Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by philwelch » Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 10:21 PM UTC

alephnil wrote: post #256

philwelch wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary: the principle that natural laws will be the same in the future as they have been in the past, or that they are the same in one place as they are in some other faraway place, must be accepted without evidence as a premise of the scientific method.

There is evidence for that however. Like that the emission lines from distant stars and galaxies are the same ones as in our own solar system and here on earth (but red shifted). If the laws were not the same everywhere, you must introduce a god that make it look that way, or otherwise explain how it can appear like the laws are the same everywhere without actually being so.

There is only evidence that the laws of nature have been consistent in all past observations, but actually it's only an assumption on our part that future observations will continue to be like the past. This point is generally credited to Hume.

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

#262

Post by philwelch » Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 10:34 PM UTC

wnight wrote: post #258

philwelch wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you add together thousands of coherent, but differing signals, the aggregate becomes incoherent. This is a good summary of OWS. I will pretend I didn't read that remark about members of the armed forces.

So, if I can find ten people who claim to believe what you do but really say other random things, does it mean you no-longer have a message or merely that I've managed to distract from it? And who have I distracted, you? Unlikely. Just myself and whoever listens to me. Similarly, only you and the Fox news crowd are confused about what OWS is. And yes, there's a lot you pretend you didn't read. Like anything you can't…

I'm not confused about what OWS is. It would be an embryonic version of the Jacobins or a gang of proto-fascists if only it had some sort of coordination. In my city it turned into a settlement of homeless people and street kids until they were finally evicted by the community college they were squatting at.

Anyone who joined the armed forces to avenge 9/11 joined for the cause of justice. It's not the fault of the troops that the politicians fucked the whole thing up. Under a more competent government, the mission would have been restricted to wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, i.e. a reasonable, direct, and proportional response. But because we live in a democracy, the military doesn't get to decide where they're deployed. And because there's no conscription, whiny, entitled kids get to go on the Internet and spout ignorant little criticisms all day long without ever having to take the responsibility to defend the country themselves.

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

#263

Post by mrlase » Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 11:43 PM UTC

waqf wrote: post #85

mrlase wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these companies are just so random... Why, for instance, does Adidas, L'Oreal, American Apparel, Rite Aid, Pfizer, etc. even have a stance on SOPA? I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :(

> I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :( Back when I was in academia, Elsevier had a clear reputation as the most "evil" academic publisher, because of its extortionate journal prices and its active resistance to any method of information dissemination which would reduce its profits (for example, lower-cost online access, or friendlier contracts with its authors). See https://en.wikipedia.…

Wow, I wasn't aware of this. I'm still a student but it seems that about 1 out of every 2 journal articles is by an Elsevier owned journal. I'll have to keep note of that for the future.

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

#264

Post by nightpool » Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 1:13 AM UTC

camperman wrote: post #250

camperman wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well duh - I meant to say πιστιν is used as assurance not πασιν. That will teach me to be snarky at 3am...

You can edit your comments...

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

#265

Post by shortformblog » Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 3:51 AM UTC

mrlase wrote: post #13

nextparadigms wrote: post #6

PG, if you're reading this, I don't know which list you saw, but here's one with SOPA supporters that is probably the most comprehensive: http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-s...

Some of these companies are just so random... Why, for instance, does Adidas, L'Oreal, American Apparel, Rite Aid, Pfizer, etc. even have a stance on SOPA? I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :(

FYI: That isn't American Apparel on the list — it's an industry group with a similar name that just so happens to count American Apparel as a member — amongst thousands of others.

http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/14732754002/sopa-americ...

Now's a good time to emphasize that not everything an industry group does is supported by individual members.

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

#266

Post by redthrowaway » Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 4:02 AM UTC

forgottenpaswrd wrote: post #254

philh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. So I'm not convinced by the argument here. It makes too many unstated assumptions. I support this boycott, and this argument might make good rhetoric, but I wouldn't use it directly to evaluate investors.

"I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist?" Because the argument itself is a fallacy. Believing that God exist does not make you less rational that believing that God does not exist(witch uses to be the theological affiliation of the people that proclaim the statement). One or the other is a prejudice. If the statement were true the b…

I hate to drag this into an atheism debate, but agnosticism is simply not the best option. The question of the existence of a supernatural being has a definite answer, and claiming either we don't or can't know is a cop-out. Either you think the evidence points to the existence of a god, or you don't. I can't see an honest appraisal of the evidence leading to an inconclusive decision.

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

#267

Post by esrauch » Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 5:03 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #251

esrauch wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every worldview is based in faith. This is just religious apologetic and it's not really true. This is the definition of faith in this context: > Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without evidence supporting the claim or disregarding all evidence to the contrary Religion is explicitly not based on evidence, and is explicitly not disprovable. You believe something despite no evidence, that is f…

Hume, who was certainly no religious apologetic, would differ.

That's interesting, do you have a particular source in mind that I can read more?

My very limited knowledge is only that Hume was fairly critical of religion and that it wasn't really clear if he was a complete atheist because if he were any more hostile to Christianity than he was he would have been persecuted. Maybe I am assuming too much about the person I was replying to, but it sounds to me like he is defending Christianity as an equally defensible way to live your life, so I don't think invoking Hume here is actually supporting his argument.

It's worth clarifying that my claim is that I am trying to claim that faith is a subset of belief. That you can't possibly know anything for sure is incompatible with Christianity and all current major religions, and to act like making conclusions based on evidence with confidence levels is the same as saying you know Absolute Truth Just Because is clearly absurd.

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

#268

Post by philwelch » Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 9:34 AM UTC

esrauch wrote: post #267

philwelch wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hume, who was certainly no religious apologetic, would differ.

That's interesting, do you have a particular source in mind that I can read more? My very limited knowledge is only that Hume was fairly critical of religion and that it wasn't really clear if he was a complete atheist because if he were any more hostile to Christianity than he was he would have been persecuted. Maybe I am assuming too much about the person I was replying to, but it sounds to me like he is defending…

The best original source is probably An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, though it covers much more than the point I'm talking about. The point I'm talking about is that, according to Hume, there's actually no reason to believe that the future will continue to be like the past. Without this premise--which must be accepted without evidence--empiricism is broken. A basic treatment of Hume's argument is available from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#CauIndInfNegPha

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

#269

Post by camperman » Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 7:11 PM UTC

nightpool wrote: post #264

camperman wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well duh - I meant to say πιστιν is used as assurance not πασιν. That will teach me to be snarky at 3am...

You can edit your comments...

I know but I deserved that :)

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

#270

Post by wnight » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 10:00 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #262

wnight wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I can find ten people who claim to believe what you do but really say other random things, does it mean you no-longer have a message or merely that I've managed to distract from it? And who have I distracted, you? Unlikely. Just myself and whoever listens to me. Similarly, only you and the Fox news crowd are confused about what OWS is. And yes, there's a lot you pretend you didn't read. Like anything you can't…

I'm not confused about what OWS is. It would be an embryonic version of the Jacobins or a gang of proto-fascists if only it had some sort of coordination. In my city it turned into a settlement of homeless people and street kids until they were finally evicted by the community college they were squatting at. Anyone who joined the armed forces to avenge 9/11 joined for the cause of justice. It's not the fault of the t…

> I'm not confused about what OWS is. It would be ... if only it had some sort of coordination.

Like Anonymous, there are no leaders, there's no membership list, etc. It's fundamentally chaotic because it isn't trying to ram everyone's different message into one one tidy media-palatable sound-bite. So yes, you are totally confused about what OWS is.

> Anyone who joined the armed forces to avenge 9/11 joined for the cause of justice.

Not in the slightest. You don't join the army and prepare to bomb an innocent country for justice. That'd be like me setting fire to your house because an alleged murderer was rumored to be hiding there.

They joined out of pure incoherent rage.

> It's not the fault of the troops that the politicians fucked the whole thing up.

Yes, actually it is. Not only should they not have joined because Bush was obviously gearing up for a genocide from day two, but after having joined it's their obligation to refuse illegal orders. To pursue a war without justification is an obviously illegal order - it's just murder.

> But because we live in a democracy, the military doesn't get to decide where they're deployed.

If they have any morals at all they get to decide where they will not be deployed, and who they will not shoot. Far better to be imprisoned for refusing to fight than be forced to bomb an innocent family.

> And because there's no conscription, whiny, entitled kids get to go on the Internet and spout ignorant little criticisms all day long without ever having to take the responsibility to defend the country themselves.

It's not defending the country, you arrogant murderer-by-proxy, it's shooting innocent people because you can't find anyone to defend against.

But face it, if you actually cared in the slightest about defending the country you'd try to stop the unjust war. For every jet flown into a building in the USA the USA has flown ten-thousand times more aircraft into its perceived enemies. That doesn't breed friends and allies.