But he has an excellent point that "breaking" the rules should be allowed only insofar as it isn't a barrier to communication. For instance, the extreme contraction of words in text messaging makes perfect sense, both because of ease of generation and because small screens render long flowery sentences unintelligible. Generally, stylistic rules (such as "don't use OK") are the result of prescriptive grammars that may give a statement a literary feel or identify it with a subculture but in fact force the writer to use a subset of the actual number of potential intelligible phrases.
On the other hand, strange behavior SUCH AS TYPING IN ALL CAPS or, inserting, extraneous. punction. or speeling. Makes things very hard to understand. Distinct from vernacular usage or rational simplification, this is simple laziness or ignorance. The point of language is communication, and I think we can all agree that it is counterproductive to use constructions or styles that make communication difficult for our intended audience.
Aaucltly, yuo talltoy msiesd the orptputnoiy fro smotnheig naet trehe. If yuo keep teh fsirt and lsat ltretes teh smae on lgenor wrdos, yuo can raed it aomslt as fsat as namorl Eglsinh!
You are listening to the white house PR campaign again. The state requested aid on Friday before the hurricane, and the president signed the federal state of emergency on Sunday. At that point DHS had the statutory authority needed to handle the situation, but their response was muddled and ineffective until later in the following week.
I know you may chalk this response up to a loony from the left, but consider the following line: "President George W. Bush declared major disasters for impacted areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama....With these disaster declarations the federal government is able to bring its full resources to bear in helping residents in the impacted states with emergency needs and recovery support. "
However, the entire 100-person village working for a year might not earn $10,000 in some areas. Even in the US, supplying one cooling unit per 100 people would run $25 BILLION dollars.
And how do you deal with theft when you install something that is worth 100x the salary of the average villager? Or prevent a gang from commandeering it and selling the access? How long would a equivilent $2 million dollar portable widget last in a poor village in Appalachia in the US?
The problems of the third world are very complex, to say the least. It isn't simply a matter of applying the same tech we take for granted.
I think you are misunderstanding. I may be as well, but I don't think there is any notion of a radiation gradient here. The only reason this experiment need be done at night is that during the day the increased (absorbed) solar radiation would swamp the cooling effect.
I believe the original poster's comment re:dark nights was a red herring; if my understanding is correct then a dark night would be slightly more efficient for ice production, not less.
I already posted to this thread or I would. Horseshoe crabs were the first thing I thought of as well. I've seen statements that the horseshoe crab has hardly changed in over 200 million years -- I guess evolution gets it right sometimes.
To me, the reply to the question you raise is very simple -- one needn't even consider the ethical ramifications: humans are simply not intelligent/developed enough to direct their own evolution. We barely understand how genes work and interact over time; what hubris to change the course of our own evolution!
At the moment, short of mass murder or sterilization, we fortunately can't impact our evolutionary course strongly. In the future, however, it is quite possible that we will be able to alter the genetics of our children (i.e. Gattaca) The first baby steps are already being taken, with IV fertilization being able to select against embryos with diseases in some cases.
I have to think that if this technology is created, it will be impossible to control it's use.
Human history to date has shown that we are short-sighted as a society (see: the environment) and even shorter-sighted when it comes to our own desires. Compounding this is the fact that genetic alteration becomes a tragedy of the commons--the impact from a few people is small, but the logical extension is a world in which only the "superior" genes survive.
And then who is to say that we won't all die from bird flu or some other new pathogen, having created our own little genetic bottleneck? Or maybe we'll all be a bit smarter, but we'll also lose out on the rare Einstein or Newton that have altered the world in the past. (Again, if you are familiar with Gattaca, the DVD has a long list of prominent minds who would never have existed if we selected against their congenital conditions)
I think you have that turned on it's head a bit; it isn't that they shouldn't be _allowed_ to employ those who share their religion, which is a right that they have always held. The GP is likely referring to the fact that the Salvation Army lobbied to be exempted from the equal protection laws that protect all of us from discrimination in the workplace.
Personally, I agree that this is a bad road to go down. I was very upset that a charity would go out of its way to try to write discrimination into our laws -- that is hardly the Christian thing to do.
What you say is very true -- Moore is certainly not a journalist in that he abandons even a veneer of objectivity. However, I think his message is powerful for precisely that reason -- he is a subversive*, not another cog in the machine of mass-market media.
In a time when the rich and powerful have insulated themselves from criticism or comment, he has had some success in forcing powerful individuals and corporations to pay attention to the smaller people, and embarrassed them in front of a large audience. I think this sentiment appeals to Americans who feel that their lives are increasingly beholden to large corporate interests.
I think his victories are, for the most part, fleeting -- he might persuade a large corporation to do something because their PR department sees disaister looming, but in the long run the company will likely revert to status quo. You could argue, though, that the bigger victory is reminding his audience that they do still have power.
*especially in the sense that Neil Stephenson used in "The Diamond Age"--someone who shakes up the status quo and forces us to view a situation in a new light.
No argument or flippant response for points 1,3,4,5.
Point 2 is well taken, but depends on the characterization of the ID question...is it the question of how lift on Earth developed, or life in general? Often unclear from ID proponents.
Point 6 is true.
Point 7 is true, but the response appears unrelated to my statement. The semantic distinction is subtle, so let's just move on.
The next response agrees with my statement in a condescending manner.
Point 8 is either straw man or a malformed argument. When you refer to Nietzsche, you are presumably referring to his entire body of work as it illustrates his personal philosophy. In contrast, ID is simply a narrow characterization of a minor philosphical _concept_. It's true that they can't be compared/contrasted, but then neither can you do that with, say, classical optics vs. Theory of Relativity. The concepts share some crossover that can be discussed, but operate on totally different domains.
I was trying to inject some much-needed humor into the conversation, but the fact is that you are most guilty of (1) with quite arguably elements of (2) appearing as well.
I'd say your post had eight major assertions, and at least four of them did not involve any form of argument but were simply launched from your authority as...well, it isn't clear to me that you have any authority as a source of knowledge about philosophy.
I'll include a definition from M-W here for your benefit, because I think a simple reading will show that there are errors in your understanding of it. Beyond that, I don't see any benefit in further discussion.
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology 2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs 3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought 4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Rather than spend time typing another constructive reply to your acerbic bullet points, I will instead complement you for your fine example of argumentum ad verecundiam.
Actually, that should be obvious from your comment. If what you said was true, then proving "true=false" should be possible, and logic has some serious problems.
I might add that I was fascinated to read several rebuttals of Intelligent Design and various sub-arguments for why ID should be considered. There is really some interesting thought out there, and the discussion of ID only strengthens the arguments for the Theory of Evolution.
The gotcha is that discussion must occur -- it would be highly irresponsible to initiate a discussion framed in terms of A. Evolution B. Alternative - ID C. Any questions?
To be a valuable teaching tool, one would need to introduce the strongest arguments for ID, and then the rebuttals of those arguments. Having done so, I think most intelligent people would be convinced that ID is interesting to consider but there is little reason to believe in it any more than any other supernatual phenomenon.
My fear is that rural school boards will simply present one side of the ID argument, falsely claiming that ID and evolution are counter-arguments.
> No. What philosophical discussion could there be?
I think in your war on narrow-minded fundementalism, you are being a bit narrow-minded yourself. It is quite valid to question whether or not life may have guided or designed. The downfall of the ID debate is that they have pretty much concluded that designer == God. While supernatural origin is one possibility, it is no more (and much less) likely that life on Earth was planted by aliens or interstellar bacteria or Barney the purple dinasour.
These kinds of questions are precisely the ones that Philosophy tries to answer. Philosophy often isn't interested in _proving_ something in a scientific manner; there are Philosophy PhDs out there spending their careers working on essentially unanswerable questions, like "do you really exist as a corporeal being, or are you just a brain in a vat?"
What makes your response doubly ironic is that the whole "brains in vats" area can be paraphrased into the question "are we all just souls in heaven, and is God creating the sensation of having bodies?" By your logic, does this then become religion and verboten?
The fact of the matter is that all religions have at least some philosophic component, because religion tries to explain how the world works. The only real difference between a religious concept and a philosophical one is whether or not faith is required to understand or agree with it. This is probably the reason behind the fact that few public schools have philosophy programs: it's too close to religion for comfort for many people, and philosophical debates scare many religious people by challenging their belief systems.
FWIW, I am completely against ID in schools because I am convinced that proponents are anti-scientific and have no desire for an intellectual debate. But, it is just silly to suggest that the question itself has no relevance in any forum.
Pioneer always seems to be pricey. I think one of the problems is that DVDs are more expensive in Japan, and Japanese companies can't stomach pricing their releases to the North American market.
For example, Amazon.co.jp lists Last Exile at 6090Y, or $66CAD. Pioneer thinks they are already giving you a deal at $45.
That's good to hear. I have been saving up episodes to avoid the disappointment of watching an ep about nothing and then having to wait a whole week for the next one.;) Maybe I'll get back into it.
I have to say I was pretty disappointed by the Sand battles...those characters have really been built up, and I was expecting good things. Unfortunately, it just seemed like an exchange of super-moves and not an actual fight.
I also think that by episode 130 Naruto might not insist on his usual style of 1. stupid headlong attack 2. repeat 3. repeat 4. do something tricky OR use super move
I realize this isn't Shakespeare, but it did seem like he was undergoing SOME character development--his archetype was headstrong, but tricky. It's jarring when he appears to forget everything he's learned.
Thanks for the suggestions--I should check out Blood.
Actually, the best episodes are up through the Chuunin-shiken arc (around ep 60 or so). It's worth checking out even if you never plan to get up to 130+.
The hilt on a Japanese sword is not really there to protect from an opponent's blade...it is possible to actually cut through the soft iron of the tsuba. It's there to prevent you from riding up the hilt an cutting yourself on your own sword! This probably goes double for lightsabers, but still no hilts.;)
Gold is just plain valuable. It has an amazing array of uses. It actually isn't all that expensive for industrial applications like connectors because not very much is required. A gold plated connector is generally only 10% or so more expensive than tin or nickel/silver.
I think the cost of the additional processing is at least as expensive as the gold itself, as the gold must (usually) be plated on top of an intermediate layer.
Slashdot Mirror
But he has an excellent point that "breaking" the rules should be allowed only insofar as it isn't a barrier to communication. For instance, the extreme contraction of words in text messaging makes perfect sense, both because of ease of generation and because small screens render long flowery sentences unintelligible. Generally, stylistic rules (such as "don't use OK") are the result of prescriptive grammars that may give a statement a literary feel or identify it with a subculture but in fact force the writer to use a subset of the actual number of potential intelligible phrases.
On the other hand, strange behavior SUCH AS TYPING IN ALL CAPS or, inserting, extraneous. punction. or speeling. Makes things very hard to understand. Distinct from vernacular usage or rational simplification, this is simple laziness or ignorance. The point of language is communication, and I think we can all agree that it is counterproductive to use constructions or styles that make communication difficult for our intended audience.
Aaucltly, yuo talltoy msiesd the orptputnoiy fro smotnheig naet trehe. If yuo keep teh fsirt and lsat ltretes teh smae on lgenor wrdos, yuo can raed it aomslt as fsat as namorl Eglsinh!
You are listening to the white house PR campaign again. The state requested aid on Friday before the hurricane, and the president signed the federal state of emergency on Sunday. At that point DHS had the statutory authority needed to handle the situation, but their response was muddled and ineffective until later in the following week.
I know you may chalk this response up to a loony from the left, but consider the following line: "President George W. Bush declared major disasters for impacted areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama....With these disaster declarations the federal government is able to bring its full resources to bear in helping residents in the impacted states with emergency needs and recovery support. "
My source? A DHS press release from 8/31.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4771
However, the entire 100-person village working for a year might not earn $10,000 in some areas. Even in the US, supplying one cooling unit per 100 people would run $25 BILLION dollars.
And how do you deal with theft when you install something that is worth 100x the salary of the average villager? Or prevent a gang from commandeering it and selling the access? How long would a equivilent $2 million dollar portable widget last in a poor village in Appalachia in the US?
The problems of the third world are very complex, to say the least. It isn't simply a matter of applying the same tech we take for granted.
I think you are misunderstanding. I may be as well, but I don't think there is any notion of a radiation gradient here. The only reason this experiment need be done at night is that during the day the increased (absorbed) solar radiation would swamp the cooling effect.
I believe the original poster's comment re:dark nights was a red herring; if my understanding is correct then a dark night would be slightly more efficient for ice production, not less.
I already posted to this thread or I would. Horseshoe crabs were the first thing I thought of as well. I've seen statements that the horseshoe crab has hardly changed in over 200 million years -- I guess evolution gets it right sometimes.
To me, the reply to the question you raise is very simple -- one needn't even consider the ethical ramifications: humans are simply not intelligent/developed enough to direct their own evolution. We barely understand how genes work and interact over time; what hubris to change the course of our own evolution!
At the moment, short of mass murder or sterilization, we fortunately can't impact our evolutionary course strongly. In the future, however, it is quite possible that we will be able to alter the genetics of our children (i.e. Gattaca) The first baby steps are already being taken, with IV fertilization being able to select against embryos with diseases in some cases.
I have to think that if this technology is created, it will be impossible to control it's use.
Human history to date has shown that we are short-sighted as a society (see: the environment) and even shorter-sighted when it comes to our own desires. Compounding this is the fact that genetic alteration becomes a tragedy of the commons--the impact from a few people is small, but the logical extension is a world in which only the "superior" genes survive.
And then who is to say that we won't all die from bird flu or some other new pathogen, having created our own little genetic bottleneck? Or maybe we'll all be a bit smarter, but we'll also lose out on the rare Einstein or Newton that have altered the world in the past. (Again, if you are familiar with Gattaca, the DVD has a long list of prominent minds who would never have existed if we selected against their congenital conditions)
I think you have that turned on it's head a bit; it isn't that they shouldn't be _allowed_ to employ those who share their religion, which is a right that they have always held. The GP is likely referring to the fact that the Salvation Army lobbied to be exempted from the equal protection laws that protect all of us from discrimination in the workplace.
Personally, I agree that this is a bad road to go down. I was very upset that a charity would go out of its way to try to write discrimination into our laws -- that is hardly the Christian thing to do.
What you say is very true -- Moore is certainly not a journalist in that he abandons even a veneer of objectivity. However, I think his message is powerful for precisely that reason -- he is a subversive*, not another cog in the machine of mass-market media.
In a time when the rich and powerful have insulated themselves from criticism or comment, he has had some success in forcing powerful individuals and corporations to pay attention to the smaller people, and embarrassed them in front of a large audience. I think this sentiment appeals to Americans who feel that their lives are increasingly beholden to large corporate interests.
I think his victories are, for the most part, fleeting -- he might persuade a large corporation to do something because their PR department sees disaister looming, but in the long run the company will likely revert to status quo. You could argue, though, that the bigger victory is reminding his audience that they do still have power.
*especially in the sense that Neil Stephenson used in "The Diamond Age"--someone who shakes up the status quo and forces us to view a situation in a new light.
No argument or flippant response for points 1,3,4,5.
Point 2 is well taken, but depends on the characterization of the ID question...is it the question of how lift on Earth developed, or life in general? Often unclear from ID proponents.
Point 6 is true.
Point 7 is true, but the response appears unrelated to my statement. The semantic distinction is subtle, so let's just move on.
The next response agrees with my statement in a condescending manner.
Point 8 is either straw man or a malformed argument. When you refer to Nietzsche, you are presumably referring to his entire body of work as it illustrates his personal philosophy. In contrast, ID is simply a narrow characterization of a minor philosphical _concept_. It's true that they can't be compared/contrasted, but then neither can you do that with, say, classical optics vs. Theory of Relativity. The concepts share some crossover that can be discussed, but operate on totally different domains.
Why do I feel that you won't be satisfied?
I was trying to inject some much-needed humor into the conversation, but the fact is that you are most guilty of (1) with quite arguably elements of (2) appearing as well.
I'd say your post had eight major assertions, and at least four of them did not involve any form of argument but were simply launched from your authority as...well, it isn't clear to me that you have any authority as a source of knowledge about philosophy.
I'll include a definition from M-W here for your benefit, because I think a simple reading will show that there are errors in your understanding of it. Beyond that, I don't see any benefit in further discussion.
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Rather than spend time typing another constructive reply to your acerbic bullet points, I will instead complement you for your fine example of argumentum ad verecundiam.
Descarte tried that. It didn't work.
Actually, that should be obvious from your comment. If what you said was true, then proving "true=false" should be possible, and logic has some serious problems.
I might add that I was fascinated to read several rebuttals of Intelligent Design and various sub-arguments for why ID should be considered. There is really some interesting thought out there, and the discussion of ID only strengthens the arguments for the Theory of Evolution.
The gotcha is that discussion must occur -- it would be highly irresponsible to initiate a discussion framed in terms of
A. Evolution
B. Alternative - ID
C. Any questions?
To be a valuable teaching tool, one would need to introduce the strongest arguments for ID, and then the rebuttals of those arguments. Having done so, I think most intelligent people would be convinced that ID is interesting to consider but there is little reason to believe in it any more than any other supernatual phenomenon.
My fear is that rural school boards will simply present one side of the ID argument, falsely claiming that ID and evolution are counter-arguments.
> No. What philosophical discussion could there be?
I think in your war on narrow-minded fundementalism, you are being a bit narrow-minded yourself. It is quite valid to question whether or not life may have guided or designed. The downfall of the ID debate is that they have pretty much concluded that designer == God. While supernatural origin is one possibility, it is no more (and much less) likely that life on Earth was planted by aliens or interstellar bacteria or Barney the purple dinasour.
These kinds of questions are precisely the ones that Philosophy tries to answer. Philosophy often isn't interested in _proving_ something in a scientific manner; there are Philosophy PhDs out there spending their careers working on essentially unanswerable questions, like "do you really exist as a corporeal being, or are you just a brain in a vat?"
What makes your response doubly ironic is that the whole "brains in vats" area can be paraphrased into the question "are we all just souls in heaven, and is God creating the sensation of having bodies?" By your logic, does this then become religion and verboten?
The fact of the matter is that all religions have at least some philosophic component, because religion tries to explain how the world works. The only real difference between a religious concept and a philosophical one is whether or not faith is required to understand or agree with it. This is probably the reason behind the fact that few public schools have philosophy programs: it's too close to religion for comfort for many people, and philosophical debates scare many religious people by challenging their belief systems.
FWIW, I am completely against ID in schools because I am convinced that proponents are anti-scientific and have no desire for an intellectual debate. But, it is just silly to suggest that the question itself has no relevance in any forum.
Pioneer always seems to be pricey. I think one of the problems is that DVDs are more expensive in Japan, and Japanese companies can't stomach pricing their releases to the North American market.
For example, Amazon.co.jp lists Last Exile at 6090Y, or $66CAD. Pioneer thinks they are already giving you a deal at $45.
Try Googling "head related transfer function" for the difference.
It's because if you don't know how to read katakana, you think it should be pronounced AYE-NIME. ;)
Yeah, I agree. I guess they share some common themes, but the storylines are really not at all related.
I can't figure out who is more humor impaired--you, or the person that modded your post "Insightful."
That's good to hear. I have been saving up episodes to avoid the disappointment of watching an ep about nothing and then having to wait a whole week for the next one. ;) Maybe I'll get back into it.
I have to say I was pretty disappointed by the Sand battles...those characters have really been built up, and I was expecting good things. Unfortunately, it just seemed like an exchange of super-moves and not an actual fight.
I also think that by episode 130 Naruto might not insist on his usual style of
1. stupid headlong attack
2. repeat
3. repeat
4. do something tricky OR use super move
I realize this isn't Shakespeare, but it did seem like he was undergoing SOME character development--his archetype was headstrong, but tricky. It's jarring when he appears to forget everything he's learned.
Thanks for the suggestions--I should check out Blood.
Actually, the best episodes are up through the Chuunin-shiken arc (around ep 60 or so). It's worth checking out even if you never plan to get up to 130+.
I can tell that you haven't read the AES whitepaper on jitter.
The hilt on a Japanese sword is not really there to protect from an opponent's blade...it is possible to actually cut through the soft iron of the tsuba. It's there to prevent you from riding up the hilt an cutting yourself on your own sword! This probably goes double for lightsabers, but still no hilts. ;)
Gold is just plain valuable. It has an amazing array of uses. It actually isn't all that expensive for industrial applications like connectors because not very much is required. A gold plated connector is generally only 10% or so more expensive than tin or nickel/silver.
I think the cost of the additional processing is at least as expensive as the gold itself, as the gold must (usually) be plated on top of an intermediate layer.