Disqus - Latest Comments for RobertFischer

Re: Podcast: What the Emergent Church and Friends could teach one another - Quaker Ranter Blog

RobertFischer — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:06:29 -0000

I'm having trouble listening to your podcast via my podcast receiver: looking at your feed, it doesn't look like you have the enclosure stuff set up correctly, so I can't subscribe and just get the episodes downloaded directly. I'm not sure what plug-ins Movable Type might have to support podcasting, but if you could use one, that'd be awesome.

My podcasting experience is all via WordPress, and if you need some help getting a WordPress site up and running where you can post your blogs, I'm more than happy to help out.

Re: The four startup ideas in progress at Triangle Startup Weekend. Which 1 do you like?

RobertFischer — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:02:33 -0000

TribeTrade is now at http://twitter.com/TribeTrade

Re: Pat Maddox - You Probably Don't Get Mocks

RobertFischer — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:21:07 -0000

You blew through "Code gets out of sync" pretty fast -- where's the acceptance test that fails if the finder is renamed? Where would I be pointing?

Very specifically, if change the model spec to reflect the change in the finder's name, what's forcing me to also update it in the controller spec (where the finder is mocked out)?

Re: There are many like it But this one is mine. - He’d have liked to believe in a supreme God,...

RobertFischer — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 01:26:26 -0000

"He’d have liked to believe in a supreme God, although he’d have preferred a half-hour’s chat with Him before committing himself, to clear up one or two points." -- One of the most faithful of expressions. I just got done reading "On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent", which talks about that very kind of expression.

Re: There are many like it But this one is mine. - Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a...

RobertFischer — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:29:26 -0000

Scientific theories, at best, say that "if X is accepted, then we would expect to find Y". It never, ever says "If X is accepted, then Y must be true". Using a scientific theory to provide any kind of proof -- much less a "simple proof" -- of the occurrence of an event is simply flat-out backwards, and conflating the processes of science and mathematics dumbs down our collective scientific and mathematical sensibilities.

All of this boiled back to a statement about taking evolution as "axiomatic", which I certainly don't, so I suppose it's all for moot.

Saying that we haven't seen a particular evolutionary process because evolution happens over time is a fine way to excuse it. In this case, it's a bit thinly stretched, because we're not talking about a gradual change -- we're talking about a change in a single offspring from its parent. A species doesn't "gradually" develop an entirely new chromosome (although they *may* grow or shrink without harm). In any case, it's a fine rationalization for the lack of evidence, but the lack of evidence should still be a bit concerning.

After all, if X is a necessary condition for natural process Y, yet nature has never demonstrated X and science cannot produce X, then certainly that lowers the odds of Y being true. And the longer we watch nature without seeing X and the more advanced science gets without being able to produce X, the worst off it looks for Y, so a sense of urgency is warranted for fans of Y. And given the sheer significance credited to this particular Y, it would be really nice for its odds of being true to be really high.

Re: There are many like it But this one is mine. - Popper observed that the great advantage of the...

RobertFischer — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:41:11 -0000

The Dalai Llama has some really interesting stuff to say about Popper and his theories in the book "The Universe in a Nutshell". (For the record, the Dalai Llama really likes Popper.)

Re: There are many like it But this one is mine. - Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a...

RobertFischer — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:34:09 -0000

Don't confuse science and math. Science is empiricism while math is pure logic. The theory of evolution isn't axiomatic: should we find evidence to the contrary, it has to be disregarded. In mathematics, if you prove something directly from the axioms, it's unassailable. Nothing in science is unassailable -- the history of science shows over and over again that universally accepted theories have been overturned.

Therefore, it's silly at best and counterproductive at worst to ever use a scientific theory as proof that something must be true. At best, you can say that we would expect it to be true. We would expect to see a chromosome added or removed from an offspring and that offspring to 1) be able to pass those characteristics to *its* offspring, and 2) be able to survive and reproduce with at least the same efficacy as its peers. But, AFAIK, that hasn't happened. In fact, too many or too few chromosomes are at fault for a whole series of diseases, most of which start with infertility. This has always bugged me.

re: probabilistic distribution. My problem with your probability distribution is that it's epistemological smoke and mirrors. It's a fine theory of how to live life, but worthless as an epistemological statement. How do you determine the probability of a statement being true? As a case in point, you're going to update your "probability distribution" basically on some kind of perceived authority on my part. That's a pretty lousy basis from which to assert fundamental truth, but you can use your probabilistic "epistemology" as lipstick on that pig. You get to sound smart and sophisticated while actually sidestepping the whole problem of how you actually know anything.

Re: There are many like it But this one is mine. - Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a...

RobertFischer — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:47:50 -0000

The irreducible complexity and wacky physics stuff is just a paltry nod to the biological aspect of the debate, but it's really not central -- in fact, you only really hear that kind of stuff brought up when creationists try to engage in debates with scientists. However, if you watch their propaganda (like "Expelled!"), it's very clear that the real issue is a social/political one, not a biological one.

re: the chromosome thing. I'd just like to see an example of it, because it bugs me. And using the theory as proof of the theory is giving that theory a lot of clout...be careful: you might almost look like you're taking it on faith. ;D

Re: There are many like it But this one is mine. - Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a...

RobertFischer — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:15:30 -0000

People miss the point when they argue evolution versus creationism. Creationists aren't arguing biological science -- they're arguing social science. And they're very much right on that count: evolution and "survival of the fittest", revered to highly, results in eugenics, nationalism, and atrocities. Meanwhile, people arguing evolution are pointing at the science, which is pretty well in the bag[1]. But given the two different conversations being had, it shouldn't be a shocker each side is utterly failing at convincing the other.

The sad part is how obvious that realization is, if you take even the briefest of moments to look on both sides of the conversation.

[1] I'm still curious to see an example of chromosomes being added or removed from an animal and having that be a good -- or even neutral -- thing. Given evolution, it must have happened, since we don't have the same number of chromosomes as our evolutionary siblings.

Re: Download the Follow Me Social Media Profile Plugin - Follow Me Wordpress Plugin

RobertFischer — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:57:58 -0000

My host sorted it out -- it was a deeper .htaccess problem. Thanks, for all the help, though!

Re: Download the Follow Me Social Media Profile Plugin - Follow Me Wordpress Plugin

RobertFischer — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:47:42 -0000

I posted a link below. For some reason, it didn't get threaded as a response.

http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog

These files, among others, are being marked as "Forbidden". I can't find a .htaccess reason why this would be true.
http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/wp-content/plu...
http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/wp-content/plu...

Re: Download the Follow Me Social Media Profile Plugin - Follow Me Wordpress Plugin

RobertFischer — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:43:57 -0000

http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog

These files, among others, are being marked as "Forbidden". I can't find a .htaccess reason why this would be true.
http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/wp-content/plu...
http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/wp-content/plu...

Re: Download the Follow Me Social Media Profile Plugin - Follow Me Wordpress Plugin

RobertFischer — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:26:04 -0000

I'm getting a 403 error on all the graphics. I've made sure that the owner/group is the same as the other code, and it's got read permissions to all those files and execute permissions on the parent directories. Where else should I look for permission settings?

Re: Venture Capital for the Long Tail

RobertFischer — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:34:11 -0000

I'm not sure that "traditional" VC -- that is, an agent acting on behalf of a large pool of investments -- is tenable in the market of lifestyle business. The problem with the lifestyle microfinancing stuff is that in reasonable investment lifespans, it's effectively a high-risk, low-reward prospect. Putting $50k into a project now whose income might only hit $100k/year isn't a very good investment for a VC -- on the other hand, it's a great investment for a person to make, doubly so if it enables them to quit their day job.

On the other hand, a VC-backed prosper.com equivalent might be an interesting approach, particularly if it integrated with SourceForge or WorkingWithRails to programmatically grok "geek cred"... Hrm...now I've got a start-up idea!