Harvard twins cannot undue FB settlement

Posted on April 11, 2011 by Michael

Good:

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that former Harvard University schoolmates of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg can’t undo their settlement over creation of the social networking site.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Monday that Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss were savvy enough to understand what they were agreeing to when they signed the agreement in 2008. The deal called for a $20 million cash payment and a partial ownership of Facebook. A third classmate, Divya Narendra, was part of the settlement with the twins but did not pursue the second lawsuit seeking to undo the agreement.

Monday’s ruling upholds a lower court decision enforcing the settlement during the six years of litigation that grew so contentious that the dispute was dramatized in the Oscar-nominated film, “The Social Network.”

The settlement is now worth more than $160 million because of Facebook’s increased valuation.

As much as I have a love-hate relation with Facebook, this is good news. It’s nothing but manipulative greed and bitterness to go after more money here.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on April 11, 2011 by Michael

Dear new version of Firefox,

When you open up a new window, usually against my wishes, and I go to close it, I would appreciate it if only that window would close. You see, what actually happens is I get a pop-up that warns me of all the tabs I will be closing. In fact, I am only closing one – the single tab in the single new window. But you don’t seem to know this. What you seem to think is that the “X” on that new window also counts as the “X” on my main window – the one with a bunch of tabs open. And to make the problem all the worse, when I click “Cancel”, meaning “No, do not close all my tabs”, you go ahead and close everything anyway. Please knock it the hell off.

Sincerely,
Everyone

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

Scientists ahead of their time

Posted on April 10, 2011 by Michael

“[I]f we could intervene in the antagonism observed between some bacteria, it would offer perhaps the greatest hopes for therapeutics.”

~Louis Pasteur

Filed under: Science | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

It’s all subjective

Posted on April 10, 2011 by Michael

I find it frustrating when theists repeat over and over that atheists have no basis for morality. It’s an immature view that misunderstands both atheism and morality. The argument goes something like this:

Morality must be grounded. The only way it can be grounded is if it comes from somewhere outside humanity (at a minimum). Only a higher power can provide for such objectivity. Thus, atheism provides for no objective morality.

There are several problems here. First, I worded the summary specifically, so take note: It starts out talking about morality but then makes a switch to objective morality. This characterizes the number one mistake theists make, and it isn’t goal post moving. What they’re doing is assuming morality must be objective when talking about it in the first place. It’s classic Question Begging. (Goal post moving entails knowing where the goal posts are in the first place.) Second, so what if they’re right? If we follow the argument, it’s going to end in God. But did God tell them what argument to follow? How do they know their argument is right? Even if they can be highly certain, apply scientific standards to their process, and not a single person can find a flaw in their steps, they are still making an argument that necessarily lacks 100% certainty (just like every argument ever made). In other words, they have come to their conclusion via their own perspectives, via their own values, via their own reasoning, via their own abilities. At every point they have been arguing subjectively. Even if they are right, no one can objectively confirm as much.

So where does this leave us? Well, on a pretty level playing field. Once my argument is understood, a theist can no longer say he has an objective grounding for morality. He doesn’t. No one does. The best we can do is argue from our common needs and values. Fortunately, thanks to evolution, we have a lot of overlap there. That gives us a basis for talking about morality; indeed, it has been the basis of morality since the beginning of humanity and before.

Filed under: Philosophy | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Sam Harris and William Lane Craig

Posted on April 9, 2011 by Michael

I’m just beginning this debate, but I thought I’d throw it up here now for anyone who wants to watch.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Creationism | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Planned Parenthood does these things

Posted on April 9, 2011 by Michael

Link.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , | 17 Comments »

Solving the income disparity between the sexes

Posted on April 9, 2011 by Michael

One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. is the massive ideologically-driven income gap. Fewer people in the middle hurts the economy: despite the myth, the wealthy only create jobs when people are spending – and poor people don’t have much to spend. But fear not, there is a bright side to this.

Currently women make roughly 75 cents to every dollar that men make. That isn’t the bright side and it sounds pretty terrible. Because it is. But that is among all age groups. The numbers gets slightly closer as one gets younger and younger, even if they are still quite a bit apart. It is there, however, that is where the solution lies.

As big box stores and other huge corporations become more and more the norm, people are given fewer and fewer good choices for employment. Yes, the days of real pay are over, but look on the bright side: if everyone is making $8 an hour and there is no middle class, as Republicans and other ideologues want, then from where will disparity between the sexes originate? There will still be big gaps between those at the very top, sure, but they make up a very tiny percentage of the population. As the so-called “job creators” become richer and richer, the jobs they’ll be creating will employ a great number of people – part time, at eight bucks an hour and with no real benefits. Even if men make $8.15 an hour, such disparity will hardly be noticed. Indeed, the sort of peanut raises so many Americans get today already go unnoticed.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , | 38 Comments »

Moral progress in Arkansas

Posted on April 8, 2011 by Michael

The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled the will of the people of Arkansas invasive and unwarranted:

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a voter-approved initiative that barred gay couples and other unmarried people living together from serving as adoptive or foster parents.

Associate Justice Robert L. Brown wrote for the court that the law would encroach on adults’ right to privacy in the bedroom.

“Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of `opposite-sex and same-sex individuals’ who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing their eligibility to foster or adopt children,” Brown wrote.

Just like with most civil rights issues, it’s going to take the courts to bring the country up to speed – especially the south.

Filed under: News, Rights | Tagged: , , , | 8 Comments »

Silly Deuteronomy

Posted on April 8, 2011 by Michael

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

You see, the reason Christians never seem to quote parts of the Bible like this is because, well, um, uh, uh…I got it! This was all just cultural stuff, duh! The Old Testament had parts that were only meant to apply to the Jews living in ancient times! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

After all, we all know how theists are always arguing what a moral relativist their god is.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Holy shit, I can’t believe people don’t get this

Posted on April 7, 2011 by Michael

Awhile ago I found myself in the most inane debate I’ve ever experienced. Two theists were arguing to me than an atheist cannot use the unresolvable Problem of Evil in order to make any sort of point because it assumes the existence of objective evil, something many atheists (including myself) reject. I hope most of my readers can see how baffling such a statement is. One, if the argument assumes anything, it first assumes the existence of God, something atheists reject – not only is this baffling argument wrong, but the most logical starting point hasn’t even been chosen for it, thus making it is wrong in its wrongness. Two, the point of the argument is to say someone has belief A and belief B and those two beliefs are in conflict. To put it another way, say Joe Blow believes in the Muslim god and the Christian god. Mr. Blow believes they are separate entities that both constitute the only way to salvation. Clearly there is a conflict. But according to Theist Logic, no one is allowed to question this conflict without first accepting Joe Blow’s beliefs. “What?! You think I’m wrong? But you don’t even believe in the Muslim god! You can’t use something you don’t personally think is true in your arguments!”

As stupid as this is, I have had to explain it in the past. And to top things off, the argument once again has appeared on my Facebook page:

[Other FB user], without evil, the “problem of evil” doesn’t exist, therefore, it is asinine for someone who doesn’t believe evil exists to use “the problem of evil” as an argument against the existence of God. I understand that it is hypothetical, but that doesn’t mean it’s not ridiculous. You can’t use an argument that assumes God to make an argument against the existence of God.

The most bizarre thing about this is that it is somehow even more twisted. It first begins with the “You must believe what I believe in order to tell me what I believe is wrong” argument. In this case, what this person believes is that objective evil exists. Next he cedes that the argument is hypothetical. This is where he has lost the point. I mean, come on. How can someone effectively say, “Yes, I understand that your entire point is correct” and yet somehow continue? Theist Logic, I guess. And finally, he moves to arguing that the unresolvable Problem of Evil first assumes God. So he started with evil, which is wrong in its wrongness, then moved to God, which is right in its wrongness, but he only did this after being wrong. So I guess his wrong wrongness is rightly wrong?

Theist Logic gets out of hand pretty quickly.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »