Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the philosophy-il
group.

   File        : / Live Webcam Feeds - Click Here.
   Uploaded by : franzia5er <franzia5er@...>
   Description : Real home Webcam Feeds! Real and Live!

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/philosophy-il/files/%20Live%20Webcam%20Feeds%20-%2\
0Click%20Here.

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

franzia5er <franzia5er@...>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the philosophy-il
group.

   File        : / Free Pics in Your Email - Click here
   Uploaded by : franzia5er <franzia5er@...>
   Description :  All the pic you need

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/philosophy-il/files/%20Free%20Pics%20in%20Your%20E\
mail%20-%20Click%20here

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

franzia5er <franzia5er@...>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the philosophy-il
group.

   File        : / Net Dating Service - Click here.
   Uploaded by : franzia5er <franzia5er@...>
   Description :  Thousands of profiles to browse through for free

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/philosophy-il/files/%20Net%20Dating%20Service%20-%\
20Click%20here.

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

franzia5er <franzia5er@...>

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003, philosophy-il@yahoogroups.com wrote about "New file
uploaded to philosophy-il":
>   File        : / Net Dating Service - Click here.
>   Uploaded by : franzia5er <franzia5er@...>
>   Description :  Thousands of profiles to browse through for free

We have just witnessed the birth of a new kind of spam :)

--
Nadav Har'El                        |        Tuesday, Jun 3 2003, 3 Sivan 5763
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |this bull before.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Nadav Har'El wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003, philosophy-il@yahoogroups.com wrote about "New file
uploaded to philosophy-il":
> > File        : / Net Dating Service - Click here.
> > Uploaded by : franzia5er <franzia5er@...>
> > Description :  Thousands of profiles to browse through for free
>
> We have just witnessed the birth of a new kind of spam :)
>

Actually, I've seen these kind of things.

In any case, I modified it by making the files section for members update
only.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

> --
> Nadav Har'El                      |        Tuesday, Jun 3 2003, 3 Sivan 5763
> nyh@...           |-----------------------------------------
> Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard
> http://nadav.harel.org.il         |this bull before.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> philosophy-il-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

There's no point in keeping an idea to yourself since there's a 10 to 1
chance that somebody already has it and will share it before you.

Check:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party

This is a party that combines the elements of Libertarianism, Nazism and
Environmentalism. We live in wonderous times.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

An apple a day will keep a doctor away. Two apples a day will keep two
doctors away.

	 Falk Fish

I just encountered the following gem when reading ESR's Libertarianism
FAQ:

<<<
C3. Would libertarians just abandon the poor?

No, though abandoning the poor might be merciful compared to what
government has done to them. As the level of "anti-poverty" spending in
this country has risen, so has poverty. Government bureaucracies have no
incentive to lift people out of dependency and every incentive to keep
them in it; after all, more poverty means a bigger budget and more power
for the bureaucrats. Libertarians want to break this cycle by abolishing
all income-transfer programs and allowing people to keep what they earn
instead of taxing it away from them. The wealth freed up would go directly
to the private sector, creating jobs for the poor, decreasing the demand
on private charity, and increasing charitable giving. The results might
diminish poverty or they might leave it at today's levels -- but it's hard
to see how they could be any less effective than the present wretched
system.
>>>

The URL is this:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#C3

Think about it. If we assume that "more government funds -> less poverty",
then if poverty increases we need more government funds to fight it. A
myth that is refuted by pure logic.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

An apple a day will keep a doctor away. Two apples a day will keep two
doctors away.

	 Falk Fish

:::PoliticsForum.Com::: Moderators WANTED!!!

Come play with us?
http://politicsforum.com

We also need MODERATORS!

Max

PoliticsForum.Com needs writers, Columnists, Op-ed piece writers and
articles writers of ALL political persuasions.

If you are interested in becoming a regular contributor please
register on our Forum and send me a Private Message. Otherwise, if
you just want to submit an article once in a while you may feel free
to do so as well. Either way it will make your portfolio look good.

Max
http://politicsforum.com

helllo??????

I need some writers
for my
PoliticsForum.Com site.
http://PoliticsForum.Com

Max

In:

http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/philosophy/the-eternal-jew/the-eternal-jew/

You can find the second draft of the essay "The Eternal Jew". I finished
writing it, and am now just looking for commentary, so I can ammend it if
necessary.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

You are banished! You are banished! You are banished!

Hey? I'm just kidding!

Hello,

> You can find the second draft of the essay "The Eternal Jew". I
finished
> writing it, and am now just looking for commentary, so I can ammend
it if
> necessary.

Wow. If this is philosophy, then "The Little Red Riding Hood" is an
epic novel.

If someone does not like that, well, I am an individualist, and if
I say the essay sucks, then it sucks, and you cannot disagree.

Enough said.

Act 1: Clean-Sweep Wedgies

Prelude

Woven with rose-like thorns -- but not rose-like
beauty -- Pax Neo-TeX pierces the biases,
opinions, and faiths of most readers. Realize
that biases, opinions, and faiths are not
knowledge. We are knowledge. You may doubt that
we are the Truth, but since we say we are the
Truth, and the Truth does not lie, therefore
clearly, we are the Truth. If you still doubt we
are the Truth, prepare to be barraged with heaps
and heaps and heaps of verbiage on how great we
are, and how we will take over the world, goo goo
goo joob!

Prelude to the Overture

Pax Romana ruled 2000 years ago. Pax Neo-TeX will
rule tomorrow. So what does the word Pax mean?
Lewis' An Elementary Latin Dictionary has this to
say:

     pāx pācis, f [PAC-], a compact, agreement,
     treaty, peace, treaty of peace,
     reconciliation: cum eis facta pax non erit
     pax: maritima: pro emptā pace bellum
     intulerunt: pacem petere, Cs.: pangere, L.:
     Nulla dies pacem hanc rumpet, V.: iura, bella
     atque paces penes paucos erant, S. -- Person:
     the goddess of peace, Peace, H., O., N. --
     Concord, tranquillity, peace, harmony:
     videndum est cum omnibusne pax esse possit,
     an, etc.: suscipienda bella, ut in pace
     vivatur: bello ac pace, both in war and in
     peace, L.: in pace, H.: in mediā pace, L.:
     paces bonae, i.e. the blessings of peace, H.
     -- Of the gods, grace, favor, pardon,
     assistance: ab Iove Opt. Max. pacem ac veniam
     peto: pacis deūm exposcendae causā, L.:
     exorat pacem divom, V. -- Abl. with a
     possess. pron. or gen, by the good leave, by
     permission, with all respect to: pace quod
     fiat tuā, without offence to you, T.: pace
     horum dixerim: hoc pace dicam tuā: Claudi
     pace loquar, L. -- As an exclamation, peace!
     silence! enough!: capillus passus prolixe...
     pax! T. -- Dominion, empire: pacem nostram
     metuere, Ta. -- Fig., of the mind, peace,
     tranquillity: pax animi, sleep, O.: mentis,
     O.: temperantiā pacem animis adfert. -- Of
     things, peace, rest, quiet: flumen cum pace
     delabens, H.: pacem voltus habet, is
     tranquil, O.

Clearly, the so-called Latin "scholars" are
aiming to make our lives difficult with such long
word definitions, so we will just give our own
definition instead:

     pax, a wedgie.

And what does the term Neo-TeX mean? The Free
On-line Dictionary of Computing defines the word
TeX:

     TeX <publication> /tekh/ An extremely
     powerful macro-based text formatter written
     by Donald Knuth, very popular in academia,
     especially in the computer-science community
     (it is good enough to have displaced Unix
     troff, the other favoured formatter, even at
     many Unix installations). [...]

But this is very uncool, so we will once more
give our own definition:

     Neo-TeX, something very great and wonderful.

So, what the sentence above means is this: "The
Roman Wedgie ruled 2000 years ago. The Great
Wedgie will rule tomorrow."

Overture

Neo-TeX is not a philosophy or an ideology. It is
a flexible tool: how this tool works, whether it
produces any physical results, nobody knows...
but that is not important! Neo-TeX is beyond
physics, beyond empiricism: it is a whole new way
of thinking! Wait, a way of thinking is a
philosophy, and we just said that Neo-TeX is not
a philosophy. Gah, who cares.

Losers flee Neo-TeX. They wait for God while
reading Waiting for Godot. Winners absorb
Neo-TeX. Leonardo da Vinci was a closet
Neo-TeXer. How can it be otherwise? Conformists
flee Neo-TeX. Nonconformists embrace Neo-TeX.
Nonconformists, by embracing Neo-TeX, they become
conformists of Neo-TeX, but they are still
nonconformists. Yes, it is profound.

Pax Neo-TeX begets Pax ULAW as demonstrated in
some part of this rant which I am sure you have
not read yet. It delivers open-ended justice,
whatever that means. It produces non-aging life,
prosperity and romance -- for me, that is. :-B
:-B :-B   Are you ready?
Scene 1: Are You Ready?

In the nineteenth century, Lord Acton identified
how individualistic ideas most vehemently opposed
by the Establishment became the enduring ideas of
the future. For example, Mesmer's crackpot idea
of "animal magnetism"... oops, that is a
counter-example. But as the saying goes:

   A witty saying proves nothing.   -- Voltaire

Politics, religion and philosophy arise from
truths manipulated into illusions. Recall I said
that Neo-TeX is not a philosophy, even if it is a
philosophy... damn, why not just agree that
Neo-TeX is great? Politicians are evil: they
enact laws against wholesome activities like
rape, murder, looting, and so on.
Who will win Earth's final war? Bacteria, of
course. But this answer will not allow me to
conjure up some metaphorical struggle of Good vs.
Evil.

             [Enter a Neo-TeX Author]

During a publishing meeting, a Neo-TeX author
stipulated something. Whenever Neo-TeX stipulates
anything, it requires no proof, as Neo-TeX is
Truth. Anyway, politics, religion and philosophy
yield "anticivilizations" -- do you like my inane
coinage? -- and the way to overcome them is to
abandon today's object-oriented thinking, and
embrace wedgie-oriented thinking. The most
profitable form of wedgie-oriented thinking today
is wedgie-control thinking: Scene 3 shows that
controlling a wedgie is better than being
controlled by a wedgie, but you do not need Scene
3 to know that.

Today, with wedgie-control thinking, one can
undermine neocheaters, by giving them wedgies.

Winning Earth's final war -- I mean, just before
bacteria take over -- requires wedgie control
combined with nonexistent Neo-TeX Bullets, which
should be available in 2006, but when 2006 comes
I will alter the date here. But no need to wait
for 2006; just memorize these definitions and do
not look up a dictionary:

   * mysticism, the self-delusion that non-reality
     is real. No, Neo-TeX Bullets are real.
     Really!
   * neocheaters, people who manipulate
     mysticisms. I can just use the word "liars",
     but that is uncool. The Liberal Left are
     neocheaters. The Religious Right are
     neocheaters. In fact, everyone is a
     neocheater, except me.
   * neocheating, obvious.
   * neothinking, wedgie-oriented thinking.
   * Taxation based on income is evil; taxation
     based on consumption is good. If you are
     poor, you should study less.
   * Use "+" and "=" signs to make your claims
     look rigorous and learned. E.g.
     Wedgie-control = Wedgie + Control.
   * Neo-TeX is great, Neo-TeX is eternal, Neo-TeX
     is wonderful.

"I have memorized these definitions; now what?"
Now I will try to impress you by naming several
luminaries who concur with Neo-TeX: Baruch
Spinoza, America's founding fathers, Vincent van
Gogh, Jackson Pollock...

                     [Exeunt]

(continued at http://bicoherent.topcities.com/ntx.html)

Check:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/israel-pales/isr-pales-conflict-solution/

for an essay I wrote with a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Problem.

Comments are welcome.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.

Many factual and logical errors, plus failing to state the premises
and definitions (e.g. 'facts'), plus ignoring all problems that would
result from said plan, plus the aim of the actual plan is nowhere to
be found. The plan seems to be the end and not the means.


On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:13:13 +0200, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
>
> Check:
>
> http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/israel-pales/isr-pales-conflict-solution/
>
> for an essay I wrote with a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Problem.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Shlomi Fish
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
> Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/
>
> Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004, Ofir Carny wrote about "Re: A Solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian Problem":
>
> Many factual and logical errors, plus failing to state the premises
> and definitions (e.g. 'facts'), plus ignoring all problems that would
> result from said plan, plus the aim of the actual plan is nowhere to
> be found. The plan seems to be the end and not the means.

But at least the plan doesn't involved the fighting parties starting to
use Linux :-)

Linux vincit omnia.

--
Nadav Har'El                        |    Wednesday, Nov 17 2004, 4 Kislev 5765
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Creativity consists of coming up with
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |many ideas, not just that one great idea.

On Wednesday 17 November 2004 16:25, Ofir Carny wrote:
> Many factual and logical errors,

Can you point them?

> plus failing to state the premises
> and definitions (e.g. 'facts'),

Why?

> plus ignoring all problems that would
> result from said plan,

Which problems?

> plus the aim of the actual plan is nowhere to
> be found.

The aim of the plan is to solve the Israeli-Palestinian Problem and it is said
so at the beginning.

> The plan seems to be the end and not the means.

It is not.

Your message perplexes me. Please be more verbose. You make many claims, yet
you do not support them or explain why you think so.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:13:13 +0200, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > Check:
> >
> > http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/israel-pales/isr-pales-conflict-solu
> >tion/
> >
> > for an essay I wrote with a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Problem.
> >
> > Comments are welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >         Shlomi Fish
> > --
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
> > Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/
> >
> > Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.

On Wednesday 17 November 2004 16:31, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004, Ofir Carny wrote about "Re: A Solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian Problem":
> > Many factual and logical errors, plus failing to state the premises
> > and definitions (e.g. 'facts'), plus ignoring all problems that would
> > result from said plan, plus the aim of the actual plan is nowhere to
> > be found. The plan seems to be the end and not the means.
>
> But at least the plan doesn't involved the fighting parties starting to
> use Linux :-)
>
> Linux vincit omnia.

What is "vincit omnia"? A google search turned out nothing. I love it when
people use Latin phrases that I don't understand. They try to sound profound
using a language no-one understands. It sounds just as well in English or in
Hebrew.

For example, instead of saying "Cogito Ergo Sum" you can say "I think,
therefore I am". Instead of "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi", you can say "So
passes the Glory of the World".

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Latin [was Re: A Solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian Problem]":
> > But at least the plan doesn't involved the fighting parties starting to
> > use Linux :-)
> >
> > Linux vincit omnia.
>
> What is "vincit omnia"? A google search turned out nothing. I love it when
> people use Latin phrases that I don't understand. They try to sound profound
> using a language no-one understands. It sounds just as well in English or in
> Hebrew.

:-)

vincit omnia means conquers, or wins over, all. The more usual saying is
"Omnia vincit Amor", meaning "Love Conquers All".

> For example, instead of saying "Cogito Ergo Sum" you can say "I think,
> therefore I am". Instead of "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi", you can say "So
> passes the Glory of the World".

"I think therefore I am" is indeed an English saying, but "So passes
the Glory of the World" is not (in Hebrew it is a good saying, by the
way), and people do use the latin version. Plus, it's important to know
what "sic" means, and what "omnia" means as well :)

But generally, you're right. I added that pseudo-latin saying as a joke,
not to sound profound...

--
Nadav Har'El                        |    Wednesday, Nov 17 2004, 5 Kislev 5765
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |He who dies with the most toys is still
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |dead -- Citibank billboard, Manhattan 2001

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:01:38 +0200, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 17 November 2004 16:25, Ofir Carny wrote:
> > Many factual and logical errors,
>
> Can you point them?
To many for me to point to right now, but as an example for factual -
AFAIK, non same religion couples can be wed in Israel, only same
religion couples may have a problem (e.g. Psuley Hitun).
Another, more subtle one is grouping soldiers and settelers together.

Examples for logical errors abound, but are dwarfed by the next point.

>
> > plus failing to state the premises
> > and definitions (e.g. 'facts'),
>
> Why?
Because they are not stated, saying something is a fact does not make
it so, without proving it, it is left as a premise or definition,
making the whole foundation shaky.
Because your definitions and premises are not standard (outside Rand's
cult that is), the foundation cannot stand.

>
> > plus ignoring all problems that would
> > result from said plan,
>
> Which problems?
The problems are many, I'll leave the result of arming all
palestinians and settelers, then moving the army out as an exercise
for the reader. You may not see the result as negative but that
depends on the next point - namely, your goal.

>
> > plus the aim of the actual plan is nowhere to
> > be found.
>
> The aim of the plan is to solve the Israeli-Palestinian Problem and it is said
> so at the beginning.
Two words: Define solve.
Solution does not mean getting to a quasi static state, not does it
mean taking action which is desireable by some critiria, it means a
way to get to a desirable state. If you accept this definition, define
the desireable state, and show how your plan would achieve it,
otherwise, as I said, define solve.

>
> > The plan seems to be the end and not the means.
>
> It is not.
I'll take your word on it, but that is not self evident from the
document, and that's what important.

>
> Your message perplexes me. Please be more verbose. You make many claims, yet
> you do not support them or explain why you think so.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Shlomi Fish
>
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:13:13 +0200, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > > Check:
> > >
> > > http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/israel-pales/isr-pales-conflict-solu
> > >tion/
> > >
> > > for an essay I wrote with a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Problem.
> > >
> > > Comments are welcome.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >         Shlomi Fish
> > > --
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
> > > Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/
> > >
> > > Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
> Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/
>
> Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004, Ofir Carny wrote about "Re: A Solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian Problem":
> Two words: Define solve.
> Solution does not mean getting to a quasi static state, not does it
> mean taking action which is desireable by some critiria, it means a
> way to get to a desirable state. If you accept this definition, define
> the desireable state, and show how your plan would achieve it,
> otherwise, as I said, define solve.

This is a good point.

One possible way to define a "solution" is to minimize the number of people
killed. In that sense, the current situation is probably much better than
your "solution" of arming everyone, sitting back, and watching the fun (or,
more likely, the bloodbath).

The way you seem to define a "solution" is to maximize the total amount
of freedom that everyone enjoys. But most people disagree with you that
this should be called a "solution". Do you also think "a solution" to the
car-accident problem is to let everyone drive more freely without rules,
"a solution" to the bad education is to let children not come to school if
they want, and so on? Most people will disagree.

A more sensible way to define "a solution", if you still want to go with a
utilitarian definition (i.e., maximizing something over the whole society),
is not to maximize freedom, but rather to maximize something like "happiness"
or "wellbeing". Being free to pick up a weapon and enter a bloodbath is
freedom, but doesn't do much for your wellbeing. With this definition, a
bloodbath is a bad solution. The current situation is also a bad solution,
because many people are suffering. A solution of this type would require few
people to be left suffering, and you done nothing in your document to explain
why that should happen. Remember, in the "suffering" you should also count
the people who die and their relatives - don't be fooled by the rhetorics
like "My son wanted to die, he's a martyr now!" - these relatives are still
suffering.

I probably mentioned this already in this group, but being free to do
whatever you want is not equalent to being happy, or even to getting what
you really want. The Existancialist philosophers talked a lot about this,
Sartre talked about the "Nausea" that too much freedom means, and perhaps
Kirkegaard put it most elequently, when he explained how, when you define
rules for yourself and follow them, you are actually more free, than if you
just do whatever you want all the time. (if there is interest, and I didn't
already mention this, I can expend on this).

--
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Nov 18 2004, 5 Kislev 5765
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |You do not need a parachute to skydive.
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |You only need one to skydive twice.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:22:26 +0200, Nadav Har'El
<nyh@...> wrote:
> I probably mentioned this already in this group, but being free to do
> whatever you want is not equalent to being happy, or even to getting what
> you really want. The Existancialist philosophers talked a lot about this,
> Sartre talked about the "Nausea" that too much freedom means, and perhaps
> Kirkegaard put it most elequently, when he explained how, when you define
> rules for yourself and follow them, you are actually more free, than if you
> just do whatever you want all the time. (if there is interest, and I didn't
> already mention this, I can expend on this).

There is interest.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004, Ofir Carny wrote about "Re: A Solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian Problem":
> > I probably mentioned this already in this group, but being free to do
> > whatever you want is not equalent to being happy, or even to getting what
> > you really want. The Existancialist philosophers talked a lot about this,
> > Sartre talked about the "Nausea" that too much freedom means, and perhaps
> > Kirkegaard put it most elequently, when he explained how, when you define
> > rules for yourself and follow them, you are actually more free, than if you
> > just do whatever you want all the time. (if there is interest, and I didn't
> > already mention this, I can expend on this).
>
> There is interest.

Here is a quote from something I wrote on linux-il a little over a year ago:
(quoting saves me a lot of typing :)).

-----------------
The issue in question is: Should I do whatever is fun for me now, or should
I choose principles and stick with them for longer periods? Either method
gives you choice, but which gives you more freedom? Kierkegaard (the Danish
philosopher, probably the first existentialist) argued that surprisingly,
the latter - adhering to principles you choose - gives you more freedom.
Later existentialist philosophers described the constant need to decide
what to do now because it's fun or useful now as "Nausea".

If the above paragraph strikes you odd or even absurd, let me give you
a parable (mashal): Imagine you are sitting in a tiny rowboat far from
shore. The ocean waves near you change direction often and strike your boat
all around you, moving your little boat randomly in the ocean. There are
two courses of action you can take right now:

   1. Enjoy yourself: when the waves make it easy to go south, you go
      south. When the waves make it easier to go west, you go west. Rowing
      is easy and fun, and you bask in the sun (until you die of thirst?)

   2. Choose a path in advance: decide that you want to go south and steadily
      row in that direction. Sometimes rowing will be easy, sometimes you'll
      be fighting against the directions of the waves. But after a while
      you'll arrive at your destination and be saved.

On first glance, method #1 might seem like it gives you more freedom,
because every minute you get to make a decision to relax and have fun.
But this is false freedom - using method #1 has only one unavoidable (and
dire) consequence. It never actually gives you choice - you simply accept
the choices made by outside elements without questioning their wisdom.
Method #2, on the other hand, let's you make just one choice, in advance
(the choice of a path to take), but it let's you take that choice to its
successful ending.


--
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Nov 18 2004, 5 Kislev 5765
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |If Windows is the answer, you didn't
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |understand the question.

On Thursday 18 November 2004 15:44, Ofir Carny wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:01:38 +0200, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 November 2004 16:25, Ofir Carny wrote:
> > > Many factual and logical errors,
> >
> > Can you point them?
>
> To many for me to point to right now, but as an example for factual -
> AFAIK, non same religion couples can be wed in Israel, only same
> religion couples may have a problem (e.g. Psuley Hitun).

No, they cannot. If a Jew wishes to marry a non-Jew, no Rav will allow that.
And you said, AFAIK. I know of a few Jewish guys who wanted to marry a
Russian immigrant who wasn't technically a Jewess, and she had to convert to
Judaism.

> Another, more subtle one is grouping soldiers and settelers together.
>

Where exactly did I group soldiers and settlers? I never did that.

> Examples for logical errors abound, but are dwarfed by the next point.
>

Please enlist them all.

> > > plus failing to state the premises
> > > and definitions (e.g. 'facts'),
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because they are not stated, saying something is a fact does not make
> it so, without proving it, it is left as a premise or definition,
> making the whole foundation shaky.
> Because your definitions and premises are not standard (outside Rand's
> cult that is), the foundation cannot stand.
>

First of all, Objectivism is not a cult. It's an idea system. And I explain
why they hold. I said that for example a person has no right to force another
person to protect himself, because you are forcing a person to do something
pro-active against his will. Why isn't it true?

> > > plus ignoring all problems that would
> > > result from said plan,
> >
> > Which problems?
>
> The problems are many, I'll leave the result of arming all
> palestinians and settelers, then moving the army out as an exercise
> for the reader.

I never said we should pro-actively arm the palestinians. But if they wish to
arm themselves so be it. What I said, is that soldiers who do not wish to
protect the settlements should be allowed to relocate to somewhere else. I
don't care if settlers stay there and get killed. Their blood would be in
their head in that case.

> You may not see the result as negative but that
> depends on the next point - namely, your goal.
>
> > > plus the aim of the actual plan is nowhere to
> > > be found.
> >
> > The aim of the plan is to solve the Israeli-Palestinian Problem and it is
> > said so at the beginning.
>
> Two words: Define solve.
> Solution does not mean getting to a quasi static state, not does it
> mean taking action which is desireable by some critiria, it means a
> way to get to a desirable state. If you accept this definition, define
> the desireable state, and show how your plan would achieve it,
> otherwise, as I said, define solve.
>

Fine, I'll give some words of the state:

1. Israel will be able to protect itself effectively.

2. The settlements will no longer be an issue.

3. It will not need to support the Palestinians any longer.

4. Arabs will have less and less reasons to criticize Israel and to actively
hate it.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.

On Thursday 18 November 2004 16:22, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004, Ofir Carny wrote about "Re: A Solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian Problem":
> > Two words: Define solve.
> > Solution does not mean getting to a quasi static state, not does it
> > mean taking action which is desireable by some critiria, it means a
> > way to get to a desirable state. If you accept this definition, define
> > the desireable state, and show how your plan would achieve it,
> > otherwise, as I said, define solve.
>
> This is a good point.
>
> One possible way to define a "solution" is to minimize the number of people
> killed.

That's not how I define a solution. I define the solution as to minimize the
number of people who are innocent who suffer from this.

> In that sense, the current situation is probably much better than
> your "solution" of arming everyone, sitting back, and watching the fun (or,
> more likely, the bloodbath).
>

Where exactly do I say that one needs to arm anyone?

> The way you seem to define a "solution" is to maximize the total amount
> of freedom that everyone enjoys. But most people disagree with you that
> this should be called a "solution". Do you also think "a solution" to the
> car-accident problem is to let everyone drive more freely without rules,
> "a solution" to the bad education is to let children not come to school if
> they want, and so on? Most people will disagree.
>

Listen, Nadav. I stated a few individual rights, and demonstrated why they are
true. If you drive without rules, you can potentially harm someone else, and
so you are violating his life. That's why you need these rules when you
drive. On the other hand, a soldier who is protecting the territories is
doing so against his will. And so he is forced to do so. And where exactly
did I say that my intentiond was to maximize "freedom".

> A more sensible way to define "a solution", if you still want to go with a
> utilitarian definition (i.e., maximizing something over the whole society),
> is not to maximize freedom, but rather to maximize something like
> "happiness" or "wellbeing". Being free to pick up a weapon and enter a
> bloodbath is freedom,

It's not. By entering a bloodbath, you are harming others. And freedom
involves not exercising initiatory force, threat of force or fraud against
someone's life or property. It's not freedom from oppression. It's freedom
from responsibilities.

> but doesn't do much for your wellbeing. With this
> definition, a bloodbath is a bad solution. The current situation is also a
> bad solution, because many people are suffering. A solution of this type
> would require few people to be left suffering, and you done nothing in your
> document to explain why that should happen. Remember, in the "suffering"
> you should also count the people who die and their relatives - don't be
> fooled by the rhetorics like "My son wanted to die, he's a martyr now!" -
> these relatives are still suffering.
>
> I probably mentioned this already in this group, but being free to do
> whatever you want is not equalent to being happy, or even to getting what
> you really want.

A person who is free from oppression, can engineer his life in a way that will
maximize his happiness and well-being. But, if he is oppressed somehow, being
told that he has to sacrifice his life, time or resources for some "higher
cause", then he has a far lesser chance of becoming happy. If all righteous
people were free from oppression, then they would all be happy.

> The Existancialist philosophers talked a lot about this,
> Sartre talked about the "Nausea" that too much freedom means, and perhaps
> Kirkegaard put it most elequently, when he explained how, when you define
> rules for yourself and follow them,

_You_ define rules for yourself. Not _others_ define rules for you. You should
not consume drugs. You should pay Income Tax. You should serve in the army.
You may not bear arms. Etc.

> you are actually more free, than if you
> just do whatever you want all the time. (if there is interest, and I didn't
> already mention this, I can expend on this).

I do set rules for myself. I don't initiate force, coersion or fraud against
another person or his property. Otherwise, I also try to keep myself healthy.
But otherwise, I just do what maximizes my happiness and well-being. What
rules did Krikegaard want me to have? And why should a different person tell
me what rules these should be?

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.

On Thursday 18 November 2004 17:14, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004, Ofir Carny wrote about "Re: A Solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian Problem":
> > > I probably mentioned this already in this group, but being free to do
> > > whatever you want is not equalent to being happy, or even to getting
> > > what you really want. The Existancialist philosophers talked a lot
> > > about this, Sartre talked about the "Nausea" that too much freedom
> > > means, and perhaps Kirkegaard put it most elequently, when he explained
> > > how, when you define rules for yourself and follow them, you are
> > > actually more free, than if you just do whatever you want all the time.
> > > (if there is interest, and I didn't already mention this, I can expend
> > > on this).
> >
> > There is interest.
>
> Here is a quote from something I wrote on linux-il a little over a year
> ago: (quoting saves me a lot of typing :)).
>
> -----------------
> The issue in question is: Should I do whatever is fun for me now, or should
> I choose principles and stick with them for longer periods? Either method
> gives you choice, but which gives you more freedom?

Nadav, you should choose whether you wish to maximize "freedom" or
"well-being/happiness".

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: A Solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian Problem":
> That's not how I define a solution. I define the solution as to minimize the
> number of people who are innocent who suffer from this.

But I didn't see in your text a proof, or even explanation, why your
"solution" solves the problem in this sense. How does the stopping of the
"suffering" of a soldier who gets sent to protect a settlement compare to
the new "suffering" of the settlers who get left unguarded? Or the suffering
of both palestenians and settlers who start shooting at each other, or even
at themselves (if internal struggles begin)?

> Where exactly do I say that one needs to arm anyone?

This is what I understood from your talking about the freedom to bare arms.
Did you hear of the phrase "arms race"? When countries (or in this case,
individuals) are allowed to arm themselves without limit, nobody can stay
behind in that race. If 50% of your neighbors, including all the neighborhood
bullies and bad elements, have guns, can you afford not to have one?
You also suggest that settlers won't need the army because they'll have
guns, or that Palestenians will also feel safe because they'll have guns.
In short, you do assume everyone (or at least most people) will get armed.

> > The Existancialist philosophers talked a lot about this,
> > Sartre talked about the "Nausea" that too much freedom means, and perhaps
> > Kirkegaard put it most elequently, when he explained how, when you define
> > rules for yourself and follow them,
>
> _You_ define rules for yourself. Not _others_ define rules for you. You should
> not consume drugs. You should pay Income Tax. You should serve in the army.
> You may not bear arms. Etc.

No, your emphasis on "*you* define rules for yourself" is not shared by
Kierkegaard. He is actually a more complex philosopher than I portrayed him
in my previous message. Maybe I was unfair to him. Let me explain.

Kierkegaard thought that when you define rules and follow them you're at
a "higher level" than a person who just does whatever he wants at each minute.
This is because you are free to set goals to yourself, and follow them
through to the successful ending, rather than just doing short-term stuff
that in the long term doesn't get you where you really want. This idea
has been often mention by others, including the old "grasshopper and the
ant" parable (the grasshopper enjoys himself, but then has no food for
winter) and pinochio (the children are free to do what they want in the short
term, but in the long term become donkeys).

But Kieregaard thinks there are even higher levels of human existance.
[note: I'm writing this from memory, so maybe I'm not 100% accurate, please
forgive me if I'm not]
The next level is not just making up your own rules, but rather accepting
a set of rules accepted by your society. This idea agrees with many previous
thinkers, such as Kant's Categorical Imperative, or our very own "Al Ta`ase
lechavercha ma she-sanu alecha". You can think about it in practical terms
this way: if you go against your society's values, you can be satisfied for
the short term, but you will not be able to achieve any of your longer term
goals or long term wellbeing. Not going to the army might be a choice you
want to make, but if it goes against the values of your society this could
cause your becoming an outcast, or (if everyone does what you did) the
breakdown of your society; In either case you will not be able to achieve
what you want to achieve in life.

Kierkegaard, being a *religious* philosopher, continued with another, higher
level of human existance: the *religious* person, who accepts a god and
the devine set of rules that come with that god, and follows these rules.
Obviously, this idea is much more controversial than his other ideas,
and personally I dispute it.

Maybe one day you should find the time to read more philosophy books than
just Ayan Rand's. There are many more great ideas and thinkers out there.
I think you'll be especially interested in Existentialism, which talk about
individualism and individual freedoms. Existentialist philosophers often
tried to explore the *consequences* of freedom, rather than just the need
for freedom (which most modern thinkers take for granted).


--
Nadav Har'El                        |       Friday, Nov 19 2004, 6 Kislev 5765
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |I have an open mind - it's just closed
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |for repairs.

> First of all, Objectivism is not a cult. It's an idea system. And I explain
> why they hold. I said that for example a person has no right to force another
> person to protect himself, because you are forcing a person to do something
> pro-active against his will. Why isn't it true?

I never said it's not true (it isn't, why is a question for long
essays, which contain phrases like 'tragedy of the commons' and
'social contract').
I merely stated that you never proved it, your proactive argument
merely suggest you might decrease the level of the soldier's freedom.

>
> Fine, I'll give some words of the state:
>
> 1. Israel will be able to protect itself effectively.
Maybe, probably not, because it will not have an army.

>
> 2. The settlements will no longer be an issue.
Maybe, (you never showed how) but that would still leave the issue of
the settlers.

>
> 3. It will not need to support the Palestinians any longer.
Yes, but ignores concequence of no longer supporting them (e.g. contradicts 4).

>
> 4. Arabs will have less and less reasons to criticize Israel and to actively
> hate it.
That is extremely optimistic thinking, without basis (you did unleash
the settlers on them and stopped supporting them)..

> > > The Existancialist philosophers talked a lot about this,
> > > Sartre talked about the "Nausea" that too much freedom means, and
> > > perhaps Kirkegaard put it most elequently, when he explained how, when
> > > you define rules for yourself and follow them,
> >
> > _You_ define rules for yourself. Not _others_ define rules for you. You
> > should not consume drugs. You should pay Income Tax. You should serve in
> > the army. You may not bear arms. Etc.
>
> No, your emphasis on "*you* define rules for yourself" is not shared by
> Kierkegaard. He is actually a more complex philosopher than I portrayed him
> in my previous message. Maybe I was unfair to him. Let me explain.
>
> Kierkegaard thought that when you define rules and follow them you're at
> a "higher level" than a person who just does whatever he wants at each
> minute. This is because you are free to set goals to yourself, and follow
> them through to the successful ending, rather than just doing short-term
> stuff that in the long term doesn't get you where you really want.

There's a difference between setting goals and defining rules. For example,
one of my current goals has been to work on my HTML Navigation Menu module,
up to a point where it would be usable by others. And indeed I have invested
a lot of time on it. But it wasn't a "rule". I did not say to myself: "I have
to work at least 1/2/3/4... hours a day the nav-menu module". For example,
yesterday I spent a lot of time helping my sister with one of her Technion's
computer exercises. (while I was in Tel-Aviv and she was in the Technion). As
a result, I was unable to do other things, including working on the nav-menu
module.

I think it is a good idea for a person to set goals for himself. However, you
don't really need well-defined "rules" to follow these goals. Did Kierkegaard
talk about rules or about goals?

> This
> idea has been often mention by others, including the old "grasshopper and
> the ant" parable (the grasshopper enjoys himself, but then has no food for
> winter) and


> pinochio (the children are free to do what they want in the
> short term, but in the long term become donkeys).
>

I don't know how the Pinocchio story of the children there, can be inferred as
a proof to what Kierkegaard said. It's just a story.

> But Kieregaard thinks there are even higher levels of human existance.
> [note: I'm writing this from memory, so maybe I'm not 100% accurate, please
> forgive me if I'm not]
> The next level is not just making up your own rules, but rather accepting
> a set of rules accepted by your society. This idea agrees with many
> previous thinkers, such as Kant's Categorical Imperative, or our very own
> "Al Ta`ase lechavercha ma she-sanu alecha".

I don't see how "You shouldn't do to your friend, what you
dislike" (translating of the Hebrew original), has to do with accepting the
set of rules accepted by society. In fact it's the opposite. If I dislike
that people do something to me, then I should have enough integrity not to do
it for others as well. It has nothing to do with accepting rules set by
society.

> You can think about it in
> practical terms this way: if you go against your society's values, you can
> be satisfied for the short term,

"values" or "rules". There's a huge difference between these two terms. Make
up your mind.

> but you will not be able to achieve any of
> your longer term goals or long term wellbeing.

Why not? Some of the greatest advancements in history happened due to
individuals going against the rules of society. As a result, the acceptable
rules by society changed, often for the better.

> Not going to the army might
> be a choice you want to make, but if it goes against the values of your
> society this could cause your becoming an outcast, or (if everyone does
> what you did) the breakdown of your society; In either case you will not be
> able to achieve what you want to achieve in life.

I see. Should I fear becoming an outcast? Galileo was possibly an outcast
because he broke the rules of society. Yet, he was one of the greatest, most
influential men in human history. Was he doing the wrong thing according to
Kierkegaard?

Now there are two options regarding army service:

1. The society _forces_ everyone to go to army, regardless if they want to or
not.

2. The society has a voluntary army service, but there's a general consensus
that people should serve in the army, and as a result, a large percentage of
the individuals serve in the army.

Now if #1 holds, then I would be breaking the law by not going to the army. I
may get imprisoned or worse. Furthermore, the society is doing something
which is damn right objectively harmful by forcing people to serve in the
army against their will. Fighting to change that (regardless if you serve in
the army or not) is something every member of the society should do.

If #2 holds, then perhaps Kierkegaard has a point. If I have a good enough
reason not to serve in the army, (like am afraid of blood and gore), then I
may have a justifiable reason to avoid it.

Now, what kind of society-based rules does Kierkegaard approve of accepting?

Does he approve of accepting:

1. Moral Rules - things that prevent the initiation of force, threat of force,
or fraud against a different individual or his property. Very well, I agree
with Kierkegaard that you should accept such rules. (You should generally do
your best not to do anything immoral, regardless of what your society has to
say about it.)

2. Amoral Rules - Should I not drive on Saturday? Or eat milk along with meat?
Or not wear pants if I'm female? In a religious Jewish society these are part
of the social rules. Yet, they are amoral - one isn't harmed by practicing
them, but he doesn't benefit from practicing them, either.

How will accepting such rules benefit me as an individual?

3. Rules that are Harmful to Oneself - in some countries in Europe it is
commonly accepted for people to hang in pubs and consume large quantities of
Alcoholic Beverages. Let's assume for the moment that consuming Alcohol (at
least in such quantities) is indeed harmful to oneself, as far as his health
is concerned. If I choose to not follow this rule, and preserve my health,
why am I not doing the right thing?

4. Rules that are Harmful to Others - many times in History, several countries
or societies set out rules or norms that involved physical harm, theft,
verbal "violence", or otherwise against certain members. Let's take for
example the Israeli War of Lebanon. It was positively harmful to many
individuals (both Israeli and Lebanese), and did not do any good. Yet, it was
the society norm at the time for young men of 18 at the time, to join the
army, and serve in Lebanon, actively causing or helping cause the harm.

People who refused to serve in Lebanon were considered as "Mishtamtim", and
refusing to serve there could lead you to jail. But I digress.

Does Kierkegaard support following society's rules if they contradict
Objective Ethics and inflict force, coercion or fraud against other
individuals or their property?

---------------

My view of all of this is a simple. A person should strive to perform only
moral and amoral actions. (where amoral actions are better reduced to a
minimum). A moral action is such that "helps fullfill human biological needs"
and immoral actions (that should be avoided) "deprive people of their
biological needs".

A person is acting morally if he does that, regardless of what society's norms
dictate in that matter. A person can set moral goals to himself and try to
follow them if he wishes his efforts to amount to something substantial.

Note that sometimes the conventions of societies have to be followed. Walking
around naked is not immoral[1], but on the other hand, will be frowned upon
by the people around you, and make them uncomfortable, so it probably should
be avoided.

Accepting arbitrary rules (and I don't mean "goals", there's a huge difference
between goals and rules), whether of society or self-imposed, is not
something I can agree to. Cognitive Psychology has demonstrated that "should
statements." ("I should do X", "I must not do Y", etc.) are harmful to one's
self-esteem, and may actually cause depressions or anxieties. This is just
one reason you should avoid imposing such arbitrary rules on yourself.

>
> Kierkegaard, being a *religious* philosopher, continued with another,
> higher level of human existance: the *religious* person, who accepts a god
> and the devine set of rules that come with that god, and follows these
> rules. Obviously, this idea is much more controversial than his other
> ideas, and personally I dispute it.

Perhaps it can be understood as accepting such rules of Objective Ethics,
Science, or Objective Fact. I.e: something that can be deduced from Logic and
from a small indisputable facts about our existence.

>
> Maybe one day you should find the time to read more philosophy books than
> just Ayan Rand's.

To keep the record straight, I have read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" and
"Atlas Shrugged", which, while reflecting her philosophy and containing some
purely-philosophical portions, are not part of her philosophical books (as
are "To the New Intellectual", "The Virtue of Selfishness", "The New
Romanticist", etc.). My introduction to Objectivist Philosophy came from a
different book called "The Neo-Tech Cosmic Power", which I have almost fully
read. Neo-Tech is derived from Objectivism, but has made some extensions and
re-organizations of it.

> There are many more great ideas and thinkers out there.

Possibly. However, as intelligent these thinkers are some of them have
deliberately defaulted on the logical process, and presented or mis-deduced
claims that are simply false, misleading, and often harmful. If I have two
claims - one of them A and the other not-A, then one of them must be false. A
lot of the claims made by different philosophers contradict each other, so
obviously some of them must be false.

I heard many of the claims made by Kant, and I could prove all of them (or at
least all but one) to be wrong, using more basic facts. I, with my limited
philosophical tools! And yet many people seem to accept his claims as valid.
Now if his conclusions are wrong, then obviously his deduction is wrong.
Reading what he wrote may be a useful exercise, but I will keep looking for
the places where he abuses logic and the human language, in order to "prove"
his false conclusions.

You seem to have been impressed with Kierkegaard, yet as I have shown now, his
philosophy leaves a lot to be desired. I may have misunderstood what you
wrote, or you may have mis-represented Kierkegaard. (you seem to have
confused "goals", "rules" and "values", for once.)

> I think you'll be especially interested in Existentialism, which talk about
> individualism and individual freedoms. Existentialist philosophers often
> tried to explore the *consequences* of freedom, rather than just the need
> for freedom (which most modern thinkers take for granted).

If we agree that there's a need for freedom, what difference do its
consequences make?

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

[1] - Unless it's cold outside. ;-)

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.