"Scalzi and I..."

;)

#41: QFT!

Why is it so hard for adults to wrap their heads around the kindergarten axiom: "Two wrongs don't make a right"?

I know arrogant assholes who push people around and cause problems. If I shot one of them, would people say, "Well, he *was* an asshole!" You see, the fact that the Critical Mass demonstrators are annoying asses -- or even breaking the law -- has nothing to do with the wrongness of the NYPD actions. Nothing. At. All.

@8 -- The standard WoW "leetspeak" is a very watered-down version. As I've known it for something like 15 years -- since the days of 1400bps modems and BBS's -- genuine leet looks like this prayer, here.

It's about time someone posted a piece of news like this. I was almost feeling safe for a minute there...

On a similar note, when will we declare war on one of these countries? You know, the War on Viruses. Viruses hate freedom.

On another note -- I hate the "poor people shouldn't have 20 children" argument from the logically deficient. I hear it all the time even here in the U.S., in reference to a very different standard of "poor." We all have built into us by evolution the compulsion to continue the species. Our DNA uses us as vessels to keep itself alive and ever-progressing. In "normal" evolution, this is often described as "survival of the fittest," wherein adaptive mutations and behaviors increase the chances of survival, and therefore their own continuance. In humans, our goal is rarely "survival" as much as it is "success." Because of the dynamics of our societies make it much easier for those born rich to be "successful" than those born poor, we are forced to engage in behaviors that increase the likelihood that our DNA will somehow make it "to the top." That means that rich people typically only need one offspring (often for an entire extended family), who then has a very high chance of "success." Conversely, the poor have a low chance of their offspring making it "to the top" (or to a secure position on the ladder), so they have to hedge their bets. The only way in a modern economy to do that is to have many offspring. If a family has a 5% chance that their children will succeed in this world, then they should have 20 children. Unfortunately, they more likely have a 0.05% chance or so, but one can only have so many children. We are all driven by our DNA, so it is silly to judge people based on such ideals as the individual happiness quotients of each child in that family. We are driven towards a more distant future.

I plan to have 20 kids just because I like my genes ;)

What's wrong with all you PC whiners out there?

I'm reminded of a few "credos," among them...

First, either nothing is off limits or everything is off limits. It's the South Park credo, and an apt one. While I'm not usually persuaded by slippery slope arguments, the censorship of humor IS a slippery slope, and one that is very important to watch. As soon as you say we can't make fun of poor people, the next group up the list whines that they should be off limits to (or some activist group whines for them), and as we acquiesce to group after group, we will find that nothing is left to laugh at -- except, maybe, quietly in our own homes. In "poor taste." Some people find poor taste, itself, funny, myself among them. That brings me to the next credo that I find apt.

"Love is never wrong." I hear it invoked often in reference to homosexual rights, in which context I agree with it. The idea is that love is in short supply in this world and that we should focus on maximizing it OVER tailoring it (towards some notion of "appropriateness"). I think the same principle easily applies to humor. Laughter and humor are *intrinsically valuable.* As such, just like with love, it is better to maximize it than to worry about the appropriateness of each instantiation thereof.

What is WRONG ("in poor taste" is such a silly moralistic concept) is increasing suffering. In this case, it would be wrong to point at them and laugh while they die (unless they felt better about the fact that their death could bring someone else some sort of happiness). To laugh over here is certainly not MORALLY wrong. "In poor taste" is not a moral ascription, but rather a knock at someone's psychological well-being, and an ill-conceived knock.

If YOU don't find it funny, don't laugh. Why ruin everyone else's fun? I not only have the *right* to laugh at, and poke fun at, whatever I want -- I also believe that such humor and fun ADD value to the world. It's a good thing. Chill the fuck out.

This is how I act in real life -- somewhere around this, Billy Madison, Tom Green, or Ace Ventura. People think it's hilarious when it's on TV. But only other spazzes think it's funny while you're actually doing it. Everyone else thinks you're insane and should be locked up, or annoying and embarrassing. And friends only have so much tolerance for your getting carried out of places...

The problem is in limited alternatives. I don't know how it is where you live, but here in NW, for any given city or area, you have maybe two decent broadband choices, and it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

Comcast is the choice I'm with now, even though they have repeatedly stated that anyone using "too much bandwidth" is subject to immediate termination without warning. They follow through, too, as several people in my area have been banned from Comcast. The biggest problem with it is that they don't even tell you what the upper threshold IS. It's just "too much," to be determined at their whim. Still, they're much faster and more reliable than Qwest, the only other option here. Portland (OR), though, is trying a couple new deals; one to add a competitive cable internet option to the city's own PUD, and another to try to create an umbrella of "free" (ad-based) wi-fi citywide. At least it's options...

Here's hoping YOU have somewhere else to move to after ditching Virgin.

@36 Wow, banned. Epic fail.

@8 -- I'm probably a morbid fuck, but I just laughed to tears at that category. I want to see it used as reasoning for more things...

@14 -- Seriously, that can't be ground in ENOUGH. Say it more. Say it to everything. Simple, facetious references to rabid and obsessive American stupidity are well-deserved.

@11 -- The puppet doesn't need to be intelligent to get things done; his master does.

The lack of compassion towards these "marks" throughout similar boingboing posts makes me ill. EVERYONE who falls for a con-man has made a "stupid" or "foolish" -- at least preventable -- mistake. That doesn't give them blame to share. The moral importance in this case lies in intent. The lenders clearly had malicious and predatory intent. The renters/buyers were merely foolish. There is NOT an equivalency of blame between the two!

I'm always surprised at how many intelligent people are "dumbist" (ie, seem to hate/fear dumb people). Should everyone really be intelligent? Some of the most wonderful people I know are dumb as shit. Some of the worst people I know are intelligent. Being foolish or stupid should not be a cardinal sin...

@6

"not only are the Iraqis being forced to dig their own grave AND pay for the execution bullet, they're making them buy the condom for the rape as well.."

I love it. And I'm stealing that quote for my own blog. :)

@8 -- You'd be my hero if you did it!

These are the kinds of things I'd love to see people follow through with regularly in the real world. :)

What's everyone talking about? I just noticed a sexy picture...

You guys don't... read the articles, do you??

Everything that is material is causally dependent. Therefore everything that is material is contingent. I think the individual that said my proof failed misunderstood what contingent means. It is usually defined through counterfactuals (ie; X is Contingent =df It could have been the case that X did not come to exist), but needn't be: the correct definition is "X is contingent =df It is possible that not-X" (clearly not physical possibility or logical possibility; metaphysical possibility here).

As for Socrates "argument," as even the poster admitted, it generates an obvious self-contradiction. I should have said "modern (or contemporary) philosopher" as Russelian logic wasn't around in Socrates' time and they didn't worry as much about being inconsistent/incoherent. No coherent philosophy can possibly boast that nothing can be known. It would also have to then say that no belief can be justified, including, of course, the belief that no belief can be justified. So they wouldn't be justified in believing that, either, and so they wouldn't (as a philosopher, since by nature, they require justifications for their beliefs). Obviously, non-philosophers, as shown on this forum, can believe any number of incoherent things. Just like non-scientists can believe in space wizards... ;)

Also, wow, the calls for narcissism and people acting like I'm such an ass. I may be an ass, but it is not by way of my expertise. If a physicist, who has spent years in college, labs, and writing for peer-reviewed journals, tells you something about particle mechanics, it is unlikely you will call him a jerk, an arrogant bastard, or leap into an argument with him about it. There's an incredibly annoying societal surge against logic (post-modernism is horrible, see my post right above this one), which unfairly discredits those of us who study it and work in/with it. I only ask for the same dignity you give the particle physicist for his field. Sure, you don't *have* to believe in logic (that's not true, really, or you wouldn't be able to form statements or link them together, or extrapolate, or abstract, etc.), but that's just like retorting to the physicist that quantum mechanics is pure nonsense. Prepare, as you do with me, to get a rant. :P

(I'm B :P)

(B: Something along the lines of logic being absolute.)

A: Logic is just something we made up!

B: Is that true?

A: Yes.

B: So it's not false.

A: No, it's true.

B: Can't it also be false?

A1: I guess so. (

B1: So it's also NOT something we made up.

A1: Sure.

B1: Then it's not something we made up. That's what I think, too...

A2: No, it can't ALSO be false if it's true. (

B2: It CAN'T? If it truly CANNOT be false and true, then logic is absolute. That is, it's impossible that logic be circumvented.

@100 (I did say I'd still respond to "attacks" :P)

Hence the qualifier: "rational." Science, without a qualifier, refers to inductive testing of theories, whereas rational science is the deductive testing of theories. Either one is a science because it's testing theories in order to validate them. Science simpliciter tests patterns in perception; rational science tests what must be and what can be and what must not be (not by patterns, but by absolutes). Still, though, the whole argument for that could take books, and has before. Suffice to say, analytic philosophers consider their field a rational science...

Speaking of something that would take books... PLENTY of philosophical theories have been "cast out," "kicked out," and even still bring up painful and embarrassing "memories" for philosophy. Just like with science. The scientists falsely judge the philosophers based on these mistakes, just as the religious often judge scientists based on their rocky past.

@99: Just replying to attacks; I'll discontinue the nitpicking ;) See 97 for an example.

@97: Wrong. It can be proven that God exists. Yes, 100%. Why isn't it common knowledge? Because its highly technical -- yet there are no gaps or loopholes, tricks or the like. It is "watertight." For my attempt to make it accessible, see http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=24065074&blogID=69705851
at my own blog. I don't mean to advertise myself, but I need to, as #99 has said, leave this thread alone. Included in the blog itself (aside from the blog's link to my actual paper) is a refutation of atheism (it's unprovable and untenable), and a strong endorsement of agnosticism. I agree with you there -- unless you have a long and careful study of modal logic, you don't have a VERY good reason to believe in God. But atheism is just silly -- "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" sums it up nicely, although badly oversimplified. As in most cases where science can't weigh in, skepticism (ie, suspending all judgment) is the best way to go. And always respectable...

I'm out of here. Any more people who want to reply to me -- or attack my views (or be smartasses like 85) -- can do so at the aforementioned blog post.

Logic IS my religion. I study it well, and take it very seriously. Sorry if that's annoying to some here...

@85 -- sorry, I didn't see all three blanks. Still, even the skeptic admits to (a) analytic propositions being knowable, (b) necessary propositions being knowable, and (c) the tenability of skepticism being knowable. None of them, in existence (as judged by my keeping up-to-date in peer-reviewed philosophical journals), are GLOBAL skeptics.

Relativists also know things. They just only know things of multiple relata. Plenty of things fall into that category. They can know things of the form "X is to Y" or, more often used, of the adverbial form, like "that wall appears whitely" (where there is an implicit relata that is being appeared to, but they won't say "to me," which implies the non-relative existence of a perceiver with coherent subjective apprehension).

@88 -- Shame on you. Theism detracts from rational inquiry?! Apparently you haven't looked into your histories of science or philosophy! Galileo was a theist, so was Einstein, so was Thomas Aquinas. In fact, the vast majority of those people who built the foundation of western rational thought were not only theists but Christians! MUCH of the logic we now owe for everything we hold dear as rationalists OR epicureans, we got specifically from people attempting to "pin down" the nature of God. From Aquinas to Descartes, even Einstein. Kant, to whom we arguably owe more of our modern science and philosophy than any other person that ever lived, was a very devout Christian.

Aren't you forgetting that Deists -- believers in a "clockmaker" God -- are also theists? I happen to be a theist, and a deist, and a VERY rational person!

@85: I *am* a philosopher. Please believe me that I've done the studying and know what I'm saying.

Nihilism is NOT the belief that we can't know anything. (That, by the way, is called Global Skepticism -- and I know FOR A FACT that no self-proclaimed global skeptic would agree with you about anything. They can't agree with something and still be a true global skeptic) Nihilism is either (a) the BELIEF (ie, purported or candidate knowledge) that NOTHING exists, or (b) the belief that nothing has any "deeper meaning."

There are three stances on any belief, P:
(a) P. (P is true). The theistic belief, for example.
(b) ~P. (P is not true). The atheist, or in your case, the nihilist. Their belief is just as much a positive belief, since there's a belief, Q, that says "Q =df P is not true" such that the opponent holds its negation. Nihilism is, therefore, a POSITIVE belief!
(c) The skeptical position. This holds many wordings: P is not tenable, We should suspend judgment as to whether P or not-P, P cannot be proven, etc. This is akin to agnosticism. Or in the BIG case, global skepticism. Look it up, and you will find that NO ONE believes it. If you can't believe ANYTHING, then you can't believe that you can't believe anything, either. I know of no true global skeptics, but I played one in a class to prove it COULD be done -- by answering every question with "Huh?" That's about all they can say...

@83 The burden of proof is on the believer. That person should have said, "If you can't prove anything, then you SHOULDN'T believe my wacky philosophy." In other words, they philosophically shot themselves in the foot.

And, as I explained a few posts above, there are plenty of things (at the very least, "analytic propositions" like bachelors are unmarried, and "necessary propositions" like squares have four corners) that are 100% provable. Smack whoever said that to you. They are giving us philosophers a bad name ;)

@80: If "God" isn't supernatural, then It doesn't pass the test for getting to be called "God." :P

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. It is infantile and epistemically irresponsible to believe in the supernatural (more accurately, to believe in discrete causal interaction between the natural and supernatural; though its merely pointless and ontologically irresponsible to believe in anything with no causal relation to the material world). What's more, it's silly to believe in a God that isn't supernatural. What gives it Godhood status, then?? So its either irresponsible or silly :)

@76 Sorry, just plain wrong. Saying that philosophically, we can never know anything, is like saying, "Scientifically, I am a 300-foot mega-hippopotamus." See, people think that philosophy is just something everyone understands and gets a piece of. But there are those of us who study it, and discover it to be a very coherent and well-developed rational science. And, just like physics or any other science, it has rules and agree-upon laws. NO philosopher would agree with you that we can't know anything. What about this: "All bachelors are unmarried." We KNOW that, because it's in the definition, and it can't possibly be false. There is no universe in the set of metaphysical universes, wherein there are married bachelors.

Similarly, there is a degree of INDUCTIVE certainty that meets the bar for knowledge. Whether or not you KNOW that there won't be diamonds in your dishwasher is certainly up for debate. But you DO know that you won't fly to the moon using your hair like a propeller. You do know that you won't jump over skyscrapers for fun. You do know that a fish will not be elected president. (They aren't allowed to run, btw). You also know that if you lose access to your brain, or it turns off completely (ie, stops processing electrical impulses), eg if you die, you will not be able to think. ;) Because one FOLLOWS the other. And you will know that you will not meet any married bachelors (where "bachelor" means "unmarried male").

@66: Again, your bar for knowledge is inanely high. By that same logic, I can't KNOW whether a bottle that I drop will fall to the ground until I try it. After all, gravity is only a law because it hasn't failed yet. But knowledge requires three things: (a) adequate justification, (b) belief, (c) truth. No, (c) does not require some divine "direct link" to what makes things true -- otherwise nothing would be knowable. I can at least say that I have plenty of justification for my belief. It is also true, as I pointed out:

A man without eyes cannot see; a man without a brain cannot think.

The point is this: you cannot say that I don't KNOW what will happen when I remove my eyes. I do. I don't have to "experience it when it comes" to know. Eyes are what LET me see.

To get less materialist (warning: I am NOT a materialist; I'm an epiphenomenalist dualist), all thought and consciousness are CAUSALLY DEPENDENT on the material brain. That is, if I insert a rod in a particular part of the brain, blocking communication, I will be unable to read words, but still able to interpret pictures. Moved again, I can read, but can't interpret pictures. Moved again, I cannot see. Moved correctly, I cannot think or experience at ALL. We can, with the same causal sureness with which we credit gravity (and I do KNOW that gravity exists, even though I can't define it!), predict the immaterial mind's (if it does exist) reactions to stimuli in the material brain. If I alter my serotonin levels, I will become happier or sadder, or more relaxed or agitated. I do believe that there is an immaterial mind -- but just as there is no picture on the monitor without the CPU, there is no mind without the brain to work it. Our vision, itself, is an immaterial thing (even surfaces don't actually exist in the material world, but they do in our vision), but it depends on the eye to create it -- it is causally dependent.

Determinate causation; it is enough for knowledge. I know that I will not have thought after I am dead. Just as I will not have sight. Similarly, sight is an interpretation of the movement of a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum through space -- to see, one would have to be able to absorb light, which would require a MATERIAL object for that absorption. Even if it didn't, ghosts aren't absorbing light, or we'd see them...

@53: "Win" was an ill-chosen word. Certainly, the enlightened have always ceased to remain enlightened after seizing power -- in any form, to any large degree.

The post I was commenting against declared something about hypocrisy -- either that the Christians' "war" against Atheists is hypocrisy, or that the atheists' picking up that gauntlet is a necessary hypocrisy. I think both are true.

I certainly don't advocate just "ignoring" it. But I also don't think that the more successful civil rights movements were *simply* ignoring the problem. Quite the opposite; but they were nonviolent.

My point about fighting fire with fire when fire is the very problem in the first place remains apt. The point is that when atheists become bigoted against Christians, and start exhibiting the same behavior and sentiment about which they complain so fervently, they "lose" (also ill-chosen, but an easy word to throw in for simplicity).

A battle over principles is never worth abandoning your principles. Makes sense, yes?

@55 -- Not a zombie? Undead, then, right? Okay -- Jesus is the walking dead -- the undead. Many would say that's enough to be a zombie. My friend gets incredibly annoyed whenever he sees a movie wherein zombies can run. "Zombies can't run," he says, as though he knows one. However, even in zombie "canon" Romero movies, zombies learn how to think. Jesus was a special zombie -- the kind that can think. :)

@#33:"To know for SURE what we as a human race have coming to us after we die is to expect the caterpillar to know what a thermal updraft feels like on fresh butterfly wings."

Someone said they liked this. I hate it.

I DO know **FOR SURE** (I want to say that in a mocking voice :P) what will happen when I die.

Do you know for sure what will happen if you poke out your eyes? You won't be able to see.

Do you know what will happen if you poke out your ears? You won't be able to hear.

Do you know what will happen if you poke out your whole brain? You won't be able to think.

Without reflection (thought), there is no experience. Without experience, we are not conscious. Without a brain, there is no mechanism for reflection. Hence -- we will be unconscious. Sure, you can hide behind the same "science just doesn't see my spirit" (which makes me wonder WHAT you think it COULD be composed of), but I CAN say FOR SURE that your spirit isn't, without you brain, capable of thought. JUST like your hand isn't capable of sight. Wrong instrument.

Let me put it to you another way? Ever been knocked out? You know why they call it "being unconscious," right? Because your thought centers are relatively inactive. And without them, no consciousness. You need nerves to feel, you need eyes to see, you need brain to think or have emotions.

Your "bar" for sureness is far, far too high. Some may say that we can't be sure of ANYTHING. But then, they aren't sure of that, either, and shouldn't be saying it, let alone proselytizing it...

@#33:"To know for SURE what we as a human race have coming to us after we die is to expect the caterpillar to know what a thermal updraft feels like on fresh butterfly wings."

Someone said they liked this. I hate it.

I DO know **FOR SURE** (I want to say that in a mocking voice :P) what will happen when I die.

Do you know for sure what will happen if you poke out your eyes? You won't be able to see.

Do you know what will happen if you poke out your ears? You won't be able to hear.

Do you know what will happen if you poke out your whole brain? You won't be able to think.

Without reflection (thought), there is no experience. Without experience, we are not conscious. Without a brain, there is no mechanism for reflection. Hence -- we will be unconscious. Sure, you can hide behind the same "science just doesn't see my spirit" (which makes me wonder WHAT you think it COULD be composed of), but I CAN say FOR SURE that your spirit isn't, without you brain, capable of thought. JUST like your hand isn't capable of sight. Wrong instrument.

Let me put it to you another way? Ever been knocked out? You know why they call it "being unconscious," right? Because your thought centers are relatively inactive. And without them, no consciousness. You need nerves to feel, you need eyes to see, you need brain to think or have emotions.

Your "bar" for sureness is far, far too high. Some may say that we can't be sure of ANYTHING. But then, they aren't sure of that, either, and shouldn't be saying it, let alone proselytizing it...

@50:

God is CERTAINLY a "person!" I think what you mean is that He is not a *human*. Not being a person would bar Him from being a God. Even a supercomputer with AI is a person. Anything with a personality is a person. Also, non-persons don't have moral responsibility, while the Christian God most certainly does.

You're reading the wrong book if you think He doesn't live in the sky. Several verses are very clear on this, and I can quote them to you if you really want me to. Jesus went to the sky, and so did Elijah, as I said. Heaven is a PLACE, which means that it has a spatial location (even a non-material place has a location), and according to the Bible, it is upward from us (yes, literally upward) -- putting it in space or in the sky (smart answer is space :P). He is also unmistakably invisible (as is Heaven, I assume, or we'd someday find it in a high-powered telescope!). I think all self-proclaimed mages (who should rightfully be asked first) would agree with me that magic(k) is the ability to alter reality in accordance with one's will. Because that's what causal sciences also allow us to do, I assume that magic(k) also requires that its effects be outside the predictable lines of scientific causality. God is most certainly magical. If not, He is mundane -- the two are exhaustive. Would you prefer Invisible Space Mage? More dignity, maybe?

People seem to act insulted when someone throws logic at God, like He's above it. He's not, and omnipotence has NOTHING to do with defying laws of logic. Can God make a rock to heavy for Him to life? Certainly not, since then there would be a rock such that He couldn't lift it (and lifting rocks -- of any size -- is well WITHIN the bounds of omnipotence, since it is a physical, not metaphysical, act). In fact, as that proves (as there's no logical contradiction involved) is that God also can't break metaphysical rules. Or moral or mathematical ones for that matter. Physical ones, yes, and there are plenty of those to retain His impressive divine power. Of magic.

The concept of God's divinity is NOT nuanced. It is this:

1) Essentially Omnipotent (=df "can do anything that is metaphysically possible")
2) Essentially Omniscient (=df "Is actively aware of all propositional truth values")
3) Essentially Perfectly Good (=df (a) "cannot violate moral laws," and (b) "must fulfill all moral obligations")
4) Necessarily Exists (big one to define, see Descartes' Meditations for some starters -- or learn modal logic/ontology for full concept)
5) Creator of the World (the "world" is modal universe alpha, the one we see and live in, and as this isn't an essential property, it works to stand in an existence-dependency relation to that universe, regardless of "will" involved -- arguably)

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity will add a lot to that list, including conformity to the Torah, for example. Still, He's just a really BIG and IMPRESSIVE invisible space wizard...

@25 "You cannot play live and let live with people who want to destroy you." I think Gandhi and MLK would have something to say about that. Also, simply in principle, what is the point of fighting fire with fire when your whole purpose lies in your distaste for fire in all its forms?

Your quote sounds dangerously like something some Fox News pundit might say about killing all the Arabs. It's, in fact, the exact philosophy behind everything from genocide to eugenics.

This is why the "enlightened" never win. They think they have to become unenlightened to get on top, and then history again scratches its head when, like always, the bottom becomes just like the top they toppled, and it all starts over again.

My apologies for my scathing comment against Boingboing's censorship. My post was *not* censored, as I had expected, and I can only guess that the poster above with censored text censored it him/herself.

@17 But even those who believe in God (ie, Jehovah/Yahweh, the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), believe that he is an "invisible sky wizard." It's a euphemism that certainly seems to imply that its believers are themselves silly, but only implicitly -- and surely only to those who also don't believe as the standard Christian does. Is He magical? Can he defy physics by His will? Then he is a wizard. Is He above us? According to many verses in the Bible, He is quite *literally* in the sky. That's where Elijah went, that's where Jesus went, that's where the voice always comes from, etc. Is He (generally speaking) invisible? Yes. While He may be technically "omnipresent," the Father (as well as Yahweh in Judaism) is clearly *above* us -- if not in the sky, then beyond it, in space. So He's either an invisible sky wizard or an invisible space wizard.

Incidentally, Jesus is a zombie. And Catholics, by their own chosen definitions, are cannibals.

If it sounds silly, you don't have to believe it. If you do believe it, own it.

Why is boing-boing censoring swear words?! Not only is it some *very* bizarre and archaic understanding of the relation of language to God's wishes that perpetuates the "swear-word" insanity... but it also seems grossly inappropriate for Boing Boing in particular!

For shame... Asshole. Cunt. Fuck. Shit.

It's one thing to kick someone off the boards for racism or bigotry. But these "bad words" are one of the silliest things I've ever seen in our society; and that's among some great competition!

@2:

ONE incident does not make a trend. The point is that you need a TREND to monitor. "If crime *rates* go down..." There isn't a terrorism "rate" from one event.

I could say that my hat wards of major meteor strikes wiping out most of the life on the planet. IT happened once, too...

@3

The statement is not time-indexed. The speaker did not use any term like "then." As such, the conjunction is paradoxical regardless of the spoken order of conjuncts ("commutative" law). In any case, you are mistaken: the time index doesn't matter -- UNLESS you were to state that you can't "have your cake and then [fail to have your cake AND eat your cake]." The having is always negated by the eating; so to eliminate the paradox, you'd need a trinary proposition.

Yes, I'm a philosophy grad. ;)

(And yes, my login name is Paradox spelled backwards :P)

In a world that "doesn't quite exist"? For shame, it not only certainly DOES exist, but as any philosopher will tell you (yes, much of philosophy IS black-and-white), there is no way for something to "partially" exist. The very nature of existence is, necessarily, dichotomous. I hate to be nitpicky, here, but ontological vagueness is a huge pet peeve! ;)

(PS, I know that no one else cares...)

There are so many responses I want to make, but I'll have to stick to the technical and recent, for my own sanity.

PSYCHOPATHS are not the people to whom you are referring. Wrong word, wrong people. You're thinking of sociopaths. In fact, "psychopath" is not in usage in mental health anymore (you know, like "retard" and "idiot" once were?).

Second, whether or not they are human is a ridiculous question. Genetically, they most certainly are. Philosophically, they most certainly are. A sociopath is quite simply someone with (a) antisocial personality disorder, and (b) who lacks empathy regarding the effects of his/her actions on others. While second order intentionality may be one of the points of pride of the human race over non-humans, that does not make it essential (by definition). We also pride ourselves on intelligence and opposable thumbs, but I don't hear many arguing as to whether or not unintelligent or THUMBLESS people are still "humans." That would be, well, retarded...

@7

I completely agree that the eeriest thing is how quickly and passively the public at large shrugs this off. Or doesn't even care enough to notice! Many people seem to think that this (and it isn't at all restricted to this area of government) is a result of people trusting their government more, or being more easily fooled by rhetoric and propaganda. I tend to think, instead, that several major movements -- from ("communist") progressivism to ("hippie") humanism to ("punk") counterculture -- have failed utterly, and that the general public has given up, with no fresh ideas on how to sway their own "representation" to do exactly that.

Also, if you HAVE the option to "tell them to shove it," then I envy you. My pride and ideals don't quite eclipse my desire to eat and sleep.

Indeed, #4; this is what the "values" movement should be about!

@6 -- I have to assume that's a joke, so to continue on it, it makes me think of a great "retort" game to GTA-style sandbox games. I want a sandbox game that revolves around the violence of incredible stupidity instead of violence qua violence. It would be great to see a different kind of video game insanity.

@4: I'm actually a big proponent of gun rights (though I don't own one myself), and I still think that people should have to jump through plenty of hoops to get them. I mean, I like that we get to drive, too, but I think that driving tests should be 1,000 times "harder" (more thorough). ALL rights have rational limits, as well they should. That said, I'd still prefer to err on the side of rights (as opposed to the side of security) when it comes down to it. I just don't think that gun licensing is "when it comes down to it." :P

@9 -- It's so great to see the subject of the article jump into the lion's den. I do so appreciate a good debate! :D

@11 -- I actually agree with Schulkin's idea in this respect. If activists never compromise, always represent unrealistic ideals, and continue to stay more means-oriented than goal-oriented, they will never accomplish anything in a capitalist, pragmatic world. Regardless of the companies' intentions or ill-will, the "proof is in the pudding:" if the most evil company in the world installs solar panels, it's less carbon emissions, period. Let an activist group dedicated to employee treatment deal with that. That's not this group's goal... If the company doesn't care at all about the environment, then, if anything, they're a BETTER target for this group to make "deals" with. As long as they follow through with their side of the bargain, it's a net gain for the environment. If they don't follow through, their image will not be aided, but tarnished (more so than before), and the very consumers they wished to attract will turn on them (since they are a shared set with this group, by necessity!). Win-win.

This is the kind of thing that I like to imagine will confuse the hell out of archaeologists in the future...

ENTROPY REIGNS SUPREME! It's pretty-much the ultimate inevitability. Entropy and irony...

Sigh... Whether it's been encouraged by popular usage, I don't know, but there are some serious problems here with understanding what it means to be a SKEPTIC.

Example: In the debate about the existence of God, it is the AGNOSTIC, not the atheist, who is a skeptic. A skeptic, by definition, RESERVES judgment as to whether the fact in question is true or false. They fail to believe ANYTHING completely (unless sufficiently justified), including the opposite of the proposition.

There is a big difference between
(SKEPTIC): "I don't believe that you can curse me to death."
(CYNIC): "I believe that you can't curse me to death."

The skeptic doesn't know and waits to find out. Of course, they are often smug, but that's because they tend to have an incredible disdain for those who do believe things without sufficient justification; NOT because the skeptic believes (positively) the opposite of the other person (at whom the skeptic is likely laughing).

That said... #10 got it right. ;)

"Real steampunk," with a list of strict criteria, is a silly concept. It's not only a fictional concept, but a vague aesthetic. It's just a "look," and this piece seems to fit it. As soon as you start pulling all of your elitist nonsense, you'll ruin the propagation of it amongst the amateurs that make up its useful fans...

#2

I hope it *hasn't* been addressed. Iron poisoning and suffocation may be scary, but I've never heard of a kid dying of a paper cut. Kids are *way* too overprotected these days. The old playgrounds were a hell of a lot more fun than the new ones, and all toys will soon become the exact same grey, supersoft pillows...

Oh yeah, we were gonna get those domes, plastic streets, and supercars, but we spent the money on a war. Sorry, guys...

@21: Exactly! Our very own quotes will sound like this someday. It's one of the redeeming aspects of modern society that the line of unacceptable prejudice keeps getting rewritten. I mean, I don't like the "PC" aspect of "enforcing" normalcy, but the awareness is nice to see!

That said, these quotes are nowhere NEAR as tasteless, insulting, bigoted, or bizarre as any of my own grandparents' views or quotes. I wouldn't even repeat them here. And my grandparents (on one side, at least) are Stanford educated and Bay natives, not some ranch Texans or disconnected royalty. Old people will always look and sound crazy to young people. I'm looking forward to appalling the youth! :D

Urban myth in the making? It's impossible to tell anymore. With well over 6 billion people in the world, the odds are high that just about anything that *can* (physically) happen, will happen. From the old Ripley's Believe it or Not articles to the Guinness Book, reality is far stranger than fiction. I tend to maintain some healthy skepticism about almost anything, but I also never *disbelieve* anything unless it's impossible. This world is just too weird...

Silly BBers... The whole reason that there's a "Chicken or the Egg" debate about *some* things is *because* that debate is purely academic (ie, merely philosophical). In THIS case, we know which came first: the lending industry saw an opportunity for profit via the gross misleading and manipulation of a gullible/greedy/desperate/whatever public. The reason that the con artist is at fault in a scam is just as much a causal reason as it is a matter of intent. Here we have both: causal and intent. They set up an "operation" with malicious intent. After that, it doesn't MATTER *why* people bought into it. It doesn't matter if the people bought into it because they were greedy or stupid. Regardless of pragmatics and legality, both the malicious intent and the premeditation leave the lending industry squarely at fault.

Ethics classes should be mandatory...

I think people were too quick to dismiss the philosophical importance of the second post.

First off, the existence of SURFACES is merely an optical illusion: there is no surface (there are none anywhere in the universe), there are no colors or shades thereof (ontological infection: no type, no token), and photoshop/paint are manipulating a completely different set of data than your subjective interpretation of an illusion of an illusion of an illusion...

I will agree with #25: they ARE, in fact, different. These *images* only exist as such in my mind. If the colors (which also only exist in my mind as such) *SEEM* different (and all they are are "seemings"), then they ARE different. I'm NOT a subjectivist, but some things -- like images and colors -- are purely subjective. There are objective facts about these images, but photoshop is lying to you -- the objective facts have nothing to do with color ;)

I've always been a fan of the occurrences wherein the other person is clearly wrong, and yet *they* stoop to the condescending, patronizing voice antics. It makes a smirk and a pointing finger all that much more rewarding. Like a warm, fuzzy, "you did this to yourself" feeling in the tummy.

That said, the same smirk-and-point *would* get you beaten in the States. I really have been beaten by a cop for asking smarmily for a badge number. Well, it was a baton to the elbow, but it hurt like hell!

This was the first game that I *didn't* pirate in a very long time. Well, aside from entirely multiplayer games like MMORPGs. I loved that they just let me download it from their site, install it DRM-free, and play away! It's kind of like paying for the pay-optional Radiohead album -- I support these moves in principle and practice.

If a company puts a new Securom feature on their game, it's like a challenge (to crack it). If a company releases a DRM-free game, it's like the opposite challenge is being made (to pay for it). Someday, they'll learn. :P

Also, GalCivII is an EXCELLENT game. You'll find nothing but incredible reviews for it. Long live 4X! :)

@#1:

This is the same kind of ignorance that I see all the time when people assume that a movie or a TV show can't be thought-provoking and in-depth. I agree completely with the 99:1 comment above: it applies to all mediums. There are some things that are *better* conveyed in graphical mediums. One thing I've always loved is the idea that a book is made by one person; a comic is usually made by two or more; a movie by hundreds. So you have the opportunity to peer into the minds of many.

Manga/comics and anime/animation have proven themselves time and again as able to convey the same level of depth and complexity as pure narrative. In a different way, sure, but thank God for different ways ;)

I find it quite funny when someone says something like "pretentious drivel" and then follows it up with pure pretentious drivel! :P

@BCSizemo

Do you trust a physicist to tell you -- beyond what you think you know -- what counts as a particle?

I am a former music major with six years of intensive music theory training under my belt. I have perfect pitch and have written two symphonies. Let me tell you: electronica is as much a "music form" as anything else. Does it have a rhythm? Check. Melodic potential? Check. Above and beyond necessity, it even follows a standard western scale structure and harmonic breakdown, with standard major/minor, diatonic... why am I arguing about this? I won't even bother going to your site.

If I "program" a symphony onto my keyboard and swap out orchestral parts for custom-made voice patches and add a few drum tracks... how is that any different than writing a symphony in note form and then having it rearranged by an arranger?

I'd like to know where you're getting this bizarrely technical understanding of the phrase "music form."

I will also say that an apple is not a real fruit form. While I'm at it, all squares are round and have nine corners... WTF...

#9:

Squares are not circles.

@#8/OM:

Get rid of "greedy unions"? Are you joking, or really a horrible human being? "Greedy Unions" gave us minimum wage, weekends, the 40-hour work week, paid vacation time, benefits, etc. Their work is HARDLY done considering how LITTLE vacation time, benefits, etc., Americans have relative to the rest of the "free world."

Those GREEDY unions are striking for a reasonable cut. The writers = the show. If I churned out art all day on a canvas, working my butt off, and got a .00003% cut from the profits of those paintings, it sure wouldn't make sense to me! It wouldn't matter if I was making twenty million per painting -- the point remains that someone ELSE is making 99.9999% of the money I AM creating.

I really wish that I could send you back to the Industrial Revolution in a time machine and show you pre-union working conditions....

I feel sad for the poor kid. In a world where some young children are being taught that it's good to die for a jihad, I'm not sure anyone is free to overlook anyone's name on a list. --I-- don't want to deal with this crap so I'm flying as little as I have to. But gosh, people are blowing themselves up and we have to figure some of them are crazy enough to use a child.

Why would they have to use a child? Clearly, they've got us all so scared (read: terrified) that they can just sit back. Why blow up anything now? Somewhere, BinLaden is laughing...

I wonder if anyone is named Google... Does this work if I change my name to Microsoft? Wait -- does this mean that if I *do* change my name to Microsoft, then they can sue me? If I name a company Jeff, then, can I head off all Jeffing? On that note, I am going to use my name as a gerund more often...

@15 No, no, no -- Hitler commissioned the Department of FATHERland Security. Much different...