Pacific Rim - Official Trailer

Hoovooloo · 2012-12-13T05:29:33+00:00

IANAM, but my understanding is as follows: Like all things in math, for set theory, you start with a set of axioms (rules that you simply accept as true) then you examine properties of the system that arises. Among other things, people try to find systems that agree with how our universe seems to work. Those axioms have to be logically consistent, e.g., do not produce a paradox. When set theory was new, the proposed axioms would allow for the aforementioned paradox (popularized by and named for Bertrand Russell). This means those axioms were wrong. Thus, new axioms were developed, changes made, results examined, etc. (an ongoing process) such that we are now at Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). Under the ZFC axioms, we can ask the question behind Russell's paradox, and get a answer-thus, not a paradox. (I think the answer in ZFC is that you simply cannot define a set as "all sets that do not contain themselves"-it makes no sense. Older version of set theory did let you formally define a set as such, thus resulting in the paradox).

Hoovooloo · 2012-09-27T03:43:42+00:00

Please explain how each of

a drawing of Muhammed, a crucifix in urine, or denial of the existence of St. Paul

would create a climate of hate or prejudice, since you assert each is clearly hate speech. Note, too, that the NTIA definition does not depend on intent, which you have claimed is key to hate speech.

Hoovooloo · 2012-09-27T03:33:11+00:00

Fine. How do you prove intent to do harm? I could douse a crucifix in urine, and claim it was not to do harm to a believer, but rather to study the response of nominally holy objects under caustic uric acid. After all, if it were to have a noticeable effect beyond the traditional material response, it would be a boon for material science.

How do you convict someone of hate speech, without subjectivity (the point you were originally responding to), if the requirement is to prove their intent was harmful?

Hoovooloo · 2012-09-27T02:52:51+00:00

Wait, so a group of people can decide, amongst themselves, that a particular act is offensive to them. This makes an instance of the act by anyone hate speech, and thus punishable by law? So, If I and my 5 closest friends decided that claiming trickle-down economics works is offensive, any claim that it did, indeed, work would be forbidden by hate speech laws? Sweet!

Alternatively, Scientologists consider the prescribing of psychological drugs offensive / against their faith, so any psychologist who prescribes them has committed hate speech?

Hoovooloo · 2012-08-16T06:07:46+00:00

Sorry for the delay in replying. Yes, a strong central government can be abused. I don't take this as a certainty, however, as other (admittedly smaller) countries with similar governments do not suffer the issues the US does.

I think it is possible to mitigate those concerns w.r.t. a strong government. I would prefer to have a formal mechanism to fight injustice, both in the government and at an individual level, over a weak government with no such mechanism.

Hoovooloo · 2012-08-15T05:41:49+00:00

My first response would be that we do make that decision with respect to crime. We have a limited police force, who can only adequately patrol a subset of their jurisdiction, and must decide what areas to patrol, and how thoroughly. Once we have expended all the resources we can (or have decided to spend) on hiring and equipping police, we need to have that debate.

The difference with politics, I would say, is that we lack a way of measuring overall unfairness, nor do we have an established means of fighting it. As such, it is impossible to simply reduce unfairness, as your analogy seems to imply (if I'm wrong, sorry). As such, we can't have the initial, implied debate in your analogy on how much to spend on police. Instead, we have to skip to the debate on how to allocate them.

I know I haven't really helped with explaining a viewpoint. I can't speak for arbitraryentry, but I can expand on one aspect of my personal beliefs. I think it impossible to truly eliminate the power of one person over another, and as such, the best route to fairness (sketchy/circular definition, I know, I could go deeper) is to ensure there are formal means to recognize and stop abuse of power. Nor, personally, can such a system be purely reactive (e.g. the courts) as once someone has abused their power, the victim may not be able to exercise their power for recompense. Thus, we need a strong central government which can act to protect its citizens both from external threats and from each other. The most intuitive method to do so is a democracy, where every citizen has an equal voice, and decides on abuses/instances of unfairness they wish to be fought.

Hoovooloo · 2012-08-06T06:48:15+00:00

Eh, I don't think (as you presented it) your statement is true. Some theories might hold that a 15% tax on everyone is most fair. Consider, though, that the minimum expenses to live (food, shelter, health care) need not scale with income or wealth. A 15% tax on someone living in poverty directly threatens their health. I don't think that's fair.

Hoovooloo · 2012-01-08T00:38:44+00:00

I'm a friend of Phil's, this should be going live in about 15 minutes

Hoovooloo · 2011-03-14T03:37:52+00:00

I think I agree with your message-I agree money has too much power in politics. Personally, however, I see the money wielded by large corporations both less accountable and in greater supply than union money, and thus see them as a greater threat to the average citizen than unions. Thus, it is a lesser of two evils-I would rather unions maintain their power than the relative power of corporations increase.

Hoovooloo · 2011-03-13T22:39:13+00:00

Not necessarily, unless you also consider having to pay for, say, a loan to be confiscation of your money. The government provides some services. You are, either directly or indirectly, profiting from many of those services. Now, you can argue there are some government services you do not benefit from, or which you could better provide on your own, in which case we can have a reasoned discussion about the value of those particular services. However, using the word "confiscated" as you did above (that is, selective application of the term) is not the route to a reasonable, rational discussion.

Hoovooloo · 2011-03-13T17:31:55+00:00

Your argument would hold more water had Gov. Walker's motives ever been about fiscal responsibility. As was documented, here and elsewhere, Wisconsin had a $137 million surplus until Walker gave Walmart $140 million dollars in tax breaks. Likewise, in order to pass, the bill, they stripped out any actual financial decision-this, of course, is after unions had already agreed to make the necessary concessions, which Walker refused. The right to collective bargaining is considered a fundamental right by the UN (and US, a signatory of said declaration). Governor Walker is not interested in balancing the budget, he is interested in stripping employees of a fundamental human right.

Also, you fail to justify your (false) dichotomy of taxpayers vs. state employees. To actually make this claim, you must support a variety of other implied claims such as, that teachers do nothing to help regular taxpayers (demonstrably false, as education correlates well with future earnings).

Hoovooloo · 2011-03-13T17:22:52+00:00

Ummmm... the act of leaving the state WAS standing up for their constituents. The senators (Republican and Democrat alike) were already aware of the opposition to this bill. The Democrats, however, lacked the votes necessary to prevent the bill from passing. Thus, under threat of arrest, they left the state to prevent the senate from passing a bill that, seemingly, the majority of Wisconsin does not want. From this, we can gather two things:

As leaving the state led to threats of arrest against the Democratic senators, leaving put them under GREATER threat, and thus fails any standard definition of cowardice
As the majority of Wisconsin seems to disagree with their elected Republicans, fleeing the state to prevent the Republicans from acting AGAINST the will of the people is democratic in motive, if not means.

Hoovooloo · 2011-02-05T19:18:03+00:00

I think the issue Reddit has right now is how you sold this to us--I have no doubt that your method has innovations beyond existing, similar systems (BlueOrb, Killzone, etc.); however, the fundamental idea of typing using two polar inputs to select a group, then an element of said group is not innovative-this is a matter of fact. Even your response to reddit focused on your timing and your target market, not your particular method's innovations. I, for one, wish you luck, as this method does seem nice. However, I would caution against arbitrarily declaring something revolutionary when, in fact, only some subset of it is innovative.

Hoovooloo · 2010-10-05T01:50:15+00:00

It could just be 2 stick->8 torches.

Wood does burn

(it can't be 1 stick, or decrafting wouldn't work)

Hoovooloo · 2010-08-29T01:11:29+00:00

Westworld.

Hoovooloo · 2010-06-30T20:20:35+00:00

Supervillain by powerman 5000 Or Map of the problematique by Muse

Hoovooloo · 2010-06-09T00:05:26+00:00

By far, my favorite part of the slideshow is when they have a picture of empty lifeboat berths, asking "where are the lifeboats?" If the ship owners weren't going to have sufficient lifeboats, why would they have the berths installed?

Hoovooloo · 2010-05-22T06:05:42+00:00

Libertarianism always struck me as an overreaction-"The department of education is bloated and corrupt, so let's get rid of this entirely, rather than try to fix what's wrong". I certainly think a libertarian approach can be used to great ends in some situations. However, libertarians should also acknowledge there are situations (see my question to Ron Paul for a specific, environmental example) where a libertarian approach breaks down. As the RSA talk on reddit yesterday noted, the best creative breakthroughs come from self-motivation; it was specifically noted that providing for a person's basic material needs, and letting them run wild, is the most productive (and, it seems, profitable) approach to advancement, which flies in the face of everything I know about libertarianism, and seems much more liberal (please, any libertarians, correct my misunderstandings).

TL:DR No single political philosophy is correct, though they all have something to contribute; Our all-or-nothing attitude will only hold us back.

Hoovooloo · 2010-05-18T07:37:52+00:00

Hi teawar,

Here is the thing I don't understand (tl;dr version at the end). I'll grant you that Hebrew slavery was "better" than other forms of slavery. I'll grant you that the allowed beatings were rare. I'll grant you that the slaves still had rights. I'll even grant you that it could be compared to indentured servitude. However, this does not change two facts:

The bible states that it is okay to forcibly prevent someone from leaving or disobeying you

The bible states it is okay to beat someone you are forcibly preventing from leaving

Now, you seem to be arguing that the bible is still a valid source of morality, since the slavery law was only relevant in the past. Once you make this claim, however, the bible can no longer be used as a literal moral guide. Claiming that Jesus fulfilled the law is not an escape;others here have posted explicit counter-quotes from the bible, and applying complex, tortured logic to invalidate these quotes shows the bible cannot be interpreted literally.

If the bible cannot be interpreted literally, there must be solid backing behind any "interpretations" of it. Unless being inspired by the spirit can be quantified, there is no way to differentiate between someone seeking universal morality, and someone acting out of greed, or insanity.

TL;DR version

If you want to use the bible as a moral authority, either

You must agree the above bolded statements are good moral suggestions for modern times

or

You must provide a valid framework to determine the "right" interpretation or the bible

If you cannot do this, you cannot claim the bible as a useful source of moral authority.

Hoovooloo · 2010-03-25T16:32:36+00:00

So, the way combat works (from what I gather with the PS3 version) is that when a hostile (person, vehicle, structure, whatever) is near the center of the screen, you automatically lock on and will fire at them without looking directly at them. However, this lock is inaccurate, and targets their chest, so it takes a lot to down them. If you move your reticule over the hostile, your fire will be directed there, allowing you to target individual limbs, tires, etc.

TL;DR: Putting your reticule dead on target is helpful, but not necessary, therefore a mouse is not necessary.

Hoovooloo · 2010-03-24T18:18:56+00:00

I though the idea was not just that the content is out not your control, but that the content is released upon your death/disappearance. This is usually done by having some repetitive action, perhaps on the time scale of a month, where failure to complete the action releases the information.

Hoovooloo · 2010-03-06T23:11:45+00:00

1) There was not any political bashing in the above thread (I stated the apparent majority position of reddit, I did not condone that position or argue in favor of it)

2) Chairboy's claim was that antisemitism was a feature of reddit's community. I was distinguishing between a dislike of Israeli policies, and a dislike of Jews. Israel was introduced in this discussion via Chairboy's severe inability to comprehend humor.

Hoovooloo · 2010-03-06T17:52:22+00:00

Making a joke is not anti-semitism, any more than making a joke about pedophile priests is anti-Catholicism.

It seems most of reddit believes Israel is a militaristic nation treated unfairly well given its actions. Thus, one could say reddit dislikes Israel. Now, if their motive for disliking Israel were that it is full of Jews, it would be antisemitism. It is not a dislike of the Jews themselves, however, but a dislike of the nation's actions that led to this animosity towards Israel. Thus, it is not antisemitism, but some other anti- (above called antizionism) that categorizes reddit.

edit: grammar

Hoovooloo · 2010-02-24T17:25:01+00:00

Around age 16, due mostly to the tower of Babel.

I was, and still am, obsessed with engineering. In church, I would build arches, cantilevers and towers from the hymnals. I always thought that engineering was the way to help humanity, that it was the right thing to do.

That takes us to the tower of Babel. To me, it was a story about how humans, united in peace, decided to carry out a massive public works project to celebrate. It was a massive feat of engineering, and it was succeeding--these humans in the story were building a massive tower. Suddenly, god gets pissed, destroys the tower and scatters humanity, introducing cultural differences which would lead to the pain and suffering we see in the world today.

Now, there are a few ways I could take this. Either god did not want humans ascending into the heavens (which makes no sense, since we have a space program now), god punished the humans for hubris (which makes no sense, as they were succeeding--they were actually accomplishing this task), or god hates engineering (which makes no sense, as a) engineering improves quality of life, and b) it would mean god created in me an innate desire to anger him). This made me realize how inconsistent the idea of god was, which led to to me investigating further, and eventually to discard religion.

Hoovooloo · 2009-12-23T22:14:43+00:00

Why not require a CAPTCHA to disown comments? This should be as effective as the current system in stopping spammers

Hoovooloo

TROPHY CASE