Luck really has nothing to do with it. What you are saying could be equated with throwing some carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen and some vitamin C in a blender, hitting puree and getting an orange!
You are right, but I didn't say that. In my original post, I was trying to say how our "luckiness" is explained by modern monotheists as being attributed to divine action. Of course I got modded away to hell, so you're wise posting anon.
Thank you for posting that. People simply do not have the imagination to see the difficulty in this issue. While we are very lucky for the mutation chain of evolution and the interplay of environment and genes(your cosmic ray thing is a simple example of this) to have worked out the way it did, the starting point as you noted is much more improbable. Brute-forcing the formation of proteins+DNA+precise interactions necessary for needed cellular structure is not going to yield times within the age of the universe, let alone th age of the planet. We are very lucky.
Basic probability also suggests that it is extremely unlikely that we are an isolated occurrence...You'd have to buy into Creationism to think that such as we could never have happened anywhere else.
No, basic probability might say that the formation of a planet like ours with the necessary conditions to support simple life forms is not amazingly difficult. However, the formation of chemical structures into something organic (a reproductive cell)is *incredibly* unlikely, and was viewed by people like Pasteur to be impossible. We talked about that in this post a couple of days back. Summary: if you can't make it in a lab with all the biochemistry available today, basic probability says it doesn't just happen on it's own.
Now this doesn't have to lead to some silly creationist magic. It's just a mathematical fact, the only type of fact there is.
We should not be trying to figure out the probability of some process occurring by looking at the philosophical consequences. We should analyse the events themselves, difficult as that may be. If a probablistic analysis of the events that constitute evolutionary development lead us to believe that evolution is almost impossible, then that doesn't mean we have to oppose them because they suggest God had a hand in it.
I agree with every word you've said, except perhaps that being "chance events" does not mean there need to be other occurences in the universe, provided the probability is low enough.
But if you have an entire ocean's worth of the chemical broth, with various energy sources (solar, lightning strike, geological) to drive some of the necessary exothermic reactions then the likelihood approaches 1 that some self replicating aggregation of chemicals will eventually arise.
You don't get it: it is far more "possible" to be able to engineer this in a lab(and I'm not talkng about a soup dish) then it is to depend on some arbitrary reaction in the oceans. Yet that too has proved practically impossible so far, despite our very strong biochemical capabilities. The likelihood of a living cell forming does not approach 1 at all - the "self-replicating aggregation" you speak of is composed of several complex structures/solutions that support the genetic material, and the first RNA/DNA needs to actually describe those same structures. Nobody knows how exactly the first cells formed. There are only logical guesses at some "spurious chemical activity" that produced the first living cell, but how exactly that happened is not clear, otherwise we would have been able to artificially produce the same compounds again. A respiring, reproductive cell however is a lot more than an aggregation of chemicals. There is a reason why Pasteur once said that the organic cannot arise from the inorganic.
As for the jokers who modded the first post down: why? Is the passing mention of theism in the end too painful to bear?
Re:The most likely scenario
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
Life is an "accident" that cannot be repeated. We have engineering capabilities at the nano-scale today, but we cannot produce a single, primitive living cell despite knowing almost everything about them.
The reason why there is nobody else out there is because the elementary chemical interactions necessary for the first living cell to exist and reproduce, have very little probability of occuring. It's like playing a video of a glass of water being shattered, only BACKWARDS. How likely is it for conditions to exist so that the shards and the water molecules to pick themselves up off the floor, come into contact with each other just the right way and finally form a glass of water? It *is* possible, but the probability is so low it probably could not happen in the entire history of the universe/multiverse as we know it.
Even if the planetary conditions, chemical environment, temprature and everything else that resulted in the formation were to be replicated(and we can do this easily in a lab), a large number of extremely delicate structures need to form in the same place and into contact with each other in JUST the right manner to produce a SUCCESSFUL organism with DNA, cell wall..etc. Remember, there is no evolution involved with the first cell. It's either dead or reproductive. There are no second chances.
As for theology, I talked to several people who, in this almost abstract realm of probablistic philosophy, see God as not only a plausible reason for the development of life as such, but indeed the only one. Theories vary. Some will tell you that the entire history of the universe was planned/calculated for this to happen, meaning the basic physical entities and properties(energy, matter, the 4 "forces") of the universe were designed to produce this result. Others will say that there is a constant divine intervention operating at unseen levels to "fine tune" natural events. I currently to not subscribe to any of that, and quite frankly don't know what to say. Just thought I'd chip in to tell you it is not as simple as you make it to be.
Honestly, if this were an attempt to bring us down for good, it would simply be far, far easier to just use the backend offices of the banks which have been offshored, and take out our economic system.
Please elaborate on this. I don't think it is possible for them to do this undetected, and if it isn't undetected by the banks then it is also reversible (transactions can be cancelled/declared fraudulent..etc).
AS for the link you provided - it is truly shocking. Not many people have the knowledge this guy has and are willing to use it this way. That guy is actually backtracking them, he was compromising their machines and monitoring their traffic, going right back to the original networks. That is not very easy at all. I hope he is still doing it in spite of the feds.
Do you hear that sound? Really faint but high pitched? Thats Einstein screaming from 6 feet below:) j/k
Your question makes no sense because "dimensions" aren't always just abstract ideas: when we say time is the fourth "dimension" it is because of the role time plays when you consider the coordinates of objects in good old 3D reality. I.e when you give the location of an object you need to specify the x, y, z and the WHEN. The wikipedia article on special relativity is a really good primer on this, check it out. As for other "dimensions", they are indeed mathematical abstractions used in equations that involve linear algebra where vector spaces can be 5 dimensional..etc even though that has nothing to do with Physical reality. There is no "extra dimension" from what I know, just matrices and equations used to model the dimensions we know by bringing in other abstractions.
A lot of mathematics is needed to even begin looking at serious theoretical physics. Hilbert, Max Born and others are the legs that Einstein's later work stands on.
I'm saying is that I haven't been to a movie since star wars ep III
Your condition may be purely psychological. Lots of people haven't stepped into a movie theatre since star wars - they weren't about to live through that kind of experience again.
But I kid of course: Cinema will exist as long as social life does. It's part of "going out", whether the movies are getting shittier or not.
You haven't really found a counter example: the differences are subtle. Greek culture maintained the dignity of the free woman(as opposed to the slave) and the preservance of lineage through marriage, like many other ancient cultures. The Greeks and Romans did not let their daughters get screwed by random strangers or even casual partners. Prostitution existed, and boys(weak/soft/effeminate) were also used as sexual substitutes by the adult men who did not want the complications of pregnancy, but between the wealthy/nobility the institution of marriage was mandatory for access to the girls. In other words, girls who weren't "trash" meant marriage, not one night stands. As for the boys referred to above, they were denied most political rights due to their status suffering from their being penetrated anally by other men.
There was a lot of sexism involved - what was acceptable for men did not go for women. But I am not here to defend the Greeks and Romans. I'm just trying to describe how we have become habituated to something that was never part of most orderly forms of society before.
so they can freely be subjected to to one of the sickest, most twisted sexual fetishes: abstinence
Isn't it rather strange that practically every culture and religion the world over, regards this "sick fetish" in a positive light even to the degree of enforcing it in some cases? The Chinese, the Egyptians, Zulu Virgins and the good folks of Wisconsin..what do they have in common? A basic view of social order - something which sex is very much a part of.
Isn't it even a LITTLE dishevelling for you to notice that in ALL the above communities there are reservations about sexual relationships? It is not "sick" for people to restrict themselves (notice the word themselves) to marital sex - it is noble, dignified, beautiful even. I strongly advocate it even though I did not practice it(didn't think that way back then). You don't see it that way because the unreserved satisfaction of animal instinct is worth more to you than universal values that are intrinsic to the human being and the human ego.
I am against state intervention as much as yourself, but you need to realize it's not just the religious fundamentalists who have moral standards ragarding sex. It's the post-modern hedonists who don't.
Your first point is spot on; I disagree with the second.
There is no chance involved with the state of the universe being as it is. Probability depends on the lack of info concerning some aspect in the occurence of an event, coupled with an understanding of the various possible outcomes. Chances are, in other words, a product of the lack of knowledge at some level.
But even if we do not understand fully the universe and the entities that embody it's existence (matter, energy) we must submit to the fact that everything could not have existed any other way. Starting from the big bang (assume it is correct for now), the physical state of the universe and every miniscule particle or quanta is predetermined by the nature of the universe - the nature that theoretical physics has tried so hard to explain. Every movement of a photon, every change in electron state, every interaction resulting from one of the 4 main observed forces is directed by characteristics that exist even in spite of our ignorance. I'm not preaching determinism here(no time for that argument), just saying that there is no reason for anything to occur in any other manner than it has occurred..the universe (or some part of it) must be different for that to happen, and there is no reason for the universe to be different.
This is why a dialog with the GP poses a dilemma. He claims that since there are so many perceived possibilities for the progression of physical nature, the fact that we ended up this way is startling. If I were to remind him that there has only been one real possibility all along, I would be making matters WORSE, because that means the wondrous universe resulted from the only possible chain of events, and that last sentence itself should make you uncomfortable.
Worse still, theoretical physics is almost surely doomed to fail in providing us with a reason for existence in the first place. Why are the universal entities the way they are? Why do they happen to "be", to "exist"? A true grand unification of theories will need to be based on mathematics ALONE, and the problem with mathematics is that "logic" is conceptual - imaginary - and the physical universe is not.
God is a good answer because the only good answers will be the ones we cannot, by definition, understand. Have a nice day, Richard.
Excellent point. Sectarian violence is almost never about the theological differences that cause the sects to exist in the first place - the people who engage in the barbarism taking place today probably do not understand the theology.
It's all about "us and them". Always been this way. The different sects are indeed intolerable of each others' beliefs, but they'll only rip at each others throats when it comes to issues of control: the problem of power. That said, the shiites are the main problem in this particular example due to the fact that the entire theology revolves around a political issue. I.e, it is unsurprising that they are intolerable about control because that is why they exist to begin with. Everything after that - the tit for tat violence - is about ignorant hatred.
The lack of empathy is the reason behind any conflict, even when one side is "wrong".
So now we can go about the business of signing up without pretending there's something in the way, eh? Should have been done a while ago I think, around the time people started having 90+ unused invites in their accounts. Maybe it's that google is getting more confident about their storage capability, but I doubt it.
if friends*1000 invites_available_per_capita
open_it_up_for_gods_sake()
If nothing else, at least one thing you can say about rapists is that they are not as lazy as spammers, and that should really be considered when coming up with sentences for them.
What? I hope there's a typo in there, I really do.
Yes, but botnets cannot be effective in such attacks, methinks. The attacks are "traffic" as well..they need to be routed. If they take out routers haphazardly the attacker network can easily cut itself off as much as it can screw you.
Indeed. Also, it is not very easy to compromise a subject's computer if they are not connected to the internet all the time and take dynamic IP's from their service provider (like most of the people I know). The police will need ISP cooperation which, I hope, required some sort of warrant in any case (i.e before this fine law). How else would you get to the machine the first time?
There are pretty serious flaws in trying to use the Christian scriptures as a source of understanding while maintaining that they cannot serve this purpose due to their obvious contradictions and the fact that they are no longer considered "perfectly divine", even by the Christians themselves.
The gist of the article you linked to was simply this: lack of media coverage = complete lack of evidence. While I don't believe in the Christian claims regarding the divinity of this man, I must say the author was not very thorough. There was definitely something going on during that time, some very strange activities of a man who was very special. The Muslim book does a decent job of explaining the whole ordeal, and the fact that it comes from an illiterate man in the deserts of Arabia is likewise very remarkable.
Just because a perfect match between Christian theology and historical documentation doesn't exist does NOT mean that nothing happened.
They search my house and find some evidence that they weren't looking for. It doesn't seem fair for that evidence to be admissible in court, and I think they should require a new warrant to search for that evidence in a separate investigation. Perhaps so, but you are being a little unrealistic to say the least. If they find the bloodied corpse of a child in your house, should they quietly leave and forget about it for the time being because, after all, they were only looking for a stash of pot? Considering cases like these, it quickly becomes apparent that the severity of the accidentally discovered crime will probably decide the police's course of action, and drawing lines on severity is no simple matter.
The question being asked is whether they have a right to search inside your home in the first place. I think that the arguments on both sides will reduce this issue to a case by case consideration. You cannot blanket-judge these situations, whether in your analogies to the physical or in the hi-tech realm. The judges need to be aware of what is happening every time.
Thank you for that. I haven't seen that many intelligent posts here about the issue, and yours is very interesting as well. Hope someone who still has mod points sees it.
There is actually a lot about dominance and sex, what you said about women being the value item is at the heart of it all. Being viewed naked would understandably cause them problems, but being used as sexual instruments is probably more of a degrading experience. This is why I made the reference to psychology in the first place. Both porn and prostitution take the dignity out of the women involved, and the Lovelace story you pointed to is a perfect example of the gory details of that life.
Slashdot porn addicts need to snap out of the fantasy world being fed to them in pics and movieclips. Underneath, porn is very very ugly.
Would you like to see your sister in one of those movies? What about your daughter..your mom?
The "ban" discussion does not interest me here, but you need to realize that women being stripped naked, dominated and filmed for people's viewing pleasure is indeed a disgusting and demeaning prospect, even if they are in it of their own accord. I cannot explain this to you any better because this is less about mathematical logic then it is about human feelings. Sure, we've all seen some pr0n in our time, but in what kind of regard do we hold these women? Flesh. Hot asses. Commodities, practically - not very different from prostitutes.
If you think about it, selling the most intimate and emotional experience you have with your body is not only a loss of decency, modesty and all the universal values that drive cultures the world over to approach sex with restraint, it is a loss of human worth as well. And if you feel my post is a bit too aggressive, remember that the biggest enemies of prostitution..etc are in fact the feminists and the ex-hookers.
Methematical theories are the only ones that can be "proved", but theoretical physics can take a very critical turn in the next century or so if mathematical models are the purposed output, not just attempts at describing phenomena as we know them by using a model. I am not in this field, but I see no way for the universe to be explained - in a completely athiest manner - without the universe and all its characteristics, particles, and forces being a mathematical necessity. Yes, very "abstract", but the universe is very real. "Why" is the question that needs to be be answered.
I do not believe there is anyone today who can give us satisfactory answers.
Slashdot Mirror
Luck really has nothing to do with it. What you are saying could be equated with throwing some carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen and some vitamin C in a blender, hitting puree and getting an orange!
You are right, but I didn't say that. In my original post, I was trying to say how our "luckiness" is explained by modern monotheists as being attributed to divine action. Of course I got modded away to hell, so you're wise posting anon.
Thank you for posting that. People simply do not have the imagination to see the difficulty in this issue. While we are very lucky for the mutation chain of evolution and the interplay of environment and genes(your cosmic ray thing is a simple example of this) to have worked out the way it did, the starting point as you noted is much more improbable. Brute-forcing the formation of proteins+DNA+precise interactions necessary for needed cellular structure is not going to yield times within the age of the universe, let alone th age of the planet. We are very lucky.
No, basic probability might say that the formation of a planet like ours with the necessary conditions to support simple life forms is not amazingly difficult. However, the formation of chemical structures into something organic (a reproductive cell)is *incredibly* unlikely, and was viewed by people like Pasteur to be impossible. We talked about that in this post a couple of days back. Summary: if you can't make it in a lab with all the biochemistry available today, basic probability says it doesn't just happen on it's own.
Now this doesn't have to lead to some silly creationist magic. It's just a mathematical fact, the only type of fact there is.
We should not be trying to figure out the probability of some process occurring by looking at the philosophical consequences. We should analyse the events themselves, difficult as that may be. If a probablistic analysis of the events that constitute evolutionary development lead us to believe that evolution is almost impossible, then that doesn't mean we have to oppose them because they suggest God had a hand in it.
I agree with every word you've said, except perhaps that being "chance events" does not mean there need to be other occurences in the universe, provided the probability is low enough.
But if you have an entire ocean's worth of the chemical broth, with various energy sources (solar, lightning strike, geological) to drive some of the necessary exothermic reactions then the likelihood approaches 1 that some self replicating aggregation of chemicals will eventually arise.
You don't get it: it is far more "possible" to be able to engineer this in a lab(and I'm not talkng about a soup dish) then it is to depend on some arbitrary reaction in the oceans. Yet that too has proved practically impossible so far, despite our very strong biochemical capabilities. The likelihood of a living cell forming does not approach 1 at all - the "self-replicating aggregation" you speak of is composed of several complex structures/solutions that support the genetic material, and the first RNA/DNA needs to actually describe those same structures. Nobody knows how exactly the first cells formed. There are only logical guesses at some "spurious chemical activity" that produced the first living cell, but how exactly that happened is not clear, otherwise we would have been able to artificially produce the same compounds again. A respiring, reproductive cell however is a lot more than an aggregation of chemicals. There is a reason why Pasteur once said that the organic cannot arise from the inorganic.
As for the jokers who modded the first post down: why? Is the passing mention of theism in the end too painful to bear?
Life is an "accident" that cannot be repeated. We have engineering capabilities at the nano-scale today, but we cannot produce a single, primitive living cell despite knowing almost everything about them.
The reason why there is nobody else out there is because the elementary chemical interactions necessary for the first living cell to exist and reproduce, have very little probability of occuring. It's like playing a video of a glass of water being shattered, only BACKWARDS. How likely is it for conditions to exist so that the shards and the water molecules to pick themselves up off the floor, come into contact with each other just the right way and finally form a glass of water? It *is* possible, but the probability is so low it probably could not happen in the entire history of the universe/multiverse as we know it.
Even if the planetary conditions, chemical environment, temprature and everything else that resulted in the formation were to be replicated(and we can do this easily in a lab), a large number of extremely delicate structures need to form in the same place and into contact with each other in JUST the right manner to produce a SUCCESSFUL organism with DNA, cell wall..etc. Remember, there is no evolution involved with the first cell. It's either dead or reproductive. There are no second chances.
As for theology, I talked to several people who, in this almost abstract realm of probablistic philosophy, see God as not only a plausible reason for the development of life as such, but indeed the only one. Theories vary. Some will tell you that the entire history of the universe was planned/calculated for this to happen, meaning the basic physical entities and properties(energy, matter, the 4 "forces") of the universe were designed to produce this result. Others will say that there is a constant divine intervention operating at unseen levels to "fine tune" natural events. I currently to not subscribe to any of that, and quite frankly don't know what to say. Just thought I'd chip in to tell you it is not as simple as you make it to be.
Honestly, if this were an attempt to bring us down for good, it would simply be far, far easier to just use the backend offices of the banks which have been offshored, and take out our economic system.
Please elaborate on this. I don't think it is possible for them to do this undetected, and if it isn't undetected by the banks then it is also reversible (transactions can be cancelled/declared fraudulent..etc).
AS for the link you provided - it is truly shocking. Not many people have the knowledge this guy has and are willing to use it this way. That guy is actually backtracking them, he was compromising their machines and monitoring their traffic, going right back to the original networks. That is not very easy at all. I hope he is still doing it in spite of the feds.
Do you hear that sound? Really faint but high pitched? Thats Einstein screaming from 6 feet below :) j/k
Your question makes no sense because "dimensions" aren't always just abstract ideas: when we say time is the fourth "dimension" it is because of the role time plays when you consider the coordinates of objects in good old 3D reality. I.e when you give the location of an object you need to specify the x, y, z and the WHEN. The wikipedia article on special relativity is a really good primer on this, check it out. As for other "dimensions", they are indeed mathematical abstractions used in equations that involve linear algebra where vector spaces can be 5 dimensional..etc even though that has nothing to do with Physical reality. There is no "extra dimension" from what I know, just matrices and equations used to model the dimensions we know by bringing in other abstractions.
A lot of mathematics is needed to even begin looking at serious theoretical physics. Hilbert, Max Born and others are the legs that Einstein's later work stands on.
I'm saying is that I haven't been to a movie since star wars ep III
Your condition may be purely psychological. Lots of people haven't stepped into a movie theatre since star wars - they weren't about to live through that kind of experience again.
But I kid of course: Cinema will exist as long as social life does. It's part of "going out", whether the movies are getting shittier or not.
You haven't really found a counter example: the differences are subtle. Greek culture maintained the dignity of the free woman(as opposed to the slave) and the preservance of lineage through marriage, like many other ancient cultures. The Greeks and Romans did not let their daughters get screwed by random strangers or even casual partners. Prostitution existed, and boys(weak/soft/effeminate) were also used as sexual substitutes by the adult men who did not want the complications of pregnancy, but between the wealthy/nobility the institution of marriage was mandatory for access to the girls. In other words, girls who weren't "trash" meant marriage, not one night stands. As for the boys referred to above, they were denied most political rights due to their status suffering from their being penetrated anally by other men.
There was a lot of sexism involved - what was acceptable for men did not go for women. But I am not here to defend the Greeks and Romans. I'm just trying to describe how we have become habituated to something that was never part of most orderly forms of society before.
so they can freely be subjected to to one of the sickest, most twisted sexual fetishes: abstinence
Isn't it rather strange that practically every culture and religion the world over, regards this "sick fetish" in a positive light even to the degree of enforcing it in some cases? The Chinese, the Egyptians, Zulu Virgins and the good folks of Wisconsin..what do they have in common? A basic view of social order - something which sex is very much a part of.
Isn't it even a LITTLE dishevelling for you to notice that in ALL the above communities there are reservations about sexual relationships? It is not "sick" for people to restrict themselves (notice the word themselves) to marital sex - it is noble, dignified, beautiful even. I strongly advocate it even though I did not practice it(didn't think that way back then). You don't see it that way because the unreserved satisfaction of animal instinct is worth more to you than universal values that are intrinsic to the human being and the human ego.
I am against state intervention as much as yourself, but you need to realize it's not just the religious fundamentalists who have moral standards ragarding sex. It's the post-modern hedonists who don't.
Your first point is spot on; I disagree with the second.
There is no chance involved with the state of the universe being as it is. Probability depends on the lack of info concerning some aspect in the occurence of an event, coupled with an understanding of the various possible outcomes. Chances are, in other words, a product of the lack of knowledge at some level.
But even if we do not understand fully the universe and the entities that embody it's existence (matter, energy) we must submit to the fact that everything could not have existed any other way. Starting from the big bang (assume it is correct for now), the physical state of the universe and every miniscule particle or quanta is predetermined by the nature of the universe - the nature that theoretical physics has tried so hard to explain. Every movement of a photon, every change in electron state, every interaction resulting from one of the 4 main observed forces is directed by characteristics that exist even in spite of our ignorance. I'm not preaching determinism here(no time for that argument), just saying that there is no reason for anything to occur in any other manner than it has occurred..the universe (or some part of it) must be different for that to happen, and there is no reason for the universe to be different.
This is why a dialog with the GP poses a dilemma. He claims that since there are so many perceived possibilities for the progression of physical nature, the fact that we ended up this way is startling. If I were to remind him that there has only been one real possibility all along, I would be making matters WORSE, because that means the wondrous universe resulted from the only possible chain of events, and that last sentence itself should make you uncomfortable.
Worse still, theoretical physics is almost surely doomed to fail in providing us with a reason for existence in the first place. Why are the universal entities the way they are? Why do they happen to "be", to "exist"? A true grand unification of theories will need to be based on mathematics ALONE, and the problem with mathematics is that "logic" is conceptual - imaginary - and the physical universe is not.
God is a good answer because the only good answers will be the ones we cannot, by definition, understand. Have a nice day, Richard.
Excellent point. Sectarian violence is almost never about the theological differences that cause the sects to exist in the first place - the people who engage in the barbarism taking place today probably do not understand the theology.
It's all about "us and them". Always been this way. The different sects are indeed intolerable of each others' beliefs, but they'll only rip at each others throats when it comes to issues of control: the problem of power. That said, the shiites are the main problem in this particular example due to the fact that the entire theology revolves around a political issue. I.e, it is unsurprising that they are intolerable about control because that is why they exist to begin with. Everything after that - the tit for tat violence - is about ignorant hatred.
The lack of empathy is the reason behind any conflict, even when one side is "wrong".
So now we can go about the business of signing up without pretending there's something in the way, eh? Should have been done a while ago I think, around the time people started having 90+ unused invites in their accounts. Maybe it's that google is getting more confident about their storage capability, but I doubt it.
if friends*1000 invites_available_per_capita
open_it_up_for_gods_sake()
Thank you. I think you have summarized the relationship between communism and control(deprivation of freedom) in three sweet sentences.
If nothing else, at least one thing you can say about rapists is that they are not as lazy as spammers, and that should really be considered when coming up with sentences for them.
What? I hope there's a typo in there, I really do.
Yes, but botnets cannot be effective in such attacks, methinks. The attacks are "traffic" as well..they need to be routed. If they take out routers haphazardly the attacker network can easily cut itself off as much as it can screw you.
Indeed. Also, it is not very easy to compromise a subject's computer if they are not connected to the internet all the time and take dynamic IP's from their service provider (like most of the people I know). The police will need ISP cooperation which, I hope, required some sort of warrant in any case (i.e before this fine law). How else would you get to the machine the first time?
There are pretty serious flaws in trying to use the Christian scriptures as a source of understanding while maintaining that they cannot serve this purpose due to their obvious contradictions and the fact that they are no longer considered "perfectly divine", even by the Christians themselves.
The gist of the article you linked to was simply this: lack of media coverage = complete lack of evidence. While I don't believe in the Christian claims regarding the divinity of this man, I must say the author was not very thorough. There was definitely something going on during that time, some very strange activities of a man who was very special. The Muslim book does a decent job of explaining the whole ordeal, and the fact that it comes from an illiterate man in the deserts of Arabia is likewise very remarkable.
Just because a perfect match between Christian theology and historical documentation doesn't exist does NOT mean that nothing happened.
The question being asked is whether they have a right to search inside your home in the first place. I think that the arguments on both sides will reduce this issue to a case by case consideration. You cannot blanket-judge these situations, whether in your analogies to the physical or in the hi-tech realm. The judges need to be aware of what is happening every time.
Thank you for that. I haven't seen that many intelligent posts here about the issue, and yours is very interesting as well. Hope someone who still has mod points sees it.
There is actually a lot about dominance and sex, what you said about women being the value item is at the heart of it all. Being viewed naked would understandably cause them problems, but being used as sexual instruments is probably more of a degrading experience. This is why I made the reference to psychology in the first place. Both porn and prostitution take the dignity out of the women involved, and the Lovelace story you pointed to is a perfect example of the gory details of that life.
Slashdot porn addicts need to snap out of the fantasy world being fed to them in pics and movieclips. Underneath, porn is very very ugly.
Would you like to see your sister in one of those movies? What about your daughter..your mom?
The "ban" discussion does not interest me here, but you need to realize that women being stripped naked, dominated and filmed for people's viewing pleasure is indeed a disgusting and demeaning prospect, even if they are in it of their own accord. I cannot explain this to you any better because this is less about mathematical logic then it is about human feelings. Sure, we've all seen some pr0n in our time, but in what kind of regard do we hold these women? Flesh. Hot asses. Commodities, practically - not very different from prostitutes.
If you think about it, selling the most intimate and emotional experience you have with your body is not only a loss of decency, modesty and all the universal values that drive cultures the world over to approach sex with restraint, it is a loss of human worth as well.
And if you feel my post is a bit too aggressive, remember that the biggest enemies of prostitution..etc are in fact the feminists and the ex-hookers.
You're not trying to justify the murder, are you?
Thank you. I have now lost my apetite for the next year or so. And how did you come upon a story like that anyway?
Methematical theories are the only ones that can be "proved", but theoretical physics can take a very critical turn in the next century or so if mathematical models are the purposed output, not just attempts at describing phenomena as we know them by using a model. I am not in this field, but I see no way for the universe to be explained - in a completely athiest manner - without the universe and all its characteristics, particles, and forces being a mathematical necessity. Yes, very "abstract", but the universe is very real. "Why" is the question that needs to be be answered.
I do not believe there is anyone today who can give us satisfactory answers.