Saying that PHP has value because it lets beginners get up and running quickly is like suggesting we outfit babies with jetpacks so they can get about quicker without all that crawling nonsense.
I'm being over dramatic of course, but I find it interesting that in a lot of these posts the author doesn't seem to consider if it's really a feature that you can just hack away and not have to think or work to much to get something running.
Hanging out on help forums and irc I see a lot of requests for help in dealing with the fallout from poorly coded PHP applications; whether it's been hacked, they need to update it but the design is poorly thought out, etc etc.
I think in reality like most things, it's shades of grey. It is nice that people can use it to just get up and running quickly but that also lands us tons of poorly coded, brittle, and insecure websites. This of course isn't a problem unique to PHP, but I think because it's considered a "good language for beginners" and the barrier is a little lower, more beginners or "Just hack and slash until I have something that works" types end up using it and the effect is more pronounced.
I think it's more like arguing that one can safely drive on the freeway with a tricycle, after all it has wheels and it moves quickly if you pedal fast and hard enough.
> (If not, why does this same mechanism work for the AGW hypothesis?)
Because your comparison is flawed in multiple ways.
> Another unscientific claim is that all scientists agree with global warming, therefor it is scientifically "true" that it is happening.
This is something of a straw man. I have no doubt that there are people out there making this claim...just as there are people out there who think unicorns exist. It does nothing to refute this claim because only a small kooky minority are making it.
The REAL point is that "Most experts in the field believe it is true, therefore it is reasonable to go with that belief until we have a reason to think otherwise".
You are confusing "scientific proofs" with how one should act when faced with making a decision. We cannot say that "AGW is true because So-and-so says it is"....that is an argument from authority. However, as citizens trying to make decisions about how to run our society, it's reasonable to go along with the consensus of (expert) scientists in matters of science.
This brings up another point, it's not a matter of what scientists as a whole statistically believe... it's a function of what field the scientists are in, their experience, and their expertise. The assertion is that most experts in the field of climate science (and related fields) agree with AGW and that it is a somewhat concerning issue (though the issue of to what degree is in debate), and there is a sort of rippling of agreement throughout semi-related fields which is worthy of consideration but less heavily weighted.
Where your point is fatally flawed is you are making a false comparison. You cannot compare Christianity which is a vague cultural identity with what they have found via research.
I think if you talk to the majority of scientists who are Christian, you will find that they are Christian mostly only in culture. They are not fundamentalists. They believe there is something called God, and there was this guy a few thousand years ago with some good ideas and maybe he was connected with this God....but if you press them I think you will find they are generally flexible and admit they don't know for sure and are just going on belief.
What you are talking about is an UNSCIENTIFIC BELIEF that they have arrived at completely arbitrarily. It's the same as if you found out that the majority of scientists prefer chocolate ice cream....that doesn't lend some validity to chocolate...it's just an interesting statistic.
AGW on the other hand IS a scientific idea. It's something that was arrived at THROUGH A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. The fact that most experts agree with it (if it's true) lends it credibility because they either:
a) were able to reproduce the results with their process
b) studied the process of others and found them reasonable
You can argue that the science is flawed, or argue that most experts DON'T agree with it...but it's perfectly reasonable and correct to think that something is more likely to be true if the experts say it is in proportion with the amount of consensus...when you are talking about science . The logical fallacy is only if you claim it is DEFINITELY true, particularly based on a small amount of consensus.
The opinion of scientists absolutely has weight....in matters of science. Christianity as a whole is entirely outside the realm of science, and therefore the fact that many scientists happen to be Christian is irrelevant.
Furthermore, if you do a survey of all the scientists in the world, I think you may find that the majority of them are not Christian. However, the consensus for AGW and it's potential harm will remain.
> Marriage helps families by providing heavy incentives for partners to settle their differences and stay coupled rather than get frustrated and split
Yes, except it doesn't seem to be working.
> It protects a dependent spouse (say, a mother who chooses to stay home and care for her children instead of producing her own income) from abandonment by supplying the dependent with legal recourse for support even if the breadwinner decides to blow it
In theory yes...in point of fact, it doesn't always work out that way.
I could pick apart your extremely loose reasoning more, but let's get down to brass tacks. Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that "family" === Mother, Father, and biological children. This is patently absurd.
There are millions of infertile, adoptive, heterosexual couples who by your implicit argument don't deserve the protections and rights of marriage. However, if you expand the definition to include them, you must include homosexual couples too.
You're partially right. Marriage encourages stability. I would disagree that is the only reason for it though. More importantly what you're missing is that it's beneficial to society to have ALL families stable...regardless of whether they have biological children or not. It makes for a healthier and happier population.
>Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that "family" === Mother, Father, and biological children. This is patently absurd.
I disagree. Rather than patently absurd, I think it is a natural and biological imperative that the traditional nuclear family is ideal.
I believe that children who do not have a conventional male/female parental duality (i.e., a permanent "mother" and "father" figure that operate as the dominate force in the child's development) are instantly disadvantaged.
>There are millions of infertile, adoptive, heterosexual couples who by your implicit argument don't deserve the protections and rights of marriage.
This is false; my argument does not exclude heterosexual relationships even amongst infertile people. First, there is the possibility these persons will become fertile; we cannot say for sure that they will not. Secondly, in a home ruled by a permanent heterosexual coupling, there is both a permanent mother figure and a permanent father figure for adopted children. I believe that duality is a majorly important part of the functional development of a child, and therefore intentionally placing a ward in the home of a permanent homosexual coupling is placing them at a serious disadvantage. A home ruled by a permanent homosexual coupling by definition does not have a mother and father figure that fill their respective roles; instead, they have "two dads" or "two moms".
Thirdly, even if a heterosexual coupling can never have or adopt children, it is valuable because it promotes a tradition of stability, garnishes the minds of those who observe its operation with thoughts of elevation, unity, and eternity, and allows individuals who, normally through no personal fault, are infertile to retain dignity and honor among their peers. Fertility is a very personal medical issue and we shouldn't need to broadcast it. I would also like to establish that in this context, polygyny is rather reasonable.
This doesn't mean that mockeries of the true way, like permanent homosexual coupling, are passable; these are counterfeits, minted by confused and misguided individuals. They are no replacement for a permanent heterosexual coupling. As such, we have no interest in the government actively encouraging them and awarding special privileges to practitioners.
> Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it
That's a false analogy. The government has a different responsibility to it's citizens than you would have to two of your friends. You are free to treat your friend differently based on any arbitrary criteria you choose...it's a relationship that is an extremely poor model for understanding how government works. The fact that you would bring something like that up, does not bode well for your argument that your ability to reason is intact.
The Government has a responsibility to treat all of it's citizens exactly the same. If it treats one group differently it has to have some pretty solid reasons. In the United States, the "default action" is that you are free to pursue your life as you wish unless the state has a compelling reason to stop you...furthermore if the Government extends some privilege to some ALL must have the opportunity to pursue it, if only in theory.
> There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone
This is extremely specious reasoning. By that rationale many atrocities of history are justified...the slaves wanted us to expand our definition of "human" and "free man".
> Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible)
This is based on an extremely dubious and narrow definition of "punishment".
> We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling.
Yes precisely. Except the government can't just randomly decide to "incentivize" one life style over another for no particular reason. We "incentiveize" a murder-free life style because it's necessary to have a functioning society.
There's absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to individuals or society at large. There's no reason to actively discriminate against it, which is what is going on.
At some point in time, some group of people sat down and decided marriage was between a man and a woman...that was an act of actively discriminating against another group of people. It's natural that it takes an action to rectify it....just as slavery couldn't be stopped by all the white people suddenly deciding to be nice to black people.
The sorry state of marriage rights in this country exists only by virtue of how indifferent and ignorant the general population is. The good news is that just as we look back in horror at the times we burned people at the stake, the people of the future will look back at the time we finally started to respect people's personal lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, they will probably be seeking comfort from some new horror.
>That's a false analogy. The government has a different responsibility to it's citizens than you would have to two of your friends. [...] The fact that you would bring something like that up, does not bode well for your argument that your ability to reason is intact.
It's a narrow analogy meant to illustrate one specific point. It is reasonable to say that the analogy is not applicable to a government because it has an obligation to treat citizens legally (meaning that everything offered to one group must be offered to another), but this hardly seems a universally settled question. If we follow it, why are veterans given special benefits (because we "owe them one", as stated in the analogy for Friend A), and less justifiably, why does affirmative action exist? What about federal contracting quotas for minority or women-owned businesses? etc.
There are many cases where a distinction between groups is reasonable, despite your assertion that the government is obligated to treat all citizens identically. This applies even less to same sex marriage, though, because there is no inherent classification based on unchangeable effects or attributes. Sexual orientation does not enter into it; the government refuses to sanction or endorse same sex marriages for anybody. If I take another male to the marriage office, they will deny me based on my action, regardless of whether I have a natural sexual attraction to that person or not; I do not qualify for marriage because I have not met the defined requirements for the benefits the state has offered, not because I am a member of a certain biological group (as occurs in race, age, or sex discrimination). You do not have to try to marry someone or gain a governmental endorsement on your relationship just because you have a sexual attraction to that someone.
>This is extremely specious reasoning. By that rationale many atrocities of history are justified...the slaves wanted us to expand our definition of "human" and "free man".
No, if we did not have a special classification for "blacks" / "slaves" in the slavery era they would have existed as free men and there would be no force that could compel them to obey someone who claimed to be their master. This is what a natural right is: something that exists naturally and cannot be given by any entity; it can only be abused or protected. Self-direction is a natural right. Special endorsement, licensure, and privilege granted by the government to participants in a certain interpersonal relationship in exchange for certain social commitments ("we promise not to break up", etc.) (that is, marriage) is not a natural right; it is, in fact, something that can't even exist without the exercise of some fundamental criteria.
>At some point in time, some group of people sat down and decided marriage was between a man and a woman...that was an act of actively discriminating against another group of people.
You presume that the originators of marriage meant it as an arrangement between any two adults. It was not conceived as "let's make this agreement for any grown-ups that want to live together ... except gay people, because they're yucky". In the first place, the concept of marriage was a gift from God to mankind. That is where the idea originated (just as the idea of the existence of God was given to mankind as a gift from God, and passed through the generations by our fathers).
Legally it is conceived as a mechanism to promote general social cohesion by providing stability and legal recourse for nuclear families. Homosexuality itself is contrary to this cohesion, so it is counterproductive to extend marital benefits to homosexual couplings.
>There's absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to individuals or society at large. There's no reason to actively discriminate against it, which is what is going on.
I disagree that we are "actively discriminating". I see it as not just not giving into spurious political and ideological demands without basis. Even if a person believes that permanent homosexual coupling is a fine and good course, this is not in itself an argument to give special privileges to its participants.
>It's natural that it takes an action to rectify it....just as slavery couldn't be stopped by all the white people suddenly deciding to be nice to black people.
Except that if all the white people actually had decided to "start being nice", where "nice" means respectful of natural rights to autonomy, there really wouldn't have been any more slaves. All of the masters would have let them go and not exercised any compulsion on them anymore. Even if the books still said a person could do this, there would effectively be no slavery in your hypothetical where all the white people decide to be "nice".
Gay couples will gain no extra privilege, endorsement, or promotion from the government even if "all the straight people start being 'nice' to the gay people", where an analogous meaning of "nice" is applied (i.e., 'left alone', not 'given whatever they ask for').
You are granted copyright automatically yes, and this gives you certain protections like the ability to file DMCA takedown notices etc. However, in order to sue for statutory damages you have to have filed the copyright with the US Patent and Trademark office before the infringement occurred. You can still sue if you register after, but only for actual damages which is harder to prove.
I remember putting together a mag-stripe reader with old tape heads based on schematics/code in Phrack (or maybe 2600...been awhile). At the time, tape decks were found in almost every home, while (to me) a mag-stripe reader was exoctic. Seems we've come full circle. Actually IIRC the older Square reader (which seems to be the one in the video) is literally a tape head wired to a 1/8 jack aligned to read track 2.
That idea and even the scenario you describe has actually been used numerous times in action movies (though admittedly usually using a different principle like fingerprint reading), including the James Bond franchise. For example, in License To Kill Q invents a gun with a palm reader that can only be fired by the person programmed in. It has green lights on the grip.
The first example that comes to mind for me is a scene in the 2007 movie Shoot 'Em Up; the protagonist's workaround for using a dead henchman's thumbprint-verified firearm is to use their severed hand (of course).
When I was very young I developed the habit of rereading almost every book I read multiple times; unless I found it particularly bad or boring. I think most kids do this, but some seem to lose the habit along the way. I tend to be "reading" multiple books at any given time; a new one that gets most of my attention and then 2 or 3 old ones that I will switch to to break up the pace. As a result I tend to retain a fair bit; enough that I feel it's worth my while. There are some books in my collection I can recite large portions of from reading them so many times. I've probably read the Brothers Karamazov ~20 times. I've never understood this notion some people seem to have of reading a book and then being done with it.
Re-reading books (along with re-watching movies) is sensible when you have infinite time available. When young, you don't grok the concept of a finite lifespan. When you realize life is finite, you stop re-reading and start getting on with reading what you can in what time you have left.
I'm being over dramatic of course, but I find it interesting that in a lot of these posts the author doesn't seem to consider if it's really a feature that you can just hack away and not have to think or work to much to get something running.
Hanging out on help forums and irc I see a lot of requests for help in dealing with the fallout from poorly coded PHP applications; whether it's been hacked, they need to update it but the design is poorly thought out, etc etc.
I think in reality like most things, it's shades of grey. It is nice that people can use it to just get up and running quickly but that also lands us tons of poorly coded, brittle, and insecure websites. This of course isn't a problem unique to PHP, but I think because it's considered a "good language for beginners" and the barrier is a little lower, more beginners or "Just hack and slash until I have something that works" types end up using it and the effect is more pronounced.