Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]

Expand Messages
  • Nadav Har'El
    ... So, you claim that objective equals true? So what, in your view, is subjective (i.e., not objective)? Only lies? -- Nadav Har El |
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Mar 26, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
      > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan performed many Evil
      > acts", this is a biased statement. But it is objective because it is true.

      So, you claim that objective equals true? So what, in your view, is subjective
      (i.e., not objective)? Only lies?

      --
      Nadav Har'El | Monday, Mar 26 2007, 7 Nisan 5767
      nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
      Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |If a million Shakespeares tried to write
      http://nadav.harel.org.il |together, they would write like a monkey.
    • Nadav Har'El
      ... If your statement is true (and I have strong objections to it), it is doubly true for free software activity. Writing free software requires either being
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 26, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Mar 26, 2007, ik_5 wrote about "[hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?":
        > The thing is, that university is for rich people, that can invest all
        > of their time into having some sort of diploma. And the higher you go,
        > the harder for you is to find a job, and places such as the Technion
        > will also prohibit people from working while making a degree higher
        > then the BA (or BS etc..)

        If your statement is true (and I have strong objections to it), it is doubly
        true for free software activity. Writing free software requires either
        being paid for it (which means being relatively well-off) or a lot of free
        time. A poor person working his *** off and spending whatever time is left
        to care for his N children, has absolutely zero chance of succeeding in the
        world of free software.

        > So why does “spill all your knowledge without interruption, at a
        > giving time” is the right way ? How about “Arik, please write me a
        > program that calculates the sum of all the digits of PI, oh and please
        > submit it by tomorrow” is not such a good checking to see your
        > knowledge, and if you can handle giving tasks on time etc.. ?

        Of course it does, and many courses have such longer exercises in addition
        to, or completely replacing, the exams. In fact, at least half of the courses
        I took in my masters degree (in the Technion, Mathematics) were like this -
        with no test at all. But exercises have their problems too - they take up
        a lot of time (so again we're back to students needing to be supported by
        some rich person :-)), they are often much harder than tests (because
        teachers assume the students have all the time in the world, and have access
        to books, so they can't just give an easy exercise). And of course, if the
        student group is large (not the 15 people in my math courses, it becomes
        almost impossible to make sure that people don't copy the exercises from
        each other, so a teacher basing 100% of the grade on them needs to be
        extraordinarily naive...

        > So why is it so hard for you and many other people that did go the the
        > university that some people like to learn, but they can learn only by
        > doing it on their own, with trail and error ?

        Because the saying goes, "Learn from other people's mistakes - you won't
        live long enough to make them all on your own"... Studying in the university
        is one way to learn from other people's decades (or even centuries) of
        mistakes and successes. Of course there are other ways to do it - you can
        just read books. Most of the CS I know (as opposed to the Math I know), I
        read from books, not from frontal lectures. But how am I supposed to prove
        to a skeptic that I really read all those books? This is what a degree does
        for you - it's a *proof* that you studied the material, with some sort of
        measure on how well the professors thought you understood the material.
        Surely you could have learnt the same material other ways - but then you'll
        need to figure out other ways to prove that, to a skeptical employer.

        The book "Freakonomics" has an interesting section about a similar issue -
        of the value people place on confirmed information (in this case, a "degree"
        is just confirmation that a person learned something). As an example, he
        gives the fact that a 1 day old car is sold at a price much lower than a
        new car. Why? Because the buyer can't be sure why the seller is selling
        the car; If he was sure that the reason is that the buyer has to suddenly
        move abroad like he claimed, even a 1000 shekel saving would have been enough;
        But maybe the seller is lying? Maybe there's something wrong in the car?
        Not being able to confirm this information, the buyer places a lower value
        on the car. Similarly, an employer often places a lower value on a applicant
        without a degree - just because he cannot really confirm that the applicant
        knows what he's claiming. If there are other ways to confirm this (e.g.,
        previous work experience), the applicant's value goes back up.

        > And I can continue giving you filters for people ... the thing is,
        > that the above filters are much better then having a diploma. I know

        Except, none of the filters you suggest are verifiable. If word got around
        that employers liked people who program at home, every applicant will start
        saying, "yes, I program 3 hours a day at home", and nobody will ever be caught
        lying. You need verifiable claims (even if the employer usually won't try
        to verify them). One such claim is a degree. Another is experience at
        previous work. A third is experience at free software (which is "out there"
        and can be looked at). I know several people who were hired for highly
        lucrative and desired jobs because they had an excellent record on just one
        of the three - one person with an excellent degree but no experience, a
        second person with no degree and no free-software but work experience from
        previous high-tech companies, and a third person with no degree and no work
        experience, but a lot of free-software experience. The problem is that if
        you have only one of these qualifications, you may find yourself competing
        against someone with more than one. For example, if you just have free
        software experience, you'll have a hard time competing with someone who has
        free software experience *and* work experience *and* a degree.

        > a person that have a BS degree, but he only knows things that giving
        > to him by educational places, such as schools and universities, but
        > nothing further then that. So why would you prefer someone like this,
        > over someone that does not have any degree but does have good
        > answerers to my filters ?

        Of course not. In my previous job, I interviewed people, and I interviewed
        many people like this, who could recite useless facts from the course they
        studied the last semester, but had no interest or knowledge of what's
        happening outside these courses. Obviously, we didn't pick these people.

        > Then it means that having a diploma does not mean you know something
        > on the subjects you have learned, it means only that you know how to
        > get a diploma (what about buying them, or something similar ?)

        The hallmark of a high-reputation university is that the only way to
        "get a diploma" is to learn the material. In the Technion (at least when
        I studied there, over a decade ago) you couldn't get a diploma (with high
        grades) by becoming a better slacker, by bribing the teachers, by cheating,
        or anything of this sort. Your only way to "learn to get a diploma" is to
        learn the material the professors wanted you to learn - which in my case
        was a whole lot of Mathematical knowledge which the professors decided every
        Mathematician needs to know. The whole process more-or-less guarantees that
        anyone that finished the Mathematics degree with a high grade has to be
        good at math - there's simply no other way to come across these grades.

        Of course, in other universities or departments, the situation might be
        different. In some fake universities, your money means more than your
        studies. This is why employers don't look as highly at a graduate of
        Latvia (or whatever was that fake university which was recently in the news)
        as they do at a graduate of the technion.

        --
        Nadav Har'El | Monday, Mar 26 2007, 7 Nisan 5767
        nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
        Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |We are Microsoft. You will be
        http://nadav.harel.org.il |assimilated. Resistance is futile.
      • Arik Baratz
        ... I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it is a real thing or even possible. ... How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol
        Message 3 of 28 , Mar 26, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
          > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be objective
          > > merely because we live in a subjective world, the one we created for
          > > ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
          >
          > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated. Do you mean
          > the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as "Randianism")? Or do you mean
          > plain-old "objectivity"?

          I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it is a
          real thing or even possible.

          > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there are three
          > similar but non-identical terms:
          >
          > 1. Unbiased.
          >
          > 2. Objective.
          >
          > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of View or
          > NPOV.
          >
          > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan performed many Evil
          > acts", this is a biased statement. But it is objective because it is true.

          How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the 13th
          century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan. Go read
          the [1] wikipedia entry.

          I believe that there is nothing objective, and there are no
          universals. Even 'one and one is two' is true only if you accept the
          two mathematical axioms regd. natural numbers. In some reference
          systems one and one is three... like in a family.

          > While we are inherentely subjective to some extent, we can and should always
          > try to be as objective as possible. I'm not saying we should be unbiased,
          > just that we try to perceive and conceive reality as if we were not
          > associated with anyone, and could always judge things objectively.

          IMHO, since you perceive reality through your senses alone, which are
          fallible, and you further filter what you sense through your
          unconscious filters, which are individual and subjective, the attempt
          at objectivity is doomed to fail.

          > Aside from objective/subjective, there are also matters of taste, which are
          > not subject to such judgement. I can consider a painting as good and another
          > person may dislike it, and arguing about it is pointless.

          Taste is subjectivity to a personal extreme. For example, killing is
          bad because the society we live in dictates it as a moral rule (and
          morality is subjective but relatively uniform in a single society in a
          point in time). Your painting sux because I personally think so. It's
          a matter of scope.

          -- Arik
        • Shlomi Fish
          ... Well, not exactly. For example, I talked with someone on the IRC the other day, who said that ESR should be shot, because he supports the war on Iraq and
          Message 4 of 28 , Mar 26, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Monday 26 March 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
            > On Mon, Mar 26, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Objectivity [was Re:
            [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
            > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan performed many
            > > Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is objective because it is
            > > true.
            >
            > So, you claim that objective equals true? So what, in your view, is
            > subjective (i.e., not objective)? Only lies?

            Well, not exactly. For example, I talked with someone on the IRC the other
            day, who said that ESR should be shot, because he supports the war on Iraq
            and other stuff. Well, this is subjective because ESR has done a lot for the
            community from writing the Cathedral and the Bazaar and other important
            documents, to actually writing some useful code (whose quality is not
            withstanding). And he hasn't harmed anyone in his life.

            I agree that ESR does not precisely qualify as sane, or that his code may not
            be of good quality, but he is still doing important work. I'd rather have a
            lot of ugly code that works and that I can refactor and clean up later, than
            a small amount of beautiful code that only prints "Hello World".

            Further, he said that Linus Torvalds was a "F**king Capitalist". Again, that
            is subjective. I think Linus Torvalds did a lot for FOSS and for the world in
            general, and should be admired and respected rather than be labeled. This was
            probably said out of some Socialist-induced resentment, or even due to
            (non-sexual) jealousy or envy.

            If you and I know a girl called Sophie, and I say "I hate Sophie", then this
            is also a subjective statement. It expresses my general feeling rather than
            anything wrong with her. However, if I say "Sophie is a Liar", then this
            statement may be factual or it may be false, dependening on its truthhood.

            Saying that "Communism is good for you" is both subjective and false, because
            I'm speaking out of my general feeling, and we all know the destruction and
            badness Communism brought onto the world.

            Regards,

            Shlomi Fish

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

            If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
            one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
            -- An Israeli Linuxer
          • Arik Baratz
            ... Heh. My first job ever (after graduating, I had a lot of odd jobs before), a friend of a friend told them to call me because of a particular interest I
            Message 5 of 28 , Mar 26, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On 26 Mar 2007 02:12:08 -0700, Nadav Har'El <nyh@...> wrote:

              > Of course, in other universities or departments, the situation might be
              > different. In some fake universities, your money means more than your
              > studies. This is why employers don't look as highly at a graduate of
              > Latvia (or whatever was that fake university which was recently in the news)
              > as they do at a graduate of the technion.

              Heh. My first job ever (after graduating, I had a lot of odd jobs
              before), a friend of a friend told them to call me because of a
              particular interest I have shown in the Compilation and Compilers
              course in the Technion. My interview was very short, it was a team
              leader in a start-up. He asked me if I've studied in the Technion, and
              when I answered in the affirmative he hired me.

              I hope it doesn't infuriate people here. I can only say that I am more
              discriminating when it comes to hiring people. Also, my job was to
              write a compiler, something very few people like to do apparently, and
              my interest in compilers was a factor in the decision.

              -- Arik
            • Shlomi Fish
              ... OK. :-) ... It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had to,
              Message 6 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be objective
                > > > merely because we live in a subjective world, the one we created for
                > > > ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
                > >
                > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated. Do you
                > > mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as "Randianism")? Or do
                > > you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
                >
                > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it is a
                > real thing or even possible.
                >

                OK. :-)

                > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there are
                > > three similar but non-identical terms:
                > >
                > > 1. Unbiased.
                > >
                > > 2. Objective.
                > >
                > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of View or
                > > NPOV.
                > >
                > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan performed many
                > > Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is objective because it is
                > > true.
                >
                > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the 13th
                > century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan. Go read
                > the [1] wikipedia entry.

                It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual data.
                Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had to, but
                because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present day Mongols, but
                it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not know Mao was a
                mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who killed at least 40
                million people of his own people.

                To quote Neo-Tech ( http://www.neo-tech.com/orientation/ ):

                <<<<<<<<<<<<<
                The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
                done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
                productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
                prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
                destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).

                Honestly using one's reasoning nature is always beneficial and moral;
                dishonestly using one's reasoning nature is always harmful and
                immoral. ...Volitionally harmful acts always arise from mysticism -- from
                dishonesty, rationalizations, evasions, defaults.

                Yet, acting on fully integrated honesty (Neo-Tech), not reason itself, is the
                basic moral act. When Genghis Khan, for example, chose to use reasoning for a
                specific military move, then in an out-of-context sense, he chose to act
                morally by protecting himself and his troops (thus filling human biological
                needs). But in the larger sense of fully integrated honesty, Khan's total
                actions were grossly immoral in choosing to use aggressive force in becoming
                a mass murderer (thus negating human biological needs). The highly
                destructive, irrational immorality of Genghis Khan's overall dictatorial
                military actions far outweighed any narrow, out-of-context "moral"
                actions. ...Genghis Khan was enormously evil as were Stalin, Hitler, Mao,
                Castro, Pol Pot.
                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                (I hope I'm not invoking Godwin's Law here - see
                http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html for why it may not be the
                case)

                Objective is not what has a full consensus. It is what can be universally
                agreed upon by most or any sensible person (or alternatively a different
                intelligent life form similar to humans) who has all the relevant data and is
                capable of thought. If I told a tribesman in Africa about Mao, he'll probably
                agree that he's Evil.

                >
                > I believe that there is nothing objective, and there are no
                > universals.

                If nothing is objective neither is this statement. Thus, it is a subjective
                (or mystical or whatever) statement, that I'd rather ignore coming from you.
                If everything is subjective any argument is pointless:

                <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                Interviewer: let's do a discusssion about drug legalisation.

                A: I support it.

                B: I oppose.

                Interviewer: well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so let's end it
                here. Thanks for watching
                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                (Based on the Zehu-Zeh's episode about Cable-TV).

                If a parent, sibling, child or SO of mine tells me about his feelings, this is
                a subjective statement of importance to me. But the statement "The distance
                between Tel Aviv and Haifa is 100 km" is either objective/factual or simply
                false. It cannot be subjective.

                > Even 'one and one is two' is true only if you accept the
                > two mathematical axioms regd. natural numbers. In some reference
                > systems one and one is three... like in a family.

                2 + 2 == 5 for very large values of 2.

                More seriously now, yes, I can define my own math:

                http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-NewMath/lib/acme/newmath.pm

                ^^^^ Read it - it's hilarious.

                And even more seriously now, 2 is commonly understood as the number following
                1 in standard arithmetics. All modern languages can express such arithmetics
                (see the large numbers mentioned in the Old Testament for example), and it
                can be written very succinctly by using Arabic numerals and the Algebraic
                notation. If I mean a different algebraic system, I should explicitly mention
                it. Otherwise, in the standard system 1+1==2, and objectively.

                If I define a system such that 1+1==3, then this is the case in its context,
                and objectively.

                There's a difference between subjectivism and contextualism.

                >
                > > While we are inherentely subjective to some extent, we can and should
                > > always try to be as objective as possible. I'm not saying we should be
                > > unbiased, just that we try to perceive and conceive reality as if we were
                > > not associated with anyone, and could always judge things objectively.
                >
                > IMHO, since you perceive reality through your senses alone, which are
                > fallible, and you further filter what you sense through your
                > unconscious filters, which are individual and subjective, the attempt
                > at objectivity is doomed to fail.

                "I'd rather be a tail for the lions, than the head of tha jackals."

                I'd rather be as close to be objective as possible, then be almost completely
                subjective. Objectivity is an ideal, which can never be entirely reached.
                However, honesty is also an ideal, which can never be fully attained. And so
                is self-esteem, and happiness.

                Do you claim that I should ditch honesty, self-esteem and happiness too, and
                be dishonest, feel lousy about myself, and miserable?

                >
                > > Aside from objective/subjective, there are also matters of taste, which
                > > are not subject to such judgement. I can consider a painting as good and
                > > another person may dislike it, and arguing about it is pointless.
                >
                > Taste is subjectivity to a personal extreme. For example, killing is
                > bad because the society we live in dictates it as a moral rule (and
                > morality is subjective but relatively uniform in a single society in a
                > point in time). Your painting sux because I personally think so. It's
                > a matter of scope.

                Right. However, the fact that killing is bad can be easily deduced from the
                Golden Rule:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

                Which is very logical, and commonly accepted. If you want to go against logic,
                and devise a system of ethics that is not based on the Golden rule, I suppose
                you can. But you might as well say that A may be not-A, and get over with it,
                as you will be able to immediately deduce any claim and its opposite.

                Regards,

                Shlomi Fish

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

                If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                -- An Israeli Linuxer
              • Tal Kelrich
                On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200 ... Define Evil ? -- Tal Kelrich PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69 Key Available at:
                Message 7 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200
                  Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:

                  > On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                  > > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be
                  > > > > objective merely because we live in a subjective world, the one
                  > > > > we created for ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
                  > > >
                  > > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated.
                  > > > Do you mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as
                  > > > "Randianism")? Or do you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
                  > >
                  > > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it
                  > > is a real thing or even possible.
                  > >
                  >
                  > OK. :-)
                  >
                  > > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there
                  > > > are three similar but non-identical terms:
                  > > >
                  > > > 1. Unbiased.
                  > > >
                  > > > 2. Objective.
                  > > >
                  > > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of
                  > > > View or NPOV.
                  > > >
                  > > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan
                  > > > performed many Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is
                  > > > objective because it is true.
                  > >
                  > > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the
                  > > 13th century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan.
                  > > Go read the [1] wikipedia entry.
                  >
                  > It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual
                  > data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had
                  > to, but because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present
                  > day Mongols, but it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not
                  > know Mao was a mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who
                  > killed at least 40 million people of his own people.
                  >

                  Define "Evil"?

                  --
                  Tal Kelrich
                  PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69
                  Key Available at: http://www.hasturkun.com/pub.txt
                  ----
                  With a gentleman I try to be a gentleman and a half, and with a fraud I
                  try to be a fraud and a half.
                  -- Otto von Bismark
                  ----
                • ik
                  OK, I will not answer most of what you have written (Even the one that you took out of context), I dissagree with you, and I guess we will not agree on the
                  Message 8 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    OK, I will not answer most of what you have written (Even the one that you took out of context), I dissagree with you, and I guess we will not agree on the subject.
                    BTW on the "finding" of the "math" issue (and the "language" -> the fact that I do not remember the name, does not mean that I do not know how it called, and I only gave it an example, I do not look for a pat in the back or something... it's just was a pure example).

                    Now,  I'll only answer my usage of the last quote:

                    In a different argument I was giving an answer such as "but the statics shows that people that have learned at universities can learn better" (or something like this, I'm using my memory). So Unlike you, I do not see things as winners and losers (although the lion always loose, because it is not a human), but the fact that you use University based information (statistic) that does not really check the other side, but you keep on using it... So I placed (actually more then one) mind for you to remove :)

                    So because I see that you are like myself (love quotes), here is a cool quote for you to end up with:

                    "The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create."
                        Leonard I. Sweet


                    So I hope you take the right people with you to create your idea as a feature,

                    Ido

                    On 3/27/07, Arik Baratz < yahoo@...> wrote:

                    On 26 Mar 2007 02:12:08 -0700, Nadav Har'El <nyh@... > wrote:

                    > Of course, in other universities or departments, the situation might be
                    > different. In some fake universities, your money means more than your
                    > studies. This is why employers don't look as highly at a graduate of
                    > Latvia (or whatever was that fake university which was recently in the news)
                    > as they do at a graduate of the technion.

                    Heh. My first job ever (after graduating, I had a lot of odd jobs
                    before), a friend of a friend told them to call me because of a
                    particular interest I have shown in the Compilation and Compilers
                    course in the Technion. My interview was very short, it was a team
                    leader in a start-up. He asked me if I've studied in the Technion, and
                    when I answered in the affirmative he hired me.

                    I hope it doesn't infuriate people here. I can only say that I am more
                    discriminating when it comes to hiring people. Also, my job was to
                    write a compiler, something very few people like to do apparently, and
                    my interest in compilers was a factor in the decision.

                    -- Arik




                    --
                    http://ik.homelinux.org/
                  • Tzahi Fadida
                    I don t understand why you (plural) insist on associating studying in the university and work. While it is the most practical reason, many (and me) studied for
                    Message 9 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't understand why you (plural) insist on associating studying in the
                      university and work. While it is the most practical reason, many (and me)
                      studied for personal enrichment. I believe that any person that desires study
                      should do so if he can.

                      --
                      Regards,
                              Tzahi.
                      --
                      Tzahi Fadida
                      Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info
                      WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  see at
                      http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html
                    • Arik Baratz
                      ... I just latched on to it because I wanted to make a point, meant no disrespect. ... Is statistics a university based information? It s scientific, and it s
                      Message 10 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 3/27/07, ik <idokan@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > OK, I will not answer most of what you have written (Even the one that you took out of context), I dissagree with you, and I guess we will not agree on the subject.
                        > BTW on the "finding" of the "math" issue (and the "language" -> the fact that I do not remember the name, does not mean that I do not know how it called, and I only gave it an example, I do not look for a pat in the back or something... it's just was a pure example).

                        I just latched on to it because I wanted to make a point, meant no disrespect.


                        >
                        > In a different argument I was giving an answer such as "but the statics shows that people that have learned at universities can learn better" (or something like this, I'm using my memory). So Unlike you, I do not see things as winners and losers (although the lion always loose, because it is not a human), but the fact that you use University based information (statistic) that does not really check the other side, but you keep on using it... So I placed (actually more then one) mind for you to remove :)


                        Is statistics a university based information? It's scientific, and
                        it's taught at universities, but is it something inherent to
                        universities? I don't think so.

                        >
                        > So because I see that you are like myself (love quotes), here is a cool quote for you to end up with:
                        >
                        > "The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create."
                        > Leonard I. Sweet

                        I agree.

                        >
                        > So I hope you take the right people with you to create your idea as a feature,

                        Me too.

                        -- Arik
                      • Shlomi Fish
                        Hi Tal! ... Quoting my previous message:
                        Message 11 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Tal!

                          On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Tal Kelrich wrote:
                          > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200
                          >
                          > Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                          > > On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                          > > > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
                          > > >
                          > > > wrote:
                          > > > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be
                          > > > > > objective merely because we live in a subjective world, the one
                          > > > > > we created for ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated.
                          > > > > Do you mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as
                          > > > > "Randianism")? Or do you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
                          > > >
                          > > > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it
                          > > > is a real thing or even possible.
                          > >
                          > > OK. :-)
                          > >
                          > > > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there
                          > > > > are three similar but non-identical terms:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > 1. Unbiased.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > 2. Objective.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of
                          > > > > View or NPOV.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan
                          > > > > performed many Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is
                          > > > > objective because it is true.
                          > > >
                          > > > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the
                          > > > 13th century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan.
                          > > > Go read the [1] wikipedia entry.
                          > >
                          > > It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual
                          > > data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had
                          > > to, but because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present
                          > > day Mongols, but it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not
                          > > know Mao was a mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who
                          > > killed at least 40 million people of his own people.
                          >
                          > Define "Evil"?

                          Quoting my previous message:

                          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                          The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
                          done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
                          productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
                          prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
                          destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                          As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                          == "bad".

                          Regards,

                          Shlomi Fish

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

                          If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                          one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                          -- An Israeli Linuxer
                        • Nadav Har'El
                          ... This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely broken to me... Is rape filling your own biological needs (and therefore good) or
                          Message 12 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                            > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                            > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
                            > done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
                            > productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
                            > prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
                            > destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                            > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                            >
                            > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                            > == "bad".

                            This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely broken
                            to me...

                            Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming
                            someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills your
                            own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you stole
                            from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed others
                            more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and Roosvelt's
                            campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological needs, and
                            millions of Germans lost theirs?

                            --
                            Nadav Har'El | Friday, Mar 30 2007, 11 Nisan 5767
                            nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                            Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |How's he gonna read that magazine rolled
                            http://nadav.harel.org.il |up like that? What the ... - a fly.
                          • Shlomi Fish
                            ... Hi Nadav! Please see the rest of my quote. Please be readink, understandink and integratink what I m writing. kthx, bye. Regards, Shlomi Fish ... Shlomi
                            Message 13 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Friday 30 March 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
                              > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re:
                              [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                              > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                              > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                              > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
                              > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
                              > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
                              > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                              > > == "bad".
                              >
                              > This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely
                              > broken to me...
                              >
                              > Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming
                              > someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills
                              > your own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you
                              > stole from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed
                              > others more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and
                              > Roosvelt's campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological
                              > needs, and millions of Germans lost theirs?

                              Hi Nadav!

                              Please see the rest of my quote. Please be readink, understandink and
                              integratink what I'm writing.

                              kthx, bye.

                              Regards,

                              Shlomi Fish

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

                              If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                              one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                              -- An Israeli Linuxer
                            • Arik Baratz
                              ... Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it s okay and you might agree. I don t. It s using subjective terms in a scientific definition. Nope, I
                              Message 14 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                                > > Define "Evil"?
                                >
                                > Quoting my previous message:
                                >
                                > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                                > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
                                > done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
                                > productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
                                > prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
                                > destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                                > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                                >
                                > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                                > == "bad".

                                Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                                might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                                definition. Nope, I don't buy it.

                                -- Arik
                              • Shlomi Fish
                                ... Why? Show me the Proof!!! The burden of proof is on you. Regards, Shlomi Fish ... Shlomi Fish shlomif@iglu.org.il Homepage:
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 18, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                                  > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                                  > > > Define "Evil"?
                                  > >
                                  > > Quoting my previous message:
                                  > >
                                  > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                                  > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                                  > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
                                  > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
                                  > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
                                  > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                                  > > == "bad".
                                  >
                                  > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                                  > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                                  > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                                  >

                                  Why?

                                  Show me the Proof!!!

                                  The burden of proof is on you.

                                  Regards,

                                  Shlomi Fish

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

                                  If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                                  one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                                  -- An Israeli Linuxer
                                • Nadav Har'El
                                  ... There are several problems with this definition, and I ll mention one below, but I have to admit it s not very fair that I disprove a definition based on
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 19, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Thu, Apr 19, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                                    > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                                    > > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                                    > > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                                    > > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
                                    > > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
                                    > > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
                                    > > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                                    > > > == "bad".
                                    > >
                                    > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                                    > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                                    > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Why?
                                    >
                                    > Show me the Proof!!!
                                    >
                                    > The burden of proof is on you.

                                    There are several problems with this definition, and I'll mention one below,
                                    but I have to admit it's not very fair that I "disprove" a definition based
                                    on your very short and probably not entirely accurate explanation of it - I
                                    didn't like it when you did that to Kant and Kirkegaard after my explanations,
                                    and I probably shouldn't be doing this to Neo-Tech. I have to admit that I
                                    never read anything about "Neo-Tech" except what you said on this list.

                                    I think Arik's point was, though, that there's nothing "scientific" about
                                    this definition. What makes this definition more "scientific" than a dozen
                                    other definitions of ethics? For example, how is this definition of ethics
                                    based on intention, better than a definition based on actual consequences
                                    (aka "utilitarian" ethics)?

                                    Anyway, the biggest flaw I see with this definition is that it relies on
                                    a person's intentions, which are very subjective, rather than the actual
                                    consequences of his actions, which is more objective (because everyone
                                    sees the consequences of an action, but only the person knows his intentions).
                                    The problem is that except in the extreme case of psychopaths (who are unable
                                    to understand the concept of other human beings having their own lives and
                                    wishes), most "bad" actions are somehow justified in the eyes of its doer.

                                    If you asked a white slave-owner whether he's conciously harming his negro
                                    slave's biological needs, he would say no: he would say that he took care of
                                    their basic needs (minimal amount of food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and would
                                    claim (wrongly of course, but he thought this was true) that negros are so
                                    privitive that left to their own devices they would be far worse off. He
                                    would add that furthermore, without the slaves the slave-owners would go
                                    bankrupt and starve, so that it is *freeing* the slaves which is immoral
                                    because it would bring "biological" harm to the slave-owners.

                                    A second problem, possibly in your short explanation and not in neo-tech
                                    itself, is the definition of "biological needs". What are these, and why
                                    discuss them and not the "wishes" or "will" of the person instead? A few
                                    obvious examples: a person has the biological need to have sex. Does this make
                                    resisting being raped an immoral act? Is stealing food moral because a
                                    person needs to eat? Is selling real-estate for money an immoral act,
                                    because people need to sleep somewhere and you're prevented them a place
                                    to sleep by charging money? And what about people's non-biological needs,
                                    like the need to be free, the need to be happy, the need not to be bored,
                                    etc. - is it moral to violate these needs? For example, is it moral according
                                    to your definition to keep a human in a large cage while catering for his
                                    biological needs (giving him food, water, air, sex, etc.)? Can this defintion
                                    explain why (or whether) it is moral to do this to a convict, but not to
                                    "ordinary" people?


                                    --
                                    Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Apr 19 2007, 1 Iyyar 5767
                                    nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                                    Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is
                                    http://nadav.harel.org.il |a fine for doing well.
                                  • Arik Baratz
                                    ... No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I don t. We don t have
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 20, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On 19 Apr 2007 00:47:19 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                                      > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:

                                      > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                                      > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                                      > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                                      >
                                      > Why?
                                      >
                                      > Show me the Proof!!!
                                      >
                                      > The burden of proof is on you.

                                      No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into
                                      this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I
                                      don't. We don't have to agree, and our world view is therefore
                                      different. No proof necessary or even possible.

                                      -- Arik
                                    • Shlomi Fish
                                      ... OK. ... Actually no. Most evil people are well-aware that their actions are destructive. They never admit it, but they know it. When Mao killed 60 million
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 20, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Thursday 19 April 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
                                        > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re:
                                        [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                                        > > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                                        > > > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                                        > > > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                                        > > > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and
                                        > > > > moral (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is
                                        > > > > consciously done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological
                                        > > > > needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics
                                        > > > > and neocheaters).
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context
                                        > > > > "evil" == "bad".
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                                        > > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                                        > > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                                        > >
                                        > > Why?
                                        > >
                                        > > Show me the Proof!!!
                                        > >
                                        > > The burden of proof is on you.
                                        >
                                        > There are several problems with this definition, and I'll mention one
                                        > below, but I have to admit it's not very fair that I "disprove" a
                                        > definition based on your very short and probably not entirely accurate
                                        > explanation of it - I didn't like it when you did that to Kant and
                                        > Kirkegaard after my explanations, and I probably shouldn't be doing this to
                                        > Neo-Tech. I have to admit that I never read anything about "Neo-Tech"
                                        > except what you said on this list.
                                        >

                                        OK.

                                        > I think Arik's point was, though, that there's nothing "scientific" about
                                        > this definition. What makes this definition more "scientific" than a dozen
                                        > other definitions of ethics? For example, how is this definition of ethics
                                        > based on intention, better than a definition based on actual consequences
                                        > (aka "utilitarian" ethics)?
                                        >
                                        > Anyway, the biggest flaw I see with this definition is that it relies on
                                        > a person's intentions, which are very subjective, rather than the actual
                                        > consequences of his actions, which is more objective (because everyone
                                        > sees the consequences of an action, but only the person knows his
                                        > intentions). The problem is that except in the extreme case of psychopaths
                                        > (who are unable to understand the concept of other human beings having
                                        > their own lives and wishes), most "bad" actions are somehow justified in
                                        > the eyes of its doer.

                                        Actually no. Most evil people are well-aware that their actions are
                                        destructive. They never admit it, but they know it. When Mao killed 60
                                        million of his own people, it was not for survival.

                                        In any case, there are several ways to look at this definition. One way is to
                                        say that the intention is irrelevant, and that any action that ends up as
                                        fullfilling human biological needs is good and moral, while any action that
                                        ends up detracting from human biological needs is bad and immoral.

                                        >
                                        > If you asked a white slave-owner whether he's conciously harming his negro
                                        > slave's biological needs, he would say no: he would say that he took care
                                        > of their basic needs (minimal amount of food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and
                                        > would claim (wrongly of course, but he thought this was true) that negros
                                        > are so privitive that left to their own devices they would be far worse
                                        > off. He would add that furthermore, without the slaves the slave-owners
                                        > would go bankrupt and starve, so that it is *freeing* the slaves which is
                                        > immoral because it would bring "biological" harm to the slave-owners.
                                        >
                                        > A second problem, possibly in your short explanation and not in neo-tech
                                        > itself, is the definition of "biological needs". What are these, and why
                                        > discuss them and not the "wishes" or "will" of the person instead? A few
                                        > obvious examples: a person has the biological need to have sex.

                                        I don't think so. A person has a biological desire to have sex, but it's not a
                                        need. A person can go on not having sex for decades on end.

                                        > Does this
                                        > make resisting being raped an immoral act?

                                        No, because a person has a need for the completeness of his body. As such, he
                                        or she has a right to resist being raped.

                                        > Is stealing food moral because a
                                        > person needs to eat?

                                        It depends. By stealing you detract from the food owned by the other. However,
                                        you might need to do that if you are being exploited (e.g: Robin Hood who
                                        stole from the exploiters and gave to the exploited.).

                                        > Is selling real-estate for money an immoral act,
                                        > because people need to sleep somewhere and you're prevented them a place to
                                        > sleep by charging money?



                                        > And what about people's non-biological needs, like
                                        > the need to be free, the need to be happy, the need not to be bored, etc. -
                                        > is it moral to violate these needs?

                                        These all descend from the biological needs or otherwise are ammoral action.
                                        If I insulted a person by accident, and made him unhappy, then I may have
                                        caused him to be able to less focus on work, and thus detract from his
                                        biological needs. However, this action is not unethical, and as such should
                                        be legal:

                                        http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/advantages/advantage83.html

                                        > For example, is it moral according to
                                        > your definition to keep a human in a large cage while catering for his
                                        > biological needs (giving him food, water, air, sex, etc.)?

                                        Well, that in turn will cause other people to have to support this (benevolent
                                        I assume) person, instead of this person being able to support himself. So
                                        it's immoral.

                                        > Can this
                                        > defintion explain why (or whether) it is moral to do this to a convict, but
                                        > not to "ordinary" people?

                                        Actually, according to Neo-Tech, prisons are not a good way of punishment, as
                                        it is a huge strain on society to maintain all the prisoners.

                                        Regards,

                                        Shlomi Fish

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

                                        If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                                        one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                                        -- An Israeli Linuxer
                                      • Shlomi Fish
                                        Hi Arik! ... If no proof is possible, then I cannot accept your claim, because it lacks any reasoning. So you might have well not said it. Thanks for playing!
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 20, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi Arik!

                                          On Friday 20 April 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                                          > On 19 Apr 2007 00:47:19 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                                          > > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                                          > > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                                          > > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                                          > > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                                          > >
                                          > > Why?
                                          > >
                                          > > Show me the Proof!!!
                                          > >
                                          > > The burden of proof is on you.
                                          >
                                          > No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into
                                          > this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I
                                          > don't. We don't have to agree, and our world view is therefore
                                          > different. No proof necessary or even possible.

                                          If no proof is possible, then I cannot accept your claim, because it lacks any
                                          reasoning. So you might have well not said it.

                                          Thanks for playing!

                                          Regards,

                                          Shlomi Fish

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

                                          If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                                          one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                                          -- An Israeli Linuxer
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.