...it is the responsibility of a democratic government to be as open and transparent as possible, whenever possible. Saying that the tool chosen should be "the best tool for the job" must take openness into strong account when that tool is for use by the government.
and if you are turning left, turn into the LEFTmost lane of the road you are turning into
In California, it's legal to turn into any lane when you're turning left (assuming there's only one left turn lane). Of course, it's still a good idea to turn into the leftmost lane, but it's not required. (People turning right have priority anyway, so legally you still have to wait for them, no matter which lane you want to turn left into.)
So what. The quote was a simple example of Planck's own words talking about faith and his view of religion and science. Don't nit-pick that quote alone and say "aha, logical fallacy! -- See it doesn't mean he was religious, he was just talking about God in a different context etc etc."
I said no such thing.:) I agree, Planck was religious. I was attacking the quotation as being meaningless, which means I was attacking Planck, not you or your assertion that he was religious.
The way I view it, it is possible to be both a scientist and a religious person.
I agree; and I never said otherwise.
In fact, I would claim that everyone is a religous person. Everybody "worships" something.
I don't worship anything. So much for your claim. (Yes, I know you're trying to redefine "worship" to mean something besides what it usually means; sorry, but you don't get to do that.)
This sort of "fringe" reaction is going to be quite difficult to detect in the sort of study done.
This particular study won't detect it, because it didn't control for those variables, but a study certainly could do so. Not that it's likely worth the effort.
Why pray then? Perhaps for the same reason that death row inmates keep petitioning the governor, even though clemency is rare indeed: ultimately, there are circumstances in which only God has the power to do something, and once in a great while he does, for reasons that we find inscrutable.
Would it be tacky of me to point out that we can actually prove that state governors exist, and that there are specific, documented and recorded, irrefutable instances of them actually granting a pardon? And that therefore this entire analogy is doomed?
When a person loses hope, they've lost everything.
Hope can be maintained without prayer or religious belief.
(viz. theodicy, the study of why God allows suffering and evil.) But I'm certainly not going to tackle that in a slashdot post.
I'll save you some time: Asking why God allows suffering and evil presupposes that God exists. The simplest solution to the "problem" is that God does not exist.
btw, I dare ANY body who's watched a loved one suffer to deny that they said a few words to God 'Just in case'. It certainly can't hurt.
*raises hand* My wife's cousin died from complications from colon cancer two months ago. It never once occurred to me to "say a few words" to any deities. Nor when my wife's father was in the hospital five years ago, and died shortly thereafter, did I ever pray or whisper to a deity asking for him to get better. I sure hoped he would, but expressing that to some mythical made-up friend who lives in the sky? Even silently? Nope. I can guarantee you the same went for my wife, and her mother, too. We're atheists and we mean it.
This is like saying "The Lord of the Rings is the link that binds man to Gandalf." God is just as fictional as the rest of the supernatural mumbo-jumbo.
Planck was a smart guy, but like most theists in matters of faith, he was blinded by his own faith.
that one has to wonder whether you are one of those who believe that the Jews had it coming because "they killed Jesus."
I always think it's funny when people (usually fundamentalist Christians) blame the Jews for killing Jesus, since according to them, God specifically sent Jesus to Earth so that he could be killed. If the Jews killed Jesus, it's because God made them do it.
Of course, I don't believe any of this nonsense myself, but it is fun to mock the inconsistency of it.
Relax, dude. The GP was talking about how the results you expect depend on your background. He wasn't saying that Galen the photographer was any more or less important than Galen the doctor, or that one or the other should be the one to show up if you just search for "Galen."
It amazes me how much junk makes it past the various Supreme Courts, though. Sure, this law might get tossed, but how many more make it to the books?
Even if a law "makes it to the books," it can still later be declared unconstitutional. The courts don't approve laws before they become official (in the U.S., anyway; some countries they do); but it can strike them down later, when a challenge is presented against that particular law. This also means that a bad law can be on the books (and enforced by the executive branch) for a few years before it gets struck down, and there's rarely any restitution to those punished under that law while it was in effect.
The usual response is that the courts should have to approve laws for constitutionality BEFORE they go into effect, but that usually ends up giving the courts too MUCH power... but that's a much longer discussion.:)
There's a tremendous difference between Google showing prospective employees a handful of search records in a demonstration of their internal data management capabilities, and turning over millions of search records to the government. You tried to equate them in your original post (or at least insinuate that there was no real difference between "showing search-related data to the general public" and "giving millions of precise search data to the government"). Do you really think those are even vaguely the same thing? Good lord.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't mean that nothing you own can ever be searched through by the government. It only protects (theoretically) against unreasonable searches (and seizures).
You're right in that this case, the government has no compelling need to commit this search; they want the data for political ends, not for judicial ends. (Specifically, they want to use the data to support GOP initiatives on spreading anti-pornography filters.)
From what I understand, the government asked for web search strings alone. No identifying information at all.
You're not so much cynical as incredibly naive. If Google complied with this subpoena, it would show the DOJ (and the courts) that Google is willing to roll over for bogus subpoenas. The DOJ would come back demanding more sensitive information, and Google would have no choice but to turn over everything the DOJ asked for.
The DOJ has no compelling need for this information. It's nothing but a fishing expedition.
So in this presentation Google did, did they provide you with a permanent and complete copy of all the search data Google has ever had? No? Then it's not really remotely similar, is it?
No, its more like complaining that you can't get a new plate until 5 minutes after you've finished with the food on the previous plate.
Slashdot: Home of stupid analogies.
Netflix doesn't say, "Okay, iphayd rents too much -- start delaying his DVDs by 24 hours." What they're saying is, "Okay, iphayd rents too much -- when he's due to be shipped a popular DVD at the same time as other people, put him near the bottom of the list, and put the people who don't rent as many discs near the top." They have to order the priority list one way or another, when the demand exceeds the supply for a particular DVD; why not this way? Should the heavy renters have HIGHER priority?
If you want to stick with the buffet analogy: You're the guy who races through the buffet line, gobbles everything down, and goes back for more. Constantly. Non-stop. The waitress comes along and says that you need to let these other people, who eat at a more normal speed, go through the buffet first. You now bitch because even though you can still eat as much as you want, you can't do it quite as fast. Of course, you're not the only customer, you're paying the same as everyone else, and you're making it *harder* for everyone else to get their turn at the buffet line.
It makes sense from a business standpoint -- you're only paying them a fixed amount per month, and there's a threshold where once you receive more than a certain number of DVDs per month, it's now costing Netflix more money to provide you with the service than they're getting from you.
They're of course aware that some people will do this; they make money because most of their customers don't do this. And the set of people who watch DVDs fast enough to break that threshold consists almost entirely of people who rip the DVDs and mail them back the same (or next) day, then watch them at their leisure. Considering this is a violation of numerous copyright laws (regardless of whether you think those laws are justified), you can hardly be mad at Netflix for wanting to make things a little easier on their more casual customers -- the ones off whom they are actually making money.
Slashdot Mirror
...it is the responsibility of a democratic government to be as open and transparent as possible, whenever possible. Saying that the tool chosen should be "the best tool for the job" must take openness into strong account when that tool is for use by the government.
Not all geeks are unhealthy, and most of those who are don't "revel" in it. They just don't see it as important and don't bother with exercise.
Would it be tacky of me to point out that we can actually prove that state governors exist, and that there are specific, documented and recorded, irrefutable instances of them actually granting a pardon? And that therefore this entire analogy is doomed? Hope can be maintained without prayer or religious belief.
I'll save you some time: Asking why God allows suffering and evil presupposes that God exists. The simplest solution to the "problem" is that God does not exist.
Planck was a smart guy, but like most theists in matters of faith, he was blinded by his own faith.
"Know your enemy." - Various
...nobody knows how to pronounce it! Post-gress-kill? Post-gress-cue-ell? Post-gree-ess-cue-ell? Post-gray-sequel? It's an unfathomable mystery!
Of course, I don't believe any of this nonsense myself, but it is fun to mock the inconsistency of it.
Relax, dude. The GP was talking about how the results you expect depend on your background. He wasn't saying that Galen the photographer was any more or less important than Galen the doctor, or that one or the other should be the one to show up if you just search for "Galen."
The usual response is that the courts should have to approve laws for constitutionality BEFORE they go into effect, but that usually ends up giving the courts too MUCH power... but that's a much longer discussion. :)
Callahan akbar!
There's a tremendous difference between Google showing prospective employees a handful of search records in a demonstration of their internal data management capabilities, and turning over millions of search records to the government. You tried to equate them in your original post (or at least insinuate that there was no real difference between "showing search-related data to the general public" and "giving millions of precise search data to the government"). Do you really think those are even vaguely the same thing? Good lord.
So it's Silly Putty?
The Fourth Amendment doesn't mean that nothing you own can ever be searched through by the government. It only protects (theoretically) against unreasonable searches (and seizures).
You're right in that this case, the government has no compelling need to commit this search; they want the data for political ends, not for judicial ends. (Specifically, they want to use the data to support GOP initiatives on spreading anti-pornography filters.)
The DOJ has no compelling need for this information. It's nothing but a fishing expedition.
So in this presentation Google did, did they provide you with a permanent and complete copy of all the search data Google has ever had? No? Then it's not really remotely similar, is it?
Netflix doesn't say, "Okay, iphayd rents too much -- start delaying his DVDs by 24 hours." What they're saying is, "Okay, iphayd rents too much -- when he's due to be shipped a popular DVD at the same time as other people, put him near the bottom of the list, and put the people who don't rent as many discs near the top." They have to order the priority list one way or another, when the demand exceeds the supply for a particular DVD; why not this way? Should the heavy renters have HIGHER priority?
If you want to stick with the buffet analogy: You're the guy who races through the buffet line, gobbles everything down, and goes back for more. Constantly. Non-stop. The waitress comes along and says that you need to let these other people, who eat at a more normal speed, go through the buffet first. You now bitch because even though you can still eat as much as you want, you can't do it quite as fast. Of course, you're not the only customer, you're paying the same as everyone else, and you're making it *harder* for everyone else to get their turn at the buffet line.
It makes sense from a business standpoint -- you're only paying them a fixed amount per month, and there's a threshold where once you receive more than a certain number of DVDs per month, it's now costing Netflix more money to provide you with the service than they're getting from you.
They're of course aware that some people will do this; they make money because most of their customers don't do this. And the set of people who watch DVDs fast enough to break that threshold consists almost entirely of people who rip the DVDs and mail them back the same (or next) day, then watch them at their leisure. Considering this is a violation of numerous copyright laws (regardless of whether you think those laws are justified), you can hardly be mad at Netflix for wanting to make things a little easier on their more casual customers -- the ones off whom they are actually making money.
With their tongues, like everyone else. Why? How do you taste?