Fantastic! Not only do we learn about all the mysterious deaths the Clintons were involved in, but we learn that "The USA is under occupation by Satanists in the White House."
I might be willing to pay attention if the site were a wee bit more credible.
I'm guessing from the other comments in this thread that you're in America. I'm not particularly worried about Muslim fundamentalism in the US.
The Muslim community in Europe is much different--much more insular, much less secular. This is in part because Europe doesn't have the institutions and culture of assimilation that America has developed.
Worldwide, it's hard to say what the role of Muslim "fundamentalism" is. This is in part because the word "fundamentalism" comes pre-loaded with all sorts of connotations (the phrase "moderate fundamentalist," for instance, is not often used). The word most commonly used for the phenomenon we're referring to that I've seen is "Islamism." Turkey is now being run by moderate Islamists who mandate Islamic Creationism to be taught in the public schools.
It may be true that non-Islamist voices outnumber Islamist voices--but if it is so, it is because of the vast numbers of much more moderate Muslims in Southeast Asia, far outnumbering the Muslims in the Arab states. Islamism is, for the most part, a movement to found among Arab and Persian Muslims--the ones who have emigrated in such high numbers to Europe.
If by "The rest of the civilized world," you mean to exclude predominantly Muslim countries such as Turkey, then yes, it's just an American problem. (I wouldn't say "North American" problem; evolution isn't much of a problem in Mexico or Canada.) Muslim versions of Creationism are gaining ground.
This may become a problem in the UK and other parts of Europe, as Muslims will probably react to secularism much in the same way American Evangelicals have. We're starting to see it happen.
That might be true to some extent in free societies like those in Western Europe, America, Canada, etc., though I think you probably overestimate the potential upward mobility even there.
However, I don't see how you could reasonably generalize your experience to China, India, Southeast Asia, or Central and South America.
Where exactly did you get that statistic? I'm somewhat skeptical that it's as powerful an effect as you seem to be implying. It's very difficult to obtain valid statistics on homeschooling, in the first place. Then you have to consider that there are powerful social mechanisms in place causing homeschooling families to want to hide pregnancies within the home, and that it is much easier to do when teenagers are cloistered within the home.
It's almost impossible to homeschool without at least two involved parent figures, which drops the likelihood of teen pregnancy significantly right there without a causal link.
Homeschooling families, in addition, are more frequently very conservative, which would have a dramatic impact on teen pregnancy; the average age for first sex among highly conservative people is 21, regardless of whether they homeschool or not.
That is, in fact, the situation we're in today, and it's only getting worse. The birthrate is highest in countries like Pakistan and India, especially. (I was referring, by the by, to social expectations that people have large families, if possible.) The biggest problem for everyone, though, isn't the risk of a world dominated by poor people who mistreat their women, but a world in which overpopulation leads to serious negative environmental impacts and a population crash.
Fortunately, the impact of poverty, education, and social norms on population growth can be mitigated. And of those three, the one with the biggest impact--education for women--is the easiest to deal with. There's a tremendous drop in the birth rate with available birth control and only a primary school education for women.
I'm not buying it, chief. Read a comedy by Aristophanes and tell me that the Athenian Greeks were much into "modesty and sexual conservatism." Read the poems of Martial, Juvenal, and Catullus, and look at the architecture and decorations preserved at Pompeii, and tell me that the Romans were.
Some of the ancient and beautiful temples in India happen to have bas-reliefs depicting bestiality. Illustrated sex manuals were a popular form of literature at one point in China's history. Japan has had tentacle porn since at least the 18th century.
Sure, every culture has its sexual mores. But that's not exactly the same thing.
I think that DS9 was the best of the Treks for reasons which have nothing to do with the above.
The ethnocentrism and blind idealism of the Federation is brought into view. Though supposedly welcoming and accepting, it views races like the Ferengi with distrust and even disdain.
Religion is treated more directly and more honestly than in most television shows, period. Almost unimportant (except as an occasional plot device) in the other Treks, now questions of personal religious conviction are addressed. And religious extremism and religiously motivated violence as a result have to be dealt with.
The question of the legitimate limit of violence when under occupation is brought up--and we don't get much of an answer at all.
Potential consequences of genetic enhancement are not only considered, but humanized in the figure of an important character.
In general, DS9 manages to help us get a grip on contemporary problems and worries by putting them at a distance from us (and, to be fair, by oversimplifying and exaggerating them). In doing so, it becomes much more interesting.
The problem, perhaps, is in the kind of work he tried to make free.
The evidence seems to point toward entertainment products being benefited by piracy. Not books on programming or other technical non-fiction. These are two very different kinds of products used in very different ways. One should not assume that trends in one should be a good indication of trends in the other.
NH has very generous gun laws. The same restrictions apply to gun ownership that apply in every state--concealed carry only with a license, no felons buying guns, etc.--but nearly every gun restriction that can be removed, is. There is no gun registration, and open carry is legal for any legitimate gun owner without any sort of license.
Yes, you can get an undergrad degree without either philosophy or psychology, but you'll probably end up with something like history and literature classes in exchange.
The point I'm trying to make is that no single subject can really be used as a criterion to determine whether or not an education is broad. I think the suggestion is a kind of funny.
You're probably right. I'd love to see universities require science and math majors to take a philosophy of science class.
Nonetheless, I would not say that the breadth of an education is contingent on any particular subject; an education which encompassed almost everything but that subject would undoubtedly be broad.
What you describe is not a "broad" education. Rather, you seem to be trying to make the case that a math education without physics is not "adequate."
I humbly submit that an individual with a Mathematics/English double major and a minor in Musical Theater would have a very broad education whether or not they were required to take physics.
That is a special case of the second definition of objectivity I mentioned. I did not restrict the definition to scientific objectivity because I think one can be "objective" about questions that do not fall within the purview of science. Nonetheless, you're still talking about the same kind of objectivity, differing only in methodological specifics.
The problems I outline all apply in science to some degree or another. Underdetermination is an especially big problem in saying that science is objective. How are we to be objective when the same experimental results can be explained by multiple theories?
It may be a sign of intellectual laziness, but "everything is objective" is just as much.
Think about it for a second. What does it mean to say that a statement or a position is "objectively true?" By what standards could one make such a statement?
One common way to define it is to say that the objective is what is in accordance with reality as it is, but this renders "objective truth" entirely unreachable. We can only perceive the world through five meager senses. We can certainly infer beyond them, but even then we are limited by our own mental capacities. It is impossible for us to know--and must always remain impossible for us to know--whether or not there might be critical defects in our reasoning process which cause us to make errors which we cannot ourselves spot.
So let's move down to the next most rigorous definition of objectivity: what independent, intelligent, unbiased observers can come to agree on based on all the information. This, too, is plagued with problems. A group of people can only come to agree on something insofar as their faculties and mental processes are in accord.
This definition works very well for small things. We can easily come to objective agreement about, say, whether or not there are tigers in India or whether or not Mattel makes toys. It tends to break down where differences in faculties and mental processes become too great. Whether or not one believes in a God depends on what kind of rationality one uses to answer the question. It's not entirely clear how the "objectivist" (not to be confused with an Objectivist) will adjudicate such questions.
Compounded with this problem is the question of empirical underdetermination. It does not ever seem to be the case that there is only one possible explanation for a series of events. There may be only one explanation worth taking seriously, but this, again, is much easier with small stuff, and very difficult with big stuff.
And that's not even getting into the question of what it means to say that science is objective. Every serious experiment is designed based on theoretical principles, and thus all experimental results are inherently theory-laden.
The twentieth century made it very clear that dramatic conceptual shifts and reinterpretations of previous theories can occur. We cannot say that they will not happen again. By the second definition of "objectivity" it seems to be the case that what is objective changes with time.
Recognizing the inherent subjectivity in just about everything is not an excuse for lazy thinking, however. We can still say with a degree of certainty that certain ideas are self-contradictory or in direct contradiction to experiential fact. And indeed, the task of navigating between, correlating, and interrelating various viewpoints becomes much more difficult. The answer is not to give up on thinking, but to challenge oneself think harder and more incisively.
In addition to what everyone else has said, it may also be to make sure you vote on the correct machine. In the 2004 election, there polling places where people from multiple districts met. The candidates for each position rotate through the numbers for each successive district, so the ballot for each district is one number off the next. There were people who, in confusion, went to the wrong machines. Which meant that a vote for Kerry accidentally went to Bush or vice versa.
Making sure people go to the right machines may be a state-wide rule designed to prevent that from happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Fantastic! Not only do we learn about all the mysterious deaths the Clintons were involved in, but we learn that "The USA is under occupation by Satanists in the White House."
I might be willing to pay attention if the site were a wee bit more credible.
I'm guessing from the other comments in this thread that you're in America. I'm not particularly worried about Muslim fundamentalism in the US.
The Muslim community in Europe is much different--much more insular, much less secular. This is in part because Europe doesn't have the institutions and culture of assimilation that America has developed.
Worldwide, it's hard to say what the role of Muslim "fundamentalism" is. This is in part because the word "fundamentalism" comes pre-loaded with all sorts of connotations (the phrase "moderate fundamentalist," for instance, is not often used). The word most commonly used for the phenomenon we're referring to that I've seen is "Islamism." Turkey is now being run by moderate Islamists who mandate Islamic Creationism to be taught in the public schools.
It may be true that non-Islamist voices outnumber Islamist voices--but if it is so, it is because of the vast numbers of much more moderate Muslims in Southeast Asia, far outnumbering the Muslims in the Arab states. Islamism is, for the most part, a movement to found among Arab and Persian Muslims--the ones who have emigrated in such high numbers to Europe.
If by "The rest of the civilized world," you mean to exclude predominantly Muslim countries such as Turkey, then yes, it's just an American problem. (I wouldn't say "North American" problem; evolution isn't much of a problem in Mexico or Canada.) Muslim versions of Creationism are gaining ground.
This may become a problem in the UK and other parts of Europe, as Muslims will probably react to secularism much in the same way American Evangelicals have. We're starting to see it happen.
Windows already comes with an FTP client.
Basic FTP clients aren't exactly a major source of income, so I don't think any sort of anti-trust suit would get anywhere.
It's not so much that they'll seem ok as that there won't be any other way things can go.
The major thing I'm worried about is what might happen to nuclear weapons during the ensuing conflicts.
That might be true to some extent in free societies like those in Western Europe, America, Canada, etc., though I think you probably overestimate the potential upward mobility even there.
However, I don't see how you could reasonably generalize your experience to China, India, Southeast Asia, or Central and South America.
Where exactly did you get that statistic? I'm somewhat skeptical that it's as powerful an effect as you seem to be implying. It's very difficult to obtain valid statistics on homeschooling, in the first place. Then you have to consider that there are powerful social mechanisms in place causing homeschooling families to want to hide pregnancies within the home, and that it is much easier to do when teenagers are cloistered within the home.
It's almost impossible to homeschool without at least two involved parent figures, which drops the likelihood of teen pregnancy significantly right there without a causal link.
Homeschooling families, in addition, are more frequently very conservative, which would have a dramatic impact on teen pregnancy; the average age for first sex among highly conservative people is 21, regardless of whether they homeschool or not.
That's probably less true than you think. While stupidity might be a factor, it's by far outweighed in importance by other factors.
That is, in fact, the situation we're in today, and it's only getting worse. The birthrate is highest in countries like Pakistan and India, especially. (I was referring, by the by, to social expectations that people have large families, if possible.) The biggest problem for everyone, though, isn't the risk of a world dominated by poor people who mistreat their women, but a world in which overpopulation leads to serious negative environmental impacts and a population crash.
Fortunately, the impact of poverty, education, and social norms on population growth can be mitigated. And of those three, the one with the biggest impact--education for women--is the easiest to deal with. There's a tremendous drop in the birth rate with available birth control and only a primary school education for women.
I'm not buying it, chief. Read a comedy by Aristophanes and tell me that the Athenian Greeks were much into "modesty and sexual conservatism." Read the poems of Martial, Juvenal, and Catullus, and look at the architecture and decorations preserved at Pompeii, and tell me that the Romans were.
Some of the ancient and beautiful temples in India happen to have bas-reliefs depicting bestiality. Illustrated sex manuals were a popular form of literature at one point in China's history. Japan has had tentacle porn since at least the 18th century.
Sure, every culture has its sexual mores. But that's not exactly the same thing.
Ah, yes, Idiocracy. You make a compelling argument.
Forget factors like poverty, education of women, and social expectations. It's being stupid that drives up the birth rate.
And I know that because a movie told me so.
Gehenna and Tartarus, as well.
Right. You don't use a button. You write the markup code yourself.
It's pretty easy.
The US government funding mind control research using LSD would probably qualify. The CIA publicly admitted it in the 70's.
I think that DS9 was the best of the Treks for reasons which have nothing to do with the above.
The ethnocentrism and blind idealism of the Federation is brought into view. Though supposedly welcoming and accepting, it views races like the Ferengi with distrust and even disdain.
Religion is treated more directly and more honestly than in most television shows, period. Almost unimportant (except as an occasional plot device) in the other Treks, now questions of personal religious conviction are addressed. And religious extremism and religiously motivated violence as a result have to be dealt with.
The question of the legitimate limit of violence when under occupation is brought up--and we don't get much of an answer at all.
Potential consequences of genetic enhancement are not only considered, but humanized in the figure of an important character.
In general, DS9 manages to help us get a grip on contemporary problems and worries by putting them at a distance from us (and, to be fair, by oversimplifying and exaggerating them). In doing so, it becomes much more interesting.
The problem, perhaps, is in the kind of work he tried to make free. The evidence seems to point toward entertainment products being benefited by piracy. Not books on programming or other technical non-fiction. These are two very different kinds of products used in very different ways. One should not assume that trends in one should be a good indication of trends in the other.
NH has very generous gun laws. The same restrictions apply to gun ownership that apply in every state--concealed carry only with a license, no felons buying guns, etc.--but nearly every gun restriction that can be removed, is. There is no gun registration, and open carry is legal for any legitimate gun owner without any sort of license.
Yes, you can get an undergrad degree without either philosophy or psychology, but you'll probably end up with something like history and literature classes in exchange.
The point I'm trying to make is that no single subject can really be used as a criterion to determine whether or not an education is broad. I think the suggestion is a kind of funny.
You're probably right. I'd love to see universities require science and math majors to take a philosophy of science class.
Nonetheless, I would not say that the breadth of an education is contingent on any particular subject; an education which encompassed almost everything but that subject would undoubtedly be broad.
What you describe is not a "broad" education. Rather, you seem to be trying to make the case that a math education without physics is not "adequate."
I humbly submit that an individual with a Mathematics/English double major and a minor in Musical Theater would have a very broad education whether or not they were required to take physics.
Ooh, I like this game.
If you have never taken any psychology classes, you do NOT have a broad education. Period.
If you have never taken any philosophy classes, you do NOT have a broad education. Period.
If you have never taken any accounting classes, you do NOT have a broad education. Period.
This is fun!
That is a special case of the second definition of objectivity I mentioned. I did not restrict the definition to scientific objectivity because I think one can be "objective" about questions that do not fall within the purview of science. Nonetheless, you're still talking about the same kind of objectivity, differing only in methodological specifics.
The problems I outline all apply in science to some degree or another. Underdetermination is an especially big problem in saying that science is objective. How are we to be objective when the same experimental results can be explained by multiple theories?
It may be a sign of intellectual laziness, but "everything is objective" is just as much.
Think about it for a second. What does it mean to say that a statement or a position is "objectively true?" By what standards could one make such a statement?
One common way to define it is to say that the objective is what is in accordance with reality as it is, but this renders "objective truth" entirely unreachable. We can only perceive the world through five meager senses. We can certainly infer beyond them, but even then we are limited by our own mental capacities. It is impossible for us to know--and must always remain impossible for us to know--whether or not there might be critical defects in our reasoning process which cause us to make errors which we cannot ourselves spot.
So let's move down to the next most rigorous definition of objectivity: what independent, intelligent, unbiased observers can come to agree on based on all the information. This, too, is plagued with problems. A group of people can only come to agree on something insofar as their faculties and mental processes are in accord.
This definition works very well for small things. We can easily come to objective agreement about, say, whether or not there are tigers in India or whether or not Mattel makes toys. It tends to break down where differences in faculties and mental processes become too great. Whether or not one believes in a God depends on what kind of rationality one uses to answer the question. It's not entirely clear how the "objectivist" (not to be confused with an Objectivist) will adjudicate such questions.
Compounded with this problem is the question of empirical underdetermination. It does not ever seem to be the case that there is only one possible explanation for a series of events. There may be only one explanation worth taking seriously, but this, again, is much easier with small stuff, and very difficult with big stuff.
And that's not even getting into the question of what it means to say that science is objective. Every serious experiment is designed based on theoretical principles, and thus all experimental results are inherently theory-laden.
The twentieth century made it very clear that dramatic conceptual shifts and reinterpretations of previous theories can occur. We cannot say that they will not happen again. By the second definition of "objectivity" it seems to be the case that what is objective changes with time.
Recognizing the inherent subjectivity in just about everything is not an excuse for lazy thinking, however. We can still say with a degree of certainty that certain ideas are self-contradictory or in direct contradiction to experiential fact. And indeed, the task of navigating between, correlating, and interrelating various viewpoints becomes much more difficult. The answer is not to give up on thinking, but to challenge oneself think harder and more incisively.
Only if you're Zoroastrian.
In addition to what everyone else has said, it may also be to make sure you vote on the correct machine. In the 2004 election, there polling places where people from multiple districts met. The candidates for each position rotate through the numbers for each successive district, so the ballot for each district is one number off the next. There were people who, in confusion, went to the wrong machines. Which meant that a vote for Kerry accidentally went to Bush or vice versa. Making sure people go to the right machines may be a state-wide rule designed to prevent that from happening.