Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

Post by camperman » Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 9:39 PM UTC

haberman wrote: post #238

camperman wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No indeed, it wouldn't. But there is considerable evidence for the event, some would say overwhelming. There are multiple eyewitness accounts written by different people, sometimes using the same sources, sometimes different ones; disinterested Roman and Jewish historians make mention of it and hostile sceptics of the day mock it as offensive (which of course it is - and still is :)). At no point was this movement st…

Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to the position of Thomas in this story, not asking the question of people now.

Post by skore » Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 11:19 PM UTC

noblethrasher wrote: post #179

mikeash wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not just a generic religious scientist. It's more analogous to rejecting a young-Earth creationist from a study on evolution. The link here is much more direct than general rationality.

Even a young-Earth creationist can theoretically be a good biologist or physicist. This is more analogous to a young-Earth creationist that wants to keep evolution out of science textbooks and lectures.

Post by esrauch » Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 1:56 AM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #215

bermanoid wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being religious doesn't require one to be "clueless about rationality" Absolutely correct. You don't have to be clueless about rationality to be religious; you can also explicitly reject rationality, even though you understand it. But if you don't reject it, then it's quite difficult to accept any of the Big Three religions and simultaneously convince yourself that you're embracing an evidence-based worldview. That's…

> But if you don't reject it, then it's quite difficult to accept any of the Big Three religions and simultaneously convince yourself that you're embracing an evidence-based worldview. Every worldview is based in faith. The very act of considering any evidence requires trust (faith, if you will) in the value of input provided by our senses. There is no and there cannot be any evidence for that value either way. Best…

Post by yuhong » Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 2:13 AM UTC

dpe82 wrote: post #142

chernevik wrote: post #97

The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position. Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their posi…

I was extremely alarmed to see our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on that list and immediately emailed my attorney (a partner) about it. Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Incredibly dirty move on the part of Rep. Smith. DWT has tweeted about…

Post by camperman » Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 7:54 AM UTC

camperman wrote: post #241

burgerbrain wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Esoteric definitions of faith have little use in standard discussion.

Well quite. Lets see a prominent example of what the NT documents actually say since we are talking about a Koine Greek word that is used fairly often in them (nearly 250 times IIRC). Acts 17:31 διοτι εστησεν ημεραν εν η μελλει κρινειν την οικουμενην εν δικαιοσυνη εν ανδρι ω ωρισεν πιστιν παρασχων πασιν αναστησας αυτον εκ νεκρων πασιν is clearly used here as assurance - not some blind belief in nonsense. You don't un…