Jason Fowler

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jason Fowler

  1. Some sound advice was given at the end as far as app size and potential for malware. On Android prior to installing an app a window will appear telling you what components of the phone, software and hardware, the app requires access to. A flashlight app should request access to the camera as it is using the camera flash LED as a flashlight. Anything else it requires is not necessarily a sign of malware but it should make you think twice before continuing.

    There are apps that require access to lots of things because of how tightly they integrate various functionality. Social networking apps would be an example of this and they represent a very gray area in terms of how privacy is protected.

    It seems to me that the government is so busy violating rights that its handling of legitimate functions have fallen behind, especially in regards to technology and intellectual property. NSA budget: at least 10 billion Patent office budget: 2-3 billion.

  2. Here's the video from the debate:

    In many ways the creationist side loses by default, especially when Ken Ham attempts to ground his case in shoddy evidences which he would later admit are of no concern to creationism anyway. On the other hand, Bill Nye did a good job of explaining the concretes that are the basis for evolution. This, however, is not the video to watch for a principled defense of science and reason.

  3. Clearly, by such depraved reasoning, the only accurate sources of information are from those that possess apathy and ignorance of the subject(and perhaps some mental disorder). But, how would you know for certain they are a well behaved dunce? You would have to use the evidence and reasoning of another disinterested party, not your own, to determine this. Now while this may lead to an infinite regress, it is a small price to pay for the purity of second-hand knowledge. At least that is what I have been told.

  4. When available I back my passwords up with mobile authenticators in the form of physical or software units that generate random time-based codes. Even if they have my username and password they still can't get in.

    The HTTPS protocol is up for grabs as well:


    If the FBI or NSA gets this information, it will eventually be stolen or leaked and the Internet will instantly be a very different place to do business.

  5. As mentioned above, some states are "duty to retreat" with an exception called the castle doctrine whereby you are not forced to run away if you are in your own house. And.. Just to make it more confusing, some states are neither "duty to retreat" nor "stand your ground", they rely on case law. Virginia is one such state, "judicially" it is "stand your ground."

  6. We work with and act on limited information all the time. This is not a problem, it is a metaphysically given fact. Furthermore, the information we do have contact with can be and often is burdensome and must be sorted selectively, this is focus. Hence, our epistemology, if it is to work within our nature, is necessarily metered by the law of identity.

    As a real world example, I must work with limited information and uncertainty quite often at my current job. I work with and fix equipment with limited or no documentation, sometimes the equipment is older than I am. Certainty isn't given to me, I set up conditions which certainty can be derived within a limited scope of data by testing a number of possibilities. Note that these are possibilities, not arbitrary whimsical theories that are picked at random. There is nothing special about my situation, everyone does this from the most important to the most mundane subjects.

    You get stuck on the alternatives and throw up your hands in defeat proclaiming them to be contradictory and irreconcilable. This is the starting point not the end, you TEST the alternatives. Different possible explanations REQUIRE action to resolve them NOT inaction.

  7. Curi, using your own criticism of induction, how would you know that all sets of particulars are logically consistent with an infinite number of generalizations? Have you grasped an infinite number of them?(particulars and generalizations) If not how did you come to that conclusion? Certainly not by observing a number of instances and coming to that conclusion as that method is what you have been critical of.

    I don't know how you can reconcile "all men are mortal" and "all men are immortal" as non-contradictory. How does lack of omniscience make A and non-A equivalent? Positing a fountain of youth hardly clears anything up and in fact injects unnecessary and arbitrary evidence.

    I have not seen a superior approach to generating knowledge demonstrated yet, I would appreciate real world concrete examples.

    Apologies in advance for any typos or mistakes, I wrote this hastily on a smartphone.

  8. Thanks to these charges of racism (perhaps some resulting out of the deep misunderstandings created by political vested interest), I suddenly realized (i.e. sort of revelation, what Ayn Rand called as 'the light bulb effect') that there is an irrefutable argument against these charges. At the moment I am not producing it in this comment. But those who want to make allegations only when words white, anglo saxon etc are used, should reply to my previous comment -- why Af-Am allowed, why are they not only Ams, why El Raza (the race) allowed, etc. Please see that comment from me, just above.

    The reason that the allegations have occurred only when the words white, A-S, etc are used because you have been using them and they deserve to be attacked. Collectivism is collectivism. The reason why African-Americans, and other groups are "allowed" to identify and associate by their race is something called individual rights. They do so freely, that is their right, and the consequences are their problem not mine. What you are advocating is far worse and is a morally treasonous approach, that is: If they can be racist why can't I? A second-hander to second-handers. You are dispensing with your own mind and depending specifically on the unreason of others to form your own position on the subject.

    I referenced Nazi Germany because it obviously refutes your methodology and is well documented both in terms of concrete details and essential ideas. See, Leonard Peikoff's book: The Ominous Parallels. That is a great example of how history actually works.

  9. To elevate blood and mindless adherence to tradition above the real ideas that made the US possible(and powerful) is a gross injustice. Capitalism and selfishness have no use for "white-culture" or Anglo-Saxon anything, only real human values matter. If you want to study a social system built specifically around collectivism, race, blood, and "white-culture"; see Nazi Germany.

  10. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cree-introduces-biggest-thing-since-110000016.html

    Cree, Inc. (CREE) introduces a game-changing series of LED bulbs at a retail price point that gives consumers a reason to switch to LED lighting. The long-lasting Cree LED bulbs showcase Cree’s commitment to LED lighting innovation. The new bulbs shine as brightly as comparable incandescents while saving 84 percent of the energy compared to traditional bulbs. The Cree LED bulbs are backed by a 10-year limited warranty and available exclusively at The Home Depot®.

    I am proud to be a part of a company that is creating new frontiers for semiconductor devices. Producing SiC devices is no easy task, both in R&D and manufacturing, but it is a material whose durability and performance allows semiconductors to penetrate a variety of applications Si has difficulties in.

  11. And beyond this, how does he know that the blotches of color on an electronic display correspond to the spatial arrangement of types of tissue within his own head? Shouldn't he say that he sees only colors? I doubt he's ever literally sawed open a living man's head, so he's never actually detected a brain within his definition. He's only seen schematics that must be symbolically interpreted by a conceptual mind to relate to the brain that he assures to us exists. Based on this discussion, I don't believe brains exist. There are only colors on a display; red, blue, and green.

    It is unfortunate that the most critical questions have been ignored. I will try to answer one I posed earlier: what is fact? So far the word, fact, has been thrown around as if it grants the writer an automatic intellectual knock-out blow. But "fact" is a stolen concept when it is used to divorce the faculty in question from it. Fact is not observed in the literal sense, it is a concept whose referents can observed, can be seen, tasted or heard. The only real mysticism in this thread is the claim that one is aware of facts without conceptual consciousness. That is a fact. :P

    Or to quote Ayn Rand in ITOE:

    AR: ... "Fact" is merely an epistemological convenience. The term "fact" can apply to a particular existent, to an aspect, to an attribute, or to an event.


    It is a concept necessitated by our form of consciousness—that is, by the fact that we are not infallible. An error is possible, or a lie is possible, or imagination is possible. And, therefore, when we say something is a fact, we distinguish primarily from error, lie, or any aberration of consciousness.

  12. While consciousness perceives facts, only a conceptual level consciousness grasps "I am conscious of facts." In explicit terms, your argument amounts to, "I am conscious of the fact that I do not have a mind." As others have patiently stated, this is a bizarre and hopeless claim. Again, to defend such a claim on the basis of brain scans performed machines built not by genetic rhetoric but by the creativity and power of reason is philosophic grand larceny.

  13. I am surprised to see nominalism, determinism, and mindlessness(literally) advocated here, albeit by a singular poster. All of the assertions made in favor of such ideas have been founded entirely on concept-stealing. If Mr. Yosef were consistent he would ultimately have to remain silent on all matters. What precisely are all these words he is using? What is fact? What is cosmos? What is time? What is a Ruveyn? The folly of claiming to be a supporter of "facts first" while casting aside the unifying faculty that discovers facts should be evident. At least he admits his rhetoric is genetic and not objective.

  14. Precisely. The leading gun control legislators like Diane Feinstein are against gun ownership entirely. One thing they do understand is that outright confiscation is dirty, hard work, and impractical. They have found more pragmatic methods of soft confiscation via creeping infringements that intend to divide and marginalize their opposition. Concrete proposals include lowering magazine capacities(NY is now down to 7), defining semi autos as assault weapons, defining cosmetic features as "military style," providing exceptions for hunters while expanding controls, excise taxes on ammunition, and banning not only sale but any transfer of affected items(generational confiscation). Point being, I would rather not give an inch to them.

    It would be a pleasure to seriously discuss and propose registration, background checks, etc in a country that is not peppered with legislators intent on subverting the 2nd amendment.