christians, and my parents are Christians. I find fundamentalist Christians a bit odd, but I'm acquainted with some of them, and they're not entirely unpleasant to be around. What I do have a problem with is them trying to impose their beliefs on others. If you want to believe that the scientific method and all current scientific theories are fundamentally wrong, that's your choice, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, imposing that choice on others, such as your children, is not ok.
"Imposing beliefs" is exactly what the government schools are all about. They impose their views about evolution on students, and they bitterly rail against those parents who object.
Another fallacy here is that children are capable of making informed choices about subjects like evolution. Not even the average high school student is so equipped. First, they are not provided with all the facts from both sides. They are presented with the evolutionistic position and nothing else. How exactly does this foster making an informed judgment? It doesn't.
Education is about teaching children what they should know and what they should believe and how to think. It is ludicrous to assume that a fifteen year old boy is capable of making competent judgments about origins. They must be taught what to believe, and taught why they ought to believe it, and taught why "the other guy" is wrong.
Lastly, the scientific method seems to be frequently used as a defense by evolutionists, but it is of no help to them. The scientific method is founded upon replicating results. This cannot be done with respect to the origins of the universe. They are asking the scientific method to do the work of a priest, not the work of science, when they bandy it about as "proving" that evolution occurred and that the earth's existence is a product of the "Big Bang."
In it I said that whether one believes it to be "likely" that there is life elsewhere in this universe is more a function of what they believe about the origin of the universe than it is a function of anything else. This is an observation, not a declaration of dogma. Even if it was, it appears to have been more important to you to heap abuse on me than to even attempt to deal with anything whatsoever that I said. That being the case, don't be surprised if I get bored with you really quick. I'm more than willing to debate the matter, but it doesn't appear to me that you care to do so when you spend your time attacking me rather than anything I said.
You bible-bashers make me laugh!
Well, I'm glad we're good for something.
I think that you should take your own advice before claiming that anyone else is making "Fundamental Assumptions", after all, religion is the number one Fundamental Assumption of all time!
If you had read my original post you would have seen that I do in fact apply this to my own thinking. The more critical point is that evolutionists deny (and dishonestly at that) that they have made comparable fundamental assumptions. Evolution is no less a position held by faith than is belief in the resurrection of Christ.
You have no proof that any god exists
On the contrary: the proof is all around me. It is you who have no proof that he doesn't exist. Yes, I know that it's impossible to prove the negative. Nevertheless, evolutionists routinely make categorical denials of the existence of God. It's not that they can prove it; they don't even care to try. They just declare (without proof) that there is no God. So who's more dishonest?
use your brain and you will see that the only logical deduction is that given the astronomical number of stars and systems that exist in the universe, of which we have discovered but a few, surely there must be life on some of them, and of these surely some of the life forms must have evolved sufficiently (they have after all had as much or more time than us) to form some semblance of a social structure, definitely meeting the criteria for sentience.
Thank you for demonstrating my original point: one's beliefs about life on other planets are colored more by their beliefs about origins than anything else. You assume that life evolved here. Therefore you see no reason that it couldn't happen elsewhere (that in itself is a mighty big assumption, but we'll let it go). On the other hand, I believe that God created us, and that we hold a unique position in creation. Therefore I have no problem believing that there is no other sentient life (like unto human beings) in the universe (personally I doubt that there's any life of any sort elsewhere in the universe, but that's another question).
You fanatics are so ignorant
Thank you. I love you too. I'm so very grateful that you as an evolutionist have risen above petty attacks on others -- oops. My mistake. You haven't.
Keep the religion off /. - lets just stick to the facts eh?
Impossible. First, you and your fellow evolutionist cronies are constantly bashing Christians (see almost anything Jon Katz has ever submitted). Second and more importantly, it cannot be done because people are inherently religious. Yes, you too are religious, my friend. Your god may not be supernatural, but rest assured you have one -- perhaps yourself. The fact that people are religious means that it is utterly impossible to keep religion off Slashdot. Whatever your feelings are about the matter, though, it's evident that a large number of evolutionist zealots on Slashdot love to take gratuitous potshots at Christians, and so there's simply no way to avoid it.
And this bit about "facts" -- hmmmm....You don't really think that there's anything like "facts", which hold their status apart from any human interpretation, do you? How quaint!
Of course, without the recent patch Win95 could not stay up longer than ~42 days due to a rollover in the counter, but I never managed better than about two weeks with it (and boy, that machine was dragging by then...).
In contrast, I've managed 7-week uptimes with Linux on a box with a screwy IDE controller -- while NT could barely last a day on it. Linux works better even on broken hardware!
I'm a government school product. I know of dozens of homeschooled kids, and know over a dozen very well. Without exception, they are far better socialized than their government-educated peers. The reason ought to be obvious: they are not plunged into the pit of peer-pressure hell. Instead, they interact both with other children (of all ages) and with adults (note: not just their parents; homeschoolers frequently collaborate).
One pair of kids I know was government-educated through 5th or 6th grade. They wouldn't even look you in they eye when they talked with an adult, and they avoided that at all costs. Within 6 months of being homeschooled, they not only would look me in they eye, they would strike up conversations with me!
If you have bible-thumping fundamentalist parents who teach you that evolution is a sinister conspiracy of godless atheist scientists, you're going to be laughed out of college.
Ha ha ha! That was cute -- no, really. I know one homeschooled girl who scored 1400 on her SAT and was an A student in college. She rejects evolution as so much garbage (and rightly so). It obviously didn't hurt her education, and it surely wouldn't, either. But hey, I suppose you had to get in your digs at Christians somehow. Feel better?
If that were true I would have no objection to Microsoft's power (I already have no objection to his personal wealth). It is indisputable that Microsoft is a monstrous corporation. They don't play by the rules. They break the rules wherever and whenever possible for the sake of their own corporate power. They do not care who they smash; they don't care how much it costs in attorney fees.
The corporation gains its character from its leaders. Bill, as founder and chairman, sets the pace and tone. If Microsoft is monstrous (something even I, a rabid capitalist, consider to be self-evident) the logical and necessary conclusion is that Bill Gates is a monster.
Sure, there are lots of other smaller monsters out there -- but that doesn't change the fact. Bill Gates has money. If he and his company played by the rules, I would have zero complaints about their power. They don't.
Leave it to O'Reilly to sum up a subject in one image! :-)
If I grew up with diseases or crippled limbs, should I pass those on to my children? Of course not. The obvious conclusion is that not everything *I* grew up with is WORTH passing on to my children.
I find it interesting too that you think children can be raised in an "overly sterile environment." Shall I conclude that exposure to "just the right amount" of pornography, or senseless violence, or idiot TV, is somehow BETTER for my kids??????
Amazingly enough (for you, I guess), I actually live in the city. I can't get enough computing power into my house for my tastes. Contrary to your very uninformed opinion, dumping TV is hardly synonymous with being anti-technology. Television is a cesspool at worst and even at best a complete waste of time because there is so very little on it worth seeing. My saying so has nothing whatsoever to do with my attitudes toward technology in general.
Finally, my boy won't be worried about the fact that he doesn't get to waste time watching TV because he will be far too busy actually having a real life.
I don't expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with me about dumping TV. But it's plain ridiculous to criticize anyone for getting rid of it. I can't tell you how many people (I'm thinking it's universal) complain about how "there's nothing to watch on TV" -- and yet they just sit there, staring at it, vegetating as their intelligence is continually insulted. The people who dump it aren't necessarily anti-technology, but they've certainly realized what a complete waste of time TV is. And we've decided not to put up with it anymore.
How much high quality code can you write while watching TV? Let's compare that to what you can do while NOT having your brain drained by the tube....
Television is a waste of time. There are better and less compulsive ways to get entertainment, and there are surely better ways to get your "information" (if you can call TV's various infomercials like 60 Minutes, or the Discover Channel, or whatever, "informative").
If you want entertainment in a box, get a video player that doesn't include a channel changer (we haven't done this, but it's a far cry better way to go than TV).
My US$0.02,
First, why should we take the earth as the basis for the whole universe? We have 8 (or 7, if you don't count Pluto...whatever) other planets right in our system that don't have life. On that basis (which I'd say is pretty slender) we could make a better argument that this is the ONLY place with life.
Secondly, no one (well, not me anyway) is suggesting that there positively isn't life of any sort anywhere else in the created universe. God certainly could do this; the question is whether he has done so. We are unlikely to find out in the next couple hundred years.
if he gave us dinosaur bones to dig up and ogle at, why not some intelagent [sic] life to play with also
As I said, "intelligence" is a vague term. Dogs are intelligent, and we play with them. I think that satisfies your question. But I think you're really asking whether God created beings that are like man somewhere else in the universe. Of course, he could do such a thing. But for various theological reasons I doubt you want to hear (correct me if I'm wrong), I seriously doubt that he did so. And it's not our place to question why he did or didn't do something.
anyway, i don't want to be an only child
As with any siblings you do/don't have, that's really up to your parents. So too with God. Our liking/not liking the idea of being unique in the universe really has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether we're unique in the universe.
I know of no reason to think that we're not.
If you assume that life on the earth is a result of chance and evolution, then if it could happen once, it doesn't seem so absurd to think it could happen elsewhere.
On the other hand, if you believe that the earth was created by God, and if you believe that man was created in God's image, then there is really no reason whatsoever to assume that he created other "intelligent" (now there's a vague term) life.
So the real question is not whether there is "intelligent" life on other planets; rather, the question is how those other planets (and this one) were made. The question is how man came to exist.
Personally, I prefer not to make the wild and contradictory leaps of faith required to believe that I'm a product of evolution.
Elsewise:
I don't get these numbers. 20,000 lines, in 50 weeks, is just 400 LOC/wk. Just 400 lines? Ha! No problem where I work. Granted, we're not writing C, but heck... I know I do at *least* 400 LOC per week. And there are three of us.
Yes, this is the problem with what they are/will be doing, as I said. They will be lying. They will be deliberately misrepresenting the results of your searches.
Anyone that will do this (and not tell you about it) is implicitly dishonest. The next step is filtering results (as opposed to sorting them, which is what they're doing now) based upon commercial/political criteria.
They're free to do this, and people are free to use it -- but I won't. I want my searches unsorted (at least with respect to commercial concerns) and I certainly want them unfiltered.
The user of the Yellow Pages expects to find advertising. The user of Altavista up to now has *not* expected to find search results sorted by how much money Altavista has received from the owner of any given link. This is a significant difference.
But even this is not the problem. The problem exists if and only if Altavista does not clearly and unambiguously make clear that the results of a given search reflect an advertising bias. The effect of failure to do this is to deceive their users.
Altavista is surely free to do this -- but they shouldn't misrepresent what they will be providing to people. The results won't be equal. They are sorted, based upon payment received. Users have a right to know this, as far as I'm concerned -- to know what sort of information they are receiving.
This kind of thing is why consumers and the internet don't mix well. They want to get everything and give no money in return, but what they don't realize is that they are hurting the internet as a whole by refusing to pay up.
This is why we should support pay sites that offer lots of advertisements (like Altavista).
Okay, that was mildly silly. But the point is: both buyers and sellers try to get the most out of each other, while at the same time giving up as little as possible. It's called the free market, and it works.
This is not the problem with what Altavista is doing. Their site is free. The problem is that they are *lying*. They are presenting "search results" as though they actually are "search results". They aren't. They are advertisements related to what you were seeking. This is a deception, and that's the problem.
They could avoid the deceptiveness if they openly announced what they are doing everytime you search. Then the only question is: do you want search results that are sorted based upon how much money some people have paid to Altavista?
I personally don't. I prefer commercially unprejudiced search results.
And that is why I'm not going to use Altavista anymore.
Because these "benchmarks" are a tissue of lies that could not bear comparison to real world usage of NT vs. Linux. My P120 with 48MB of RAM running Linux is clearly faster than a PPro200 with 64MB RAM running NT. Actually, I think my Linux box is faster than NT on a PII-350 with 64MB of RAM, too -- but that's a tough call. Without question the redraws are handled better with Linux, though. There's no comparison.
Unless, of course, that ninny's on Bill's payroll -- but then he's just a liar.