Why would anyone believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever? And that is the exact attitude of every religious person in regard to dead religions or different religious beliefs! It is the same attitude I take in relation to their god. In my experience, every time a theist presents some "evidence" it ends up being either some abstract argument in a sea of potential logical fallacies that bears no relation to the gods most people believe in or the evidence is personal revelation. In the first case it just takes a while longer figuring out where the fallacy is (if you have something different I would be happy to check it out). In the second case I can not refute the evidence but I don't have any reason to believe it either: I know that the mind can play tricks, even more when a person really wants to believe in something.
You are correct in one aspect: new things are found every day. If tomorrow someone finds god I *might* change my mind. I say I might because from what I hear, lots of people find god everyday and their evidence (that I know of) has always been very poor.
I do have one question. How do people choose their religion? Why was bin Laden a Muslim and not a Christian? Did he have any evidence to back up his beliefs? Or was it because it made him feel better? Perhaps god revealed himself to him? The funny thing is that most religious people follow the religion of their parents is that simply a coincidence? There are always apostates but they are very few. Does the evidence change from country to country or from decade to decade?
I don't really know US economical history but I think it is safe to assume that most of the economy was agrarian in 1800. Now, the US was a special case: it was the only country minimally developed that could expand. If someone did not like the situation at home he always had the opportunity to move west. I know things are not always that simple but it was easier to "break new ground" in the US than in England for instance. Once this expansion was over, the US became a "regular" country.
One could argue that industry and new technologies provided and provides new room for "expansion" and that is certainly true and that was what the 20th century was all about. But there is one difference: the entry barrier is much higher and the possibility of concentration of wealth is much higher also. High concentration of wealth has always existed but in the particular case of the US in 1800 this wasn't an issue since the expansion to the west was easy and available for "all". But later on, this wealth concentration could (and was) used to change the rules in favor of the very wealthy resulting in the situation we have today. Of course things are not that simple, two world wars, a great depression and a cold war are *very* important but overall I can't see how this "real" capitalism would work much differently than than how capitalism worked in the lase 200 years. Milton Friedman sounds very nice but I can't see it working in the long run in a complex and diversified economy we have today. It is no wonder that Friedman was associated with the likes of Pinochet in trying to implement his visions.
The Internet and computer technologies certainly certainly allow a lot of expansion with a very low entry barrier so, is it a coincidence that copyright rules are getting tougher by the day and that the patent system is getting subverted to become something that was never intended?
Before the end of the Soviet Union, when people criticized Communism it was common for left wingers to argue that no communist country had real socialism (I made this observation more than once...). There were several replies, one of them was what is real socialism if it doesn't exist and until it does it is only a theoretical construct. Another reply was that the existing communist regimes were probably the only outcome possible from trying to implement "real socialism".
Today I believe that both replies have merit and here you come making the same observations for the other side so I will give you the same reply:
(1) How do you what "real capitalism" is if it doesn't exist? For me it is only a theoretical construct that doesn't hold water in the real world. (2) Why do you think what is happening today in the US (and the whole world actually) isn't the logical outcome of attempting to implement "real capitalism"? "Real capitalism" has had several powerful proponents for more than 2 centuries and often in government and here we are...
Excellent point. It is even hard to imagine the possibilities. Thought about something? just get to the net and you could have at the tip of your fingers all history, with every publication, attempts, failures, etc. It is even difficult to think how would search engines develop in such a world. We are crippling ourselves with all the different and often inaccessible indexes, pay-walls, etc. The benefit to society would be huge and almost certainly much larger than all the media industry together. What would happen to individual content providers would be difficult to estimate and some things would disappear, such as movies costing $200 millions (and usually shitty anyway). But the prize would be fantastic.
It is never that simple. You see, copyright isn't the only issue in an election. I think it is safe to say that for most people copyright is a minor issue in an election so for most candidates and elected officials issues like this won't be discussed and the end result is that they (I could say all minor issues) are irrelevant to the election and will always be in this system. That's where lobbies with money come in: they can buy *very* cheaply the support of several congressmen because this issue is irrelevant to them.
You could add to the problem the US electoral system where each district has a single elected official. In most districts copyright is a very minor issue (in how many districts is copyright important enough to affect the income of a large part of the population in the district?) and completely irrelevant in the election.
In a complex industrialized society most issues are minor for most of the population and all these discussions that are always popping up reflect that. Democratic systems were created in a time were geography was by far the most important aspect. Today this is no longer necessarily true. I, living in Brazil, probably have more interests, perspectives and ideas in common with you, living in the other side of the world, than with my next door neighbor. Even though perhaps 5% of the population care and have the same views on copyright we will not have 5% of representatives on these issues. That's why lobbies are so effective.
I'm not proposing any solution because there is no simple solution and probably very few politicians would want to change anything but with Internet available to everyone new possibilities will arise even though I don't expect to see any change soon. The end result is that for the first time in history most of the world is under some sort of democratic regime but very few people feel represented in power.
The objective was initially to destroy Hezbollah. Once it was obvious that wouldn't happen, the objective was to stop Hezbollah from launching rockets, which started after Israel invaded Lebanon. Well, again that didn't go so well, the intensity of rocket fire actually increased until the cease fire.
By the way, the alleged reason for the bombing had nothing to do with rocket fire but with the "kidnapping" of israeli soldiers, just another regular skirmish along the border.
So, none of the alleged objectives of war were achieved, the "kidnapped" soldiers were still missing. The bodies of these soldiers were traded a couple of years ago by several lebanese that had been kidnapped over the years, including Samir Kuntar, who for several years was made up to be the face of evil in Israel.
In the end Israel did cause a lot of dammage to civilian infrastructure all over Lebanon, killed over 1000 civilians, but accomplished none of their objectives, and Hezbollah came out with a lot of prestige. At that time, like now, there were lots of talk about bombing Iran, that all of a sudden almost disappeared. A coincidence perhaps?
Because I'm not making any claims. I am simply asserting that I don't have enough evidence to conclude that god (or any other deity for that matter) exists. That's it!
Religious people make very definite claims, for instance several Christians believe that if I don't believe in Jesus I will go to hell. I've had relatives tell me this and when I asked them how do they know this they said that it was written in the bible. When I asked them why should I take the bible seriously the said because it is the word of god. This is not a rational argument, it is childish circular argument. I know that many religious people are not stupid to argue like this but they make other claims so the onus is on them to show evidence. Any evidence.
We are not asking for "irrefutable proof", any evidence better than "God spoke to me" or "I saw an angel" or "My aunt couldn't have survived that car crash but she is still around" would be something.
I should point one thing out to you: debates are not the medium that science uses to advance knowledge. The reason is simple: I can say enough bullshit in one minute that will take you a life time to refute.
Now, if you are using the word "debate" in a broad sense to mean something like the scientific process used to reach a consensus (or at least to advance the science) then going on the Internet, news or "hiring" a politician is not a "scientific debate". I would like to see published peer-reviewed studies as evidence for their claims. I haven't seen any and I've looked for it.
Probably you will claim that there are no publications (or very few) because AGW proponents don't let the skeptics publish. Or maybe they don't let the skeptics have access to any funds that will allow them to prove their point (now there is a new problem: if they can't do any research why are the skeptics so sure of their claims?).
This sounds more and more like a conspiracy theory where any evidence against the conspiracy is another proof of foul play.
Someone might argue that the system is so skewed that this conspiracy is not only possible but likely. But the idea of AGW grew slowly before any economic interests were important: a possibility in 1960, a few guys working on it in in 1970, small groups doing lots of work in 1980, large percentage of researchers in 1990 and consensus in 2000-2005.
I'm sorry but the only attribute of a skeptic that these AGW "skeptics" have is using the word "skeptic". They sure sound like 911 truthers or alien conspiracy theorists.
Except that Israel is the only country that "raped, pillaged and burned" every single neighbor (and sometimes not so neighbor). Cut the crap, or do you need a list?
That is almost the definition of a malfunction: failing to do what it was designed to do, in this case returning safely to its "handlers". The interesting question is why it malfunctioned. Since the US doesn't have the device, it is a little harder for the US to say whether there was a random failure or it was downed (whatever the method). Since the US denied for so long that it had lost a drone, I'm inclined to believe the Iranians.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the first time I hear about ESR in years. I thought he was forked a few years back!
Didn't Hans Reiser "buy" a bride from a mail order bride catalog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser) ?
Why would anyone believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever? And that is the exact attitude of every religious person in regard to dead religions or different religious beliefs! It is the same attitude I take in relation to their god. In my experience, every time a theist presents some "evidence" it ends up being either some abstract argument in a sea of potential logical fallacies that bears no relation to the gods most people believe in or the evidence is personal revelation. In the first case it just takes a while longer figuring out where the fallacy is (if you have something different I would be happy to check it out). In the second case I can not refute the evidence but I don't have any reason to believe it either: I know that the mind can play tricks, even more when a person really wants to believe in something.
You are correct in one aspect: new things are found every day. If tomorrow someone finds god I *might* change my mind. I say I might because from what I hear, lots of people find god everyday and their evidence (that I know of) has always been very poor.
I do have one question. How do people choose their religion? Why was bin Laden a Muslim and not a Christian? Did he have any evidence to back up his beliefs? Or was it because it made him feel better? Perhaps god revealed himself to him? The funny thing is that most religious people follow the religion of their parents is that simply a coincidence? There are always apostates but they are very few. Does the evidence change from country to country or from decade to decade?
Wait, I shouldn't be an atheist because there is no evidence god doesn't exist? Brilliant!
So, you are the idiot I robbed last year? Don't feel bad about it, it wasn't personal.
If it has rounded corners apple has already invented the iWindow.
It is old, but http://www.mslinux.org/
I don't really know US economical history but I think it is safe to assume that most of the economy was agrarian in 1800. Now, the US was a special case: it was the only country minimally developed that could expand. If someone did not like the situation at home he always had the opportunity to move west. I know things are not always that simple but it was easier to "break new ground" in the US than in England for instance. Once this expansion was over, the US became a "regular" country.
One could argue that industry and new technologies provided and provides new room for "expansion" and that is certainly true and that was what the 20th century was all about. But there is one difference: the entry barrier is much higher and the possibility of concentration of wealth is much higher also. High concentration of wealth has always existed but in the particular case of the US in 1800 this wasn't an issue since the expansion to the west was easy and available for "all". But later on, this wealth concentration could (and was) used to change the rules in favor of the very wealthy resulting in the situation we have today. Of course things are not that simple, two world wars, a great depression and a cold war are *very* important but overall I can't see how this "real" capitalism would work much differently than than how capitalism worked in the lase 200 years. Milton Friedman sounds very nice but I can't see it working in the long run in a complex and diversified economy we have today. It is no wonder that Friedman was associated with the likes of Pinochet in trying to implement his visions.
The Internet and computer technologies certainly certainly allow a lot of expansion with a very low entry barrier so, is it a coincidence that copyright rules are getting tougher by the day and that the patent system is getting subverted to become something that was never intended?
Before the end of the Soviet Union, when people criticized Communism it was common for left wingers to argue that no communist country had real socialism (I made this observation more than once...). There were several replies, one of them was what is real socialism if it doesn't exist and until it does it is only a theoretical construct. Another reply was that the existing communist regimes were probably the only outcome possible from trying to implement "real socialism".
Today I believe that both replies have merit and here you come making the same observations for the other side so I will give you the same reply:
(1) How do you what "real capitalism" is if it doesn't exist? For me it is only a theoretical construct that doesn't hold water in the real world.
(2) Why do you think what is happening today in the US (and the whole world actually) isn't the logical outcome of attempting to implement "real capitalism"? "Real capitalism" has had several powerful proponents for more than 2 centuries and often in government and here we are...
So, Slovak journalists are like journalists everywhere?
Excellent point. It is even hard to imagine the possibilities. Thought about something? just get to the net and you could have at the tip of your fingers all history, with every publication, attempts, failures, etc. It is even difficult to think how would search engines develop in such a world. We are crippling ourselves with all the different and often inaccessible indexes, pay-walls, etc. The benefit to society would be huge and almost certainly much larger than all the media industry together. What would happen to individual content providers would be difficult to estimate and some things would disappear, such as movies costing $200 millions (and usually shitty anyway). But the prize would be fantastic.
It is never that simple. You see, copyright isn't the only issue in an election. I think it is safe to say that for most people copyright is a minor issue in an election so for most candidates and elected officials issues like this won't be discussed and the end result is that they (I could say all minor issues) are irrelevant to the election and will always be in this system. That's where lobbies with money come in: they can buy *very* cheaply the support of several congressmen because this issue is irrelevant to them.
You could add to the problem the US electoral system where each district has a single elected official. In most districts copyright is a very minor issue (in how many districts is copyright important enough to affect the income of a large part of the population in the district?) and completely irrelevant in the election.
In a complex industrialized society most issues are minor for most of the population and all these discussions that are always popping up reflect that. Democratic systems were created in a time were geography was by far the most important aspect. Today this is no longer necessarily true. I, living in Brazil, probably have more interests, perspectives and ideas in common with you, living in the other side of the world, than with my next door neighbor. Even though perhaps 5% of the population care and have the same views on copyright we will not have 5% of representatives on these issues. That's why lobbies are so effective.
I'm not proposing any solution because there is no simple solution and probably very few politicians would want to change anything but with Internet available to everyone new possibilities will arise even though I don't expect to see any change soon. The end result is that for the first time in history most of the world is under some sort of democratic regime but very few people feel represented in power.
For some fun, google up photos of merkavas in Lebanon 2006.
The objective was initially to destroy Hezbollah. Once it was obvious that wouldn't happen, the objective was to stop Hezbollah from launching rockets, which started after Israel invaded Lebanon. Well, again that didn't go so well, the intensity of rocket fire actually increased until the cease fire.
By the way, the alleged reason for the bombing had nothing to do with rocket fire but with the "kidnapping" of israeli soldiers, just another regular skirmish along the border.
So, none of the alleged objectives of war were achieved, the "kidnapped" soldiers were still missing. The bodies of these soldiers were traded a couple of years ago by several lebanese that had been kidnapped over the years, including Samir Kuntar, who for several years was made up to be the face of evil in Israel.
In the end Israel did cause a lot of dammage to civilian infrastructure all over Lebanon, killed over 1000 civilians, but accomplished none of their objectives, and Hezbollah came out with a lot of prestige. At that time, like now, there were lots of talk about bombing Iran, that all of a sudden almost disappeared. A coincidence perhaps?
That is a very good hypothesis or do you really believe St. Jobs really died?
Just like Israel took out Hezbollah over night. Brilliant!!!
The world is still here and it was *not* the first post.
Yep, just like Iraq.
I did not lump them together, I just mentioned that they use very similar arguments.
Because I'm not making any claims. I am simply asserting that I don't have enough evidence to conclude that god (or any other deity for that matter) exists. That's it!
Religious people make very definite claims, for instance several Christians believe that if I don't believe in Jesus I will go to hell. I've had relatives tell me this and when I asked them how do they know this they said that it was written in the bible. When I asked them why should I take the bible seriously the said because it is the word of god. This is not a rational argument, it is childish circular argument. I know that many religious people are not stupid to argue like this but they make other claims so the onus is on them to show evidence. Any evidence.
We are not asking for "irrefutable proof", any evidence better than "God spoke to me" or "I saw an angel" or "My aunt couldn't have survived that car crash but she is still around" would be something.
I should point one thing out to you: debates are not the medium that science uses to advance knowledge. The reason is simple: I can say enough bullshit in one minute that will take you a life time to refute.
Now, if you are using the word "debate" in a broad sense to mean something like the scientific process used to reach a consensus (or at least to advance the science) then going on the Internet, news or "hiring" a politician is not a "scientific debate". I would like to see published peer-reviewed studies as evidence for their claims. I haven't seen any and I've looked for it.
Probably you will claim that there are no publications (or very few) because AGW proponents don't let the skeptics publish. Or maybe they don't let the skeptics have access to any funds that will allow them to prove their point (now there is a new problem: if they can't do any research why are the skeptics so sure of their claims?).
This sounds more and more like a conspiracy theory where any evidence against the conspiracy is another proof of foul play.
Someone might argue that the system is so skewed that this conspiracy is not only possible but likely. But the idea of AGW grew slowly before any economic interests were important: a possibility in 1960, a few guys working on it in in 1970, small groups doing lots of work in 1980, large percentage of researchers in 1990 and consensus in 2000-2005.
I'm sorry but the only attribute of a skeptic that these AGW "skeptics" have is using the word "skeptic". They sure sound like 911 truthers or alien conspiracy theorists.
Doesn't mean they are correct.
Except that Israel is the only country that "raped, pillaged and burned" every single neighbor (and sometimes not so neighbor). Cut the crap, or do you need a list?
That is almost the definition of a malfunction: failing to do what it was designed to do, in this case returning safely to its "handlers". The interesting question is why it malfunctioned. Since the US doesn't have the device, it is a little harder for the US to say whether there was a random failure or it was downed (whatever the method). Since the US denied for so long that it had lost a drone, I'm inclined to believe the Iranians.