For example, university research labs sometimes invent some significant things which they then license to a third party to commercialize, which is perfectly fine (and an intended use of the patent system).
I think that's shit if the university received public funding to do that research. Why grant a monopoly in this case?
People have been visited by the police for bad mouthing Fox.
Really, who? Fox is a regular dumping ground for the Left. The Daily Show trashes them all the time. You have a rather skewed view of the freedoms Americans enjoy. It's not perfect, but comparisons to the state run media in China are a joke.
You did a great job of ignoring the points made, even though you managed to quote them. The Steam version was $59.99 versus the Amazon version at $36.99. You got it on sale, obviously, so your original point about Steam prices being "unbeatable" needed a big qualification. You also don't need to "drive around" to shop online, like at Amazon.
As for Australia, there's no reason why Steam can't compete. The complaint in Australia is that the prices are high for all distributors. That Steam is more expensive than local stores isn't a point in their favor.
By the way, eBay sellers also sell new classics still in plastic wrap. I've gotten both used and new games that way. You also completely ignored Good Old Games.
Can you find an example of an orthodox Jew who actually worked on the Sabbath, and wasn't put to death?
Can you find an example of any Orthodox Jew who was put to death for not following one of the laws, even though death is the punishment? It would seem quite remarkable that no Orthodox Jew was ever caught working on the Sabbath or committed adultery. Or for that matter, why do the Orthodox Jews not try to impose justice on the other 75% of Jews who are breaking the law according to their view?
YOU refer to the link. It states quite clearly, orthodox Jews adhere to the Torah (aka Old Testament) as definitive Jewish Law.
"Orthodox Judaism generally refers to Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism but can actually include a wide range of beliefs. [..] Hirsch held that Judaism demands an application of Torah thought to the entire realm of human experience--including the secular disciplines. His approach was termed the Torah im Derech Eretz approach, or "neo-Orthodoxy." While insisting on strict adherence to Jewish beliefs and practices, he held that Jews should attempt to engage and influence the modern world, and encouraged those secular studies compatible with Torah thought. [..] The neo-Orthodox movement holds that Hirsch's views are not accurately followed by Modern Orthodoxy. [..] In the 20th century, a segment of the Orthodox population (notably as represented by the World Agudath Israel movement formally established in 1912) disagreed with Modern Orthodoxy and took a stricter approach. Such rabbis viewed innovations and modifications within Jewish law and customs with extreme care and caution. Some observers and scholars refer to this form of Judaism as "Haredi Judaism", or "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism". The latter term is controversial, and some consider the label "ultra-Orthodox" pejorative."
Like, for instance, your superstitious assertion that you have psychic powers, which is the -only possible way- you could know the origins of everyone's religious beliefs?
I'm speaking in generalities. I don't need psychic powers to look at the evidence of religion in the world.
my religious belief is rooted in otherwise-unexplainable religious experience.
So you say. Or maybe you imagined it, mistook coincidence for divine evidence, mistook feelings for divine evidence, or who knows what. You haven't specified what your experience was, so your claim is even weaker than typical anecdotal evidence.
I don't think Augustine was the kind of cynical, spiteful jerk who would seek out a new religion that was obviously wrong just so he could "fix it up" to more effectively fool other people.
I never made the claim that he did so in the deceitful manner you describe. What comes across in his writings is an intelligent man trying to make sense of the nonsensical based on a flawed premise (that the Christian bible is divine revelation). The amount of fanciful interpretation he allows is not so impressive, though, from a critical thinking viewpoint.
Augustine's conversion into Christianity provides evidence that Christian theology of the time already offered the kind of nuanced, spiritual interpretations that would be attractive to an educated and analytical thinker like Augustine
First, what follows is based on Wikipedia, and I haven't verified any of it, so if it's wrong my apologies. But assuming it's right, it looks like he came to Christianity the same way many people do: One of his parents was Christian, he was living among Christians, and here's the one that locks him in: He had a personal crisis and experienced what he felt was a sign from God to follow Christ.
Augustine didn't have to "explain away embarrassing wrongs" because in the 4th-5th century there was nothing at all "embarrassing" about the Biblical creation account --- no generally known contradictions with the (significantly more limited) scientific knowledge of the time.
First of all, it wasn't just scientific consistency. It was also logical consistency if given a bit of thought. Now to quote Augustine, he makes clear his concerns:
"Although this work of God was done in an instant, did the light remain, with-out night coming on, until the time of one day was complete; and did the night, following upon the daylight, continue while the hours of the nighttime passed by until the morning of the following day dawned, one day, the first one, being then complete? But if I make such a statement, I fear I shall be laughed at both by those who have scientific knowledge of these matters and by those who can easily recognize the facts of the case."
and:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
Augustine basically *is* treating the creation story as mythology here (with "man-made" beside the point in his analysis).
That's an after-the-fact re-interpretation on his part to explain away embarrassing wrongs. When the evidence points to man-made mythology, the Occam's Razor approach is to attribute the mythology to man, and not to a divine being that doesn't make clear what is meant to be elaborate metaphors and what isn't. There are many lines of evidence that all point to man-made mythology. This is not "beside the point".
You seem to use "mythology" simply as an insult --- betraying a pretty shallow understanding of human culture and literature. Do you consider Shakespeare's plays worthless because they're (a) historically inaccurate, and (b) man-made?
It's only an insult if you elevate mythology to the status of divine revelation. I have no problem with Shakespeare, as nobody mistakes them as divine revelation or an academic history.
The question: how can the deeply religious be convinced (or reassured) that accepting what science teaches does not require rejecting their faith?
It may not require it, but it commonly leads to it. Religion is born of superstition and mythology. Scientific thinking dispels these things for what they are.
Instead, the creation story is re-worked into an extended metaphor using baptismal symbolism to describe a believer's "new creation" in Christ --- a personal/allegorical/spiritual interpretation that doesn't depend on, or care about, the paleontological accuracy of the creation story.
It's much simpler to interpret the whole thing as man-made mythology. Funny that a scientist can use critical thinking when doing science, but when it comes to religion all that critical thinking goes out the window and fanciful interpretations take over from Occam's Razor.
There's a book I've found helpful regarding some of these -- and other -- issues: "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan.
No need to buy a book. "God", as described in "The Bible", is a mythological deity created by primitive people. The one in the Old Testament was indeed a moral monster. Then he was updated in the New Testament to be a nicer guy. Still a vain asshole, though.
You can have living wills, you can also refuse treatment
Refusing treatment and being denied treatment even though you signed a contract are two completely different things.
but again this has NOTHING to do with "rising healthcare costs" it has to do with congress being addicted to control and spending YOUR money!
Yes, I get it, you're a Libertarian. Meanwhile, in the real world government likes both to spend money and do things that they deem are good for society. If they really only cared about tax money, then why the big campaigns to reduce smoking? The sin taxes were already in place.
Proposals for soda taxes and red meat taxes and fat taxes because at the end of the day its ALL about taxes
Those healthcare costs are real. Diabetes and obesity have become epidemics. Bloomberg banned sales of huge soda drinks (not raised taxes) because of this.
I imagine the smart ones get them delivered to a vacant house a couple of neighborhoods away.
It doesn't sound so smart. If law enforcement is aware of the package and lets it get delivered while staking out the site, and you go out of your way to retreive the package, you just lost any credibility that you didn't send for the package.
Its actually quite simple to do, simply walk up to ANY politician, be they state or federal and make this proposal "I will sign an ironclad contract that if I EVER get ill the only treatment I will get is morphine, which is the cheapest painkiller we have, and in return you remove ALL sin taxes and restrictions on me, deal?"
There's no such thing as ironclad contracts, especially when you're talking government benefits. There are already existing laws that anybody that shows up in an emergency room can get treatment. What you're talking about is a fantasy contract that will never be implemented because society doesn't want it.
Give this proposal to any politician and watch them squirm
They'll squirm because they're being confronted by a looney on the street with looney proposals.
That's Australia. We've established in other articles and discussions that the content cartels gouge the piss out of those down under, and it isn't limited to Steam.
That may be so, but he was comparing an Australian store with Steam, so I don't know what your point is.
In the US, prices on Steam are unbeatable. There is nothing quite like getting a classic for $5 that you can't find in stores for less than $19.99 (and that's if you can even find it to begin with).
Really? I've gotten many classics for cheap from eBay. Plus if you really want a classic, you could always pirate it or try other distributors like Good Old Games.
I recently got Borderlands 2 for $29.99 - that is simply not possible right now otherwise.
Right now Amazon has it for $36.99. Steam has it for $59.99. I notice they are selling a "Season Pass" for $29.99, but that's just downloadable (extra) content, for which you'll need to buy the original game first.
Steam is convenient, but mostly they have games at high prices that they get people to buy by putting them on sale. Steam users love their sales.
I'm a cowboy coder and the big difference to me is that cowboy coders actually have the engineering background, but choose to take the fastest and potentially riskiest path to "production". I tend to do a lot of proof of concept code, and I usually have extremely short deadlines. You can always find a code-monkey to re-write mission critical portions of a software rodeo.
Sounds like you just do a half-assed job and expect a "code monkey", or more realistically, a professional, to fix up after you. Let me guess, you're a consultant?
Shut the fuck up. You don't know what you're talking about.
A malware writer loves java for the same reasons you do: it is write once, run anywhere.
Malware writers love anything they can exploit, and given the monoculture of Windows desktops and browsers, that's what they target. Java is just the latest string in a series of targets that they abused the shit out of.
....you would be surprised at the number of java "desktop applications" that won't work with the standard JRE, and demand JDK functionality.
Name three. Given your poor understanding of Java demonstrated throughout this thread, my guess is you conflated the JRE with the JDK and are now attempting to patch your mistake.
Is it just me, or is capitalism in USA becoming even scarier than socialism in USSR was? I mean, I understand ending up in a mental institution (or a gulag in earlier times) for criticising the party. That's harsh and ruthless and unfair and evil, but at least understandable. But life-ruining fines and jail time for downloading an mp3 or using a device you own to the fullest? That's just insane.
It's fucked up and corrupt corporate cronyism, but people able to speak out and vote still means something. SOPA was a good example. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." We can't give up the fight despite some setbacks, moaning in despair while ignoring the freedoms we do have.
Jobs are a poor excuse for cities in these modern times - T.e.l.e.c.o.m.m.u.t.e.
Not all jobs work with telecommute, especially ones surrounding all the modern conveniences you disdain. Telecommuting also works best with low latency, high bandwidth Internet connections, something rural areas take much more resources to wire because of their spread.
I'm fully aware of Pol Pot.
Then you'd think you would make mention of his nightmare before suggesting a similar direction.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, university research labs sometimes invent some significant things which they then license to a third party to commercialize, which is perfectly fine (and an intended use of the patent system).
I think that's shit if the university received public funding to do that research. Why grant a monopoly in this case?
Trolls mostly attack companies already profitable enough to put up a fight.
Actually, many times they attack smaller companies that can't afford to fight. See, for example, here.
He settled for a pittance and gave up the name. I'd hardly call that winning. Yeah, it was more than $10, but come on.
People have been visited by the police for bad mouthing Fox.
Really, who? Fox is a regular dumping ground for the Left. The Daily Show trashes them all the time. You have a rather skewed view of the freedoms Americans enjoy. It's not perfect, but comparisons to the state run media in China are a joke.
You did a great job of ignoring the points made, even though you managed to quote them. The Steam version was $59.99 versus the Amazon version at $36.99. You got it on sale, obviously, so your original point about Steam prices being "unbeatable" needed a big qualification. You also don't need to "drive around" to shop online, like at Amazon.
As for Australia, there's no reason why Steam can't compete. The complaint in Australia is that the prices are high for all distributors. That Steam is more expensive than local stores isn't a point in their favor.
By the way, eBay sellers also sell new classics still in plastic wrap. I've gotten both used and new games that way. You also completely ignored Good Old Games.
Can you find an example of an orthodox Jew who actually worked on the Sabbath, and wasn't put to death?
Can you find an example of any Orthodox Jew who was put to death for not following one of the laws, even though death is the punishment? It would seem quite remarkable that no Orthodox Jew was ever caught working on the Sabbath or committed adultery. Or for that matter, why do the Orthodox Jews not try to impose justice on the other 75% of Jews who are breaking the law according to their view?
YOU refer to the link. It states quite clearly, orthodox Jews adhere to the Torah (aka Old Testament) as definitive Jewish Law.
"Orthodox Judaism generally refers to Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism but can actually include a wide range of beliefs. [..] Hirsch held that Judaism demands an application of Torah thought to the entire realm of human experience--including the secular disciplines. His approach was termed the Torah im Derech Eretz approach, or "neo-Orthodoxy." While insisting on strict adherence to Jewish beliefs and practices, he held that Jews should attempt to engage and influence the modern world, and encouraged those secular studies compatible with Torah thought. [..] The neo-Orthodox movement holds that Hirsch's views are not accurately followed by Modern Orthodoxy. [..] In the 20th century, a segment of the Orthodox population (notably as represented by the World Agudath Israel movement formally established in 1912) disagreed with Modern Orthodoxy and took a stricter approach. Such rabbis viewed innovations and modifications within Jewish law and customs with extreme care and caution. Some observers and scholars refer to this form of Judaism as "Haredi Judaism", or "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism". The latter term is controversial, and some consider the label "ultra-Orthodox" pejorative."
Like, for instance, your superstitious assertion that you have psychic powers, which is the -only possible way- you could know the origins of everyone's religious beliefs?
I'm speaking in generalities. I don't need psychic powers to look at the evidence of religion in the world.
my religious belief is rooted in otherwise-unexplainable religious experience.
So you say. Or maybe you imagined it, mistook coincidence for divine evidence, mistook feelings for divine evidence, or who knows what. You haven't specified what your experience was, so your claim is even weaker than typical anecdotal evidence.
Read the link that you referred to, and answer my question again: "Who actually follows all the obviously primitive bullshit you can find in there?"
As in, for example, sentencing people to death for working on the Sabbath or adultery.
I don't think Augustine was the kind of cynical, spiteful jerk who would seek out a new religion that was obviously wrong just so he could "fix it up" to more effectively fool other people.
I never made the claim that he did so in the deceitful manner you describe. What comes across in his writings is an intelligent man trying to make sense of the nonsensical based on a flawed premise (that the Christian bible is divine revelation). The amount of fanciful interpretation he allows is not so impressive, though, from a critical thinking viewpoint.
Augustine's conversion into Christianity provides evidence that Christian theology of the time already offered the kind of nuanced, spiritual interpretations that would be attractive to an educated and analytical thinker like Augustine
First, what follows is based on Wikipedia, and I haven't verified any of it, so if it's wrong my apologies. But assuming it's right, it looks like he came to Christianity the same way many people do: One of his parents was Christian, he was living among Christians, and here's the one that locks him in: He had a personal crisis and experienced what he felt was a sign from God to follow Christ.
Augustine didn't have to "explain away embarrassing wrongs" because in the 4th-5th century there was nothing at all "embarrassing" about the Biblical creation account --- no generally known contradictions with the (significantly more limited) scientific knowledge of the time.
First of all, it wasn't just scientific consistency. It was also logical consistency if given a bit of thought. Now to quote Augustine, he makes clear his concerns:
"Although this work of God was done in an instant, did the light remain, with-out night coming on, until the time of one day was complete; and did the night, following upon the daylight, continue while the hours of the nighttime passed by until the morning of the following day dawned, one day, the first one, being then complete? But if I make such a statement, I fear I shall be laughed at both by those who have scientific knowledge of these matters and by those who can easily recognize the facts of the case."
and:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
Augustine basically *is* treating the creation story as mythology here (with "man-made" beside the point in his analysis).
That's an after-the-fact re-interpretation on his part to explain away embarrassing wrongs. When the evidence points to man-made mythology, the Occam's Razor approach is to attribute the mythology to man, and not to a divine being that doesn't make clear what is meant to be elaborate metaphors and what isn't. There are many lines of evidence that all point to man-made mythology. This is not "beside the point".
You seem to use "mythology" simply as an insult --- betraying a pretty shallow understanding of human culture and literature. Do you consider Shakespeare's plays worthless because they're (a) historically inaccurate, and (b) man-made?
It's only an insult if you elevate mythology to the status of divine revelation. I have no problem with Shakespeare, as nobody mistakes them as divine revelation or an academic history.
The question: how can the deeply religious be convinced (or reassured) that accepting what science teaches does not require rejecting their faith?
It may not require it, but it commonly leads to it. Religion is born of superstition and mythology. Scientific thinking dispels these things for what they are.
Instead, the creation story is re-worked into an extended metaphor using baptismal symbolism to describe a believer's "new creation" in Christ --- a personal/allegorical/spiritual interpretation that doesn't depend on, or care about, the paleontological accuracy of the creation story.
It's much simpler to interpret the whole thing as man-made mythology. Funny that a scientist can use critical thinking when doing science, but when it comes to religion all that critical thinking goes out the window and fanciful interpretations take over from Occam's Razor.
."Just because the "land" is still there, doesn't mean the "civilization" is."
And what Jewish civilization still looks like the Old Testament? Who actually follows all the obviously primitive bullshit you can find in there?
There's a book I've found helpful regarding some of these -- and other -- issues: "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan.
No need to buy a book. "God", as described in "The Bible", is a mythological deity created by primitive people. The one in the Old Testament was indeed a moral monster. Then he was updated in the New Testament to be a nicer guy. Still a vain asshole, though.
To be fair, while Piriform's request might be considered obnoxious, there's really not a threat involved. As far as letters go, it was pretty mild.
There's always an implied threat with this kind of letter, especially when appealing to a legal document such as terms of use.
You can have living wills, you can also refuse treatment
Refusing treatment and being denied treatment even though you signed a contract are two completely different things.
but again this has NOTHING to do with "rising healthcare costs" it has to do with congress being addicted to control and spending YOUR money!
Yes, I get it, you're a Libertarian. Meanwhile, in the real world government likes both to spend money and do things that they deem are good for society. If they really only cared about tax money, then why the big campaigns to reduce smoking? The sin taxes were already in place.
Proposals for soda taxes and red meat taxes and fat taxes because at the end of the day its ALL about taxes
Those healthcare costs are real. Diabetes and obesity have become epidemics. Bloomberg banned sales of huge soda drinks (not raised taxes) because of this.
I imagine the smart ones get them delivered to a vacant house a couple of neighborhoods away.
It doesn't sound so smart. If law enforcement is aware of the package and lets it get delivered while staking out the site, and you go out of your way to retreive the package, you just lost any credibility that you didn't send for the package.
Its actually quite simple to do, simply walk up to ANY politician, be they state or federal and make this proposal "I will sign an ironclad contract that if I EVER get ill the only treatment I will get is morphine, which is the cheapest painkiller we have, and in return you remove ALL sin taxes and restrictions on me, deal?"
There's no such thing as ironclad contracts, especially when you're talking government benefits. There are already existing laws that anybody that shows up in an emergency room can get treatment. What you're talking about is a fantasy contract that will never be implemented because society doesn't want it.
Give this proposal to any politician and watch them squirm
They'll squirm because they're being confronted by a looney on the street with looney proposals.
That's Australia. We've established in other articles and discussions that the content cartels gouge the piss out of those down under, and it isn't limited to Steam.
That may be so, but he was comparing an Australian store with Steam, so I don't know what your point is.
In the US, prices on Steam are unbeatable. There is nothing quite like getting a classic for $5 that you can't find in stores for less than $19.99 (and that's if you can even find it to begin with).
Really? I've gotten many classics for cheap from eBay. Plus if you really want a classic, you could always pirate it or try other distributors like Good Old Games.
I recently got Borderlands 2 for $29.99 - that is simply not possible right now otherwise.
Right now Amazon has it for $36.99. Steam has it for $59.99. I notice they are selling a "Season Pass" for $29.99, but that's just downloadable (extra) content, for which you'll need to buy the original game first.
Steam is convenient, but mostly they have games at high prices that they get people to buy by putting them on sale. Steam users love their sales.
I'm a cowboy coder and the big difference to me is that cowboy coders actually have the engineering background, but choose to take the fastest and potentially riskiest path to "production". I tend to do a lot of proof of concept code, and I usually have extremely short deadlines. You can always find a code-monkey to re-write mission critical portions of a software rodeo.
Sounds like you just do a half-assed job and expect a "code monkey", or more realistically, a professional, to fix up after you. Let me guess, you're a consultant?
*sigh*
Shut the fuck up. You don't know what you're talking about.
A malware writer loves java for the same reasons you do: it is write once, run anywhere.
Malware writers love anything they can exploit, and given the monoculture of Windows desktops and browsers, that's what they target. Java is just the latest string in a series of targets that they abused the shit out of.
....you would be surprised at the number of java "desktop applications" that won't work with the standard JRE, and demand JDK functionality.
Name three. Given your poor understanding of Java demonstrated throughout this thread, my guess is you conflated the JRE with the JDK and are now attempting to patch your mistake.
Is it just me, or is capitalism in USA becoming even scarier than socialism in USSR was? I mean, I understand ending up in a mental institution (or a gulag in earlier times) for criticising the party. That's harsh and ruthless and unfair and evil, but at least understandable. But life-ruining fines and jail time for downloading an mp3 or using a device you own to the fullest? That's just insane.
It's fucked up and corrupt corporate cronyism, but people able to speak out and vote still means something. SOPA was a good example. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." We can't give up the fight despite some setbacks, moaning in despair while ignoring the freedoms we do have.
I'm happy to have you stay in the city. Please!
That's a different tune.
Jobs are a poor excuse for cities in these modern times - T.e.l.e.c.o.m.m.u.t.e.
Not all jobs work with telecommute, especially ones surrounding all the modern conveniences you disdain. Telecommuting also works best with low latency, high bandwidth Internet connections, something rural areas take much more resources to wire because of their spread.
I'm fully aware of Pol Pot.
Then you'd think you would make mention of his nightmare before suggesting a similar direction.