yeah right, they'll fix your KDE 2 install on freebsd in a jiffy as well
Until then I'm not sure that "only the criminals can search for burning buildings on the Internet" is really the most pragmatic answer.
It's not a pragmatic answer, it's a matter of fact. NSCIA are busy collecting phone calls and developing backdoors.
I'd be careful calling anyone criminal.
The Law should have a case for the need to ignore some rights in order to protect other rights, given that any damage will be compensated. E.g. break a window to get someone out of a car crash. Seeing that he didn't do any damage, it should be fine. I know that's the case in German civic law.
Intent is regularly a deciding factor in measure of punishment. This may as well go without a warning.
> undermining the whole system of justice on which our democratic societies are built
That's cute. Our Societies are built on the labor of the underclass, on lies and deception and on violent turf wars. Talk about justice.
I am aware of that, but I didn't think it through far enough to conclude that it's really undermined. I dunno, say, It only makes predictions about subjects, no the bigger picture, where a god-device would come in. It doesn't really explain away your stand point either. Good talk :)
This implies taxes are fair, that paying taxes is a requirement for voting, like buying your voice, and that voting would give any benefits in return. Yes, of course it is fair to vote when the vote could indirectly decide laws that make you a criminal in some way or another and no, it is not fair to be taxed, especially if you don't use the majority of infrastructure that taxes are supposedly needed for.
I get where you are coming from, sure there are arguments for it, but it's not like there are none against it, either.
Ever heard of the underhanded C contest? The writing of bugs/features that are well hidden and look like they were not intended is a real thing. Bugs go undiscovered for as much as 20 years, at least from our perspective. And mere suspicion is hardly enough for a call to arms.
I agree with your co-commentator, everything is subjective and we just take some things for granted so much that we take them as truth.
Seems i was wrong calling it inarguable, in fact i like to argue back and forth a lot.
> observable in a way that forces different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion (the scientific meaning of "objective").
no, that's still subjectivity, you just shifted the goal post. That kind of subjectivity might be your threshold for accepting some cognition as close enough to your supposition of objectivity, but it still requires trust on an individual level.
> an interesting question, but not really about science. Science concerns itself only with things that can be reduced to empirical observation, not belief.
Specifically by including subjectivity through empiricism, you in fact beget belief. I.e. measurements have an inherit uncertainty and you do what you can to reduce it.
> but the basic scientific precept is the null hypothesis, the idea that things without evidence are assumed to be false
You seem to fall for the fallacy of negated implication. My best guess is, the Null Hypothesis really states that evidence implies reality.
Or as my teacher put it, just because it didn't rain, the street doesn't have to be dry.
It's hard to explain and I'm tired, sorry. I often fall for it, too.
> [that it's naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief] depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science".
Or it depends on what we mean when we say believe. The weight lying on "science" does form a conceptual framework that completely ignores the notion of something beyond our reach, although it inarguably is the driving force behind science.
> In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite.
alright, but the word of god himself isn't evidence enough? j/k :)
> In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite.
Why do those have to opposite, can't they be reconciled into one, using some form of ternary logic? Edit: I mean, some things in life are unknown until proven true or false and then theres all kinds of methods to counter the fact.
Well, if your are willing to make a distinction between faith and believe, you might be right, IMHO, but that is opening a can of wormy questions that I'd better not go on writing about :)
yeah right, they'll fix your KDE 2 install on freebsd in a jiffy as well
Until then I'm not sure that "only the criminals can search for burning buildings on the Internet" is really the most pragmatic answer.
It's not a pragmatic answer, it's a matter of fact. NSCIA are busy collecting phone calls and developing backdoors. I'd be careful calling anyone criminal.