Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Interesting, but N=1 and... (Score 1) 283

by devent (#47398489) Attached to: Consciousness On-Off Switch Discovered Deep In Brain

Why do you think the link is broken? works fine by me, here is the Abstract:

[...]Stimulation of the claustral electrode reproducibly resulted in a complete arrest of volitional behavior, unresponsiveness, and amnesia without negative motor symptoms or mere aphasia. The disruption of consciousness did not outlast the stimulation and occurred without any epileptiform discharges.[...]

Comment: Re:Maybe it doesn't measure science literacy (Score 1) 772

by devent (#47121983) Attached to: Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy

You proved my point, "Spirituality is the process of adding "Truth" (aka just ideas or claims), without any predictive power or support from observations".

Spirituality is based upon gnosticism. That is, knowledge by direct experience.

Knowledge is justified true believes. They are justified if you can support them with evidence, and they are true if they correspond to reality. There are different kind of evidence, it can be personal experience, logical arguments, empirical experiments, etc. Personal experiences is the lowest form of evidence, because it is by nature subjective.

There are no proofs for experiences i.e. Prove that you love your spouse.

Bad example, I can actually prove that I love my spouse by the neurons fire in my brain and the endorphins (hormones) in my blood. But you are correct, that there are no objective methods to prove personal experiences, that is why personal experiences is the weakest form of evidence. Many people have personal experiences to be abducted by aliens, or personal experiences with Big Foot, or saw Elvis after his death, or "born again" Christians, and so on.

I would recommend starting with the beginning of ALL Wisdom: Know Thyself.

I agree. And the scientific method gave us this knowledge, more detailed and more supported by evidence then any method before. And the answer is: we are physical beings in a physical universe.

Church Father Clement of Alexandria said it best: " ... the greatest of all lessons to know one's self. For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God ... and that man becomes God, since God so wills ... "

Nonsensical nonsense.

You are a spiritual being in a physical body having a human experience.
You are significantly much, much more then your body. The real interesting question is "How much more?"
Some use meditation, others lucid dreaming, some music, others religion, etc. Use whatever works.
Condemning another man's path simply because it doesn't work for you is the height ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.
Theism is only 1 of the 4 paths.

And every path led to nothing at all. Sure, people can induce hallucinations and dreams through very different methods, drugs (Native American), oxygen deprivation, dancing, and so on, but this all just proves the point that we are physical beings in a physical universe. You can chemically alter your brain and get neurons fire and get visions or dreams. So what? Nobody got a Nobel Price with that method, or got anything else from it.

You are a spiritual being in a physical body having a human experience.

Please prove that first. Otherwise it's just a religion.

Comment: Re:Maybe it doesn't measure science literacy (Score 1) 772

by devent (#47117831) Attached to: Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy

That is why both religion and spirituality are BS. Please demonstrate first that there is a god.

* Science is the process of removing falsehood and adding predictive models of nature, based on direct and indirect observations.
* Spirituality is the process of adding "Truth" (aka just ideas or claims), without any predictive power or support from observations
* Religion is one ritualistic process claiming to be the only way to "Truth" (aka just ideas or claims), without any predictive power or support from observations

Comment: Re:Corporate directed not volunteer direct ... (Score 1) 403

We have clearly a different opinion of what rights are. If I have a right to make a copy and I have a perfectly working computer to exercise my right and then because I bought a DVD or Blu-Ray that feature is removed, the manufacture of those DVD/Blu-Ray clearly violates my rights. It doesn't matter if I agreed for that, I right stays a right. That is the same principle of why slavery is illegal, even if you sign a contract that makes you a slave.

That is also the reason why all contracts have a clause that if some passages of the contract is in contradiction of the current law, that passage becomes void. So, even if I agreed in a EULA like contract to disable my rights, my rights still are valid. For example, the first sale right is still valid even if you agreed to a EULA that disallows resale.[1,2]


Comment: Re:Corporate directed not volunteer direct ... (Score 1) 403

I don't have to argue the need to exercise my rights.

I'm no a lawyer, but I think that fair-use rights still hold up even for streaming and renting. If not, that is why I donate to the FSF to push legislation to extend my rights to paid content.

That's a slippery slope that would have people arguing that they are only recording the movie in the theater on their cell phone so that they can review it using a few short clips.

Yes, why not?

Comment: Re:Corporate directed not volunteer direct ... (Score 1) 403

I'm not arguing for DRM, but that's an awful analogy. No better than saying having a lock on your front door assumes all of your houseguests are criminals. And the latter that you KNEW exactly what you were buying when you did it so nothing was "removed".

I have a computer that can copy videos and convert them to different formats. If I want to watch a Blu-Ray that feature of my computer is removed. It is nonsensical to say "that you KNEW exactly what you were buying". A feature *was* removed, you can't deny that. Why was this feature removed? Because the provider assuming you are a pirate and want to copy and share the video with your friends and others, or even sell it for profit.

And HDMI has nothing to do with Blu-Ray.

Technical you are correct, I meant HDCP, but in practice nobody heart anything about that and only knows about HDMI.

HDCP is currently the DRM standard for, among other means of HD transmission, HDMI, DVI, and Blu-Ray.

Q: I'm starting to build an HDMI home theater system, what should I keep in mind? [...] Insure all devices are on the most recent firmware [...] Try to buy all the HDMI devices and HDMI cables from one vendor as they have probably all been tested with each other assuring a system that will work. [...] Q: Everything was working and now I don't see video on my TV, what do I do? A: You may have lost your HDCP handshake so power cycle all devices by resetting them or pulling the AC plug

Comment: Re:Write to Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal, he's responsi (Score 2) 403

I don't think a DRM should be opposed because then you can't pirate anymore.

Sure, everyone is a pirate. YT videos are free and everyone can watch them, why would I pirate them?

His point (hopefully) is that you don't need flash to play flash videos. Will EME videos play in VLC, MPlayer, FFmpeg?

That is exactly my point. I hate to use the build-in video player in FF (and the build-in Pdf viewer is horrible, too). Also I want the advantages of a computer: that I can save the video and watch again later. Why should I degrade my computer to a TV (streaming only)? I know that Netflix and Hollywood wants to kill the computer model, I don't need Mozilla to help them with that.

Comment: Re:Write to Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal, he's responsi (Score 1) 403

Flash is worse than any CDM.

How so? I am able to download videos from any site that uses Flash with a Firefox addon for ages now. The video file I can convert to any other video format using ffmeg or other video tools. Will I still be able to do that with EME and a proprietary CDM? If the content providers says No, there is no way I will be able to download the video file any more.

Comment: Re:Corporate directed not volunteer direct ... (Score 0) 403

Because any DRM system must at least do two things: a) assume that you are a criminal and b) remove rights from you to use your own property. For example video playback with Blu-ray discs. You buy a Blu-ray player and a sound setup and hi-definition TV and you go to a shop and buy the newest Blu-Ray movie, you come back and you are not able to watch. Why? Because they assume you are a criminal and prevent your $1000+ equipment from playing your bought Blu-Ray disc because of some incompatibility with HDMI. Or maybe because your TV don't have HDMI but analogue cable.

Also DRM prevents fair-use rights, for example the right for a backup copy, the right to use short clips from the video, and DRM prevents that the work goes into the public domain.

Comment: Re:It is God. (Score 1) 293

The last presidential candidate was a Mormon. And the last president was voted two times in the office, being a right wing Christian. If we talking about the USA the "intelligent Christians" are clearly a tiny minority. The Creationist Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, got about 254,074 visitors in 2011 and I don't know of any Christian group that was actively opposing it. Where are the Christian supporter of, for example, the Reason Rally[1]?

I also find it odd that you expect other people to bother to change your mind. You obviously haven't done any research into Christianity yourself, and seem to have very strong opinions about it. I like my strong opinions to be based on fact, if possible, not whoever is advertising louder.

I experienced a lot of those blanked statement like that from Christians that I debated. You can ask my facts, or you can point out my errors. The scripture is not rocket science, almost any historic text have more depth then the Bible. If you could weight the "insightfulness" of texts, Socrates Apology can easily outweigh it.


Comment: Re:It is God. (Score 1) 293

I personally never called a Christian ignorant, I called out their beliefs. I always ask a Christian what she believes, because the term "Christian" is very ambiguous. But are those "allies" actual useful in any way? I never saw any Christian defend a more rational position against those other Christian, who, for example, believe that Jesus comes back in 40 years. In religion it's just one opinion against another opinion and nobody can show the other side wrong.

I'm suggesting that you don't call people things like that either, unless you can bring positive evidence.

Do you talk now about to bring evidence of their ignorance? Earlier you were talking to bring positive evidence for the non-existence of god.

Calling Christians in general deeply ignorant is another thing. The ones I know tend to realize that there is no objective evidence of Christianity, and since you agree with that I wouldn't call it ignorance if I were you.

Then those Christians should do something about their fellow Christians, for example, call to the Pope and demand more education of his "flock", or call out to evangelical pastors that preach young earth creationism and a literal bible. If you are not opposing something wicked, then you are supporting it. It's up to your Christian friends to change my perception of Christianity. Of course it's bias, but it is supported by facts. That goes the same for Muslims.

For example, if you call yourself a KKK member, I will perceive you as a racists homophobic evangelical white Christian. It doesn't matter if some of the KKK are very moderate and are members for "subjective reasons".

PS: I find the core ideas of religion asinine to human kind. The idea of an afterlife and the idea of an all powerful god is asinine to long term and short term planning and development and progress in general.

Comment: Re:It is God. (Score 4, Insightful) 293

On a recent poll about 1/3 in the USA believe in a young earth (10,000 years or less) and do not believe in natural evolution[1]. About half of the Christian believe that Jesus will come back in the next 40 years[2]. This is pure asinine to any reasonable long term policy and if not tamed could very well doom us all, especially because those believes comes from a first world country, that is military and economically superior. In addition, you have millions of delusional Christians that think WWIII will speed up the second coming of Jesus[3][4].

Moreover, if being religious is deeply ignorant, you should be able to provide strong evidence against the existence of a God. Not just point to a lack of evidence you like, but evidence against it.

First, that proves for me your ignorance of logic. You demand to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. Second, absence of evidence is evidence for absence. For example, if I make the claim that I have a cat in my house and you come over and look everywhere for my cat and you don't find anything, that is strong evidence that I lied and that I have no cats. The same is for God or for gods.


To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"