Stack Exchange
log in

Daniel Goldman

 Discussion on question by Daniel Gold…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Daniel Goldman
Feb 26, 2022 19:22
Yeah. Some freeware is OS, some isn't, and vise versa.
Daniel Goldman
Feb 26, 2022 19:22
Added. MIT License and New York (or if there is any overarching federal precedent or statute on the issue when dealing with free to use software, though I doubt that there is).
 

 Discussion between Daniel Goldman and…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Daniel Goldman
Dec 12, 2017 01:33
tw
Daniel Goldman
Dec 12, 2017 01:31
Please answer my question.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 11, 2017 22:15
You admit that documentation is a very important component of software engineering, yes?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 11, 2017 21:24
Oh and I say this as a programmer who really should have documented a lot of his material better, because without extensive documentation, it is very difficult to look at a program a few years later and figure out what the hell is going on.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 11, 2017 21:23
You would have to do some amazing logical gymnastics even to dismiss my position let alone state the opposite. You accept that documentation is important. Well, there you go. If you are a poor typer, you're going to avoid documentation or it is, at the very least, going to take a lot more time to add reasonable documentation.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 11, 2017 21:22
If you accept it, and I did provide citation to justify it, then we're done. Producing documentation takes less time if you can type more proficient.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 11, 2017 21:22
I did specifically link to a discussion on the importance of documentation. From there, it is a matter of accepting that producing documentation would go faster if someone can type more proficiently.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 11, 2017 21:22
And that would have resulted in an error in your code and you would have had to go back and find that error, taking up a lot of time. Your error gets to part of my point. The better you are at typing, the better you are at programming, and especially the better you are at documenting.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 11, 2017 21:22
"Typing fast" clearly means "typing fast and being accurate." Anyone can type quickly, if they don't give a damn about accuracy. Also, compression speed?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 11, 2017 21:22
Added citation for the importance of documentation. I think the second point from there is self evident. If documentation is important, typing speed is important because slower typing means more time spent on documentation.
 

 Discussion between Daniel Goldman and…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Daniel Goldman
Dec 5, 2017 18:00
I do not accept that the US military nuking a city without provocation is anything other than a terrorist attack, and I don't think you accept that either, which explains why you're too afraid to answer the damn question.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 5, 2017 17:59
I provided argument. I provided a definition. I responded to your questions about the validity the definition. Contrary to what you seem to think, you cannot back someone against a wall just because they make a claim. Once they justify the claim, as I have done, burden of proof switches to you.

> As I already clarified, you're using numbers from the Korea War and the Vietnam War in your numbers.

Want me to adjust just for US caused casualties in the war on terror? I can, but again you have to accept that by your criteria, the US military nuking a city without provocation is not an act of …
Daniel Goldman
Dec 5, 2017 14:36
Well, at least you and Dan have something in common. You're cowards who run from questions.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 5, 2017 14:34
"No, you're just deflecting."

I'm really not. In my answer, which I have spent considerable time updating in response to these conversations, I have defended my definition. You presented an alternative definition and you now have to justify it.

"I maintain that your argument that I had to accept ISIS as a nation state is untrue."

Except that if ISIS is not a nation state then your exclusion criterion is not useful.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 5, 2017 13:54
I cited a source: Matusitz. And if you do not consider ISIS a nation state, then your point is again invalid. You said that it's not terrorism if it's against a nation state: you cited a definition which required the acts to be "committed by a nation state against another nation state."

And the answer to my question is relevant because it indicates a conflict in your acceptance of your definition. Your definition makes the scenario that I mentioned something other than an act of terror. So for the last time, if the President nuked a city without provocation, would it be an act of terror?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 5, 2017 13:30
There is nothing emotional about my response. I pointed out that you're taking from a different section of Wikipedia which voices the position of someone other than the person I am citing. I am also making sure that you accept your own definition.

Yes or no, if the President had the military nuke a city, without provocation, would that be a terrorist attack?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 5, 2017 12:40
Process this: The President could literally order the nuking of a city, without provocation or just cause, and the act would not be considered an act of terror. Are you okay with that?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 5, 2017 12:37
@JakobPampBengtsson, the requirement that you use is actually from a second set of bullet points which is not part of the description used by Matusitz.

Additionally, that would mean that you accept ISIS et al. as nation states and therefore must recognize that ITS actions are not acts of terror. It also means that any and all acts of killing taken by a government's military is immune from being called terrorism. US soldiers could go around raping and murdering civilians and it wouldn't be terrorism. Sorry; I call bull shit on definitions that automatically make governments immune from bein…
Daniel Goldman
Dec 3, 2017 19:09
Just process that you refuse to answer a single damn question. Unfortunately I have to maintain a fair degree of civility on this site, but let me just say that you are cracked: you are quite literally mentally ill.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 3, 2017 18:56
If I included what? Do not use words like "this" or "that" without following the word with whatever it is that you're referencing.

NOW, I ask you once again to answer my question or I will just leave. Have the war campaigns waged by the US military, post WWII, been legal?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 3, 2017 18:54
No, because I pointed out that you need to show that the terrorist organizations are NOT states and that the US has been ILLEGALLY waging war as no war has been authorized since WWII.

Your entire response has been "you're wrong." You have no real counter argument. If you want to continue this discussion as all, then answer the following question: have the war campaigns waged by the US military, post WWII, been legal?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 3, 2017 18:44
You cannot call ISIS an invalid state and just roll with it. Back up your damn claim.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 3, 2017 18:41
Well now you have to explain what constitutes a valid state before we can move on. Additionally, I just pointed out that the US constitution requires a war to be authorized by congress or it is illegal. I also pointed out that no war has been authorized by congress since WWII.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 3, 2017 17:26
First off, I don't. Calling yourself a "state" does not make violence any more valid. But if you're going to use such a demented position, please tell me what ISIS stands for.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 3, 2017 17:25
Both. It has been at war for almost all of its existence, but there hasn't been a legally declared war since WWII. The US constitution requires that congress authorize war in order for it to be legal.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 3, 2017 12:58
I don't STOP at WWII. Part of the argument was the distinction between acts of declared war and other acts. WWII was the last time that the US declared war. These are all deaths from undeclared campaigns. Additionally, if declared war was the distinction, ISIS et al. have declared war, so why are deaths caused by them acts of terror?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 2, 2017 13:31
It's really not an opinion based answer. There is no answer which does not rely on some kind of foundation. The question and my answer are objective, but you're refusing to accept the definition that I use while failing to provide a reasonable alternative.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 1, 2017 22:51
@daniel, I am not going to go into why I think that I am at -5 votes. That's appeal to consensus. You can answer the question yourself or just stop. I am not wasting more time with you.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 1, 2017 22:50
Again, answer the question yourself and justify your definition.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 1, 2017 22:50
Ask the government. I'm just pointing out history.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 1, 2017 22:50
The attacks by the US are directed at such targets, and there has been no declaration of war by the US since WWII, meaning that the actions are not legal. And ISIS has declared war, so is it not terrorism when they attack?
Daniel Goldman
Dec 1, 2017 22:50
Daniel, I did not create that definition, nor have you provided reasonable counter argument. If you think the answer is wrong, go ahead and post your own answer and make sure to justify your definition.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 1, 2017 22:50
The question was about whether or not Islamic terror constitutes most of terrorism. If you want to cherry pick latest attacks, go ahead and try. But you have to also account for the fact that the US dropped over 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 1, 2017 22:50
I added an additional rebuttal, @matt_black.
Daniel Goldman
Dec 1, 2017 22:50
Not my definition. If you have an issue with it, take it up with Matusitz.
 

 Discussion on answer by Daniel Goldma…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 19:17
In other words, you are suggesting that older results be given higher prior probabilities, which is exactly what doctrine, dogma, etc is. You are putting more weight on that which is already "accepted as true" simply because it is "accepted as true."
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 19:16
@DavidRicherby, my advice included the suggestion that due diligence be used in making sure there are no errors in the new result. In other words, both results should, in theory, have the same level of justification. You are saying that because the new result, call it B, came after the existing result, call it A, B should be held to a higher level of scrutiny.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
Yes; in ALL fields the base assumption is that what is published is correct. However, that does not mean that it is reasonable to make something else which contradicts it HARDER to publish. That turns whatever is published into doctrine. To say that one should refrain from publishing until he is absolutely certain who is wrong is actually quite... disgusting. It takes academia and turns it into a cult.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
David, I have added a rebuttal. As your comment stands, you are suggesting that we turn academia and turn it into a cult.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
This is a sidetrack, and it is silly to wait until you figure out which is wrong, s long as you've done your due diligence to make sure that your proof is not wrong.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
Maybe it can be, but neither party knows how. Regardless, that's another reason to publish. Once the academic community is aware of the conflict, THEY can work to figure out why. Otherwise it's just two people working on it.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
I updated my answer to explain why one should not necessarily wait until AFTER it has been shown who is right.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
It really doesn't, especially if it cannot be. This suggests that if the conflict cannot be reconciled, we should just fail to bring to light this new piece of information. That's absurd.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
David, that the axiomatic system isn't entirely consistent does not mean that all of mathematics, etc goes out the window. Also, it's a little unclear what result is being contradicted here: if it is a mathematical result or scientific one. Regardless, math proofs can be wrong. There's no need NOT to move forward. But again, I gave advice on how to move forward.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
I need more caffeine to think about mathematics. I'm not sure if ZFC is consistent. I thought it was. But yes; if the axiomatic system is NOT consistent then it is possible to get these contradicting results with BOTH being correct.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 30, 2017 17:12
The completeness theorem states that an axiomatic system can be complete (you're able to prove every theorem constructed in it) or consistent (a theorem can only be true or false but not both). But we cannot build an axiomatic system that is complete and consistent.
 

 Discussion between Daniel Goldman and…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Daniel Goldman
Nov 25, 2017 10:53
Yep.
Daniel Goldman
Nov 24, 2017 13:03
I think it's a matter of perspective of what we mean by "perceive." You DO perceive the nouminal, but only through the phenomenal. If you did not perceive the nouminal at all, then you would not react to it.