<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_09_1431227</id>
	<title>The Big Questions</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1257791460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot contributor <a href="mailto:bennett@peacefire.org">Bennett Haselton</a> changes things up today by reviewing <em>The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics and Physics</em>. Questions that big need a big review and you can learn what Bennett has to say about it all by reading below.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton changes things up today by reviewing The Big Questions : Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics , Economics and Physics .
Questions that big need a big review and you can learn what Bennett has to say about it all by reading below .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton changes things up today by reviewing The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics and Physics.
Questions that big need a big review and you can learn what Bennett has to say about it all by reading below.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038664</id>
	<title>More to protectionism than that... Limited demand</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257763020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That argument assumes there is unlimited demand for everything, and than more jobs will be created and there will be not welfare costs from lost jobs. But, the best things in life are free or cheap. It probably assumes some other things too.</p><p>See:<br>"Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)"<br><a href="http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/" title="beyondajob...covery.org">http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/</a> [beyondajob...covery.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That argument assumes there is unlimited demand for everything , and than more jobs will be created and there will be not welfare costs from lost jobs .
But , the best things in life are free or cheap .
It probably assumes some other things too.See : " Why limited demand means joblessness ( and what to do about it ) " http : //www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/ [ beyondajob...covery.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That argument assumes there is unlimited demand for everything, and than more jobs will be created and there will be not welfare costs from lost jobs.
But, the best things in life are free or cheap.
It probably assumes some other things too.See:"Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)"http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/ [beyondajob...covery.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037462</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1257758100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While your point is a good one, you are assuming "protectionist tariffs" only target countries with environmental or human rights abuses. What about tariffs whose sole purpose is to keep purchasing within the United States, and not just to "level the playing field." Many countries are being hurt by protectionist tariffs in the US, such as Canada. We have manufacturing plants that adhere to strict environmental standards, offer their employees good jobs with benefits and have lower prices to boot, yet are being turned down contracts they would normally receive due to protectionist requirements put in place by the US gov't. They, simply, were more efficient at producing that products. How do you justify that, since you can't use human rights abuses or environmental damage as arguments?</htmltext>
<tokenext>While your point is a good one , you are assuming " protectionist tariffs " only target countries with environmental or human rights abuses .
What about tariffs whose sole purpose is to keep purchasing within the United States , and not just to " level the playing field .
" Many countries are being hurt by protectionist tariffs in the US , such as Canada .
We have manufacturing plants that adhere to strict environmental standards , offer their employees good jobs with benefits and have lower prices to boot , yet are being turned down contracts they would normally receive due to protectionist requirements put in place by the US gov't .
They , simply , were more efficient at producing that products .
How do you justify that , since you ca n't use human rights abuses or environmental damage as arguments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your point is a good one, you are assuming "protectionist tariffs" only target countries with environmental or human rights abuses.
What about tariffs whose sole purpose is to keep purchasing within the United States, and not just to "level the playing field.
" Many countries are being hurt by protectionist tariffs in the US, such as Canada.
We have manufacturing plants that adhere to strict environmental standards, offer their employees good jobs with benefits and have lower prices to boot, yet are being turned down contracts they would normally receive due to protectionist requirements put in place by the US gov't.
They, simply, were more efficient at producing that products.
How do you justify that, since you can't use human rights abuses or environmental damage as arguments?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036158</id>
	<title>Here it is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G\%C3\%B6del's\_ontological\_proof" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The answer to everything</a> [wikipedia.org]. The rest are nothing but details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to everything [ wikipedia.org ] .
The rest are nothing but details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to everything [wikipedia.org].
The rest are nothing but details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036184</id>
	<title>I think the big questions are "big"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precisely because the big questions will never be answered by mathematics, economics and physics, but in the minds of mad apes trapped in a pointless existence.</p><p>As I get older, I still find myself an atheist, but I now longer feel logic and reason and math will ever prove God doesn't exist, and I no longer expect everyone to agree with me.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely because the big questions will never be answered by mathematics , economics and physics , but in the minds of mad apes trapped in a pointless existence.As I get older , I still find myself an atheist , but I now longer feel logic and reason and math will ever prove God does n't exist , and I no longer expect everyone to agree with me .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely because the big questions will never be answered by mathematics, economics and physics, but in the minds of mad apes trapped in a pointless existence.As I get older, I still find myself an atheist, but I now longer feel logic and reason and math will ever prove God doesn't exist, and I no longer expect everyone to agree with me.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036790</id>
	<title>Didn't you ever get told to share?</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1257798360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have never, ever, heard a parent say to a child that it's okay to forcibly take toys away from other children who have more toys than you do.</p></div><p>Really?  I have.  They go to the parent and say, "That child has all of the toys and it's not fair."  Frequently, the parent will agree, and if it's a child they have some control over (such as a sibling, or if the parent is babysitting) they will redistribute the toys.</p><p>They may couch it as a suggestion to "share", but they're not really planning on respecting the child's preference not to share.  They will use force to overcome whatever "right" the child may have to those toys, regardless of whether the child has "earned" them.  Because a parent's force is overwhelming compared to the child's, the use of force comes without violence much of the time.  But it's force nonetheless, and it's the child ultimately exerting it, through the parents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never , ever , heard a parent say to a child that it 's okay to forcibly take toys away from other children who have more toys than you do.Really ?
I have .
They go to the parent and say , " That child has all of the toys and it 's not fair .
" Frequently , the parent will agree , and if it 's a child they have some control over ( such as a sibling , or if the parent is babysitting ) they will redistribute the toys.They may couch it as a suggestion to " share " , but they 're not really planning on respecting the child 's preference not to share .
They will use force to overcome whatever " right " the child may have to those toys , regardless of whether the child has " earned " them .
Because a parent 's force is overwhelming compared to the child 's , the use of force comes without violence much of the time .
But it 's force nonetheless , and it 's the child ultimately exerting it , through the parents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never, ever, heard a parent say to a child that it's okay to forcibly take toys away from other children who have more toys than you do.Really?
I have.
They go to the parent and say, "That child has all of the toys and it's not fair.
"  Frequently, the parent will agree, and if it's a child they have some control over (such as a sibling, or if the parent is babysitting) they will redistribute the toys.They may couch it as a suggestion to "share", but they're not really planning on respecting the child's preference not to share.
They will use force to overcome whatever "right" the child may have to those toys, regardless of whether the child has "earned" them.
Because a parent's force is overwhelming compared to the child's, the use of force comes without violence much of the time.
But it's force nonetheless, and it's the child ultimately exerting it, through the parents.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410</id>
	<title>"Big" question?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1257796740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a "big" question to ask why there are atheistic best sellers?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>most adults do not really believe the tenets of any major religion anyway.</p></div><p>Of course not.  The question is, do most adults believe <i>some</i> of the tenets?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is the argument that "interfaith dialog" makes no sense if you really believe (as many major religions teach) that your own religion's tenets are settled beyond discussion.</p></div><p>Ah yes.  The "you have to have an open mind" argument.  I guess evolution, global warming, and government health care debates, on the other hand, really ARE settled beyond discussion. [/sarcasm].  Seriously though - I know many major religions are of the gnostic type... hvae to have higher knowledge, enlightened, etc.  But what exactly does "beyond discussion" mean?  Not doubting/convinced?  It seems that not-being-in-doubt and being-convinced are feelings reserved for atheists, now.  Only someone dogmatically believing in the non-existence of an entity are allowed to be sure of their belief.  Which is odd, since most logicians will tell you that it is much harder to prove non-existence than it is to prove existence.  I wonder why Landsburg didn't mention that?  Seems like that is a "big question" - why are many logicians and scientists <i>atheists</i>, since they are so careful not to deny existence of other things that we don't even have evidence for; they simply understand that denying existence is a big logical step in that you have to disprove every possible existence first.  When it comes to the supernatural/God though, they are quite willing to believe in a non-existence and not be open to discussion.  Why does Landsburg only pick on those who are convinced, perhaps illogically, that God <i>does</i> exist?</p><p>Incidentally, you can be illogically convinced to believe an correct thing, and you can be logically convinced to believe an incorrect thing.  Logic is an argument; what you logically deduce or induce <i>from</i> makes a big difference, as your premise may be wrong, thus your conclusion could be wrong as well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>virtually no one behaves as if they actually believe in everlasting damnation after death as punishment for sin.</p></div><p>Most people don't behave like there is death at all.  Most people don't want to talk about death, don't want to hear about death, and don't even want to think about death.  Many people "defy" death and live like they won't die.  I guess that means death doesn't actually exist!  Cool!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd wondered before about how many people really did believe in God, but in just a few pages this argument had me thinking that the number was a lot lower than I'd ever thought before.</p> </div><p>So without seeing any numbers and going entirely on the basis of logical deductions from unproved and perhaps disputed premises, you are coming to new conclusions on what people actually believe - without asking them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a " big " question to ask why there are atheistic best sellers ? most adults do not really believe the tenets of any major religion anyway.Of course not .
The question is , do most adults believe some of the tenets ? There is the argument that " interfaith dialog " makes no sense if you really believe ( as many major religions teach ) that your own religion 's tenets are settled beyond discussion.Ah yes .
The " you have to have an open mind " argument .
I guess evolution , global warming , and government health care debates , on the other hand , really ARE settled beyond discussion .
[ /sarcasm ] . Seriously though - I know many major religions are of the gnostic type... hvae to have higher knowledge , enlightened , etc .
But what exactly does " beyond discussion " mean ?
Not doubting/convinced ?
It seems that not-being-in-doubt and being-convinced are feelings reserved for atheists , now .
Only someone dogmatically believing in the non-existence of an entity are allowed to be sure of their belief .
Which is odd , since most logicians will tell you that it is much harder to prove non-existence than it is to prove existence .
I wonder why Landsburg did n't mention that ?
Seems like that is a " big question " - why are many logicians and scientists atheists , since they are so careful not to deny existence of other things that we do n't even have evidence for ; they simply understand that denying existence is a big logical step in that you have to disprove every possible existence first .
When it comes to the supernatural/God though , they are quite willing to believe in a non-existence and not be open to discussion .
Why does Landsburg only pick on those who are convinced , perhaps illogically , that God does exist ? Incidentally , you can be illogically convinced to believe an correct thing , and you can be logically convinced to believe an incorrect thing .
Logic is an argument ; what you logically deduce or induce from makes a big difference , as your premise may be wrong , thus your conclusion could be wrong as well.virtually no one behaves as if they actually believe in everlasting damnation after death as punishment for sin.Most people do n't behave like there is death at all .
Most people do n't want to talk about death , do n't want to hear about death , and do n't even want to think about death .
Many people " defy " death and live like they wo n't die .
I guess that means death does n't actually exist !
Cool ! I 'd wondered before about how many people really did believe in God , but in just a few pages this argument had me thinking that the number was a lot lower than I 'd ever thought before .
So without seeing any numbers and going entirely on the basis of logical deductions from unproved and perhaps disputed premises , you are coming to new conclusions on what people actually believe - without asking them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a "big" question to ask why there are atheistic best sellers?most adults do not really believe the tenets of any major religion anyway.Of course not.
The question is, do most adults believe some of the tenets?There is the argument that "interfaith dialog" makes no sense if you really believe (as many major religions teach) that your own religion's tenets are settled beyond discussion.Ah yes.
The "you have to have an open mind" argument.
I guess evolution, global warming, and government health care debates, on the other hand, really ARE settled beyond discussion.
[/sarcasm].  Seriously though - I know many major religions are of the gnostic type... hvae to have higher knowledge, enlightened, etc.
But what exactly does "beyond discussion" mean?
Not doubting/convinced?
It seems that not-being-in-doubt and being-convinced are feelings reserved for atheists, now.
Only someone dogmatically believing in the non-existence of an entity are allowed to be sure of their belief.
Which is odd, since most logicians will tell you that it is much harder to prove non-existence than it is to prove existence.
I wonder why Landsburg didn't mention that?
Seems like that is a "big question" - why are many logicians and scientists atheists, since they are so careful not to deny existence of other things that we don't even have evidence for; they simply understand that denying existence is a big logical step in that you have to disprove every possible existence first.
When it comes to the supernatural/God though, they are quite willing to believe in a non-existence and not be open to discussion.
Why does Landsburg only pick on those who are convinced, perhaps illogically, that God does exist?Incidentally, you can be illogically convinced to believe an correct thing, and you can be logically convinced to believe an incorrect thing.
Logic is an argument; what you logically deduce or induce from makes a big difference, as your premise may be wrong, thus your conclusion could be wrong as well.virtually no one behaves as if they actually believe in everlasting damnation after death as punishment for sin.Most people don't behave like there is death at all.
Most people don't want to talk about death, don't want to hear about death, and don't even want to think about death.
Many people "defy" death and live like they won't die.
I guess that means death doesn't actually exist!
Cool!I'd wondered before about how many people really did believe in God, but in just a few pages this argument had me thinking that the number was a lot lower than I'd ever thought before.
So without seeing any numbers and going entirely on the basis of logical deductions from unproved and perhaps disputed premises, you are coming to new conclusions on what people actually believe - without asking them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039496</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257766800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barney Miller, last episode: 1982.</p><p>Wow, what do you think the Slashdot demographic looks like? I've vaguely heard of that show, but I had to IMDB it. And IMDB doesn't have enough Dietrich quotes to get your joke, alas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barney Miller , last episode : 1982.Wow , what do you think the Slashdot demographic looks like ?
I 've vaguely heard of that show , but I had to IMDB it .
And IMDB does n't have enough Dietrich quotes to get your joke , alas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barney Miller, last episode: 1982.Wow, what do you think the Slashdot demographic looks like?
I've vaguely heard of that show, but I had to IMDB it.
And IMDB doesn't have enough Dietrich quotes to get your joke, alas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30042046</id>
	<title>Re:"Big" question?</title>
	<author>Frater 219</author>
	<datestamp>1257784980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>most adults do not really believe the tenets of any major religion anyway.</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course not. The question is, do most adults believe some of the tenets?</p></div></blockquote><p>
That depends profoundly on what you mean. Most religious people, most of the time, do not permit their religion to get in the way of their common sense or their common decency. When questioned on a point of religious belief, they will reliably respond according to their understanding of doctrine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but with equal or greater reliability, when presented with a practical challenge in life, they will respond based on an ordinary secular understanding of how the world works.
</p><p>
An example: Martyrdom. We know from the lives of the saints, and from the acts of certain modern-day counterparts, that there are those who put their faith in God ahead of their self-preservation, placing themselves in harm's way in the service of faith. We know, also, that only a tiny minority of religionists do this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even among those who claim to revere the saints and martyrs who do, and who when questioned on the matter state clearly their belief in heaven. In gist, people who claim belief in life-after-death act just as fervently to avoid death as those who do not claim that belief.
</p><p>
This is what people mean when they question whether religionists really do <em>believe</em> what they say they do. Most of the time, when we say "belief", we mean something that we are willing to rely upon:  if you believe it is cold, you do not wear shorts; if you believe that Jane does not love you, you do not propose marriage to her.  Your belief is detectable in your actions which rely upon it, which are explained by it.
</p><p>
Dennett presents the notion of "believing in belief" -- the idea that many people think that religious belief is a good thing, a thing to be desired, indeed one which you should pretend to, or "fake it until you make it". People who believe in belief can be expected to <i>say</i> they believe religious claims, but not to actually <i>rely</i> on them. This seems to be a cogent explanation of the way that most "religious" people actually deal with the real world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>most adults do not really believe the tenets of any major religion anyway.Of course not .
The question is , do most adults believe some of the tenets ?
That depends profoundly on what you mean .
Most religious people , most of the time , do not permit their religion to get in the way of their common sense or their common decency .
When questioned on a point of religious belief , they will reliably respond according to their understanding of doctrine ... but with equal or greater reliability , when presented with a practical challenge in life , they will respond based on an ordinary secular understanding of how the world works .
An example : Martyrdom .
We know from the lives of the saints , and from the acts of certain modern-day counterparts , that there are those who put their faith in God ahead of their self-preservation , placing themselves in harm 's way in the service of faith .
We know , also , that only a tiny minority of religionists do this ... even among those who claim to revere the saints and martyrs who do , and who when questioned on the matter state clearly their belief in heaven .
In gist , people who claim belief in life-after-death act just as fervently to avoid death as those who do not claim that belief .
This is what people mean when they question whether religionists really do believe what they say they do .
Most of the time , when we say " belief " , we mean something that we are willing to rely upon : if you believe it is cold , you do not wear shorts ; if you believe that Jane does not love you , you do not propose marriage to her .
Your belief is detectable in your actions which rely upon it , which are explained by it .
Dennett presents the notion of " believing in belief " -- the idea that many people think that religious belief is a good thing , a thing to be desired , indeed one which you should pretend to , or " fake it until you make it " .
People who believe in belief can be expected to say they believe religious claims , but not to actually rely on them .
This seems to be a cogent explanation of the way that most " religious " people actually deal with the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most adults do not really believe the tenets of any major religion anyway.Of course not.
The question is, do most adults believe some of the tenets?
That depends profoundly on what you mean.
Most religious people, most of the time, do not permit their religion to get in the way of their common sense or their common decency.
When questioned on a point of religious belief, they will reliably respond according to their understanding of doctrine ... but with equal or greater reliability, when presented with a practical challenge in life, they will respond based on an ordinary secular understanding of how the world works.
An example: Martyrdom.
We know from the lives of the saints, and from the acts of certain modern-day counterparts, that there are those who put their faith in God ahead of their self-preservation, placing themselves in harm's way in the service of faith.
We know, also, that only a tiny minority of religionists do this ... even among those who claim to revere the saints and martyrs who do, and who when questioned on the matter state clearly their belief in heaven.
In gist, people who claim belief in life-after-death act just as fervently to avoid death as those who do not claim that belief.
This is what people mean when they question whether religionists really do believe what they say they do.
Most of the time, when we say "belief", we mean something that we are willing to rely upon:  if you believe it is cold, you do not wear shorts; if you believe that Jane does not love you, you do not propose marriage to her.
Your belief is detectable in your actions which rely upon it, which are explained by it.
Dennett presents the notion of "believing in belief" -- the idea that many people think that religious belief is a good thing, a thing to be desired, indeed one which you should pretend to, or "fake it until you make it".
People who believe in belief can be expected to say they believe religious claims, but not to actually rely on them.
This seems to be a cogent explanation of the way that most "religious" people actually deal with the real world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037730</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257759180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Computers think determensitically.  Which is why we know they have no free will.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100\% certain they know the answer.  When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain.   We know we might be wrong.   The machines don't know that.</p></div><p>Not if you use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte\_Carlo\_method" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Monte Carlo</a> [wikipedia.org]-based algorithms with a hardware-based random number generator that uses something like radioactive decay for your random values.</p><p>It's entirely possible (and often practical) to make computers compute things non-deterministically.</p><p>Furthermore, it is beneficial to use true randomness when using a randomized data structure such a hash table, in order to prevent adversaries from mounting denial-of-service attacks on it by exploiting the fact that your pseudorandom number generator is in fact deterministic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers think determensitically .
Which is why we know they have no free will .
... When computers are asked to solve a math question , they are always 100 \ % certain they know the answer .
When humas do it , we generally are a lot less certain .
We know we might be wrong .
The machines do n't know that.Not if you use Monte Carlo [ wikipedia.org ] -based algorithms with a hardware-based random number generator that uses something like radioactive decay for your random values.It 's entirely possible ( and often practical ) to make computers compute things non-deterministically.Furthermore , it is beneficial to use true randomness when using a randomized data structure such a hash table , in order to prevent adversaries from mounting denial-of-service attacks on it by exploiting the fact that your pseudorandom number generator is in fact deterministic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers think determensitically.
Which is why we know they have no free will.
...  When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100\% certain they know the answer.
When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain.
We know we might be wrong.
The machines don't know that.Not if you use Monte Carlo [wikipedia.org]-based algorithms with a hardware-based random number generator that uses something like radioactive decay for your random values.It's entirely possible (and often practical) to make computers compute things non-deterministically.Furthermore, it is beneficial to use true randomness when using a randomized data structure such a hash table, in order to prevent adversaries from mounting denial-of-service attacks on it by exploiting the fact that your pseudorandom number generator is in fact deterministic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038080</id>
	<title>Case FOR Protectionism</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257760620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem I see with the anti-protectionism argument is that the models used are too simple: They try to maximize total GDP over the longer run. While that's certainly a laudable goal, it <b>should not be the only factor</b>. As an analogy, if you want to maximize return on investments over the longer run, then start-up stocks and derivatives would be the way to go. On paper, that's what would give you the maximum total return on average.</p><p>But "on average" is the key here. <b>Risk is not "free"</b> in economics and investment theory. For investments, you weigh risk against return to find the level that best fits your needs. You mix high-risk and low-risk investments to balance the pay/risk level. For sound investments one usually ends up selecting some bonds even though they have a lower average return rate. This is because they are a hedge against market meltdown. Risk is lowered at the expense of average return.</p><p>The same applies to trade: <b>"free trade" is the more-leveraged position</b>, meaning you take on more risk in order to gain a better average return. This risk manifests itself in various ways, including economic bubbles and the need for individuals to change careers every 20 years or so as their present career becomes a commodity and goes over-seas where labor is cheaper. It's hard to raise a family if you have to start over every 20 years or so. Stability is worth something to people, and leveraged trade hinders that.</p><p>Full free trade is only a free lunch if you ignore factors that are harder to compute. Economists often call these "externalities", which is kind of dismissive. It's the messy "side-effects" little dumping area for things that are difficult to quantify and model.</p><p>I'm for balanced trade, but this lopsided trade has to go. The recent financial meltdown is in part caused by Asia using excess dollars from lopsided trade to loan to the US, creating the Great Loan Bubble.</p><p>Further is loss of <b>economic diversification</b>. Without local manufacturing, we risk being caught with no factories if there's ever a trade-disrupting war or natural disaster. Ireland encountered a diversification problem when they switched a majority of their farms to potatoes. Potatoes grew very well in that country, becoming the most competitive food item for them to grow. However, a potato disease wiped out most of the potato crop one year, creating death and panic. Diversification is yet another hedge against risk, and has value to human beings. For a similar reason, we shouldn't let manufacturing just slip away. Some economists choose to ignore the value of diversification, either out of bias, laziness (hard to calc), or naivety.</p><p>Here's a tale of overly-focusing on one factor: In Soviet Russia there is a story of a shoe factory that was pressured to increase production, as measured by quantity of shoes produced. However, the factory was a bit short on materials. So to increase production, the factory decided to produce more children's shoes, which require less material. Eventually there was a severe shortage of adult shoes, especially larger sizes. However, the factory was meeting its production goals on paper.</p><p>The simplicity of a metric or model is not necessarily related to its importance.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never seen an economist or " libertarian " give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.The problem I see with the anti-protectionism argument is that the models used are too simple : They try to maximize total GDP over the longer run .
While that 's certainly a laudable goal , it should not be the only factor .
As an analogy , if you want to maximize return on investments over the longer run , then start-up stocks and derivatives would be the way to go .
On paper , that 's what would give you the maximum total return on average.But " on average " is the key here .
Risk is not " free " in economics and investment theory .
For investments , you weigh risk against return to find the level that best fits your needs .
You mix high-risk and low-risk investments to balance the pay/risk level .
For sound investments one usually ends up selecting some bonds even though they have a lower average return rate .
This is because they are a hedge against market meltdown .
Risk is lowered at the expense of average return.The same applies to trade : " free trade " is the more-leveraged position , meaning you take on more risk in order to gain a better average return .
This risk manifests itself in various ways , including economic bubbles and the need for individuals to change careers every 20 years or so as their present career becomes a commodity and goes over-seas where labor is cheaper .
It 's hard to raise a family if you have to start over every 20 years or so .
Stability is worth something to people , and leveraged trade hinders that.Full free trade is only a free lunch if you ignore factors that are harder to compute .
Economists often call these " externalities " , which is kind of dismissive .
It 's the messy " side-effects " little dumping area for things that are difficult to quantify and model.I 'm for balanced trade , but this lopsided trade has to go .
The recent financial meltdown is in part caused by Asia using excess dollars from lopsided trade to loan to the US , creating the Great Loan Bubble.Further is loss of economic diversification .
Without local manufacturing , we risk being caught with no factories if there 's ever a trade-disrupting war or natural disaster .
Ireland encountered a diversification problem when they switched a majority of their farms to potatoes .
Potatoes grew very well in that country , becoming the most competitive food item for them to grow .
However , a potato disease wiped out most of the potato crop one year , creating death and panic .
Diversification is yet another hedge against risk , and has value to human beings .
For a similar reason , we should n't let manufacturing just slip away .
Some economists choose to ignore the value of diversification , either out of bias , laziness ( hard to calc ) , or naivety.Here 's a tale of overly-focusing on one factor : In Soviet Russia there is a story of a shoe factory that was pressured to increase production , as measured by quantity of shoes produced .
However , the factory was a bit short on materials .
So to increase production , the factory decided to produce more children 's shoes , which require less material .
Eventually there was a severe shortage of adult shoes , especially larger sizes .
However , the factory was meeting its production goals on paper.The simplicity of a metric or model is not necessarily related to its importance .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.The problem I see with the anti-protectionism argument is that the models used are too simple: They try to maximize total GDP over the longer run.
While that's certainly a laudable goal, it should not be the only factor.
As an analogy, if you want to maximize return on investments over the longer run, then start-up stocks and derivatives would be the way to go.
On paper, that's what would give you the maximum total return on average.But "on average" is the key here.
Risk is not "free" in economics and investment theory.
For investments, you weigh risk against return to find the level that best fits your needs.
You mix high-risk and low-risk investments to balance the pay/risk level.
For sound investments one usually ends up selecting some bonds even though they have a lower average return rate.
This is because they are a hedge against market meltdown.
Risk is lowered at the expense of average return.The same applies to trade: "free trade" is the more-leveraged position, meaning you take on more risk in order to gain a better average return.
This risk manifests itself in various ways, including economic bubbles and the need for individuals to change careers every 20 years or so as their present career becomes a commodity and goes over-seas where labor is cheaper.
It's hard to raise a family if you have to start over every 20 years or so.
Stability is worth something to people, and leveraged trade hinders that.Full free trade is only a free lunch if you ignore factors that are harder to compute.
Economists often call these "externalities", which is kind of dismissive.
It's the messy "side-effects" little dumping area for things that are difficult to quantify and model.I'm for balanced trade, but this lopsided trade has to go.
The recent financial meltdown is in part caused by Asia using excess dollars from lopsided trade to loan to the US, creating the Great Loan Bubble.Further is loss of economic diversification.
Without local manufacturing, we risk being caught with no factories if there's ever a trade-disrupting war or natural disaster.
Ireland encountered a diversification problem when they switched a majority of their farms to potatoes.
Potatoes grew very well in that country, becoming the most competitive food item for them to grow.
However, a potato disease wiped out most of the potato crop one year, creating death and panic.
Diversification is yet another hedge against risk, and has value to human beings.
For a similar reason, we shouldn't let manufacturing just slip away.
Some economists choose to ignore the value of diversification, either out of bias, laziness (hard to calc), or naivety.Here's a tale of overly-focusing on one factor: In Soviet Russia there is a story of a shoe factory that was pressured to increase production, as measured by quantity of shoes produced.
However, the factory was a bit short on materials.
So to increase production, the factory decided to produce more children's shoes, which require less material.
Eventually there was a severe shortage of adult shoes, especially larger sizes.
However, the factory was meeting its production goals on paper.The simplicity of a metric or model is not necessarily related to its importance.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036166</id>
	<title>But does it answer...</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1257795420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is babby formed?????
how is babby formed?
how girl get pragnent?

<a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081017195134AAWT7Ez" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">Yahoo Answers</a> [yahoo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is babby formed ? ? ? ? ?
how is babby formed ?
how girl get pragnent ?
Yahoo Answers [ yahoo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is babby formed?????
how is babby formed?
how girl get pragnent?
Yahoo Answers [yahoo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039624</id>
	<title>Re:"Big" question?</title>
	<author>ralphbecket</author>
	<datestamp>1257767520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe in a god in the same way I don't believe in unicorns.</p><p>All knowledge is contingent: at some level you have to believe things such as the past is a predictor of the future, that you can trust your senses, and so forth, in order to make any progress.  Without such starting points it's hard to see how you could develop any kind of worthwhile philosophy.</p><p>There are an infinite number of things that might be or about which I might be mistaken, but I'm not going to act as though they do exist without good reason.  I don't see atheist logicians and philosophers as being closed minded on the subject, they are just unconvinced by the arguments in favour of faith.  Moreover, they explain precisely the problems with the arguments for theism as presented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe in a god in the same way I do n't believe in unicorns.All knowledge is contingent : at some level you have to believe things such as the past is a predictor of the future , that you can trust your senses , and so forth , in order to make any progress .
Without such starting points it 's hard to see how you could develop any kind of worthwhile philosophy.There are an infinite number of things that might be or about which I might be mistaken , but I 'm not going to act as though they do exist without good reason .
I do n't see atheist logicians and philosophers as being closed minded on the subject , they are just unconvinced by the arguments in favour of faith .
Moreover , they explain precisely the problems with the arguments for theism as presented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe in a god in the same way I don't believe in unicorns.All knowledge is contingent: at some level you have to believe things such as the past is a predictor of the future, that you can trust your senses, and so forth, in order to make any progress.
Without such starting points it's hard to see how you could develop any kind of worthwhile philosophy.There are an infinite number of things that might be or about which I might be mistaken, but I'm not going to act as though they do exist without good reason.
I don't see atheist logicians and philosophers as being closed minded on the subject, they are just unconvinced by the arguments in favour of faith.
Moreover, they explain precisely the problems with the arguments for theism as presented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037170</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1257800100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then you haven't bothered looking.</p><blockquote><div><p>or ignores the reality that the reason tariffs exist is to protect a nation's industry against the predatory practices of potentially hostile nation-states.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe you just like alliteration... but that statement is in no way true.<br> <br>First, "predatory" is a loaded adjective, and is meaningless in terms of economic activity.  Is it "predatory" for people in one country to work for lower wages than the people in another country?  Because that's the kind of "predatory" situation that is stopped by tariffs.<br> <br>Second, "potentially-hostile" is ridiculous.  All states are potentially hostile.<br> <br>At any rate, if you want reasons why protectionist tariffs are not the answer, try google.  I'll get you started with this thought, however:<br> <br>When one actor institutes tariffs, the typical reaction is for trading partners to assume retaliatory tariffs.  In the end, everyone suffers because of reduced trade volume -- except for trading partners without tariffs against each other.  They make out like bandits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never seen an economist or " libertarian " give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.Then you have n't bothered looking.or ignores the reality that the reason tariffs exist is to protect a nation 's industry against the predatory practices of potentially hostile nation-states.Maybe you just like alliteration... but that statement is in no way true .
First , " predatory " is a loaded adjective , and is meaningless in terms of economic activity .
Is it " predatory " for people in one country to work for lower wages than the people in another country ?
Because that 's the kind of " predatory " situation that is stopped by tariffs .
Second , " potentially-hostile " is ridiculous .
All states are potentially hostile .
At any rate , if you want reasons why protectionist tariffs are not the answer , try google .
I 'll get you started with this thought , however : When one actor institutes tariffs , the typical reaction is for trading partners to assume retaliatory tariffs .
In the end , everyone suffers because of reduced trade volume -- except for trading partners without tariffs against each other .
They make out like bandits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.Then you haven't bothered looking.or ignores the reality that the reason tariffs exist is to protect a nation's industry against the predatory practices of potentially hostile nation-states.Maybe you just like alliteration... but that statement is in no way true.
First, "predatory" is a loaded adjective, and is meaningless in terms of economic activity.
Is it "predatory" for people in one country to work for lower wages than the people in another country?
Because that's the kind of "predatory" situation that is stopped by tariffs.
Second, "potentially-hostile" is ridiculous.
All states are potentially hostile.
At any rate, if you want reasons why protectionist tariffs are not the answer, try google.
I'll get you started with this thought, however: When one actor institutes tariffs, the typical reaction is for trading partners to assume retaliatory tariffs.
In the end, everyone suffers because of reduced trade volume -- except for trading partners without tariffs against each other.
They make out like bandits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037838</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257759660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you justify that, since you can't use human rights abuses or environmental damage as arguments?</p></div><p>Socialized medicine is a human rights violation and a subsidy for inefficient manufacturers.  Suck it, freedom-hating royalists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you justify that , since you ca n't use human rights abuses or environmental damage as arguments ? Socialized medicine is a human rights violation and a subsidy for inefficient manufacturers .
Suck it , freedom-hating royalists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you justify that, since you can't use human rights abuses or environmental damage as arguments?Socialized medicine is a human rights violation and a subsidy for inefficient manufacturers.
Suck it, freedom-hating royalists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037800</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>internettoughguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257759480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because ultimately we will discover our minds are deterministic machines, doesn't mean that we should get all upset about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because ultimately we will discover our minds are deterministic machines , does n't mean that we should get all upset about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because ultimately we will discover our minds are deterministic machines, doesn't mean that we should get all upset about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037338</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy should have never been....</title>
	<author>moore.dustin</author>
	<datestamp>1257757680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't. I believe you may be mis-representing what Socrates/Plato is saying in that line. To me, this says: "Those who seek and desire \_complete\_, objective truth deserve the title of Philosophers." The term 'reality' is used to represent what could be called a 'complete and truthful understanding' of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't .
I believe you may be mis-representing what Socrates/Plato is saying in that line .
To me , this says : " Those who seek and desire \ _complete \ _ , objective truth deserve the title of Philosophers .
" The term 'reality ' is used to represent what could be called a 'complete and truthful understanding ' of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't.
I believe you may be mis-representing what Socrates/Plato is saying in that line.
To me, this says: "Those who seek and desire \_complete\_, objective truth deserve the title of Philosophers.
" The term 'reality' is used to represent what could be called a 'complete and truthful understanding' of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038610</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>aflag</author>
	<datestamp>1257762780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100\% certain they know the answer.</p></div><p>My intel processor only takes educated guesses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When computers are asked to solve a math question , they are always 100 \ % certain they know the answer.My intel processor only takes educated guesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100\% certain they know the answer.My intel processor only takes educated guesses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036392</id>
	<title>I'm glad</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1257796620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the guy who played Dietrich in Barney Miller finally put his years of thought-provoking comments in a book. I can't wait to read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the guy who played Dietrich in Barney Miller finally put his years of thought-provoking comments in a book .
I ca n't wait to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the guy who played Dietrich in Barney Miller finally put his years of thought-provoking comments in a book.
I can't wait to read it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1257797880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.</p></div><p>OK I'm an amateur at both, I'll give it a try in support:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Suppose that an American sells cameras for $80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $60 apiece.</p></div><p>OK, if it were a free market between equal players, you'd have a point.  But it is not, because at least some players in the market are not free (the Chinese) and some players are kept ignorant thus cannot play the game fairly (the USA).  The $80 camera was made in a facility that is at least semi-environmentally sound and respects at least some human rights, and the Chinese one is made by slaves working in an ecological disaster.  We pretend that is unacceptable for humans to live like the Chinese, at least its unacceptable if they are Americans.  So either its OK to save money by skipping all those human rights things, in which case we should do the same here (please don't be that stupid), or the Chinese are not humans like us (please don't be that stupid).  Protectionist tariffs level the playing field at least partially, and are therefore critical economically for a free, libertarian market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never seen an economist or " libertarian " give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.OK I 'm an amateur at both , I 'll give it a try in support : Suppose that an American sells cameras for $ 80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $ 60 apiece.OK , if it were a free market between equal players , you 'd have a point .
But it is not , because at least some players in the market are not free ( the Chinese ) and some players are kept ignorant thus can not play the game fairly ( the USA ) .
The $ 80 camera was made in a facility that is at least semi-environmentally sound and respects at least some human rights , and the Chinese one is made by slaves working in an ecological disaster .
We pretend that is unacceptable for humans to live like the Chinese , at least its unacceptable if they are Americans .
So either its OK to save money by skipping all those human rights things , in which case we should do the same here ( please do n't be that stupid ) , or the Chinese are not humans like us ( please do n't be that stupid ) .
Protectionist tariffs level the playing field at least partially , and are therefore critical economically for a free , libertarian market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.OK I'm an amateur at both, I'll give it a try in support:Suppose that an American sells cameras for $80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $60 apiece.OK, if it were a free market between equal players, you'd have a point.
But it is not, because at least some players in the market are not free (the Chinese) and some players are kept ignorant thus cannot play the game fairly (the USA).
The $80 camera was made in a facility that is at least semi-environmentally sound and respects at least some human rights, and the Chinese one is made by slaves working in an ecological disaster.
We pretend that is unacceptable for humans to live like the Chinese, at least its unacceptable if they are Americans.
So either its OK to save money by skipping all those human rights things, in which case we should do the same here (please don't be that stupid), or the Chinese are not humans like us (please don't be that stupid).
Protectionist tariffs level the playing field at least partially, and are therefore critical economically for a free, libertarian market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040006</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1257769680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The heart of the problem is a definition power play.</p></div><p>WTF are you talking about?  Since the discovery of the uncertainty principle, we've known that classical determinism was crowd sourced from day one (via statistical mechanics).</p><p>Even without quantum indeterminacy, there's still algorithmic indeterminacy.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin's\_constant" title="wikipedia.org">Chaitin's constant</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>We know we might be wrong. The machines don't know that.</p></div><p>If this is what free will amounts to, I don't see the day coming when the computers are beating down the doors saying "I want me some of that."</p><p>OTOH, I don't see any reason why a computer can't be programmed to make addled contributions to slashdot given the magnitude of the available training corpus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The heart of the problem is a definition power play.WTF are you talking about ?
Since the discovery of the uncertainty principle , we 've known that classical determinism was crowd sourced from day one ( via statistical mechanics ) .Even without quantum indeterminacy , there 's still algorithmic indeterminacy.Chaitin 's constant [ wikipedia.org ] We know we might be wrong .
The machines do n't know that.If this is what free will amounts to , I do n't see the day coming when the computers are beating down the doors saying " I want me some of that .
" OTOH , I do n't see any reason why a computer ca n't be programmed to make addled contributions to slashdot given the magnitude of the available training corpus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The heart of the problem is a definition power play.WTF are you talking about?
Since the discovery of the uncertainty principle, we've known that classical determinism was crowd sourced from day one (via statistical mechanics).Even without quantum indeterminacy, there's still algorithmic indeterminacy.Chaitin's constant [wikipedia.org] We know we might be wrong.
The machines don't know that.If this is what free will amounts to, I don't see the day coming when the computers are beating down the doors saying "I want me some of that.
"OTOH, I don't see any reason why a computer can't be programmed to make addled contributions to slashdot given the magnitude of the available training corpus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036964</id>
	<title>It's question-begging.</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1257799080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He wants to prove that everything is essentially deterministic (waving his hands a bit, possibly justifiably, at the QM stuff), and claims that free will is a sort of emergent property. And does that by assuming that everything is deterministic. Um, ok.</p><p>I haven't read the book, but from the summary it seems as if it's part of a genre of books popular in recent years, in which experts in some field try to apply what they know to some other field that they don't know anything about... with sort of dubious results. The original Freakonomics, and even more so Superfreakonomics was like this. SF, in particularly, was done with a certain intellectual dishonesty, mischaracterizing the views of some of the climate scientists quoted in the climate change section, and using some fairly dubious assumptions in the section about whether to walk or drive after you've had a few too many. There was another book recently in the same vein - unfortunately, I can remember neither the author nor the title, so I can't link to it - but it was a statistician who tried to analyze climate data. He came to the conclusion that "global warming" was bunk - and was promptly (intellectually speaking) torn limb-from-limb by actual climate scientists. It turns out that blindly apply statistics to a problem you don't really understand is not necessarily the path to enlightenment.</p><p>Something to keep in mind when reading this sort of thing: books that study a problem and conclude that the intuitively obvious answer/conventional wisdom is correct... don't sell. If you want to move your book, it needs to be controversial, so there's a built-in incentive to say incendiary stuff. This particular book sounds interesting enough that I might check it out of the library, but I doubt I'd spend any money on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He wants to prove that everything is essentially deterministic ( waving his hands a bit , possibly justifiably , at the QM stuff ) , and claims that free will is a sort of emergent property .
And does that by assuming that everything is deterministic .
Um , ok.I have n't read the book , but from the summary it seems as if it 's part of a genre of books popular in recent years , in which experts in some field try to apply what they know to some other field that they do n't know anything about... with sort of dubious results .
The original Freakonomics , and even more so Superfreakonomics was like this .
SF , in particularly , was done with a certain intellectual dishonesty , mischaracterizing the views of some of the climate scientists quoted in the climate change section , and using some fairly dubious assumptions in the section about whether to walk or drive after you 've had a few too many .
There was another book recently in the same vein - unfortunately , I can remember neither the author nor the title , so I ca n't link to it - but it was a statistician who tried to analyze climate data .
He came to the conclusion that " global warming " was bunk - and was promptly ( intellectually speaking ) torn limb-from-limb by actual climate scientists .
It turns out that blindly apply statistics to a problem you do n't really understand is not necessarily the path to enlightenment.Something to keep in mind when reading this sort of thing : books that study a problem and conclude that the intuitively obvious answer/conventional wisdom is correct... do n't sell .
If you want to move your book , it needs to be controversial , so there 's a built-in incentive to say incendiary stuff .
This particular book sounds interesting enough that I might check it out of the library , but I doubt I 'd spend any money on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He wants to prove that everything is essentially deterministic (waving his hands a bit, possibly justifiably, at the QM stuff), and claims that free will is a sort of emergent property.
And does that by assuming that everything is deterministic.
Um, ok.I haven't read the book, but from the summary it seems as if it's part of a genre of books popular in recent years, in which experts in some field try to apply what they know to some other field that they don't know anything about... with sort of dubious results.
The original Freakonomics, and even more so Superfreakonomics was like this.
SF, in particularly, was done with a certain intellectual dishonesty, mischaracterizing the views of some of the climate scientists quoted in the climate change section, and using some fairly dubious assumptions in the section about whether to walk or drive after you've had a few too many.
There was another book recently in the same vein - unfortunately, I can remember neither the author nor the title, so I can't link to it - but it was a statistician who tried to analyze climate data.
He came to the conclusion that "global warming" was bunk - and was promptly (intellectually speaking) torn limb-from-limb by actual climate scientists.
It turns out that blindly apply statistics to a problem you don't really understand is not necessarily the path to enlightenment.Something to keep in mind when reading this sort of thing: books that study a problem and conclude that the intuitively obvious answer/conventional wisdom is correct... don't sell.
If you want to move your book, it needs to be controversial, so there's a built-in incentive to say incendiary stuff.
This particular book sounds interesting enough that I might check it out of the library, but I doubt I'd spend any money on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</id>
	<title>Free will bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.  They gloss over the quantum effects like it is irrelevant.  No.  I reject your premise that the human mind is 100\% deterministic.  Quantum effects are not only significant, they are in fact the key point of how the human mind works.  Anyone that studies the human mind realizes that we DON'T do certinity.  Our behavior can not be predicted (except en masse aka Asimov's Foundation books).   When asked about obvious, stated things like who we will vote for, our answers changes merely based on time.   Computers think determensitically.  Which is why we know they have no free will.   Humans think via probabilities, not certanties.  When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100\% certain they know the answer.  When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain.   We know we might be wrong.   The machines don't know that.
<p>
2.  They also assume the question.   If you believe in a soul, then the brain could be considered determenisitically created reception device for the soul's commands.  Then everything about the brain could be determenstic, in the same way a radio is 100\% predicatable, but the descisions, being made off-site in the soul, not the brain, are totally not determenistic.
</p><p>3.  The heart of the problem is a definition power play.  Yes, if you define the brain ahead of the time as a determenistic construct, then since determenistic constructs do not allow for free-will, then humans get no soul.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
They gloss over the quantum effects like it is irrelevant .
No. I reject your premise that the human mind is 100 \ % deterministic .
Quantum effects are not only significant , they are in fact the key point of how the human mind works .
Anyone that studies the human mind realizes that we DO N'T do certinity .
Our behavior can not be predicted ( except en masse aka Asimov 's Foundation books ) .
When asked about obvious , stated things like who we will vote for , our answers changes merely based on time .
Computers think determensitically .
Which is why we know they have no free will .
Humans think via probabilities , not certanties .
When computers are asked to solve a math question , they are always 100 \ % certain they know the answer .
When humas do it , we generally are a lot less certain .
We know we might be wrong .
The machines do n't know that .
2. They also assume the question .
If you believe in a soul , then the brain could be considered determenisitically created reception device for the soul 's commands .
Then everything about the brain could be determenstic , in the same way a radio is 100 \ % predicatable , but the descisions , being made off-site in the soul , not the brain , are totally not determenistic .
3. The heart of the problem is a definition power play .
Yes , if you define the brain ahead of the time as a determenistic construct , then since determenistic constructs do not allow for free-will , then humans get no soul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
They gloss over the quantum effects like it is irrelevant.
No.  I reject your premise that the human mind is 100\% deterministic.
Quantum effects are not only significant, they are in fact the key point of how the human mind works.
Anyone that studies the human mind realizes that we DON'T do certinity.
Our behavior can not be predicted (except en masse aka Asimov's Foundation books).
When asked about obvious, stated things like who we will vote for, our answers changes merely based on time.
Computers think determensitically.
Which is why we know they have no free will.
Humans think via probabilities, not certanties.
When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100\% certain they know the answer.
When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain.
We know we might be wrong.
The machines don't know that.
2.  They also assume the question.
If you believe in a soul, then the brain could be considered determenisitically created reception device for the soul's commands.
Then everything about the brain could be determenstic, in the same way a radio is 100\% predicatable, but the descisions, being made off-site in the soul, not the brain, are totally not determenistic.
3.  The heart of the problem is a definition power play.
Yes, if you define the brain ahead of the time as a determenistic construct, then since determenistic constructs do not allow for free-will, then humans get no soul.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037972</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1257760260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many tariffs are put in place because some industry or union has lobbied against the "unfair competition!!" overseas and basically wants a bigger slice of Americans' wallet in the end. "The environment" or "exploitation" is the excuse for the tariff, not the actual reason (like Bush taking us into Iraq- WMDs were the excuse- and sometimes the excuses are actually true.)
<p> In these cases, the economic winners are few and concentrated (e.g. GM autoworkers) and have a large incentive to produce political pressure and hire lobbyists, whereas the losers are many, but they don't lose very much. Would you hire a lobbyist over a your car being $200 more expensive because of a tariff on a particular component? Would you hire a lobbyist to pass a tariff if it could mean your job? Similar incentive structures frequently the cause when regulation proves to be a failure. You can look at some of the figures some time - I recall seeing one where each job saved from a certain steel-related tariff cost the economy something like $150,000 a year. That'd take a pretty cushy job for the country to break even.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many tariffs are put in place because some industry or union has lobbied against the " unfair competition ! !
" overseas and basically wants a bigger slice of Americans ' wallet in the end .
" The environment " or " exploitation " is the excuse for the tariff , not the actual reason ( like Bush taking us into Iraq- WMDs were the excuse- and sometimes the excuses are actually true .
) In these cases , the economic winners are few and concentrated ( e.g .
GM autoworkers ) and have a large incentive to produce political pressure and hire lobbyists , whereas the losers are many , but they do n't lose very much .
Would you hire a lobbyist over a your car being $ 200 more expensive because of a tariff on a particular component ?
Would you hire a lobbyist to pass a tariff if it could mean your job ?
Similar incentive structures frequently the cause when regulation proves to be a failure .
You can look at some of the figures some time - I recall seeing one where each job saved from a certain steel-related tariff cost the economy something like $ 150,000 a year .
That 'd take a pretty cushy job for the country to break even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many tariffs are put in place because some industry or union has lobbied against the "unfair competition!!
" overseas and basically wants a bigger slice of Americans' wallet in the end.
"The environment" or "exploitation" is the excuse for the tariff, not the actual reason (like Bush taking us into Iraq- WMDs were the excuse- and sometimes the excuses are actually true.
)
 In these cases, the economic winners are few and concentrated (e.g.
GM autoworkers) and have a large incentive to produce political pressure and hire lobbyists, whereas the losers are many, but they don't lose very much.
Would you hire a lobbyist over a your car being $200 more expensive because of a tariff on a particular component?
Would you hire a lobbyist to pass a tariff if it could mean your job?
Similar incentive structures frequently the cause when regulation proves to be a failure.
You can look at some of the figures some time - I recall seeing one where each job saved from a certain steel-related tariff cost the economy something like $150,000 a year.
That'd take a pretty cushy job for the country to break even.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036430</id>
	<title>Some questions are more complicated than others</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1257796800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could take till the end of universe and a godlike intelligence to answer how to decrease entropy, or even an entire planet to figure to what question is 42 the answer.<br><br>What matters as big questions now could not matter in the future, or the proper answer be meaningless for our current knowledge/posibilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could take till the end of universe and a godlike intelligence to answer how to decrease entropy , or even an entire planet to figure to what question is 42 the answer.What matters as big questions now could not matter in the future , or the proper answer be meaningless for our current knowledge/posibilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could take till the end of universe and a godlike intelligence to answer how to decrease entropy, or even an entire planet to figure to what question is 42 the answer.What matters as big questions now could not matter in the future, or the proper answer be meaningless for our current knowledge/posibilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30042920</id>
	<title>Pop science and propaganda.</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1257796320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aargh, I hate it when people try to get "smart" about serious subjects, and this one smells a lot like one of those. The explanations and arguments sound superficially OK, but they are deceptive, in that they don't spell out their starting conditions. Take the one about protectionism - it starts from the conclusion: "protectionism is bad, and now we are going to prove it". So they roll out the argument that on average America would be better off without protectionist tariffs - which of course leaves out a lot of details; but apart from that, it is like saying that if 99 people have nothing and 1 person has 1 million, then they are all well off, on average. Yeah, right. On the other hand, if you were to ask one of them, you would still have a 99\% chance of hearing that they had nothing.</p><p>Same thing with Heisenberg - it is stated as solid fact that "there is nothing to be found<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...", which is again smugly claimed nonsense. All we know is that we do not at present have a method of measuring things more precisely than what is described by Heisenberg's inequality; the fundamental problem is the wave-particle nature of the things we measure with: electrons, photons etc. The wave-length sets a lower limit for how precisely we can know the position of any target, and since shorter wave-length mean higher momentum, if we try to get more precise, we hit the target harder, and therefore can't determine its momentum as precisely. That is all we know. The rest of it is just quasi-religious hokum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aargh , I hate it when people try to get " smart " about serious subjects , and this one smells a lot like one of those .
The explanations and arguments sound superficially OK , but they are deceptive , in that they do n't spell out their starting conditions .
Take the one about protectionism - it starts from the conclusion : " protectionism is bad , and now we are going to prove it " .
So they roll out the argument that on average America would be better off without protectionist tariffs - which of course leaves out a lot of details ; but apart from that , it is like saying that if 99 people have nothing and 1 person has 1 million , then they are all well off , on average .
Yeah , right .
On the other hand , if you were to ask one of them , you would still have a 99 \ % chance of hearing that they had nothing.Same thing with Heisenberg - it is stated as solid fact that " there is nothing to be found ... " , which is again smugly claimed nonsense .
All we know is that we do not at present have a method of measuring things more precisely than what is described by Heisenberg 's inequality ; the fundamental problem is the wave-particle nature of the things we measure with : electrons , photons etc .
The wave-length sets a lower limit for how precisely we can know the position of any target , and since shorter wave-length mean higher momentum , if we try to get more precise , we hit the target harder , and therefore ca n't determine its momentum as precisely .
That is all we know .
The rest of it is just quasi-religious hokum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aargh, I hate it when people try to get "smart" about serious subjects, and this one smells a lot like one of those.
The explanations and arguments sound superficially OK, but they are deceptive, in that they don't spell out their starting conditions.
Take the one about protectionism - it starts from the conclusion: "protectionism is bad, and now we are going to prove it".
So they roll out the argument that on average America would be better off without protectionist tariffs - which of course leaves out a lot of details; but apart from that, it is like saying that if 99 people have nothing and 1 person has 1 million, then they are all well off, on average.
Yeah, right.
On the other hand, if you were to ask one of them, you would still have a 99\% chance of hearing that they had nothing.Same thing with Heisenberg - it is stated as solid fact that "there is nothing to be found ...", which is again smugly claimed nonsense.
All we know is that we do not at present have a method of measuring things more precisely than what is described by Heisenberg's inequality; the fundamental problem is the wave-particle nature of the things we measure with: electrons, photons etc.
The wave-length sets a lower limit for how precisely we can know the position of any target, and since shorter wave-length mean higher momentum, if we try to get more precise, we hit the target harder, and therefore can't determine its momentum as precisely.
That is all we know.
The rest of it is just quasi-religious hokum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039052</id>
	<title>...the biggest question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257764700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Honey, does this skirt make me look fat?"</p><p>(NO, the answer is - and always will be - NO!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Honey , does this skirt make me look fat ?
" ( NO , the answer is - and always will be - NO !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Honey, does this skirt make me look fat?
"(NO, the answer is - and always will be - NO!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037458</id>
	<title>Re:"Big" question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mainly because atheists don't assert absolute knowledge or infallibility (just ask one), they instead assert that you and your buddies are full of shit. Not hard to prove either; just poke a hole in one, and see what flows out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mainly because atheists do n't assert absolute knowledge or infallibility ( just ask one ) , they instead assert that you and your buddies are full of shit .
Not hard to prove either ; just poke a hole in one , and see what flows out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mainly because atheists don't assert absolute knowledge or infallibility (just ask one), they instead assert that you and your buddies are full of shit.
Not hard to prove either; just poke a hole in one, and see what flows out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038438</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't you ever get told to share?</title>
	<author>internettoughguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257762120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the point you are trying to make is that libertarians are somewhat like greedy children?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the point you are trying to make is that libertarians are somewhat like greedy children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the point you are trying to make is that libertarians are somewhat like greedy children?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037248</id>
	<title>Sheesh, what a Glibertarian.</title>
	<author>E. Edward Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1257757260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a kind of person out there who is absolutely sure, with no evidence whatever, that basic numerical logic can be applied to complex human phenomena such as government, philosophy, and peace of mind with great success.  I suspect that they are probably correct, if your measure of "great success" is also measured purely by basic numerical logic, i.e. a few additional points of efficiency that amounts to pennies in the pockets of people who could have done without them.  And what they get in return is the satisfaction of knowing that they have total and complete control over those few pennies, which will never be delivered into the hands of bureaucracies which are inherently evil for some reason.  Good for them.  I'm sure Libertopia will one day be a grand place full of happy people who are overjoyed by the glib and peremptory assholes who would control debate, but I dare anyone to determine how the end result is markedly different from a society utterly ruled by any other kind of fervent belief - see the delightful anecdote about what kind of things Haselton teaches his six-year-old daughter, as if there was nothing more to it than "government takes your money and kills children.  Sweet dreams honey."  I don't know how you're doing worse than this if you're sending your kids off to Jesus Camp.  It's a kind of unquestioning faith in the unproven for which most churches would kill...and have.</p><p>Interconnectedness is a basic fact of life.  There are human forces much stronger than the kind of processes you learn in undergrad logic classes.  Some gracefully accept it.  Some never grow beyond fighting it.  If you are of the very solid and hardly movable opinion that what really matters in life, what's really going to change the world, is precisely how you argue points of logic and how you pick apart someone else's, you're decidedly in the latter category, in which case there's a lot less of philosophy there than there is pathology.  It's for that reason that I look forward to my down-modding with equanimity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a kind of person out there who is absolutely sure , with no evidence whatever , that basic numerical logic can be applied to complex human phenomena such as government , philosophy , and peace of mind with great success .
I suspect that they are probably correct , if your measure of " great success " is also measured purely by basic numerical logic , i.e .
a few additional points of efficiency that amounts to pennies in the pockets of people who could have done without them .
And what they get in return is the satisfaction of knowing that they have total and complete control over those few pennies , which will never be delivered into the hands of bureaucracies which are inherently evil for some reason .
Good for them .
I 'm sure Libertopia will one day be a grand place full of happy people who are overjoyed by the glib and peremptory assholes who would control debate , but I dare anyone to determine how the end result is markedly different from a society utterly ruled by any other kind of fervent belief - see the delightful anecdote about what kind of things Haselton teaches his six-year-old daughter , as if there was nothing more to it than " government takes your money and kills children .
Sweet dreams honey .
" I do n't know how you 're doing worse than this if you 're sending your kids off to Jesus Camp .
It 's a kind of unquestioning faith in the unproven for which most churches would kill...and have.Interconnectedness is a basic fact of life .
There are human forces much stronger than the kind of processes you learn in undergrad logic classes .
Some gracefully accept it .
Some never grow beyond fighting it .
If you are of the very solid and hardly movable opinion that what really matters in life , what 's really going to change the world , is precisely how you argue points of logic and how you pick apart someone else 's , you 're decidedly in the latter category , in which case there 's a lot less of philosophy there than there is pathology .
It 's for that reason that I look forward to my down-modding with equanimity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a kind of person out there who is absolutely sure, with no evidence whatever, that basic numerical logic can be applied to complex human phenomena such as government, philosophy, and peace of mind with great success.
I suspect that they are probably correct, if your measure of "great success" is also measured purely by basic numerical logic, i.e.
a few additional points of efficiency that amounts to pennies in the pockets of people who could have done without them.
And what they get in return is the satisfaction of knowing that they have total and complete control over those few pennies, which will never be delivered into the hands of bureaucracies which are inherently evil for some reason.
Good for them.
I'm sure Libertopia will one day be a grand place full of happy people who are overjoyed by the glib and peremptory assholes who would control debate, but I dare anyone to determine how the end result is markedly different from a society utterly ruled by any other kind of fervent belief - see the delightful anecdote about what kind of things Haselton teaches his six-year-old daughter, as if there was nothing more to it than "government takes your money and kills children.
Sweet dreams honey.
"  I don't know how you're doing worse than this if you're sending your kids off to Jesus Camp.
It's a kind of unquestioning faith in the unproven for which most churches would kill...and have.Interconnectedness is a basic fact of life.
There are human forces much stronger than the kind of processes you learn in undergrad logic classes.
Some gracefully accept it.
Some never grow beyond fighting it.
If you are of the very solid and hardly movable opinion that what really matters in life, what's really going to change the world, is precisely how you argue points of logic and how you pick apart someone else's, you're decidedly in the latter category, in which case there's a lot less of philosophy there than there is pathology.
It's for that reason that I look forward to my down-modding with equanimity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036638</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never mind the fact that economics isn't parallel to a mathematical proof<br>but is a dogmatic social science akin to marxism</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never mind the fact that economics is n't parallel to a mathematical proofbut is a dogmatic social science akin to marxism</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never mind the fact that economics isn't parallel to a mathematical proofbut is a dogmatic social science akin to marxism</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037568</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1257758520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so let's say I want to work for zero wages to give your country free drugs.  They're free.  I'll refine and ship them to your citizens for free.  Do you want to enact a tariff on them or would you be better off accepting them?</p><p>What if it's poisoned children's toys instead?</p><p>How about food subsidies.  I'll send your citizens free food.  Would you accept it or would it be better for your citizens to grow their own food?  Don't worry, I wouldn't cut off your food supplies and then declare war on you.</p><p>Ammunition?  Tires?  Steel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so let 's say I want to work for zero wages to give your country free drugs .
They 're free .
I 'll refine and ship them to your citizens for free .
Do you want to enact a tariff on them or would you be better off accepting them ? What if it 's poisoned children 's toys instead ? How about food subsidies .
I 'll send your citizens free food .
Would you accept it or would it be better for your citizens to grow their own food ?
Do n't worry , I would n't cut off your food supplies and then declare war on you.Ammunition ?
Tires ? Steel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so let's say I want to work for zero wages to give your country free drugs.
They're free.
I'll refine and ship them to your citizens for free.
Do you want to enact a tariff on them or would you be better off accepting them?What if it's poisoned children's toys instead?How about food subsidies.
I'll send your citizens free food.
Would you accept it or would it be better for your citizens to grow their own food?
Don't worry, I wouldn't cut off your food supplies and then declare war on you.Ammunition?
Tires?  Steel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036614</id>
	<title>Might be a good book</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1257797640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes being wrong in interesting ways about interesting things is quite good for starting discussions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes being wrong in interesting ways about interesting things is quite good for starting discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes being wrong in interesting ways about interesting things is quite good for starting discussions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040798</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>darkwing\_bmf</author>
	<datestamp>1257773940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, both countries are worse off. "Why should we favor this one particular industry in our country when it makes the citizens of both the US and Canada worse off on average?" with the response being "Averages don't produces campaign funds or votes while this particular industry produces both."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , both countries are worse off .
" Why should we favor this one particular industry in our country when it makes the citizens of both the US and Canada worse off on average ?
" with the response being " Averages do n't produces campaign funds or votes while this particular industry produces both .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, both countries are worse off.
"Why should we favor this one particular industry in our country when it makes the citizens of both the US and Canada worse off on average?
" with the response being "Averages don't produces campaign funds or votes while this particular industry produces both.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036818</id>
	<title>Philosophy should have never been....</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1257798480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... considered a seperate "branch of knowledge" since if you study people like plato, Plato says thus:</p><p>"And those whose hearts are fixed on Reality itself deserve the title of Philosophers."<br>(Plato, Republic, 380BC)</p><p>I think many ancient philosophers would find it strange we consider things seperate, in the last little while we've tended not to see things holistically like ancient philosophers did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... considered a seperate " branch of knowledge " since if you study people like plato , Plato says thus : " And those whose hearts are fixed on Reality itself deserve the title of Philosophers .
" ( Plato , Republic , 380BC ) I think many ancient philosophers would find it strange we consider things seperate , in the last little while we 've tended not to see things holistically like ancient philosophers did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... considered a seperate "branch of knowledge" since if you study people like plato, Plato says thus:"And those whose hearts are fixed on Reality itself deserve the title of Philosophers.
"(Plato, Republic, 380BC)I think many ancient philosophers would find it strange we consider things seperate, in the last little while we've tended not to see things holistically like ancient philosophers did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036762</id>
	<title>Re:I think the big questions are "big"</title>
	<author>pitchpipe</author>
	<datestamp>1257798300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I still find myself an atheist, but I now longer feel logic and reason and math will ever prove God doesn't exist</p></div><p>Just because we believe that logic and reason as we presently know them do not have anything to say about the existence/non-existence of a god does not mean that in the future they will not, and I think that part of the book is in a way saying as much.  By what means do you arrive at such a conclusion that from now until forever a way will not be found in reason and logic so that they will have something to say on the existence of a god?</p><p>Side note: I characterize myself as an atheist as well, but in reality I just ascribe the probability of a god existing as being close to zero.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still find myself an atheist , but I now longer feel logic and reason and math will ever prove God does n't existJust because we believe that logic and reason as we presently know them do not have anything to say about the existence/non-existence of a god does not mean that in the future they will not , and I think that part of the book is in a way saying as much .
By what means do you arrive at such a conclusion that from now until forever a way will not be found in reason and logic so that they will have something to say on the existence of a god ? Side note : I characterize myself as an atheist as well , but in reality I just ascribe the probability of a god existing as being close to zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still find myself an atheist, but I now longer feel logic and reason and math will ever prove God doesn't existJust because we believe that logic and reason as we presently know them do not have anything to say about the existence/non-existence of a god does not mean that in the future they will not, and I think that part of the book is in a way saying as much.
By what means do you arrive at such a conclusion that from now until forever a way will not be found in reason and logic so that they will have something to say on the existence of a god?Side note: I characterize myself as an atheist as well, but in reality I just ascribe the probability of a god existing as being close to zero.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036452</id>
	<title>Re:When science fails.</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257796920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>however these days when scientists can subvert the free market and undermine sound public policy simply by publishing false papers in journals,</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As a scientist, there is undeniable evidence for recent climate change and "global warming". Just look at the fact that the earth was virtually covered in ice as little as 150,000 years ago, and you'll see a trend.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I think what you're referring to is "MAN MADE" global warming. Not ALL the scientific community agree with that hypothesis because it fails to account for the shrinking martian polar caps or the increased atmospheric phenomena in Jupiter's atmosphere, for example - phenomena which are clearly not man made and yet happen to be occurring at the same time as our planet is heating up. Some people explain it away as co-incidence, talking about wobbles in Mars' revolution, etc. Anyway I'm not out to "convince" anyone of anything - that's not what science is about.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; What I do want is to defend those of us that refuse to be lumped into the POLITICAL outcry about "man made" climate change which, surprise surprise, occurs at the same time as governments are enforcing a new way of taxation: taxation on "greenhouse gases". WOW. What a co-incidence. Surely there's no "political" motive behind blaming polluters for climate change? The backlash is eventually going to happen, however, when all those measures and steps fail to change global warming one bit. I wonder what the answer will be from the politicians THEN. Probably more taxes.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Climate change, however, IS a fact. Our poles ARE receding, and our AVERAGE temperatures are increasing. If you deny this I suggest a little more research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>however these days when scientists can subvert the free market and undermine sound public policy simply by publishing false papers in journals ,       As a scientist , there is undeniable evidence for recent climate change and " global warming " .
Just look at the fact that the earth was virtually covered in ice as little as 150,000 years ago , and you 'll see a trend .
      I think what you 're referring to is " MAN MADE " global warming .
Not ALL the scientific community agree with that hypothesis because it fails to account for the shrinking martian polar caps or the increased atmospheric phenomena in Jupiter 's atmosphere , for example - phenomena which are clearly not man made and yet happen to be occurring at the same time as our planet is heating up .
Some people explain it away as co-incidence , talking about wobbles in Mars ' revolution , etc .
Anyway I 'm not out to " convince " anyone of anything - that 's not what science is about .
      What I do want is to defend those of us that refuse to be lumped into the POLITICAL outcry about " man made " climate change which , surprise surprise , occurs at the same time as governments are enforcing a new way of taxation : taxation on " greenhouse gases " .
WOW. What a co-incidence .
Surely there 's no " political " motive behind blaming polluters for climate change ?
The backlash is eventually going to happen , however , when all those measures and steps fail to change global warming one bit .
I wonder what the answer will be from the politicians THEN .
Probably more taxes .
      Climate change , however , IS a fact .
Our poles ARE receding , and our AVERAGE temperatures are increasing .
If you deny this I suggest a little more research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however these days when scientists can subvert the free market and undermine sound public policy simply by publishing false papers in journals,
      As a scientist, there is undeniable evidence for recent climate change and "global warming".
Just look at the fact that the earth was virtually covered in ice as little as 150,000 years ago, and you'll see a trend.
      I think what you're referring to is "MAN MADE" global warming.
Not ALL the scientific community agree with that hypothesis because it fails to account for the shrinking martian polar caps or the increased atmospheric phenomena in Jupiter's atmosphere, for example - phenomena which are clearly not man made and yet happen to be occurring at the same time as our planet is heating up.
Some people explain it away as co-incidence, talking about wobbles in Mars' revolution, etc.
Anyway I'm not out to "convince" anyone of anything - that's not what science is about.
      What I do want is to defend those of us that refuse to be lumped into the POLITICAL outcry about "man made" climate change which, surprise surprise, occurs at the same time as governments are enforcing a new way of taxation: taxation on "greenhouse gases".
WOW. What a co-incidence.
Surely there's no "political" motive behind blaming polluters for climate change?
The backlash is eventually going to happen, however, when all those measures and steps fail to change global warming one bit.
I wonder what the answer will be from the politicians THEN.
Probably more taxes.
      Climate change, however, IS a fact.
Our poles ARE receding, and our AVERAGE temperatures are increasing.
If you deny this I suggest a little more research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036194</id>
	<title>When science fails.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask any scientist these days and he or she is more than likely to be a religious believer of global warming.  At some point in history, science was a good and useful thing.  I gave us advances such as computers and mass transportation, however these days when scientists can subvert the free market and undermine sound public policy simply by publishing false papers in journals, you know something is wrong.  Frankly, I have always had a much higher respect for the idea of "gut instinct" and common sense, and right now both of those things tell me that science needs to take a step back, examine its motives and its use of false "evidence" and go back to the drawing table before those of us who know the truth continue to expose them for the frauds that they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask any scientist these days and he or she is more than likely to be a religious believer of global warming .
At some point in history , science was a good and useful thing .
I gave us advances such as computers and mass transportation , however these days when scientists can subvert the free market and undermine sound public policy simply by publishing false papers in journals , you know something is wrong .
Frankly , I have always had a much higher respect for the idea of " gut instinct " and common sense , and right now both of those things tell me that science needs to take a step back , examine its motives and its use of false " evidence " and go back to the drawing table before those of us who know the truth continue to expose them for the frauds that they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask any scientist these days and he or she is more than likely to be a religious believer of global warming.
At some point in history, science was a good and useful thing.
I gave us advances such as computers and mass transportation, however these days when scientists can subvert the free market and undermine sound public policy simply by publishing false papers in journals, you know something is wrong.
Frankly, I have always had a much higher respect for the idea of "gut instinct" and common sense, and right now both of those things tell me that science needs to take a step back, examine its motives and its use of false "evidence" and go back to the drawing table before those of us who know the truth continue to expose them for the frauds that they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037094</id>
	<title>Hear, hear</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1257799740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I haven't read the book. But the protectionism stuff laid out in the summary is yet another dumb argument - it doesn't account for a number of things: 1) people aren't perfectly free to switch from line of business to another at the drop of a hat, 2) changing businesses is risky, and people like to avoid risk, so much so that they'll pay for it, but his accounting doesn't include the cost of this risk. 3) etc, etc.</p><p>Without having read the book it's hard to say for sure, but from the examples cited it seems pretty obvious that the author just wrote down his libertarian principles and then arranged his logic to support them, which makes the whole thing hard to take seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I have n't read the book .
But the protectionism stuff laid out in the summary is yet another dumb argument - it does n't account for a number of things : 1 ) people are n't perfectly free to switch from line of business to another at the drop of a hat , 2 ) changing businesses is risky , and people like to avoid risk , so much so that they 'll pay for it , but his accounting does n't include the cost of this risk .
3 ) etc , etc.Without having read the book it 's hard to say for sure , but from the examples cited it seems pretty obvious that the author just wrote down his libertarian principles and then arranged his logic to support them , which makes the whole thing hard to take seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I haven't read the book.
But the protectionism stuff laid out in the summary is yet another dumb argument - it doesn't account for a number of things: 1) people aren't perfectly free to switch from line of business to another at the drop of a hat, 2) changing businesses is risky, and people like to avoid risk, so much so that they'll pay for it, but his accounting doesn't include the cost of this risk.
3) etc, etc.Without having read the book it's hard to say for sure, but from the examples cited it seems pretty obvious that the author just wrote down his libertarian principles and then arranged his logic to support them, which makes the whole thing hard to take seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</id>
	<title>Protectionism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257796620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business</p></div><p>Every argument always hinges on some inane assumption like a free market for labor or ignores production and instead focuses on individuals trading finished goods or promotes sacrificing long term gains for short term profit or assumes that new and better industries and business opportunities will always spring up or ignores the reality that the reason tariffs exist is to protect a nation's industry against the predatory practices of potentially hostile nation-states.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never seen an economist or " libertarian " give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.however , if they voluntarily switch to some other businessEvery argument always hinges on some inane assumption like a free market for labor or ignores production and instead focuses on individuals trading finished goods or promotes sacrificing long term gains for short term profit or assumes that new and better industries and business opportunities will always spring up or ignores the reality that the reason tariffs exist is to protect a nation 's industry against the predatory practices of potentially hostile nation-states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.however, if they voluntarily switch to some other businessEvery argument always hinges on some inane assumption like a free market for labor or ignores production and instead focuses on individuals trading finished goods or promotes sacrificing long term gains for short term profit or assumes that new and better industries and business opportunities will always spring up or ignores the reality that the reason tariffs exist is to protect a nation's industry against the predatory practices of potentially hostile nation-states.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036976</id>
	<title>Re:That Quote Really Hit Home</title>
	<author>plankrwf</author>
	<datestamp>1257799140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still remember one of the physics professors stating during a seminar "I can understand why you THINK you have free will".<br>Disclaimer: he said it in Dutch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still remember one of the physics professors stating during a seminar " I can understand why you THINK you have free will " .Disclaimer : he said it in Dutch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still remember one of the physics professors stating during a seminar "I can understand why you THINK you have free will".Disclaimer: he said it in Dutch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037984</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257760260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your first point ignores the fact that humans nearly always have to make decisions in the face of imperfect information. Computers rarely do, and if an implementation forces them to do so, they too will respond in terms of probabilities, not certainties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your first point ignores the fact that humans nearly always have to make decisions in the face of imperfect information .
Computers rarely do , and if an implementation forces them to do so , they too will respond in terms of probabilities , not certainties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your first point ignores the fact that humans nearly always have to make decisions in the face of imperfect information.
Computers rarely do, and if an implementation forces them to do so, they too will respond in terms of probabilities, not certainties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30045928</id>
	<title>Re:"Big" question?</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1257870360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most people don't behave like there is death at all. Most people don't want to talk about death, don't want to hear about death, and don't even want to think about death. Many people "defy" death and live like they won't die.</i></p><p>That *may* be a purely American thing. In a country obsessed with youth, cosmetic surgery, etc... all symptoms of a refusal to accept death and growing old.</p><p>Years ago, when I lived in Ireland, my brothers American girlfriend was over visiting with the family. She seemed shocked and stunned by how frequently we mentioned death, dying, growing old, etc... and usually with a joke to go with it. (Not that the Irish are obsessed with death or anything.)  In the years since then, I've travelled quite a bit. Of all the people I've met, the only ones who seem overly death-averse are the Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do n't behave like there is death at all .
Most people do n't want to talk about death , do n't want to hear about death , and do n't even want to think about death .
Many people " defy " death and live like they wo n't die.That * may * be a purely American thing .
In a country obsessed with youth , cosmetic surgery , etc... all symptoms of a refusal to accept death and growing old.Years ago , when I lived in Ireland , my brothers American girlfriend was over visiting with the family .
She seemed shocked and stunned by how frequently we mentioned death , dying , growing old , etc... and usually with a joke to go with it .
( Not that the Irish are obsessed with death or anything .
) In the years since then , I 've travelled quite a bit .
Of all the people I 've met , the only ones who seem overly death-averse are the Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people don't behave like there is death at all.
Most people don't want to talk about death, don't want to hear about death, and don't even want to think about death.
Many people "defy" death and live like they won't die.That *may* be a purely American thing.
In a country obsessed with youth, cosmetic surgery, etc... all symptoms of a refusal to accept death and growing old.Years ago, when I lived in Ireland, my brothers American girlfriend was over visiting with the family.
She seemed shocked and stunned by how frequently we mentioned death, dying, growing old, etc... and usually with a joke to go with it.
(Not that the Irish are obsessed with death or anything.
)  In the years since then, I've travelled quite a bit.
Of all the people I've met, the only ones who seem overly death-averse are the Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30042766</id>
	<title>Re:Landsberg's last book annoyed me enough</title>
	<author>jhp64</author>
	<datestamp>1257794220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As an example, the heart of his "more sex is safer sex" argument used in the title is that overall risk is reduced if *certain* *people*, those with lower odds of having disease, have more sex.  Then the people they have sex with are having safer sex than if with someone else.  Alas, it rests on the contention that if the "safer" people have more sex, every act *displaces* another sexual interaction - the possibility that simply more sex will occur, the added interactions being safer, but *not* displacing a less-safe one, is not allowed for.</p></div><p>
I haven't read this book, but if you start with <em>n</em> sexual interactions, <em>k</em> of which are unsafe, and then you add <em>m</em> more, all of which are safe, then the fraction of unsafe sexual interactions has decreased: it's gone from <em>k/n</em> to <em>k/(n+m)</em>.  Therefore the risk in any particular interaction is less.
</p><p>
(A similar computation works even if the new interactions aren't all safe, but just more likely to be safe than the old ones.)
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an example , the heart of his " more sex is safer sex " argument used in the title is that overall risk is reduced if * certain * * people * , those with lower odds of having disease , have more sex .
Then the people they have sex with are having safer sex than if with someone else .
Alas , it rests on the contention that if the " safer " people have more sex , every act * displaces * another sexual interaction - the possibility that simply more sex will occur , the added interactions being safer , but * not * displacing a less-safe one , is not allowed for .
I have n't read this book , but if you start with n sexual interactions , k of which are unsafe , and then you add m more , all of which are safe , then the fraction of unsafe sexual interactions has decreased : it 's gone from k/n to k/ ( n + m ) .
Therefore the risk in any particular interaction is less .
( A similar computation works even if the new interactions are n't all safe , but just more likely to be safe than the old ones .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an example, the heart of his "more sex is safer sex" argument used in the title is that overall risk is reduced if *certain* *people*, those with lower odds of having disease, have more sex.
Then the people they have sex with are having safer sex than if with someone else.
Alas, it rests on the contention that if the "safer" people have more sex, every act *displaces* another sexual interaction - the possibility that simply more sex will occur, the added interactions being safer, but *not* displacing a less-safe one, is not allowed for.
I haven't read this book, but if you start with n sexual interactions, k of which are unsafe, and then you add m more, all of which are safe, then the fraction of unsafe sexual interactions has decreased: it's gone from k/n to k/(n+m).
Therefore the risk in any particular interaction is less.
(A similar computation works even if the new interactions aren't all safe, but just more likely to be safe than the old ones.
)

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038986</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1257764340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How about food subsidies. I'll send your citizens free food. Would you accept it or would it be better for your citizens to grow their own food? Don't worry, I wouldn't cut off your food supplies and then declare war on you.
<br> <br>
Ammunition? Tires? Steel?</p></div></blockquote><p>You think that security is not accounted for as a cost?<br> <br>The answer to the security issue is not tariffs.  It's subsidization, which is non-directional.  Tariffs have a host of problems, both economically and diplomatically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about food subsidies .
I 'll send your citizens free food .
Would you accept it or would it be better for your citizens to grow their own food ?
Do n't worry , I would n't cut off your food supplies and then declare war on you .
Ammunition ? Tires ?
Steel ? You think that security is not accounted for as a cost ?
The answer to the security issue is not tariffs .
It 's subsidization , which is non-directional .
Tariffs have a host of problems , both economically and diplomatically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about food subsidies.
I'll send your citizens free food.
Would you accept it or would it be better for your citizens to grow their own food?
Don't worry, I wouldn't cut off your food supplies and then declare war on you.
Ammunition? Tires?
Steel?You think that security is not accounted for as a cost?
The answer to the security issue is not tariffs.
It's subsidization, which is non-directional.
Tariffs have a host of problems, both economically and diplomatically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040292</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>darkwing\_bmf</author>
	<datestamp>1257771060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So either its OK to save money by skipping all those human rights things, in which case we should do the same here or the Chinese are not humans like us.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's an interesting start, but for this argument to be logically sound, you must show that the Chinese would be better off if we didn't buy their camera. Without that piece of the argument your "choice" could be used to justify any action (such as going to war to "liberate" them and save our environment): <i>"Either it's OK to ignore those human rights things and not liberate them, in which case we should enslave Americans and work in polluting factories, or the Chinese are not human like us."</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So either its OK to save money by skipping all those human rights things , in which case we should do the same here or the Chinese are not humans like us.It 's an interesting start , but for this argument to be logically sound , you must show that the Chinese would be better off if we did n't buy their camera .
Without that piece of the argument your " choice " could be used to justify any action ( such as going to war to " liberate " them and save our environment ) : " Either it 's OK to ignore those human rights things and not liberate them , in which case we should enslave Americans and work in polluting factories , or the Chinese are not human like us .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So either its OK to save money by skipping all those human rights things, in which case we should do the same here or the Chinese are not humans like us.It's an interesting start, but for this argument to be logically sound, you must show that the Chinese would be better off if we didn't buy their camera.
Without that piece of the argument your "choice" could be used to justify any action (such as going to war to "liberate" them and save our environment): "Either it's OK to ignore those human rights things and not liberate them, in which case we should enslave Americans and work in polluting factories, or the Chinese are not human like us.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037858</id>
	<title>Re:When science fails.</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1257759720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I gave us advances such as computers and mass transportation</p></div></blockquote><p>Very kind of you.  I bet people aren't grateful either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave us advances such as computers and mass transportationVery kind of you .
I bet people are n't grateful either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave us advances such as computers and mass transportationVery kind of you.
I bet people aren't grateful either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037222</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257757200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think quantum effects are largely irrelevant for the brain and mind and the issue of free will. Have you looked at <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009</a> [arxiv.org]?</p><p>Also, for an example of a process where the state "changes merely based on time", see the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov\%E2\%80\%93Zhabotinsky\_reaction" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov\%E2\%80\%93Zhabotinsky\_reaction</a> [wikipedia.org], but I think noone talks about quantum mechanics or non.determinism as parts of the model if you would read an explanation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think quantum effects are largely irrelevant for the brain and mind and the issue of free will .
Have you looked at http : //arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009 [ arxiv.org ] ? Also , for an example of a process where the state " changes merely based on time " , see the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 93Zhabotinsky \ _reaction [ wikipedia.org ] , but I think noone talks about quantum mechanics or non.determinism as parts of the model if you would read an explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think quantum effects are largely irrelevant for the brain and mind and the issue of free will.
Have you looked at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009 [arxiv.org]?Also, for an example of a process where the state "changes merely based on time", see the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov\%E2\%80\%93Zhabotinsky\_reaction [wikipedia.org], but I think noone talks about quantum mechanics or non.determinism as parts of the model if you would read an explanation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30044152</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257858060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; our answers changes merely based on time</p><p>Our answers change based on things outside out control.<br>The way our answers change, doesn't change.<br>Our answers are outside our control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; our answers changes merely based on timeOur answers change based on things outside out control.The way our answers change , does n't change.Our answers are outside our control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; our answers changes merely based on timeOur answers change based on things outside out control.The way our answers change, doesn't change.Our answers are outside our control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036498</id>
	<title>Intelligently Designed Review?</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1257797160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else have a hard time following this reviewer? A little context for the many objections would be helpful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else have a hard time following this reviewer ?
A little context for the many objections would be helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else have a hard time following this reviewer?
A little context for the many objections would be helpful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038492</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1257762360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sorry, even this is not true. What a computer does is often based on random data, the inputs into the system and the timing of said inputs. What, have we learned nothing from using computers since the 50's? Just because a program crashes on you, doesn't mean that you can't do exactly the same steps and perhaps have the program continue on....</p></div></blockquote><p>While there's no such thing as a perfect environment, and discounting hardware failure, yes, a computer is a determinstic device.  If you can exactly reproduce inputs, a program will fault at the same place every time.  This obviously gets far more complex when you consider potential interactions with more complicated operating systems that permit multiple programs to access finite resources, but the general rule applies. If computers had any substantial non-deterministic element, their usefullness would become highly questionable.  But, as it is, my browser behaves the same way every time I come to Slashdot (barring changes to my browser or Slashdot).  That is deterministic behavior.  Any quantum effects on electrons that come from miniturization are dealt with because, otherwise, computers would become to unreliable to be of much use.</p><p>Now you may have a point for certain kinds of computational problems.  Whenever you have to deal with data acquisition, you can never absolutely replicate state.  For instance, you could have a thermometer that can read local temperatures to three decimals hooked up to your computer via an A/D converter.  One could never reproduce in real time the same precise temperatures, and thus the inputs are effectively random.  And yet, if I recorded ten minutes worth of temperatures at one second intervals, and then fed them back into the program as a test input, the program would behave precisely the same as if those readings were coming live from the hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , even this is not true .
What a computer does is often based on random data , the inputs into the system and the timing of said inputs .
What , have we learned nothing from using computers since the 50 's ?
Just because a program crashes on you , does n't mean that you ca n't do exactly the same steps and perhaps have the program continue on....While there 's no such thing as a perfect environment , and discounting hardware failure , yes , a computer is a determinstic device .
If you can exactly reproduce inputs , a program will fault at the same place every time .
This obviously gets far more complex when you consider potential interactions with more complicated operating systems that permit multiple programs to access finite resources , but the general rule applies .
If computers had any substantial non-deterministic element , their usefullness would become highly questionable .
But , as it is , my browser behaves the same way every time I come to Slashdot ( barring changes to my browser or Slashdot ) .
That is deterministic behavior .
Any quantum effects on electrons that come from miniturization are dealt with because , otherwise , computers would become to unreliable to be of much use.Now you may have a point for certain kinds of computational problems .
Whenever you have to deal with data acquisition , you can never absolutely replicate state .
For instance , you could have a thermometer that can read local temperatures to three decimals hooked up to your computer via an A/D converter .
One could never reproduce in real time the same precise temperatures , and thus the inputs are effectively random .
And yet , if I recorded ten minutes worth of temperatures at one second intervals , and then fed them back into the program as a test input , the program would behave precisely the same as if those readings were coming live from the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, even this is not true.
What a computer does is often based on random data, the inputs into the system and the timing of said inputs.
What, have we learned nothing from using computers since the 50's?
Just because a program crashes on you, doesn't mean that you can't do exactly the same steps and perhaps have the program continue on....While there's no such thing as a perfect environment, and discounting hardware failure, yes, a computer is a determinstic device.
If you can exactly reproduce inputs, a program will fault at the same place every time.
This obviously gets far more complex when you consider potential interactions with more complicated operating systems that permit multiple programs to access finite resources, but the general rule applies.
If computers had any substantial non-deterministic element, their usefullness would become highly questionable.
But, as it is, my browser behaves the same way every time I come to Slashdot (barring changes to my browser or Slashdot).
That is deterministic behavior.
Any quantum effects on electrons that come from miniturization are dealt with because, otherwise, computers would become to unreliable to be of much use.Now you may have a point for certain kinds of computational problems.
Whenever you have to deal with data acquisition, you can never absolutely replicate state.
For instance, you could have a thermometer that can read local temperatures to three decimals hooked up to your computer via an A/D converter.
One could never reproduce in real time the same precise temperatures, and thus the inputs are effectively random.
And yet, if I recorded ten minutes worth of temperatures at one second intervals, and then fed them back into the program as a test input, the program would behave precisely the same as if those readings were coming live from the hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036748</id>
	<title>Heisenberg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics and Physics</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yeah, because that worked so well for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner\_Heisenberg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Heisenberg</a> [wikipedia.org]...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics , Economics and Physics Yeah , because that worked so well for Heisenberg [ wikipedia.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics and Physics
Yeah, because that worked so well for Heisenberg [wikipedia.org]...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036694</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1257798000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most libertarians, are, in reality, nothing more than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian" title="wikipedia.org">Cornucopians</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most libertarians , are , in reality , nothing more than Cornucopians [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most libertarians, are, in reality, nothing more than Cornucopians [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040904</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>Volund</author>
	<datestamp>1257774660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting article. More of an editorial than a review, but it was thought-provoking, even if it does seem like it's wasted on the book that the editorial is about. However, that is not what I'm commenting about....<br> <br>

"The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $60 to stay competitive, so they are worse off by at most $20 -- however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business, then they'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $60, and therefore worse off by some amount less than $20 from their original position."<br> <br>

This line made me want to argue with the internet. In addition to all the humanist and environmental considerations brought into play elsewhere in the comments, I think this argument is simply an oversimplification. The problem with cramming complex issues into nice little premise-sized chunks is that they don't always fit. This statement assumes that the American company is -capable- of selling cameras for $60 or switching to some other business, and completely ignores whatever damage might be done to the system by the American company going out of business (now the employees of the American company have $0 to spend on anything). I'm not saying I believe in protectionism, just highlighting what I perceive to be the flaw in the argument.<br> <br>

It's been years since I took a logic class and I almost thought about getting this book to refresh myself, but I think I'm going to pass on it. I think I would pop too many blood vessels upon reading it. You can't answer questions or solve problems with logic -- it is a filter to ensure that solutions are correct, not a solution itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting article .
More of an editorial than a review , but it was thought-provoking , even if it does seem like it 's wasted on the book that the editorial is about .
However , that is not what I 'm commenting about... . " The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $ 60 to stay competitive , so they are worse off by at most $ 20 -- however , if they voluntarily switch to some other business , then they 'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $ 60 , and therefore worse off by some amount less than $ 20 from their original position .
" This line made me want to argue with the internet .
In addition to all the humanist and environmental considerations brought into play elsewhere in the comments , I think this argument is simply an oversimplification .
The problem with cramming complex issues into nice little premise-sized chunks is that they do n't always fit .
This statement assumes that the American company is -capable- of selling cameras for $ 60 or switching to some other business , and completely ignores whatever damage might be done to the system by the American company going out of business ( now the employees of the American company have $ 0 to spend on anything ) .
I 'm not saying I believe in protectionism , just highlighting what I perceive to be the flaw in the argument .
It 's been years since I took a logic class and I almost thought about getting this book to refresh myself , but I think I 'm going to pass on it .
I think I would pop too many blood vessels upon reading it .
You ca n't answer questions or solve problems with logic -- it is a filter to ensure that solutions are correct , not a solution itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting article.
More of an editorial than a review, but it was thought-provoking, even if it does seem like it's wasted on the book that the editorial is about.
However, that is not what I'm commenting about.... 

"The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $60 to stay competitive, so they are worse off by at most $20 -- however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business, then they'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $60, and therefore worse off by some amount less than $20 from their original position.
" 

This line made me want to argue with the internet.
In addition to all the humanist and environmental considerations brought into play elsewhere in the comments, I think this argument is simply an oversimplification.
The problem with cramming complex issues into nice little premise-sized chunks is that they don't always fit.
This statement assumes that the American company is -capable- of selling cameras for $60 or switching to some other business, and completely ignores whatever damage might be done to the system by the American company going out of business (now the employees of the American company have $0 to spend on anything).
I'm not saying I believe in protectionism, just highlighting what I perceive to be the flaw in the argument.
It's been years since I took a logic class and I almost thought about getting this book to refresh myself, but I think I'm going to pass on it.
I think I would pop too many blood vessels upon reading it.
You can't answer questions or solve problems with logic -- it is a filter to ensure that solutions are correct, not a solution itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037024</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1257799380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When asked about obvious, stated things like who we will vote for, our answers changes merely based on time. Computers think determensitically. Which is why we know they have no free will. Humans think via probabilities, not certanties. When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100\% certain they know the answer. When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain. We know we might be wrong. The machines don't know that.</p></div><p>I also believe that the human mind is not deterministic, but that's a weak argument.  You are very close to insight when you say "our answers change merely based on time."  Computers generally have very limited input, and it is carefully filtered out in most applications.  You don't want your answer to a math question to be affected by mouse movements or keyboard input or what is in front of the webcam.  But that's what happens with humans.  We can subvert it to an extent, through concentration, but our "inputs" consist of our sense organs, including skin, our internal state (hunger, drunkenness), and maybe some other stuff I'm forgetting.  It can be argued that we are very complex machines, and that even though we don't have the computing technology to predict human behavior it is nonetheless deterministic.</p><p>As I said, I reject that statement, but disproving it is a lot harder than saying "our answers change over time."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When asked about obvious , stated things like who we will vote for , our answers changes merely based on time .
Computers think determensitically .
Which is why we know they have no free will .
Humans think via probabilities , not certanties .
When computers are asked to solve a math question , they are always 100 \ % certain they know the answer .
When humas do it , we generally are a lot less certain .
We know we might be wrong .
The machines do n't know that.I also believe that the human mind is not deterministic , but that 's a weak argument .
You are very close to insight when you say " our answers change merely based on time .
" Computers generally have very limited input , and it is carefully filtered out in most applications .
You do n't want your answer to a math question to be affected by mouse movements or keyboard input or what is in front of the webcam .
But that 's what happens with humans .
We can subvert it to an extent , through concentration , but our " inputs " consist of our sense organs , including skin , our internal state ( hunger , drunkenness ) , and maybe some other stuff I 'm forgetting .
It can be argued that we are very complex machines , and that even though we do n't have the computing technology to predict human behavior it is nonetheless deterministic.As I said , I reject that statement , but disproving it is a lot harder than saying " our answers change over time .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When asked about obvious, stated things like who we will vote for, our answers changes merely based on time.
Computers think determensitically.
Which is why we know they have no free will.
Humans think via probabilities, not certanties.
When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100\% certain they know the answer.
When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain.
We know we might be wrong.
The machines don't know that.I also believe that the human mind is not deterministic, but that's a weak argument.
You are very close to insight when you say "our answers change merely based on time.
"  Computers generally have very limited input, and it is carefully filtered out in most applications.
You don't want your answer to a math question to be affected by mouse movements or keyboard input or what is in front of the webcam.
But that's what happens with humans.
We can subvert it to an extent, through concentration, but our "inputs" consist of our sense organs, including skin, our internal state (hunger, drunkenness), and maybe some other stuff I'm forgetting.
It can be argued that we are very complex machines, and that even though we don't have the computing technology to predict human behavior it is nonetheless deterministic.As I said, I reject that statement, but disproving it is a lot harder than saying "our answers change over time.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036602</id>
	<title>Re:That Quote Really Hit Home</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1257797640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What caused your decision to get drunk and watch Mystery Science Theater the night before your philosophy final?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Why not?  It's not like it'd make a difference either way, it's not like there is actually right answers  - it's philosophy.
</p><p>
What is essence?  What is universal?  Buncha rambling nonsense is what they are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What caused your decision to get drunk and watch Mystery Science Theater the night before your philosophy final ?
Why not ?
It 's not like it 'd make a difference either way , it 's not like there is actually right answers - it 's philosophy .
What is essence ?
What is universal ?
Buncha rambling nonsense is what they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What caused your decision to get drunk and watch Mystery Science Theater the night before your philosophy final?
Why not?
It's not like it'd make a difference either way, it's not like there is actually right answers  - it's philosophy.
What is essence?
What is universal?
Buncha rambling nonsense is what they are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036290</id>
	<title>Dismissive and wrong.</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1257796140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Landsburg replied to this objection by e-mail: "I dispute that there is any way to make sense of a phrase like 'could possibly have done something else'. I know what it means to say you did something; spacetime consists of all the things that get done; it is what it is."</p></div><p>Wow, he dismisses a major issue in the free will debate offhand.  That tells me all I need to know about him.</p><p>Well, that, plus <a href="http://www.thebigquestions.com/2009/10/29/there-he-goes-again" title="thebigquestions.com">this post</a> [thebigquestions.com] on his blog:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, the most complex thing I'm aware of is the system of natural numbers (0,1,2,3, and all the rest of them) together with the laws of arithmetic. That system did not emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings.</p><p>If you doubt the complexity of the natural numbers, take note that you can use just a small part of them to encode the entire human genome. That makes the natural numbers more complex than human life.</p></div><p>Um, no. Just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just, no.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Landsburg replied to this objection by e-mail : " I dispute that there is any way to make sense of a phrase like 'could possibly have done something else' .
I know what it means to say you did something ; spacetime consists of all the things that get done ; it is what it is .
" Wow , he dismisses a major issue in the free will debate offhand .
That tells me all I need to know about him.Well , that , plus this post [ thebigquestions.com ] on his blog : In fact , the most complex thing I 'm aware of is the system of natural numbers ( 0,1,2,3 , and all the rest of them ) together with the laws of arithmetic .
That system did not emerge , by gradual degrees , from simpler beginnings.If you doubt the complexity of the natural numbers , take note that you can use just a small part of them to encode the entire human genome .
That makes the natural numbers more complex than human life.Um , no .
Just ... just , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Landsburg replied to this objection by e-mail: "I dispute that there is any way to make sense of a phrase like 'could possibly have done something else'.
I know what it means to say you did something; spacetime consists of all the things that get done; it is what it is.
"Wow, he dismisses a major issue in the free will debate offhand.
That tells me all I need to know about him.Well, that, plus this post [thebigquestions.com] on his blog:In fact, the most complex thing I'm aware of is the system of natural numbers (0,1,2,3, and all the rest of them) together with the laws of arithmetic.
That system did not emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings.If you doubt the complexity of the natural numbers, take note that you can use just a small part of them to encode the entire human genome.
That makes the natural numbers more complex than human life.Um, no.
Just ... just, no.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038228</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257761280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They gloss over the quantum effects like it is irrelevant.</p></div><p>They probably are irrelevant.  While every bullshitting new-age "guru" tries to tell you otherwise, the brain doesn't have to be "quantum" or anything to be nondeterministic.  Hey you physicists out there, doesn't it piss you off how much this term is abused by charlatans?  There are plenty of nondeterministic systems on a classical scale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They gloss over the quantum effects like it is irrelevant.They probably are irrelevant .
While every bullshitting new-age " guru " tries to tell you otherwise , the brain does n't have to be " quantum " or anything to be nondeterministic .
Hey you physicists out there , does n't it piss you off how much this term is abused by charlatans ?
There are plenty of nondeterministic systems on a classical scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They gloss over the quantum effects like it is irrelevant.They probably are irrelevant.
While every bullshitting new-age "guru" tries to tell you otherwise, the brain doesn't have to be "quantum" or anything to be nondeterministic.
Hey you physicists out there, doesn't it piss you off how much this term is abused by charlatans?
There are plenty of nondeterministic systems on a classical scale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039354</id>
	<title>Re:Sheesh, what a Glibertarian.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257766020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All physical phenomenon can be reduced to arithmetic. If you can find a counterexample, then please let us know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All physical phenomenon can be reduced to arithmetic .
If you can find a counterexample , then please let us know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All physical phenomenon can be reduced to arithmetic.
If you can find a counterexample, then please let us know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036562</id>
	<title>Got quantum mechanics wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no probability at any time for the electron to be nowhere, at least not in ordinary (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics.  So that explanation sounds wrong.</p><p>The uncertainty principle for position and momentum is quite precisely like what's involved in the question of exactly when you hear a trumpet sound the note 'G'.  A particular tone like G means a particular frequency of sound, and frequency only makes sense if you can speak of at least some decent fraction of one full cycle of oscillation.  So, by definition, a pure tone is not something that can occur at a single instant.  To the extent that you hear a short 'ping' of sound at a definite moment, that ping has to include lots of overtones, and thus not have a single definite pitch.  To the extent that you hear a pure tone, the sound has to last many periods, and thus not happen at a single given instant.  Quantum mechanics says that position and momentum are to each other as time and tone.</p><p>If you were really keen on determining exactly when a trumpet sounded, you could combine a microphone and amplifier and a sensitive switch, and set it to trigger at the instant a particular sound intensity was reached.  But if you also wanted to discriminate between a trumpet sounding G, and a steeldrum hitting D, then you'd NEED to give your detector some minimum sampling time, to recognize the tone.  And this would lower the precision of your time measurement.  So in just this similar way, you can in principle choose to measure a particle's position precisely, and your apparatus will find every particle at some position within some narrow precision width; but this will by definition imply accepting less precision in determining their momentum.  Or you could trade off the other way, and get precise momentum by sampling over longer distances.</p><p>That is pretty much exactly what the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation is about.  This doesn't explain how it can possibly be that these wave phenomenon issues can be relevant to a particle like an electron; that part is the basic strangeness of quantum mechanics.  But quantum uncertainty is precisely like time-tone uncertainty, so if you can accept the whole wave thing, the uncertainty deal is easy from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no probability at any time for the electron to be nowhere , at least not in ordinary ( non-relativistic ) quantum mechanics .
So that explanation sounds wrong.The uncertainty principle for position and momentum is quite precisely like what 's involved in the question of exactly when you hear a trumpet sound the note 'G' .
A particular tone like G means a particular frequency of sound , and frequency only makes sense if you can speak of at least some decent fraction of one full cycle of oscillation .
So , by definition , a pure tone is not something that can occur at a single instant .
To the extent that you hear a short 'ping ' of sound at a definite moment , that ping has to include lots of overtones , and thus not have a single definite pitch .
To the extent that you hear a pure tone , the sound has to last many periods , and thus not happen at a single given instant .
Quantum mechanics says that position and momentum are to each other as time and tone.If you were really keen on determining exactly when a trumpet sounded , you could combine a microphone and amplifier and a sensitive switch , and set it to trigger at the instant a particular sound intensity was reached .
But if you also wanted to discriminate between a trumpet sounding G , and a steeldrum hitting D , then you 'd NEED to give your detector some minimum sampling time , to recognize the tone .
And this would lower the precision of your time measurement .
So in just this similar way , you can in principle choose to measure a particle 's position precisely , and your apparatus will find every particle at some position within some narrow precision width ; but this will by definition imply accepting less precision in determining their momentum .
Or you could trade off the other way , and get precise momentum by sampling over longer distances.That is pretty much exactly what the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation is about .
This does n't explain how it can possibly be that these wave phenomenon issues can be relevant to a particle like an electron ; that part is the basic strangeness of quantum mechanics .
But quantum uncertainty is precisely like time-tone uncertainty , so if you can accept the whole wave thing , the uncertainty deal is easy from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no probability at any time for the electron to be nowhere, at least not in ordinary (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics.
So that explanation sounds wrong.The uncertainty principle for position and momentum is quite precisely like what's involved in the question of exactly when you hear a trumpet sound the note 'G'.
A particular tone like G means a particular frequency of sound, and frequency only makes sense if you can speak of at least some decent fraction of one full cycle of oscillation.
So, by definition, a pure tone is not something that can occur at a single instant.
To the extent that you hear a short 'ping' of sound at a definite moment, that ping has to include lots of overtones, and thus not have a single definite pitch.
To the extent that you hear a pure tone, the sound has to last many periods, and thus not happen at a single given instant.
Quantum mechanics says that position and momentum are to each other as time and tone.If you were really keen on determining exactly when a trumpet sounded, you could combine a microphone and amplifier and a sensitive switch, and set it to trigger at the instant a particular sound intensity was reached.
But if you also wanted to discriminate between a trumpet sounding G, and a steeldrum hitting D, then you'd NEED to give your detector some minimum sampling time, to recognize the tone.
And this would lower the precision of your time measurement.
So in just this similar way, you can in principle choose to measure a particle's position precisely, and your apparatus will find every particle at some position within some narrow precision width; but this will by definition imply accepting less precision in determining their momentum.
Or you could trade off the other way, and get precise momentum by sampling over longer distances.That is pretty much exactly what the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation is about.
This doesn't explain how it can possibly be that these wave phenomenon issues can be relevant to a particle like an electron; that part is the basic strangeness of quantum mechanics.
But quantum uncertainty is precisely like time-tone uncertainty, so if you can accept the whole wave thing, the uncertainty deal is easy from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038826</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1257763740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The easy  way to look at most no free will arguments is as an effect of reductionism.  Interestingly, a good reductionist will deny that creativity exists, or try to redefine it, much like the AI people tend to try to redefine intelligence.  Yet it seem to me the continued existence of the human species shows creativity exists.  Exactly how creativity happens to exist is a fine big question.  In most contexts, it is convenience to call it a property of the soul, but that just begs the question.  Looking at it closely, you end up wondering if abiotic processes are creative.  For the species, it is an existential question.  Fortunately, we know some ways to encourage creativity.</p><p>Maybe a definition is appropriate.  Creativity is the discovery of new principles of the universe that allow the changing of nature for man.  This is too narrow, but it is based on a nicely emperical phenomena,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The easy way to look at most no free will arguments is as an effect of reductionism .
Interestingly , a good reductionist will deny that creativity exists , or try to redefine it , much like the AI people tend to try to redefine intelligence .
Yet it seem to me the continued existence of the human species shows creativity exists .
Exactly how creativity happens to exist is a fine big question .
In most contexts , it is convenience to call it a property of the soul , but that just begs the question .
Looking at it closely , you end up wondering if abiotic processes are creative .
For the species , it is an existential question .
Fortunately , we know some ways to encourage creativity.Maybe a definition is appropriate .
Creativity is the discovery of new principles of the universe that allow the changing of nature for man .
This is too narrow , but it is based on a nicely emperical phenomena,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The easy  way to look at most no free will arguments is as an effect of reductionism.
Interestingly, a good reductionist will deny that creativity exists, or try to redefine it, much like the AI people tend to try to redefine intelligence.
Yet it seem to me the continued existence of the human species shows creativity exists.
Exactly how creativity happens to exist is a fine big question.
In most contexts, it is convenience to call it a property of the soul, but that just begs the question.
Looking at it closely, you end up wondering if abiotic processes are creative.
For the species, it is an existential question.
Fortunately, we know some ways to encourage creativity.Maybe a definition is appropriate.
Creativity is the discovery of new principles of the universe that allow the changing of nature for man.
This is too narrow, but it is based on a nicely emperical phenomena,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30210458</id>
	<title>great approach</title>
	<author>socialtopics</author>
	<datestamp>1259002020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if the writer seems to me that he was <a href="http://www.socialtopics.com/drunk" title="socialtopics.com" rel="nofollow">drunk</a> [socialtopics.com] at certain parts and couldn't get straight to the point - I think its a great approach. But I believe that Math has the answer to everything. its just the ultimate analytic tool. I think those <a href="http://www.socialtopics.com/" title="socialtopics.com" rel="nofollow">social topics</a> [socialtopics.com] should be more connected with each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the writer seems to me that he was drunk [ socialtopics.com ] at certain parts and could n't get straight to the point - I think its a great approach .
But I believe that Math has the answer to everything .
its just the ultimate analytic tool .
I think those social topics [ socialtopics.com ] should be more connected with each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the writer seems to me that he was drunk [socialtopics.com] at certain parts and couldn't get straight to the point - I think its a great approach.
But I believe that Math has the answer to everything.
its just the ultimate analytic tool.
I think those social topics [socialtopics.com] should be more connected with each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038410</id>
	<title>Landsberg's last book annoyed me enough</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1257762000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read his "More Sex is Safer Sex" and spent about half of it muttering "but you're ignoring a relevant factor...".</p><p>I see that the reviews at the Amazon page for that book:</p><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226/ref=ntt\_at\_ep\_dpt\_2" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226/ref=ntt\_at\_ep\_dpt\_2</a> [amazon.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...agree with my assessment.  Give the first couple a quick skim before buying this one.   Many of his arguments read like he started off with the intention of writing somethingn entertainingly contrarian and counter-intuitive, then assembled an argument to defend it.  And, of course, a book author has the advantage of only taking on arguments that he himself allows in the book, gets to decide which factors of the problem are relevant, and so on.</p><p>I did pass the test the reviewer offers here: I had specific points at which I disagreed with his argument.  But I didn't find that fun; it's no fun halting all agreement with an argument at step 4 and having to go on and read steps 5-9 while holding a little asterisk in your head that says "none of this matters because 4 is clearly wrong".</p><p>As an example, the heart of his "more sex is safer sex" argument used in the title is that overall risk is reduced if *certain* *people*, those with lower odds of having disease, have more sex.  Then the people they have sex with are having safer sex than if with someone else.  Alas, it rests on the contention that if the "safer" people have more sex, every act *displaces* another sexual interaction - the possibility that simply more sex will occur, the added interactions being safer, but *not* displacing a less-safe one, is not allowed for.   Recommending that certain prudent people have more sex, while assuming that the amount of total sex in the world will remain a constant, is not, to my mind, a safe assumption.  But it wasn't slashdot; all I could do was sit there, frustrated at my inability to argue with the book.</p><p>So I'll give this one a miss.  Thanks anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read his " More Sex is Safer Sex " and spent about half of it muttering " but you 're ignoring a relevant factor... " .I see that the reviews at the Amazon page for that book : http : //www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226/ref = ntt \ _at \ _ep \ _dpt \ _2 [ amazon.com ] ...agree with my assessment .
Give the first couple a quick skim before buying this one .
Many of his arguments read like he started off with the intention of writing somethingn entertainingly contrarian and counter-intuitive , then assembled an argument to defend it .
And , of course , a book author has the advantage of only taking on arguments that he himself allows in the book , gets to decide which factors of the problem are relevant , and so on.I did pass the test the reviewer offers here : I had specific points at which I disagreed with his argument .
But I did n't find that fun ; it 's no fun halting all agreement with an argument at step 4 and having to go on and read steps 5-9 while holding a little asterisk in your head that says " none of this matters because 4 is clearly wrong " .As an example , the heart of his " more sex is safer sex " argument used in the title is that overall risk is reduced if * certain * * people * , those with lower odds of having disease , have more sex .
Then the people they have sex with are having safer sex than if with someone else .
Alas , it rests on the contention that if the " safer " people have more sex , every act * displaces * another sexual interaction - the possibility that simply more sex will occur , the added interactions being safer , but * not * displacing a less-safe one , is not allowed for .
Recommending that certain prudent people have more sex , while assuming that the amount of total sex in the world will remain a constant , is not , to my mind , a safe assumption .
But it was n't slashdot ; all I could do was sit there , frustrated at my inability to argue with the book.So I 'll give this one a miss .
Thanks anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read his "More Sex is Safer Sex" and spent about half of it muttering "but you're ignoring a relevant factor...".I see that the reviews at the Amazon page for that book:http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226/ref=ntt\_at\_ep\_dpt\_2 [amazon.com] ...agree with my assessment.
Give the first couple a quick skim before buying this one.
Many of his arguments read like he started off with the intention of writing somethingn entertainingly contrarian and counter-intuitive, then assembled an argument to defend it.
And, of course, a book author has the advantage of only taking on arguments that he himself allows in the book, gets to decide which factors of the problem are relevant, and so on.I did pass the test the reviewer offers here: I had specific points at which I disagreed with his argument.
But I didn't find that fun; it's no fun halting all agreement with an argument at step 4 and having to go on and read steps 5-9 while holding a little asterisk in your head that says "none of this matters because 4 is clearly wrong".As an example, the heart of his "more sex is safer sex" argument used in the title is that overall risk is reduced if *certain* *people*, those with lower odds of having disease, have more sex.
Then the people they have sex with are having safer sex than if with someone else.
Alas, it rests on the contention that if the "safer" people have more sex, every act *displaces* another sexual interaction - the possibility that simply more sex will occur, the added interactions being safer, but *not* displacing a less-safe one, is not allowed for.
Recommending that certain prudent people have more sex, while assuming that the amount of total sex in the world will remain a constant, is not, to my mind, a safe assumption.
But it wasn't slashdot; all I could do was sit there, frustrated at my inability to argue with the book.So I'll give this one a miss.
Thanks anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30044520</id>
	<title>Not more classical econ crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257862140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here comes the free market economic BS-</p><p>begin quote<br>Suppose that an American sells cameras for $80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $60 apiece. An American who would have bought the $80 camera will now buy the $60 camera and hence is better off by $20. The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $60 to stay competitive, so they are worse off by at most $20 -- however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business, then they'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $60, and therefore worse off by some amount less than $20 from their original position. So on balance, abolishing protectionist tariffs would be good for Americans. "Therefore," writes Landsburg, "it seems to me that the protectionist's position is even less respectable than the creationist's. If you're convinced that most scientists are liars -- that everything they say about fossils, for example, is false -- then you can be a logically consistent creationist. But you can't be a logically consistent protectionist."</p><p>end quote</p><p>Point 1- saying all economists , at least as they're produced today, are idiots is NOT like saying scientists are idiots or you don't believe the fossil record or anything else of the sort. Economics is NOT a science, not even close. No predictive power?  no science- done done and done.</p><p>The statement about disbelieving the fossil record is an attempt to raise economics to the level of a science, an effort which has been going on at least since Ricardo and forward from there when econ was trying to frame their theories in physics-sounding concepts (equilibrium)  in order to glean a pinch of reflected glory. This is known as economic's physics-envy.</p><p>Point 2-  look the mini-system fo the two camera makers lives inside a larger system of employment, monetary policy, the public's mood and financial picture advancing technology etc etc etc. You can't ignore those things in a complicated chaotic system and yo can't pretend you know how it will all work out. Jesus Christ, just do a little reading outside your field and you'll start to get a better picture of what's going on- read the Walmart Effect and then get back to me about HOW MUCH WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE EFFECT OF "FREE TRADE"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. that's the point.. we don't know and people like this guy want to pretend we do ignoring  causual relationships that are too compilcated (for now.. with our way of understanding these things) to really analyze. Little vignettes about camera makers ad 20 bucks... wow, therse people are really idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here comes the free market economic BS-begin quoteSuppose that an American sells cameras for $ 80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $ 60 apiece .
An American who would have bought the $ 80 camera will now buy the $ 60 camera and hence is better off by $ 20 .
The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $ 60 to stay competitive , so they are worse off by at most $ 20 -- however , if they voluntarily switch to some other business , then they 'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $ 60 , and therefore worse off by some amount less than $ 20 from their original position .
So on balance , abolishing protectionist tariffs would be good for Americans .
" Therefore , " writes Landsburg , " it seems to me that the protectionist 's position is even less respectable than the creationist 's .
If you 're convinced that most scientists are liars -- that everything they say about fossils , for example , is false -- then you can be a logically consistent creationist .
But you ca n't be a logically consistent protectionist .
" end quotePoint 1- saying all economists , at least as they 're produced today , are idiots is NOT like saying scientists are idiots or you do n't believe the fossil record or anything else of the sort .
Economics is NOT a science , not even close .
No predictive power ?
no science- done done and done.The statement about disbelieving the fossil record is an attempt to raise economics to the level of a science , an effort which has been going on at least since Ricardo and forward from there when econ was trying to frame their theories in physics-sounding concepts ( equilibrium ) in order to glean a pinch of reflected glory .
This is known as economic 's physics-envy.Point 2- look the mini-system fo the two camera makers lives inside a larger system of employment , monetary policy , the public 's mood and financial picture advancing technology etc etc etc .
You ca n't ignore those things in a complicated chaotic system and yo ca n't pretend you know how it will all work out .
Jesus Christ , just do a little reading outside your field and you 'll start to get a better picture of what 's going on- read the Walmart Effect and then get back to me about HOW MUCH WE DO N'T KNOW ABOUT THE EFFECT OF " FREE TRADE " .. that 's the point.. we do n't know and people like this guy want to pretend we do ignoring causual relationships that are too compilcated ( for now.. with our way of understanding these things ) to really analyze .
Little vignettes about camera makers ad 20 bucks... wow , therse people are really idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here comes the free market economic BS-begin quoteSuppose that an American sells cameras for $80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $60 apiece.
An American who would have bought the $80 camera will now buy the $60 camera and hence is better off by $20.
The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $60 to stay competitive, so they are worse off by at most $20 -- however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business, then they'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $60, and therefore worse off by some amount less than $20 from their original position.
So on balance, abolishing protectionist tariffs would be good for Americans.
"Therefore," writes Landsburg, "it seems to me that the protectionist's position is even less respectable than the creationist's.
If you're convinced that most scientists are liars -- that everything they say about fossils, for example, is false -- then you can be a logically consistent creationist.
But you can't be a logically consistent protectionist.
"end quotePoint 1- saying all economists , at least as they're produced today, are idiots is NOT like saying scientists are idiots or you don't believe the fossil record or anything else of the sort.
Economics is NOT a science, not even close.
No predictive power?
no science- done done and done.The statement about disbelieving the fossil record is an attempt to raise economics to the level of a science, an effort which has been going on at least since Ricardo and forward from there when econ was trying to frame their theories in physics-sounding concepts (equilibrium)  in order to glean a pinch of reflected glory.
This is known as economic's physics-envy.Point 2-  look the mini-system fo the two camera makers lives inside a larger system of employment, monetary policy, the public's mood and financial picture advancing technology etc etc etc.
You can't ignore those things in a complicated chaotic system and yo can't pretend you know how it will all work out.
Jesus Christ, just do a little reading outside your field and you'll start to get a better picture of what's going on- read the Walmart Effect and then get back to me about HOW MUCH WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE EFFECT OF "FREE TRADE" .. that's the point.. we don't know and people like this guy want to pretend we do ignoring  causual relationships that are too compilcated (for now.. with our way of understanding these things) to really analyze.
Little vignettes about camera makers ad 20 bucks... wow, therse people are really idiots.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30041466</id>
	<title>Determinism vs libertarianism</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1257779280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This book seems genuinely interesting, but I don't understand why a determinist would also be a libertarian. Libertarians value freedom above all other things, but in a deterministic universe no one is free. If causality determines everything then why does it matter if the government is totalitarian or if society breaks down into anarchy? At least the totalitarian government merely LIMITS freedom, whereas the deterministic universe ABOLISHES it (well, technically it never exists). Libertarianism is very much a theory of justice, but in a determined universe nothing can be just, it just simply is.</p><p>I believe the universe may be determined (I have no proof to the contrary), but I like to believe that it's not because if it were I don't understand how anything could matter, how anything could have meaning. But Landsburg appears to be a passionate libertarian while maintaining a deterministic position. I just don't see how a political philosophy which values freedom above all other things could possibly be compatible with a causal theory which states that freedom doesn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This book seems genuinely interesting , but I do n't understand why a determinist would also be a libertarian .
Libertarians value freedom above all other things , but in a deterministic universe no one is free .
If causality determines everything then why does it matter if the government is totalitarian or if society breaks down into anarchy ?
At least the totalitarian government merely LIMITS freedom , whereas the deterministic universe ABOLISHES it ( well , technically it never exists ) .
Libertarianism is very much a theory of justice , but in a determined universe nothing can be just , it just simply is.I believe the universe may be determined ( I have no proof to the contrary ) , but I like to believe that it 's not because if it were I do n't understand how anything could matter , how anything could have meaning .
But Landsburg appears to be a passionate libertarian while maintaining a deterministic position .
I just do n't see how a political philosophy which values freedom above all other things could possibly be compatible with a causal theory which states that freedom does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This book seems genuinely interesting, but I don't understand why a determinist would also be a libertarian.
Libertarians value freedom above all other things, but in a deterministic universe no one is free.
If causality determines everything then why does it matter if the government is totalitarian or if society breaks down into anarchy?
At least the totalitarian government merely LIMITS freedom, whereas the deterministic universe ABOLISHES it (well, technically it never exists).
Libertarianism is very much a theory of justice, but in a determined universe nothing can be just, it just simply is.I believe the universe may be determined (I have no proof to the contrary), but I like to believe that it's not because if it were I don't understand how anything could matter, how anything could have meaning.
But Landsburg appears to be a passionate libertarian while maintaining a deterministic position.
I just don't see how a political philosophy which values freedom above all other things could possibly be compatible with a causal theory which states that freedom doesn't exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30043060</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1257884700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This quote drops a clue:<blockquote><div><p>On the other hand, conditions in overseas sweatshops are so notoriously dangerous and unpleasant that it seems hard to believe the opportunities leave workers better off on balance.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you've never picked through a rubbish dump for your dinner then, no, you probably don't understand why anyone would want to work in a sweatshop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This quote drops a clue : On the other hand , conditions in overseas sweatshops are so notoriously dangerous and unpleasant that it seems hard to believe the opportunities leave workers better off on balance.If you 've never picked through a rubbish dump for your dinner then , no , you probably do n't understand why anyone would want to work in a sweatshop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This quote drops a clue:On the other hand, conditions in overseas sweatshops are so notoriously dangerous and unpleasant that it seems hard to believe the opportunities leave workers better off on balance.If you've never picked through a rubbish dump for your dinner then, no, you probably don't understand why anyone would want to work in a sweatshop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30041836</id>
	<title>Thanks for saving me the trouble...</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1257782820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of reading the review, that is:<blockquote><div><p>I certainly don't mean that it's better than books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Malcolm Gladwell, or Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of reading the review , that is : I certainly do n't mean that it 's better than books by Richard Dawkins , Daniel Dennett , Steven Pinker , Malcolm Gladwell , or Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of reading the review, that is:I certainly don't mean that it's better than books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Malcolm Gladwell, or Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037724</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1257759180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reviewer talks about wanting to find the flaw in the argument.  One flaw in the argument against tariffs is that it stops too soon.  In the "free trade" scenario, he neglects to point out that now you have a trade deficit with a foreign country.  Until you understand what "trade deficit" means and why it's bad, you can't see why the argument shouldn't stop where it is.
</p><p>I'm certainly not an economist, but here's my understanding.  Economy, at its heart, is just people doing things for each other.  Before money, you could do trade-swaps: I'll make you a bow and arrow if you'll cook me some food.  But what if the trade swaps aren't equal effort?  And what if I don't want what you have to sell?  If there are three people, we can work out an arrangement: you give me two chickens, I'll give him a goat, and he'll make you a bow and arrow.  But anything more complicated is essentially impossible to do, until money was invented. Money works because for the most part it organizes everyone's activity, so that everyone can do something valuable for "society", and get something valuable back.  (Obviously there are lots of other ways of making money that don't add value to anyone; but still the global effect is to organize everyone's efforts fairly effectively.)
</p><p>Now back to the tariff scenario.  If you give $80 to the local, then he will (probably) spend that $80 locally as well; which means the money keeps flowing around, and will eventually come back to the person who spent $80 instead of $60.  However, if you give $60 to the foreigner, you've just taken $60 out of the system: that's less money that will flow around other people and come back to you -- unless the foreigner (or someone else from his country) buys $60 worth of local goods.  That lack of $60 has cascading effects that eventually impact the whole economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reviewer talks about wanting to find the flaw in the argument .
One flaw in the argument against tariffs is that it stops too soon .
In the " free trade " scenario , he neglects to point out that now you have a trade deficit with a foreign country .
Until you understand what " trade deficit " means and why it 's bad , you ca n't see why the argument should n't stop where it is .
I 'm certainly not an economist , but here 's my understanding .
Economy , at its heart , is just people doing things for each other .
Before money , you could do trade-swaps : I 'll make you a bow and arrow if you 'll cook me some food .
But what if the trade swaps are n't equal effort ?
And what if I do n't want what you have to sell ?
If there are three people , we can work out an arrangement : you give me two chickens , I 'll give him a goat , and he 'll make you a bow and arrow .
But anything more complicated is essentially impossible to do , until money was invented .
Money works because for the most part it organizes everyone 's activity , so that everyone can do something valuable for " society " , and get something valuable back .
( Obviously there are lots of other ways of making money that do n't add value to anyone ; but still the global effect is to organize everyone 's efforts fairly effectively .
) Now back to the tariff scenario .
If you give $ 80 to the local , then he will ( probably ) spend that $ 80 locally as well ; which means the money keeps flowing around , and will eventually come back to the person who spent $ 80 instead of $ 60 .
However , if you give $ 60 to the foreigner , you 've just taken $ 60 out of the system : that 's less money that will flow around other people and come back to you -- unless the foreigner ( or someone else from his country ) buys $ 60 worth of local goods .
That lack of $ 60 has cascading effects that eventually impact the whole economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reviewer talks about wanting to find the flaw in the argument.
One flaw in the argument against tariffs is that it stops too soon.
In the "free trade" scenario, he neglects to point out that now you have a trade deficit with a foreign country.
Until you understand what "trade deficit" means and why it's bad, you can't see why the argument shouldn't stop where it is.
I'm certainly not an economist, but here's my understanding.
Economy, at its heart, is just people doing things for each other.
Before money, you could do trade-swaps: I'll make you a bow and arrow if you'll cook me some food.
But what if the trade swaps aren't equal effort?
And what if I don't want what you have to sell?
If there are three people, we can work out an arrangement: you give me two chickens, I'll give him a goat, and he'll make you a bow and arrow.
But anything more complicated is essentially impossible to do, until money was invented.
Money works because for the most part it organizes everyone's activity, so that everyone can do something valuable for "society", and get something valuable back.
(Obviously there are lots of other ways of making money that don't add value to anyone; but still the global effect is to organize everyone's efforts fairly effectively.
)
Now back to the tariff scenario.
If you give $80 to the local, then he will (probably) spend that $80 locally as well; which means the money keeps flowing around, and will eventually come back to the person who spent $80 instead of $60.
However, if you give $60 to the foreigner, you've just taken $60 out of the system: that's less money that will flow around other people and come back to you -- unless the foreigner (or someone else from his country) buys $60 worth of local goods.
That lack of $60 has cascading effects that eventually impact the whole economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037112</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1257799800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"except en mass aka Asimov's Foundation books..."</p><p>Sorry, there isn't any proof you can do this either...  In his books the threat to the predictions is "the Mule" who can force upon others his desired emotional states.... In fact we don't need "Mules" with mental powers.  Charismatic leaders disrupt such assumptions and predictions all the time without the need for mental powers.</p><p>"computers think deterministically..."</p><p>Sorry, even this is not true.  What a computer does is often based on random data, the inputs into the system and the timing of said inputs.  What, have we learned nothing from using computers since the 50's?  Just because a program crashes on you, doesn't mean that you can't do exactly the same steps and perhaps have the program continue on....</p><p>Lastly, we do not need to consider the "soul" to consider the question of Free Will.  Of course people cannot change their past behavior, and there is no need to do so in order to discuss Free Will.  The question is whether or not people can choose to change their behavior, and thus choose their future behavior.</p><p>In the end, it cannot be denied that one will live only one life that we can observe.  That does not prove that the other paths were not possible, nor does that prove those paths could be predicted solely from the state of the universe at a point prior to those decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" except en mass aka Asimov 's Foundation books... " Sorry , there is n't any proof you can do this either... In his books the threat to the predictions is " the Mule " who can force upon others his desired emotional states.... In fact we do n't need " Mules " with mental powers .
Charismatic leaders disrupt such assumptions and predictions all the time without the need for mental powers .
" computers think deterministically... " Sorry , even this is not true .
What a computer does is often based on random data , the inputs into the system and the timing of said inputs .
What , have we learned nothing from using computers since the 50 's ?
Just because a program crashes on you , does n't mean that you ca n't do exactly the same steps and perhaps have the program continue on....Lastly , we do not need to consider the " soul " to consider the question of Free Will .
Of course people can not change their past behavior , and there is no need to do so in order to discuss Free Will .
The question is whether or not people can choose to change their behavior , and thus choose their future behavior.In the end , it can not be denied that one will live only one life that we can observe .
That does not prove that the other paths were not possible , nor does that prove those paths could be predicted solely from the state of the universe at a point prior to those decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"except en mass aka Asimov's Foundation books..."Sorry, there isn't any proof you can do this either...  In his books the threat to the predictions is "the Mule" who can force upon others his desired emotional states.... In fact we don't need "Mules" with mental powers.
Charismatic leaders disrupt such assumptions and predictions all the time without the need for mental powers.
"computers think deterministically..."Sorry, even this is not true.
What a computer does is often based on random data, the inputs into the system and the timing of said inputs.
What, have we learned nothing from using computers since the 50's?
Just because a program crashes on you, doesn't mean that you can't do exactly the same steps and perhaps have the program continue on....Lastly, we do not need to consider the "soul" to consider the question of Free Will.
Of course people cannot change their past behavior, and there is no need to do so in order to discuss Free Will.
The question is whether or not people can choose to change their behavior, and thus choose their future behavior.In the end, it cannot be denied that one will live only one life that we can observe.
That does not prove that the other paths were not possible, nor does that prove those paths could be predicted solely from the state of the universe at a point prior to those decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040172</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>Aviation Pete</author>
	<datestamp>1257770460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you nicely underscored the point with your typos. Many more than necessary, but impossible to predict and not following any pattern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you nicely underscored the point with your typos .
Many more than necessary , but impossible to predict and not following any pattern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you nicely underscored the point with your typos.
Many more than necessary, but impossible to predict and not following any pattern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037070</id>
	<title>colours</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257799560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Do colors vary continuously in two dimensions (forming a wheel) or one (forming a line)? Or, wait a minute, we measure colors according to the strength of their red, green, and blue components, so don't they vary continuously in three dimensions? Well, the answer is in there. "</p><p>There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between [0,1], R, R^2 and R^3 (R^n), so doesn't really matter which way you want to place the colours. It just happens that we can draw 1 and 2 on a piece of paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do colors vary continuously in two dimensions ( forming a wheel ) or one ( forming a line ) ?
Or , wait a minute , we measure colors according to the strength of their red , green , and blue components , so do n't they vary continuously in three dimensions ?
Well , the answer is in there .
" There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between [ 0,1 ] , R , R ^ 2 and R ^ 3 ( R ^ n ) , so does n't really matter which way you want to place the colours .
It just happens that we can draw 1 and 2 on a piece of paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do colors vary continuously in two dimensions (forming a wheel) or one (forming a line)?
Or, wait a minute, we measure colors according to the strength of their red, green, and blue components, so don't they vary continuously in three dimensions?
Well, the answer is in there.
"There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between [0,1], R, R^2 and R^3 (R^n), so doesn't really matter which way you want to place the colours.
It just happens that we can draw 1 and 2 on a piece of paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036876</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>bwalling</author>
	<datestamp>1257798720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.</p></div></blockquote><p>Here's a simple one:  developing nations with open economies fare significantly better over long periods (20+ years) than do developing nations with tariffs and import substitution.  Has been shown in a variety of economic studies.  The outcomes apply to both economic growth (increase in GDP) and to economic development (increase in quality of life).<br> <br>Look at Latin America.  When the Great Depression hit the US, they were reeling.  Most of their economies were dependent on exporting agriculture to the US and the US could no longer afford to buy it.  Many of the countries turned to import substitution.  Import substitution means that the government is propping up domestic industry to protect it against importing the same goods from foreigners (this can be through price subsidies, quotas, tariffs, etc).  It was a terrible disaster - the lack of competition led to the LA industries being non-competitive.  Now that their economies were strongly dependent on inefficient businesses that couldn't survive without continued protection, they were in a very tight spot.  This led to massive amounts of borrowing, and when the interest rates went through the roof in the early 1980's, they were buried in their debt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never seen an economist or " libertarian " give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.Here 's a simple one : developing nations with open economies fare significantly better over long periods ( 20 + years ) than do developing nations with tariffs and import substitution .
Has been shown in a variety of economic studies .
The outcomes apply to both economic growth ( increase in GDP ) and to economic development ( increase in quality of life ) .
Look at Latin America .
When the Great Depression hit the US , they were reeling .
Most of their economies were dependent on exporting agriculture to the US and the US could no longer afford to buy it .
Many of the countries turned to import substitution .
Import substitution means that the government is propping up domestic industry to protect it against importing the same goods from foreigners ( this can be through price subsidies , quotas , tariffs , etc ) .
It was a terrible disaster - the lack of competition led to the LA industries being non-competitive .
Now that their economies were strongly dependent on inefficient businesses that could n't survive without continued protection , they were in a very tight spot .
This led to massive amounts of borrowing , and when the interest rates went through the roof in the early 1980 's , they were buried in their debt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.Here's a simple one:  developing nations with open economies fare significantly better over long periods (20+ years) than do developing nations with tariffs and import substitution.
Has been shown in a variety of economic studies.
The outcomes apply to both economic growth (increase in GDP) and to economic development (increase in quality of life).
Look at Latin America.
When the Great Depression hit the US, they were reeling.
Most of their economies were dependent on exporting agriculture to the US and the US could no longer afford to buy it.
Many of the countries turned to import substitution.
Import substitution means that the government is propping up domestic industry to protect it against importing the same goods from foreigners (this can be through price subsidies, quotas, tariffs, etc).
It was a terrible disaster - the lack of competition led to the LA industries being non-competitive.
Now that their economies were strongly dependent on inefficient businesses that couldn't survive without continued protection, they were in a very tight spot.
This led to massive amounts of borrowing, and when the interest rates went through the roof in the early 1980's, they were buried in their debt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30046040</id>
	<title>The Ontological Argument</title>
	<author>logicnazi</author>
	<datestamp>1257870780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This (unfortunately) reminds me of the ontological argument and similar examples of bad reasoning that manage to avoid being laughed out of the room because they dress themselves in a false shroud of logical rigor.
</p><p>One version of the ontological argument procedes by defining god to be the being which has the maximal amount of good qualities and continues from there. Now there are other problems with this argument but the giant gaping fallacy is that this simply isn't what people mean by god, a point that wouldn't be lost on anyone if you stripped off all the pretense of extreme rigor and just said, "Hey, something has to be the best thing."
</p><p>I'm a big fan of using logic to demonstrate that our convential views are incoherent. Indeed, many of the issues mentioned here beg for such a treatment but disguising your hidden assumptions by pointless trapings of rigor (and I'm mathematical logician so I like rigor) gives those of us who actually want to reason about these situations a bad name and enlightens no one.
</p><p>Grr...I mean just consider the free trade example. It sounds as if he is delibrately trying to slip past the reader that our goal is not to maximize the net inflow of 'dollars' to the US not to mention the existance of inefficent equilibriums. I mean I think <em>nearly </em>every protectionist sympathizer I've ever heard is being a total moron but you don't do anyone any favors by failing to mention that increased utility from trade may require transfer payments to compensate for the disparate impacts of trade. Maybe you oppose these on other grounds but if so you need to state the case. Ohh and BTW given the extremely strong evidence that many Chinese are eager to the point of breaking the law to get these 'sweatshop' jobs maybe the reviewer should try harder to believe that other things being equal they leave an individual better off on balance for taking the job. Perhaps by contemplating how much subsistance farming without modern medicine or convienences sucks.
</p><p>And the god arguments repeat the same problems. Yes, it's interesting that adults treat religious beliefs differently than other beliefs but saying they don't believe in god doesn't accomplish anything. It just redescribes the situation confusingly. People still let their faith influence their attitudes on many policy questions (which they often also treat differently than beliefs about things they can affect). The ESP bit is even dumber. <strong>ESP, like most words, doesn't have a stipulative definition but rather is understood by something like prototype resembelance. </strong>It's like the word table, you know some things count and others (a bed) don't and evaluate weird new examples (three legged 2 foot radius stool) by their similarity. Besides, no one cares if 'ESP' exists, people care if people can read minds, remote view etc.. whatever you want to call it.
</p><p>The only half-decent argument listed is the bit about free will. A better statement would be something like this:
</p><p>Free will doesn't mean unpredictable/random. A person who heroicly rushes back into a burning building to save a trapped dog is exercising free will in that choice if anyone is even if they would make the same choice everytime you (exactly) replayed the situation. Indeed, if you rewound time and gave it another go and they acted differently that feels less like exercising free will. If free will makes sense then choices I make because of my charachter (how I see myself) surely count and not just choices which we might as well have left up to a coin toss. In other words it seems that what makes a choice free is that I get to select the outcome without outside dictation of the answer.
</p><p>In other words for a choice to be free it must be possible for <em>me</em> to have acted differently, i.e., if I were inclined to select a different option then I could have done so. It doesn't require the absurd criterion that a free choice must be something that *I* don't determine, e.g., by being the sort of person who will race into burning houses. So</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ( unfortunately ) reminds me of the ontological argument and similar examples of bad reasoning that manage to avoid being laughed out of the room because they dress themselves in a false shroud of logical rigor .
One version of the ontological argument procedes by defining god to be the being which has the maximal amount of good qualities and continues from there .
Now there are other problems with this argument but the giant gaping fallacy is that this simply is n't what people mean by god , a point that would n't be lost on anyone if you stripped off all the pretense of extreme rigor and just said , " Hey , something has to be the best thing .
" I 'm a big fan of using logic to demonstrate that our convential views are incoherent .
Indeed , many of the issues mentioned here beg for such a treatment but disguising your hidden assumptions by pointless trapings of rigor ( and I 'm mathematical logician so I like rigor ) gives those of us who actually want to reason about these situations a bad name and enlightens no one .
Grr...I mean just consider the free trade example .
It sounds as if he is delibrately trying to slip past the reader that our goal is not to maximize the net inflow of 'dollars ' to the US not to mention the existance of inefficent equilibriums .
I mean I think nearly every protectionist sympathizer I 've ever heard is being a total moron but you do n't do anyone any favors by failing to mention that increased utility from trade may require transfer payments to compensate for the disparate impacts of trade .
Maybe you oppose these on other grounds but if so you need to state the case .
Ohh and BTW given the extremely strong evidence that many Chinese are eager to the point of breaking the law to get these 'sweatshop ' jobs maybe the reviewer should try harder to believe that other things being equal they leave an individual better off on balance for taking the job .
Perhaps by contemplating how much subsistance farming without modern medicine or convienences sucks .
And the god arguments repeat the same problems .
Yes , it 's interesting that adults treat religious beliefs differently than other beliefs but saying they do n't believe in god does n't accomplish anything .
It just redescribes the situation confusingly .
People still let their faith influence their attitudes on many policy questions ( which they often also treat differently than beliefs about things they can affect ) .
The ESP bit is even dumber .
ESP , like most words , does n't have a stipulative definition but rather is understood by something like prototype resembelance .
It 's like the word table , you know some things count and others ( a bed ) do n't and evaluate weird new examples ( three legged 2 foot radius stool ) by their similarity .
Besides , no one cares if 'ESP ' exists , people care if people can read minds , remote view etc.. whatever you want to call it .
The only half-decent argument listed is the bit about free will .
A better statement would be something like this : Free will does n't mean unpredictable/random .
A person who heroicly rushes back into a burning building to save a trapped dog is exercising free will in that choice if anyone is even if they would make the same choice everytime you ( exactly ) replayed the situation .
Indeed , if you rewound time and gave it another go and they acted differently that feels less like exercising free will .
If free will makes sense then choices I make because of my charachter ( how I see myself ) surely count and not just choices which we might as well have left up to a coin toss .
In other words it seems that what makes a choice free is that I get to select the outcome without outside dictation of the answer .
In other words for a choice to be free it must be possible for me to have acted differently , i.e. , if I were inclined to select a different option then I could have done so .
It does n't require the absurd criterion that a free choice must be something that * I * do n't determine , e.g. , by being the sort of person who will race into burning houses .
So</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This (unfortunately) reminds me of the ontological argument and similar examples of bad reasoning that manage to avoid being laughed out of the room because they dress themselves in a false shroud of logical rigor.
One version of the ontological argument procedes by defining god to be the being which has the maximal amount of good qualities and continues from there.
Now there are other problems with this argument but the giant gaping fallacy is that this simply isn't what people mean by god, a point that wouldn't be lost on anyone if you stripped off all the pretense of extreme rigor and just said, "Hey, something has to be the best thing.
"
I'm a big fan of using logic to demonstrate that our convential views are incoherent.
Indeed, many of the issues mentioned here beg for such a treatment but disguising your hidden assumptions by pointless trapings of rigor (and I'm mathematical logician so I like rigor) gives those of us who actually want to reason about these situations a bad name and enlightens no one.
Grr...I mean just consider the free trade example.
It sounds as if he is delibrately trying to slip past the reader that our goal is not to maximize the net inflow of 'dollars' to the US not to mention the existance of inefficent equilibriums.
I mean I think nearly every protectionist sympathizer I've ever heard is being a total moron but you don't do anyone any favors by failing to mention that increased utility from trade may require transfer payments to compensate for the disparate impacts of trade.
Maybe you oppose these on other grounds but if so you need to state the case.
Ohh and BTW given the extremely strong evidence that many Chinese are eager to the point of breaking the law to get these 'sweatshop' jobs maybe the reviewer should try harder to believe that other things being equal they leave an individual better off on balance for taking the job.
Perhaps by contemplating how much subsistance farming without modern medicine or convienences sucks.
And the god arguments repeat the same problems.
Yes, it's interesting that adults treat religious beliefs differently than other beliefs but saying they don't believe in god doesn't accomplish anything.
It just redescribes the situation confusingly.
People still let their faith influence their attitudes on many policy questions (which they often also treat differently than beliefs about things they can affect).
The ESP bit is even dumber.
ESP, like most words, doesn't have a stipulative definition but rather is understood by something like prototype resembelance.
It's like the word table, you know some things count and others (a bed) don't and evaluate weird new examples (three legged 2 foot radius stool) by their similarity.
Besides, no one cares if 'ESP' exists, people care if people can read minds, remote view etc.. whatever you want to call it.
The only half-decent argument listed is the bit about free will.
A better statement would be something like this:
Free will doesn't mean unpredictable/random.
A person who heroicly rushes back into a burning building to save a trapped dog is exercising free will in that choice if anyone is even if they would make the same choice everytime you (exactly) replayed the situation.
Indeed, if you rewound time and gave it another go and they acted differently that feels less like exercising free will.
If free will makes sense then choices I make because of my charachter (how I see myself) surely count and not just choices which we might as well have left up to a coin toss.
In other words it seems that what makes a choice free is that I get to select the outcome without outside dictation of the answer.
In other words for a choice to be free it must be possible for me to have acted differently, i.e., if I were inclined to select a different option then I could have done so.
It doesn't require the absurd criterion that a free choice must be something that *I* don't determine, e.g., by being the sort of person who will race into burning houses.
So</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037134</id>
	<title>uo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257799980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only someone dogmatically believing in the non-existence of an entity are allowed to be sure of their belief.</p></div><p>

The non existence of god is absolutely not dogmatic among atheists.  Atheists do not claim that there is no god... the simply are not making a claim that there is a god.  If someone provides sufficient evidence, any honest atheist will change their mind.  It is belief in the absence of evidence that makes religious thinking dogmatic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only someone dogmatically believing in the non-existence of an entity are allowed to be sure of their belief .
The non existence of god is absolutely not dogmatic among atheists .
Atheists do not claim that there is no god... the simply are not making a claim that there is a god .
If someone provides sufficient evidence , any honest atheist will change their mind .
It is belief in the absence of evidence that makes religious thinking dogmatic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only someone dogmatically believing in the non-existence of an entity are allowed to be sure of their belief.
The non existence of god is absolutely not dogmatic among atheists.
Atheists do not claim that there is no god... the simply are not making a claim that there is a god.
If someone provides sufficient evidence, any honest atheist will change their mind.
It is belief in the absence of evidence that makes religious thinking dogmatic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038914</id>
	<title>Unimpressed.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1257764100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because he forgets a bazillion things that matter.  It's almost like this book is really more about how to lock in some ideas by surrounding them with logical sounding puffery, rather than any of the rules that it says.</p><p>I mean, "I consider the protectionist to be worse than a creationist", seems to me a loaded statement.  A political writer like me should have no problem saying that free traders should all be tortured to death and executed, but a professor?  I think not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because he forgets a bazillion things that matter .
It 's almost like this book is really more about how to lock in some ideas by surrounding them with logical sounding puffery , rather than any of the rules that it says.I mean , " I consider the protectionist to be worse than a creationist " , seems to me a loaded statement .
A political writer like me should have no problem saying that free traders should all be tortured to death and executed , but a professor ?
I think not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because he forgets a bazillion things that matter.
It's almost like this book is really more about how to lock in some ideas by surrounding them with logical sounding puffery, rather than any of the rules that it says.I mean, "I consider the protectionist to be worse than a creationist", seems to me a loaded statement.
A political writer like me should have no problem saying that free traders should all be tortured to death and executed, but a professor?
I think not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037424</id>
	<title>Re:Free will bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257757980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's wrong with deterministic ? I mean : look at langton's ants, deterministic behavior, but unpredictable results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's wrong with deterministic ?
I mean : look at langton 's ants , deterministic behavior , but unpredictable results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's wrong with deterministic ?
I mean : look at langton's ants, deterministic behavior, but unpredictable results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30041394</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>darkwing\_bmf</author>
	<datestamp>1257778860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs</p></div></blockquote><p>Bastiat did a pretty good job in my opinion:<br><a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph1.html" title="econlib.org">http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph1.html</a> [econlib.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never seen an economist or " libertarian " give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffsBastiat did a pretty good job in my opinion : http : //www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph1.html [ econlib.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffsBastiat did a pretty good job in my opinion:http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph1.html [econlib.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037438</id>
	<title>Why bother?!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This book and its likes are all pointless.<br>The ultimate question has been answered already.<br>The answer is<br>42</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This book and its likes are all pointless.The ultimate question has been answered already.The answer is42</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This book and its likes are all pointless.The ultimate question has been answered already.The answer is42</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036412</id>
	<title>Re:When science fails.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257796740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow... I didn't know Rush Limbaugh read slashdot!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... I did n't know Rush Limbaugh read slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... I didn't know Rush Limbaugh read slashdot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30041956</id>
	<title>Proof by example</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1257784140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it ironic that you are asking for a logically constructed argument, considering the thread's subject of science vs. philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with constructing convincing arguments; science is concerned with empirical evidence.</p><p>The proof against protectionist tariffs is empirical not theoretical--when tariffs are dropped, standards of living rise. Over the past 50 years tariffs worldwide have fallen dramatically, and simultaneously living standards around the world have improved dramatically. There is no reason to argue in a vacuum about tariffs when there are decades of economic data to explore.</p><p>The problem with asking for a "convincing argument" is that it presupposes such an argument can be constructed from some collection of universally-agreed-upon first principles. But the result is emergent; we simply see it in the data. There may be tremendous arguments about why, but that does not mean it didn't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it ironic that you are asking for a logically constructed argument , considering the thread 's subject of science vs. philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with constructing convincing arguments ; science is concerned with empirical evidence.The proof against protectionist tariffs is empirical not theoretical--when tariffs are dropped , standards of living rise .
Over the past 50 years tariffs worldwide have fallen dramatically , and simultaneously living standards around the world have improved dramatically .
There is no reason to argue in a vacuum about tariffs when there are decades of economic data to explore.The problem with asking for a " convincing argument " is that it presupposes such an argument can be constructed from some collection of universally-agreed-upon first principles .
But the result is emergent ; we simply see it in the data .
There may be tremendous arguments about why , but that does not mean it did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it ironic that you are asking for a logically constructed argument, considering the thread's subject of science vs. philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with constructing convincing arguments; science is concerned with empirical evidence.The proof against protectionist tariffs is empirical not theoretical--when tariffs are dropped, standards of living rise.
Over the past 50 years tariffs worldwide have fallen dramatically, and simultaneously living standards around the world have improved dramatically.
There is no reason to argue in a vacuum about tariffs when there are decades of economic data to explore.The problem with asking for a "convincing argument" is that it presupposes such an argument can be constructed from some collection of universally-agreed-upon first principles.
But the result is emergent; we simply see it in the data.
There may be tremendous arguments about why, but that does not mean it didn't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036822</id>
	<title>Re:Protectionism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>agree with you.<br>The problem with the</p><p><div class="quote"><p>however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business</p></div><p>is that if the foreign goods are competitive in ALL markets (of note) then there is no industry to switch to, voluntarily or otherwise. The only course of action left is join the competitors and outsource the production.<br>yeah, I am thinking about China.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>agree with you.The problem with thehowever , if they voluntarily switch to some other businessis that if the foreign goods are competitive in ALL markets ( of note ) then there is no industry to switch to , voluntarily or otherwise .
The only course of action left is join the competitors and outsource the production.yeah , I am thinking about China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agree with you.The problem with thehowever, if they voluntarily switch to some other businessis that if the foreign goods are competitive in ALL markets (of note) then there is no industry to switch to, voluntarily or otherwise.
The only course of action left is join the competitors and outsource the production.yeah, I am thinking about China.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037344</id>
	<title>Re:I think the big questions are "big"</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1257757680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"By what means do you arrive at such a conclusion that from now until forever a way will not be found in reason and logic so that they will have something to say on the existence of a god?"</p><p>No, no, no... that's not the case: It's terribly easy for reason and logic to say something on the existance of God: it's only needed for God to come down on His Holly Glory and go to Letterman's for an interview.  It is about the *non*existance of God where problems begin.</p><p>And then, "Just because we believe that logic and reason as we presently know them do not have anything to say about the existence/non-existence of a god does not mean that in the future they will not" fails an easy pre-condition: while science and technology evolutions, reason and logic do not.  God as a logic problem is as tractable now as it was in the Ancient Greece days and the problem with it is... that there's no logic on It.  The most basic logic assert: 'if A then B' fails about God because being it omnipotent, 'if A then B... or C or D or even something out of the alphabet'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" By what means do you arrive at such a conclusion that from now until forever a way will not be found in reason and logic so that they will have something to say on the existence of a god ?
" No , no , no... that 's not the case : It 's terribly easy for reason and logic to say something on the existance of God : it 's only needed for God to come down on His Holly Glory and go to Letterman 's for an interview .
It is about the * non * existance of God where problems begin.And then , " Just because we believe that logic and reason as we presently know them do not have anything to say about the existence/non-existence of a god does not mean that in the future they will not " fails an easy pre-condition : while science and technology evolutions , reason and logic do not .
God as a logic problem is as tractable now as it was in the Ancient Greece days and the problem with it is... that there 's no logic on It .
The most basic logic assert : 'if A then B ' fails about God because being it omnipotent , 'if A then B... or C or D or even something out of the alphabet' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"By what means do you arrive at such a conclusion that from now until forever a way will not be found in reason and logic so that they will have something to say on the existence of a god?
"No, no, no... that's not the case: It's terribly easy for reason and logic to say something on the existance of God: it's only needed for God to come down on His Holly Glory and go to Letterman's for an interview.
It is about the *non*existance of God where problems begin.And then, "Just because we believe that logic and reason as we presently know them do not have anything to say about the existence/non-existence of a god does not mean that in the future they will not" fails an easy pre-condition: while science and technology evolutions, reason and logic do not.
God as a logic problem is as tractable now as it was in the Ancient Greece days and the problem with it is... that there's no logic on It.
The most basic logic assert: 'if A then B' fails about God because being it omnipotent, 'if A then B... or C or D or even something out of the alphabet'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039910</id>
	<title>Is an idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To give you some of the flavor: One chapter in The Big Questions contains an elegant argument against protectionist tariffs: Suppose that an American sells cameras for $80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $60 apiece. An American who would have bought the $80 camera will now buy the $60 camera and hence is better off by $20. The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $60 to stay competitive, so they are worse off by at most $20 -- however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business, then they'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $60, and therefore worse off by some amount less than $20 from their original position. So on balance, abolishing protectionist tariffs would be good for Americans. "Therefore," writes Landsburg, "it seems to me that the protectionist's position is even less respectable than the creationist's. If you're convinced that most scientists are liars -- that everything they say about fossils, for example, is false -- then you can be a logically consistent creationist. But you can't be a logically consistent protectionist." </p></div><p>Why would I sell a camera for $60 when I can sell is for $80?</p><p>The only reason is so that I can put the guy who has to sell his camera for $80 out of business then I can sell my camera for $100. Then when someone else wants to get into the camera industry, and can issue them an ultimatum, you can sell your camera at $100 and we can both make outragous profits, or I can sell my camera at $60 or even less because I'm already making a profit at $60 and perhaps put you out of business.  People who are interested in maximizing their profit are usually going to take the offer to sell their widget at the higher price. And maybe they will both agree to sell their cameras at $120 unit and make even more money. So in the end the consumer loses.</p><p>Libertarianism leads to the formation of Trusts and an unfree market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To give you some of the flavor : One chapter in The Big Questions contains an elegant argument against protectionist tariffs : Suppose that an American sells cameras for $ 80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $ 60 apiece .
An American who would have bought the $ 80 camera will now buy the $ 60 camera and hence is better off by $ 20 .
The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $ 60 to stay competitive , so they are worse off by at most $ 20 -- however , if they voluntarily switch to some other business , then they 'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $ 60 , and therefore worse off by some amount less than $ 20 from their original position .
So on balance , abolishing protectionist tariffs would be good for Americans .
" Therefore , " writes Landsburg , " it seems to me that the protectionist 's position is even less respectable than the creationist 's .
If you 're convinced that most scientists are liars -- that everything they say about fossils , for example , is false -- then you can be a logically consistent creationist .
But you ca n't be a logically consistent protectionist .
" Why would I sell a camera for $ 60 when I can sell is for $ 80 ? The only reason is so that I can put the guy who has to sell his camera for $ 80 out of business then I can sell my camera for $ 100 .
Then when someone else wants to get into the camera industry , and can issue them an ultimatum , you can sell your camera at $ 100 and we can both make outragous profits , or I can sell my camera at $ 60 or even less because I 'm already making a profit at $ 60 and perhaps put you out of business .
People who are interested in maximizing their profit are usually going to take the offer to sell their widget at the higher price .
And maybe they will both agree to sell their cameras at $ 120 unit and make even more money .
So in the end the consumer loses.Libertarianism leads to the formation of Trusts and an unfree market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To give you some of the flavor: One chapter in The Big Questions contains an elegant argument against protectionist tariffs: Suppose that an American sells cameras for $80 but a foreigner wants to sell cameras in America for $60 apiece.
An American who would have bought the $80 camera will now buy the $60 camera and hence is better off by $20.
The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $60 to stay competitive, so they are worse off by at most $20 -- however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business, then they'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $60, and therefore worse off by some amount less than $20 from their original position.
So on balance, abolishing protectionist tariffs would be good for Americans.
"Therefore," writes Landsburg, "it seems to me that the protectionist's position is even less respectable than the creationist's.
If you're convinced that most scientists are liars -- that everything they say about fossils, for example, is false -- then you can be a logically consistent creationist.
But you can't be a logically consistent protectionist.
" Why would I sell a camera for $60 when I can sell is for $80?The only reason is so that I can put the guy who has to sell his camera for $80 out of business then I can sell my camera for $100.
Then when someone else wants to get into the camera industry, and can issue them an ultimatum, you can sell your camera at $100 and we can both make outragous profits, or I can sell my camera at $60 or even less because I'm already making a profit at $60 and perhaps put you out of business.
People who are interested in maximizing their profit are usually going to take the offer to sell their widget at the higher price.
And maybe they will both agree to sell their cameras at $120 unit and make even more money.
So in the end the consumer loses.Libertarianism leads to the formation of Trusts and an unfree market.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038032</id>
	<title>Why are they atheists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257760440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have the answer. You pretty much said it.</p><p>Scientists make a living by proving things. The entire scientific method is based on the fact that the natural world has order and that natural phenomenon can be reproduced nilly-willy.</p><p>They won't believe something they can't prove or something anybody can't prove, at least in an experiment. An absurd philosophy to hold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have the answer .
You pretty much said it.Scientists make a living by proving things .
The entire scientific method is based on the fact that the natural world has order and that natural phenomenon can be reproduced nilly-willy.They wo n't believe something they ca n't prove or something anybody ca n't prove , at least in an experiment .
An absurd philosophy to hold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have the answer.
You pretty much said it.Scientists make a living by proving things.
The entire scientific method is based on the fact that the natural world has order and that natural phenomenon can be reproduced nilly-willy.They won't believe something they can't prove or something anybody can't prove, at least in an experiment.
An absurd philosophy to hold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037656</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't you ever get told to share?</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1257758820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are, of course, at least two separate (and obvious) flaws with the original argument. First, the relationship between  government and governed is nothing like that parents and their children. Second, the property (toys) being redistributed in the original argument belong to the parent, not the child. Looking at your own argument, what happens if the other child and its toys are <em>not</em> under the control of the first child's parent? In that case the parent isn't going to redistribute the toys on its own, <em>because they belong to another adult</em>, whatever the first child might want.</p><p>Finally, parental rights end when the child comes of age. We have a name for the practice of adults seeking parental rights (essentially ownership) over other adults: slavery.</p><p>The person making the original argument made a tactical blunder in granting the government the position of parent over those governed. The relation between government and governed, as a coercive relationship between adult peers, is truly closer to that between master and slave than it is to that between parent and child.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are , of course , at least two separate ( and obvious ) flaws with the original argument .
First , the relationship between government and governed is nothing like that parents and their children .
Second , the property ( toys ) being redistributed in the original argument belong to the parent , not the child .
Looking at your own argument , what happens if the other child and its toys are not under the control of the first child 's parent ?
In that case the parent is n't going to redistribute the toys on its own , because they belong to another adult , whatever the first child might want.Finally , parental rights end when the child comes of age .
We have a name for the practice of adults seeking parental rights ( essentially ownership ) over other adults : slavery.The person making the original argument made a tactical blunder in granting the government the position of parent over those governed .
The relation between government and governed , as a coercive relationship between adult peers , is truly closer to that between master and slave than it is to that between parent and child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are, of course, at least two separate (and obvious) flaws with the original argument.
First, the relationship between  government and governed is nothing like that parents and their children.
Second, the property (toys) being redistributed in the original argument belong to the parent, not the child.
Looking at your own argument, what happens if the other child and its toys are not under the control of the first child's parent?
In that case the parent isn't going to redistribute the toys on its own, because they belong to another adult, whatever the first child might want.Finally, parental rights end when the child comes of age.
We have a name for the practice of adults seeking parental rights (essentially ownership) over other adults: slavery.The person making the original argument made a tactical blunder in granting the government the position of parent over those governed.
The relation between government and governed, as a coercive relationship between adult peers, is truly closer to that between master and slave than it is to that between parent and child.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036142</id>
	<title>That Quote Really Hit Home</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What caused your decision to get drunk and watch Mystery Science Theater the night before your philosophy final?</p> </div><p>My god, it's like looking into a mirror.  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Free will.</p></div><p>  Oddly enough when I responded to the last question on the final by drawing parallels between getting drunk and watching MST3K with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_First\_and\_Last\_Freedom" title="wikipedia.org">Krishnamurti's <i>The First and Last Freedom</i> </a> [wikipedia.org], my professor assured me that it was sloven stupidity--not free will--and graded me accordingly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What caused your decision to get drunk and watch Mystery Science Theater the night before your philosophy final ?
My god , it 's like looking into a mirror .
Free will .
Oddly enough when I responded to the last question on the final by drawing parallels between getting drunk and watching MST3K with Krishnamurti 's The First and Last Freedom [ wikipedia.org ] , my professor assured me that it was sloven stupidity--not free will--and graded me accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What caused your decision to get drunk and watch Mystery Science Theater the night before your philosophy final?
My god, it's like looking into a mirror.
Free will.
Oddly enough when I responded to the last question on the final by drawing parallels between getting drunk and watching MST3K with Krishnamurti's The First and Last Freedom  [wikipedia.org], my professor assured me that it was sloven stupidity--not free will--and graded me accordingly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036500</id>
	<title>There are many big questions...</title>
	<author>armyofone</author>
	<datestamp>1257797160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in life, the world, the universe. In everything actually...</p><p>but we already know the answer is always 42.</p><p>Always.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in life , the world , the universe .
In everything actually...but we already know the answer is always 42.Always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in life, the world, the universe.
In everything actually...but we already know the answer is always 42.Always.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30044152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30041394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30043060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30045928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30042766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30041956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30042046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_1431227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30044152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30042766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30041956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037838
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30040798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30043060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30041394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30045928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30042046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30039496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30038438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30037656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_1431227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_1431227.30036158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
