Disqus - Latest Comments for Arik

Re: An Unpopular Thought on Homosexuality

Arik — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:26:43 -0000

Pretty narrow minded article.

First, I know several homosexual couples that are not distinctly "top" and "bottom". In the community lingo, they're "switch".

Second, in a lot of relationships there is a dominant partner and a submissive (or less dominant) partner. At work, in social gathering etc. The genders play a lesser role - a more dominant woman in a work environment is not uncommon. In a sexual context there are many heterosexual relationships in which the woman is dominant and the man is submissive. I don't see why a homosexual relationship should be any different.

Third, what do you characterize as "feminine" or "masculine"? What makes a "boy" lesbian or a "girl" lesbian? If the answer is dominance vs. submissiveness, go to previous argument.

Fourth - regarding kenotic's point about bisexuality - my opinion about it is that for bisexuals, there are factors in attraction that are not gender specific. While the gender may play a role, other factors overwhelm it to the point of insignificance. If true, this assumption breaks your theory down completely because it defines a whole new dimension to attraction between people outside of the feminine / masculine theory. Or perhaps, to look at it another way, that factor for the bisexual becomes THE definition of masculine / feminine.

Fifth: You are not the first person to have questions about sexuality, and not the first person to try to answer them. In fact there's an entire institute dedicated to just such questions and research about the answer - the Kinsey institute. I suggest you read up on some of those topics before forming an opinion, so you may stand on the shoulders of giants.

-- Arik

Re: The all new Skype 4

Arik — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:30:24 -0000

The new UI has done two things for me:

1. Prevented me from seeing when new messages are sent in chat (the only thing that happens is the red flag, which might be on for other reasons)

2. Lets me see very few contacts in each screen-full

While I agree that it's very nice during a call, the rest of the time the UI just fills a lot of screen asset with useless details and magnified icons.

-- Arik

Re: A Video About Atheists

Arik — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 05:42:49 -0000

You unbeliever, heathen! May the Flying Spaghetti Monster our lord and saviour smite thee on thy backside with thy noodly appendage and showeth thee thine light and thou becometh a true Believer in earnest, so great is the power of our lord, to take even the small unworthy you and grant thee full redemption from thy sins.

I once was lost
but now I'm found
Was blind, but now I see

BTW didn't like their definition of Atheists. To me, Atheism is not a LACK of belief in a deity; it's the BELIEF that there is no deity. It's a belief, which you cannot prove nor can you disprove in as much the same way you cannot prove or disprove the existance of a deity. It's a religion in itself. Yes I'm an Atheist and I consider myself religious, even leaning towards fanaticism.

-- Arik

Re: A Video About Atheists

Arik — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:44:34 -0000

Feel free to call, you have my number ;-)

-- Arik

Re: The Atheist’s Prayer

Arik — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:45:29 -0000

Hmm...

"the evil temptation of faith"? "our reason will subjugate our superstition"?

I think you are slightly off. For me, Atheism is a belief just like Deism is a belief. I (an Atheist) cannot prove the basis for my faith (for I believe in the absence of a deity), just as I cannot prove the Deist's basis for his or her faith (the existence of a deity).

Reason plays no role in my belief. Had there been a way to disprove the existence of any and all deities, things might be different, but all you are saying is - my reasoning demands that there is no deity. Your reasoning, your subjective reasoning. You are as objective as the deist - that is, not at all. The deist has the exact same tools in his or her disposal as you do.

And the worst - the evil temptation of faith - if I'll go with the definition that evil is immoral, then you say that the temptation of faith is immoral. Having a strong faith yourself, on which you based your morality, this is a paradox. If you define evil as unholy, well, you need holy to have the unholy, which for me does not exist as an Atheist. Does it exist for you?

And the concept of a prayer - I'm not against prayer, as long as you define who or what it is that you pray to. Yourself? I'm cool with this concept, sort of a self affirmation. Anything else? You'll have to convince me that there's a good reason for it.

-- Arik

Re: The Atheist’s Prayer

Arik — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 02:30:27 -0000

Daniel,

> “If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.”

That depends on what your definition of Atheism is.

If it is "The absence of belief in a deity" then you would be correct, but, in my world you're an Agnostic, and not an Atheist.

If it is "The belief in the absence of a deity" then you're an Atheist in my book, but the analogy that you have mentioned no longer holds, because it describes the absence of a hobby rather than a different one.

Now which one are you?

For me, being an Atheist means that I have found the core set of beliefs I live my life. It includes the belief in the absence of a deity. If you come to me today and prove to me that a deity exists, I will not believe you. I don't believe it can happen, though.

-- Arik

Re: Proof There Is A God

Arik — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:41:54 -0000

Hm... Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

-- Arik

Re: More On Incentives

Arik — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:22:40 -0000

Carl, Daniel,

God does punish those who sin. Every time someone dies in an accident, look down his past, he probably did something wrong. If it's a day year old child, his parents did something wrong and he's punished for his ancestors' sins. If a man who is particularly evil is prosperous, then he must have done some good things to offset it. And besides who are you to judge who's good and who's bad, only God can.

I can understand why you're afraid of these people, who need divine guidance in order not to jump at you and kill you. I can't understand why you find it strange - this has been a case for years, and for most people. Yeah most people need someone to tell them that killing is baaaad. Four legs gooood. Two legs baaaad.

For comic relief watch http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6975029... - bonus points for a count of all the logical fallacies. It's an hour long.

-- Arik

Re: Hanlon’s Razor

Arik — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 05:57:52 -0000

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Re: The Worst Anti-Spam Technique Ever: “Bouncing” Spam Messages

Arik — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:28:39 -0000

Another technique which I personally don't like but is being used:

First attempt from an IP address, reply with a 4xy SMTP error code (to those not versed in SMTP, it means 'temporary problem, please try later'.

Second attempt from the same IP address for the same recipient: process normally.

The idea is that spamming software doesn't manage a 'deferred' queue and would just give up on messages that get a transient (4xy) error message.

The downside is that legit messages take a long time to get there, some 5 minutes at least.

I'm not sure how well that works.

-- Arik

Re: I Just Watched “An Inconvenient Truth”, You Should Too

Arik — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:29:40 -0000

Just be critical enough to question every movie with the word 'Truth' in its title.

Re: We Are Engaged

Arik — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:21:59 -0000

Congrats.

Re: Benny Hinn: Let The Bodies Hit The Floor

Arik — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 05:27:00 -0000

This is a very nice case of group trance. There are some more videos of this guy, apparently he's a millionaire.

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Arik — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:29:54 -0000

Hi Daniel,

Your post exemplifies the most prevalent problem with Western society and its treatment of other cultures: Sticking to your own point of view.

How do you know Western society is the adult in this case? Because our actions make sense to you and their actions don't? From their point of view, WE are the smug, rich children who squander our money on materialistic luxuries while they are the old, forgotten, sidelines adults with the higher moral ground of trusting god, living simple life and being righteous.

It's not that they burn you because they're children, they want to burn you because they want you to see the folly of your ways, they want you to mend your ways and be, well like them, and settle for less.

It's all in the point of view. If you want to proclaim that this is a clash between two civilizations and we'll always fight until one side wins and it better be our side - sure I have no problems with that. Don't justify yourself by deciding that your PoV is for some reason the right one. It's just as bad as saying that your god is the right god.

Love,

-- Arik

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test

Arik — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:59:53 -0000

That's weird

I've been iNTP or xNTP for the better part of my life, and today I'm distinctly INTJ.

These things change from time to time and even some times from day to day. For me the I versus E has been fluid over the years.

-- Arik

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Arik — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:36:16 -0000

Daniel,

Look at your criteria for success:

1. Amount of war between western countries
2. GDP
3. Secular education
4. Religious education

In all of these, the outlook for a religious Muslim society is: (and I'm exaggerating this on purpose for the sake of argument, don't go all up in arms if you're Muslim, I've chosen Muslims because I'm more familiar with Islam than other non-Western religion and value system)

1. War every now and then reminds them that we're stronger, and war with non-Muslims is mandated by the Koran: The world is divided into two - Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb (the dwelling of Islam and the dwelling of the sword).

2. GDP - of course the GDP of Muslim countries is lower, the Zionists and the Americans make it so by making sanctions and restricting our ability to participate in the economy, to have 'nucilar' power, etc. That's just one more way that they oppress us, in addition to trying to push their culture on us.

3. Secular education - secular education for men is important, to an extent. It is not as important as religion, and it must be forbidden where it conflicts with religion. When researchers go to far they believe themselves to be equal to Allah, which is heresy. Women's place is not to learn, but to serve their husbands so they learn the essentials.

4. Religious education - Hey, we have the best Madrases in the world! We teach the truth of Allah and the Koran very successfully.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that the Muslim way of looking at things is good. According to my values as a Westerner, they are screwed up. I wouldn't mind that if it didn't have a direct effect on me, and it does, and when push comes to shove I want MY way of looking at things to prevail.

However, they are equal, in the sense that were you born and bred a Muslim, you would have the exact opposite symmetrical opinion of things. This is what I would like you and actually everyone to recognize. Lose the feeling of superior point of view and you're far better equipped to deal with the threat that the different mindset poses.

Again, I restate: I, as a person who grew in a Western society, subscribe to (most of) what we call the Western value system. It does not mean that I can treat anyone else as my inferior. In fact, realizing that they are equal to me in every respect when they look at me from their point of view helps me assert my way.

I suggest The Clash of Civilizations / Samuel P. Huntington, ISBN: 074323149X as reading material. http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Samue...

-- Arik

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Arik — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:26:12 -0000

> I can't believe that someone as advanced as you is capable of such a
> heinous logical breakdown. Viewpoints (or cultures) are not
> legitimized or given weight in the real world just because someone
> believes in them.

Hold it. Look at what you wrote. "Legitimized"? What's that? It's as subjective as it gets, what's legitimate in YOUR eyes is not necessarily legit in someone else's.

Is eating human flesh legitimate? To you I bet it isn't. To Cannibal tribes in Africa, it is. Are they "primitive" or are they conserving valuable resources? If you don't accept that your point of view is not the only one around, then this is a problem and my explanation is in vain.

> Children, for example, believe lots of things, yet it's the world's
> responsibility to CORRECT their behavior, not present an alternative
> that is more or less equal. It's called correction because their way
> is *wrong*, and the adult way is *right*.

This is the wrong analogy, again, because of your PoV. You think that they might be children. They think you are the child. Saying to me "But I'm right and they're wrong" actually proves their point...

> This same dynamic is in play with various cultures throughout the
> world. If one culture thinks a woman is at fault (and should die) for
> being raped (because not enough people witnessed it), that's wrong.

Again, wrong in your mind, you who subscribe to Western values. Detach from your emotions for one second and look at it from their PoV. The word "wrong" is subjective, because it's always "wrong" as a result of your judgment, and that goes back to your values.

> If they think all people who don't believe in the invisible unicorn
> God need to be beheaded, they're wrong. They aren't different or
> "diverse": they're fucking insane and are in need of re-education.

Again, insane in your mind. They will kill you for blasphemy and they would be right, because you question their belief. You might not like the result and might even wish to kill them before they have a chance to do same. Go ahead I won't stop you. Saying that they're wrong is simply saying that what they do doesn't comply with your value system.

> The standard baseline for decency is elusive — we all know that — but
> I think that among the advanced cultures we can at least agree to
> what it isn't. And the examples above fall into that category.

"Advanced cultures". Oh boy. Refer to my comments about about PoV and subjectivity.

> Another would be, say, holding a convention about whether or not the
> Holocaust actually ever took place (and then allowing and/or inviting
> the former head of the Ku Klux Klan to attend).

I don't think Mr. Ahmadinijad believes that the holocaust never existed. It's all political manipulation on his side. He wants to be the leader of the Arab world, and true to form he uses the time tested method of fighting the common Arab enemy the best he can.

> Until we can stop calling ignorant, harmful ideologies "different but
> equal" we will never make any progress as a civilization. I implore
> you to reconsider, sir.

There are two things here.

They are equal. They are equal in the sense that each side holds its own and they both think they're in the right.

Should they be allowed to persist? No. I think they should be stopped, ASAP. Because as much as they're equal, I want OUR side to exist and win and not their, see, I value my life.

Hey, I want to stop them as much as you do, but not recognizing that the way they see what they do as right and righteous is like going into a battle blindfolded. You're looking down at your enemy. Read Sun Tsu's The Art of War:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

-- Arik

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Arik — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:46:08 -0000

Arik,

> What does one mean when they say two philosophies are equal, or that one is better
> than the other? If you’re having an informed debate it should mean that one ideology
> or the other is *actually* better for the world — not that “from some perspective,
> somewhere in the world, someone thinks one way or the other.”

How do you know what's *actually* better for the world? I mean, everyone knows that if everyone becomes Muslim the world will be a lot better, no matter how many people die in the process.

Please.

> We all know that perspective rules when it comes to ideology and that extreme
> Muslims think they are correct while extreme Christians they they are correct. This is
> so basic that it shouldn’t even require mentioning. Since we are above that we
> should move on to more important matters, i.e. what’s *REALLY* best for the
> world. What culture encourages true happiness and is most effective at reducing
> suffering? (That’s the real standard)

Are we really above that? I mean, we all want happiness, true happiness. You are insinuating that Western culture is most effective at reducing suffering and encourages happiness. I agree with you, and I also claim that a Muslim will claim that true happiness can only be found in the teachings of the Koran, a Buddhist will tell you that true happiness is achieved by utilizing one of the paths of reaching nirvana, etc.

To summarize, happiness is subjective, suffering is subjective.

> What you are doing is adhering too strongly to the ultra-liberal ideal of “nobody’s
> ever wrong, they are only different.” That’s crap, and you know it is. Look, we’re
> talking about what’s best for the world in *reality*, not according to some philosophy
> course. If you listen to yourself you’re talking about Hitler and The Dahli Lama being
> morally equal because they both believe in what they preach.

I agree that the Dahli Lama and Hitler are morally equal when judged from their respective point of view. I do not agree that both have a right to exist.

Let me explain yet again: Each one of us people have our own point of view. You have one, I have one. I understand that. If you're doing something that's right from your point of view, it is. right. from your point of view. My opinion of what you do, however, is inevitably from my point of view. If I perceive what you do as wrong, I might take action to stop you from doing that, and in the extreme case I might kill you or at least try. Because, while I understand that from your point of view it seems perfectly okay to point that gun at me and shoot, from my point of view it is very much not okay. Since being alive is important to me in my view of the world, I will do whatever I can to maintain that, even if it means killing you in the process, and as you lie there in a pool of your own blood, I will still not forget that you only did what you thought was right, and I will feel sorry for you, knowing that you are dying because you did not take my point of view into consideration. Too bad.

Did I make myself clear enough?

> People traveling this line of thought are likely to say things like, “Hey, we *say*
> Hitler is a bad guy and that His Holiness is on the right path, but can we really
> say that? Is it fair to judge Hitler? Was he really such a bad guy? He thought he
> was doing a good thing.”

Of course it's fair to judge Hitler. He was a racist, war mongering, power hungry deluded angry SOB. He was also, in his mind, the savior of his people, and millions of people shared that point of view. Forgetting the latter and concentrating on the former will lead you do delusions of absolute good and absolute evil.

> Sure, man. And some people believe in Santa Claus. The point is that anyone can
> believe anything; to say that ALL beliefs are equal is little more than an intellectual
> exercise. It serves no purpose whatsoever when it comes to trying to solve the world’s
> problems. In short, one’s *belief* in the morality of their actions doesn’t really matter
> when it comes to making the world a better place.

You're twisting what I'm saying. All beliefs are equal NOT in the sense that they're good as far as YOU are concerned, but in the way they work for the people who subscribe to them. I believe that it is stronger than an intellectual exercise. I believe that there is a certain tipping point when both side of a disagreement understand the other side's point of view, and it changes the conflict at that very point. Also, if you understand an enemy's point of view, you increase your ability to oppose them. Again refer to The Art of War.

> So it’s not about being skewed towards western ideals, and not realizing that the
> Muslim way is just as valid. I grew up in the San Francisco bay area and am quite
> versed in the liberal approach to judgement (don’t ever do it, basically). Life has
> shown me that this is a recipe for disaster.

You just don't understand what I'm writing, I'm afraid. The Muslim way is valid to a Muslim. The Western way is valid to a Westerner. In that sense they are equal. The Muslim way is not "as valid" to a Westerner, at least not radical Islam that claims that I should either die or become a Muslim. Not valid. No. I don't subscribe to the "Do not judge" approach. I don't think it's even possible not to judge, you do it instinctively.

> People who subscribe to this way of thinking are the types to invite strangers into
> their homes, have them steal everything they own, sleep with their underage
> daughters, kill the family dog, and pee on the doorstep. The liberal is left saying,
> “Hmm…ok, well…you seem to express yourself differently than I do…and I’m not
> saying that’s bad…but we’re going to have to talk (attacker kicks liberal in the face)
> …ok, wow…that kind of hurt…if you could just stop that…yeah…that’d be great…mkay?”

Actually I invite strangers into my home, after a short conversation. I wasn't raised in the US. In fact, last night at 2am I stopped near a car at the side of the road and asked them if they needed assistance. The driver, Tony, appreciated my offer to drive him to the nearest gas station and thanked me profusely. He was standing there for some time trying to flag cars, including police cars, in vain, and not for lack of traffic, here in the SF bay area. What can I say, I guess I'm more trusting than most. I never had anyone do something bad to me, but my thought process would go along the line of, well, I invited you into my home thinking or assuming you share my values. You obviously don't, so get out of here or you can wait for the cops.

> Dude, that’s the world of “every ideology is equal.” Surely you can see the flaw in this
> approach. It’s meant to be used as a guideline — a benchmark for teaching morality.
> To show children that you shouldn’t go around hating people that think differently than
> you. And I am thankful to have been exposed to that. But at some point you have to
> grow up and see that when you apply this mode of thought to the extreme you end up
> firmly in the realm of denial and ignorance.

So, you're saying that your process of growing up taught you that there are people that you should hate. I'm so sorry. I had a person I used to hate. He threw a stone at me when I was 14, and bruised me pretty bad. Over time I came to realize that he was just a stupid kid, and he's not worth the time I spent thinking of how much I hate him. I never experienced hating a religion or a people, even though I guess I had plenty of chances.

As someone who does hate, I have a question for you: Does that hate serve a purpose in your life? Does it enrich your life in some way? Does it provide you with tools to deal with the people you hate? Does it enable you to fight them more effectively? Can you use that hate as an effective tool? If you can answer one of those questions in the positive, by all means, embrace that hatred, nourish it and cherish it.

I believe that if you replace that hatred with the understanding that the other side does what they do for a reason, not only will it let you fight them more effectively, it will also remove that strong emotion that's controlling you, leaving you calculated and in control, and to the extent that it is possible, more objective.

Daniel, I suggest that you read what I wrote carefully and think about it for a short while before you formulate your answer. I have a feeling that I have repeated myself many times over, and frankly, I don't see that it serves a purpose. Perhaps you just can't understand what I'm saying, and perhaps I'm blind to something that you perceive to be obvious. In either case, I have run out of ideas of how I might explain my point of view to you. If you can think of a new way that you may explain your point of view to me, by all means, do so.

-- Arik

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Arik — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 04:58:59 -0000

DM: "some systems are better than others for the world as a whole"

You'd have to explain this one specifically, and in OBJECTIVE terms.

The only reason why you think the world is better off in the hands of Buddhists rather than the roving warlords is because of your Western values. You can't define "better off" in objective terms, because it's better off in YOUR value system.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LOGICAL about that statement. It's totally value-driven and emotional. "A system that can benefit the world the most" is again, subjective and emotional, because the benefit is a benefit when you look at it.

The happiness/suffering system of morality is fine, as long as you remember that happiness for some people may be perceived entirely different than you, and while you perceive happiness in freedom, they may perceive happiness in belonging to a religious faction and being safe in the knowledge that they are pleasing the Lord. The African warlord is not only correct in his point of view, he's making a better future for his kind and relieving the suffering of the miserable tribes he's annihilating, the warlord sees himself as a savior of his people and a divine harbinger of justice and punishment. I've invented all this, I have no inkling of the psyche of an African warlord, I just want to show you that a point of view is not just an exercise in perspective, it changes the entire meaning of good and bad.

The only thing you can do to make all these statements true is to disclaim them with a big "The way I see the world, in my eyes..." and then you would be absolutely right.

-- Arik

Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Materialism

Arik — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:56:46 -0000

Hi Daniel, all

Yes, I think you are materialistic, Daniel. The question in my mind is - is it bad to be materialistic?

I consider myself materialistic, but you exceed me in at least the symbols. Let's see:

Car: 2001 Toyota Corolla LE
Pistol: 0.22mm Baretta
Sunglasses: RayBan Polarized
Knife: Leatherman Wave
Computer: White box I built myself (does the IBM T42 laptop I got from work count?)
Watch: none
Phone: Blackberry 8700c
Backpack: Thinkpad carrying case backpack

Hey, we have the same phone!

When I look at my list of 'things' and go over the decisions made to purchase them, I came to realize that I choose the practical over brand or extravagant every time. But if you want to go for the biggest expenses I've made in the last few years, the biggest one as of late is my flight lessons. My biggest investment over time would be my stock portfolio, 401K and pension plan (hey, Ken, Marisol).

I'm all for the accumulation of wealth. I'm also for spending that wealth. I'm spending it on things I care about and like to do, like you. Is your question about what is good and bad (oh no relativistic moralism again oh no let's get out of this quagmire quickly) or about your feeling that, perhaps some of the things you buy are of lesser value to you because you enjoy them for the social connections you create by having them, and not for their actual use in your life? I mean, a $10 watch will tell time just as well, but it won't get you far in the Rolex owners forum and won't be much of a conversation piece.

I would ask you a counter question: What's value for you? How do you define value? Given an item, where is the value of that item, for you?

And once you answered that, is what you buy consistent with the way you perceive value? If you answer in the positive, then I don't think that this is a problem.

And on a different note:

I've been to India, and I recommend everyone that they should go there. I don't care how much you've studied about the place or how much you've learned about the region's history. When you come back, you will have a different opinion about poverty and about wealth, about what is important in life and what is less so. I would say that I got... calibrated, in a sense.

-- Arik

Re: 10 Questions To Ask During An Information Security Interview

Arik — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:18:20 -0000

I was once asked which is stronger - RSA with a 8192 bit key or AES with 128 bit key

Don't forget that security is mostly an attitude, or actually a way of life, and only secondly knowledge.

-- Arik

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:42:23 -0000

Huh?

Wow.

And this from a guy who wrote http://dmiessler.com/archives/1101 and http://dmiessler.com/archives/1095 - you rally against the idea of multi-culturalism and then suggest a solution that will create a multi-cultural nation. Are you not just a little bit NIMBY-ish about this, Daniel?

Moreover, you are offering a logical solution to a problem that is basically religious and emotional. The problem is not about the state, how it's called and who gets to head it. It's about two people from two very different cultures - the Arab-Muslim culture and the Western culture that's prevalent in Israel.

I suggest "The Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel P. Huntington, ISBN 0684844419.

-- Arik

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:45:24 -0000

... Oh, one more thing.

I like your ICMP article. You definitely have done the research and know what you're saying.

Have you gone to the same length in this case? I know you've been to the middle east, but have you actually lived there? Frankly, I've seen so many people say so many things without a modicum of understanding of the situation. I live an hour away from UC Berkeley :-)

-- Arik

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:29:17 -0000

Daniel,

This is exactly why I wrote what I wrote about being proficient in the subject matter before voicing an opinion.

Your statement about the subcultures merging into one is unreal. The Israeli culture is Western with a Jewish majority, the Palestinians are Arabs - Muslims. Before you make such outlandish claims, tell me if you think that the American culture and the Saudi cultures can merge, and you will have some sense of what's involved.

Add to that the history of both sides warring for the last decades.

Daniel, if it was that simple it wouldn't be a problem today. And please be realistic about what you claim.

Oh, yes, I'm human and I'm an Israeli. Ergo, I'm biased.

-- Arik

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:16:16 -0000

Daniel,

Hm... I was trying to find a paragraph in your text I can start answering, but I'm afraid they are equally unchallengeable. Not because they are all solid, it's because you believe what you say to the extent that I need to challenge the entire belief system rather than a single belief.

Instead, I will attempt to give a solution to the illegal immigration problem the US has. It is a realistic solution. It will cause some chaos to begin with but the end result will be worth it.

The solution is ingeniously simple: Abolish the US-Mexico immigration. Create a single USA, with 83 states. The new country will have 410,000,000 people, 11,000,000 sq km of land. The GDP will (initially) be 14x10^12, which is about $34K per capita. Not a lot less than the existing US $43K5, and a lot more than Mexico's $10K5. Public debt will go down for the US.

The official US language must change, to include Spanish. I mean, if Canada can deal with English and French, I'm sure the US can handle it. Perhaps this will eventually facilitate the move to a metric measurement system.

I'm sure it will not be easy in the beginning. All those original Mexicans will travel north to the more rich countries to find work, but eventually businesses will move down south to reduce costs and labor. In say 100-200 years a sort of equilibrium will be reached.

I think it's a great solution, one which, once implemented, although not easy, will solve most of the illegal US immigration, currently comprising mostly of Mexicans. Once all those Mexicans are legal and no longer need to be afraid to work in a decent job and pay taxes, the US will gain a productive people.

Even the religions match - the US is predominantly Christian (76%) and Mexico is similarly so (95%). The goal is one nation, one people. For that to happen there has to be unity, and this proposal is the first step in that process. Ideally the subcultures would merge into one, and it’ll be great when that happens, but enduring multiculturalism in order to acheive long-term unity is a most worthy compromise.

What do you think?

My data was taken from the CIA factbook, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/i...

-- Arik

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:48:34 -0000

Okay, so it's a land ownership thing then...

First the concept of land ownership. You and I are living in a land that has been owned by various Indian tribes, from way before Columbus has made his faithful journey into the unknown. Do they own the land?

Then this land was literally taken by force from the Aztecs and the Inka and the Maya and the myriad of smaller tribes that inhabited the area. Was that moral? You might claim that according to the moral standards of that time it was. Wrong. To prove that, just read El Requerimiento, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requerimiento - a document that the conquiatadores had to read to the native Americans before being allowed to kill them. Yes it was read to them in Spanish. This was after it has been officially decided that native Americans have souls.

And then Britain took control over some of North America. Does that mean that the Spanish still own it and it is now occupied?

Let's go back to Israel. The country was, originally, much like the Americas, mostly inhabited by tribes. The first to change that were the Jews who escaped slavery in Egypt. In 1000BC King David took over Jerusalem from the tribe that happened to occupy that particular place. The Jews got to keep that piece of land for a few hundred years before being driven out of there by the Assyrians, then let back by Saragon king of Persia, and then kicked out again by the Babylonians and then whatever left was dispersed by the Romans. The romans have renamed the place Palestine, after some long-gone tribes in the area of Gaza, as part of their effort to keep the Jews from returning.

Then the land changed "ownership" several times, always being occupied by one nation or another. Take a look at http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html for a nice map.

The latest group of people to occupy this piece of land, Jews or Zionists, came there in several waves over the 18th and 19th century. Having no military force, they have bought the land, and these records exist to this day (in the form of land ownership documents from the Ottoman empire). These massive land buyouts were done by Zionist organizations funded by Jewish millionaires like the Edmond De Rothschild, Montessori and fund raising organizations.

Israeli independence then gave a right to the state of Israel to form a government over some of those lands. It did not relinquish ownership by those organizations and individuals over the rest of the land, it merely formed a state that governed some of it. The fact that the day after the British left Israel in 1948 all of the surrounding states declared war on Israel was conductive to Israel because it enabled the capture some of that land.

So, who owns the US, and who owns Israel?

You have wisely mentioned that "The world has pretty much agreed..." - yes international consensus is important. I bet that if we keep Israel for another 100-200 years there will be an international consensus that Israel is what it is. The so called consensus is created by first taking by force and then after you got it for some time everyone believes it is yours. I bet you there was hardly consensus about the British colonies refusing to pay taxes to Britain in 1776. Today there is.

Likewise morals. Was it moral to butcher native Americans? Was it moral for king David to take over Israel on 1000BC? By the moral "standards" of these times, maybe. I don't know. I'm pretty sure the Inca didn't think it moral, nor did the You know what I think about morality - it's all subjective and constantly changing. Todays moral values are today's moral values, and they are not uniform across cultures or even groups within cultures. So before you want to conform to some morality, please specify which morality.

The only written proof of land ownership in Israel is Ottoman era documents, that do exist today and are archived, showing it was bought by several organizations. The Palestinian claim to the entire land of Israel is not only bogus and populist, it is also illegal, if you agree that the Ottomans (Muslim rule, by the way) have a right to control the changing of ownership of the land at the time when they had it. If you do not believe that, then how do you define land ownership? Under some definitions, we currently live on either Spanish or Native American land.

-- Arik

Re: Atheism: An Audio Presentation by Sam Harris

Arik — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:21:27 -0000

On December 24th I've sent you, in a private message, the following link:

http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail785....

-- Arik

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 02:04:54 -0000

Yes, there were pre-1948 Palestinians who owned land in Israel. A day after Israel's declaration of independence, the surrounding Arab states have waged war against the new country. To better facilitate their travel through the surrounding territories and to prevent Arab casualties, the Arab states have persuaded the Palestinians living there to leave their homes temporarily, offering them the spoils of war - the Israeli property after Israel is annihilated. Yes, the stated goal of that war was to annihilate a country established by the united nation.

About 70% of the Arabs answered the call, and left. They didn't imagine that Israel would win or that they will spend literally the rest of their lives away from their original home. The 30% that were left had become Israeli citizens with equal rights. By the way, where did you come up with not paying the same taxes? The only difference in rights as far as I know is military service - Israeli Arabs don't have to do the 3 year compulsory service, the idea behind it is that they can't be forced to potentially fight against their ethnic brothers. They can do it, and in some Arab communities it is commonplace (example - Bedouin communities). There are some benefits to serving in the army, and they are, to the best of my knowledge, worth less than 3 years of minimum wages.

So do these 70% pre-1948 Palestinians deserve to go back to their land? I don't know. It's a subject of debate. If they have rights to any land, this is it. I can see their case, I don't think it's a very strong one. Then again, I'm biased.

Do I believe in a two-state solution? Oh no, I will not fall into this pit. I do not claim to know what the solution is. Having intimate knowledge of the people involved, I would say that a two state solution is more realistic, but, I do not think that it will solve the problem. About absorption to other countries - it's unfeasible because the surrounding countries will never ever take them. In fact in the Israeli-Egyptian peace accord Israel had to take the Gaza strip - Egypt wouldn't have an agreement in which it is still in control of Gaza. And as for Jordan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in...

There is no easy solution. I do not purport to know what the solution is, so I don't go ahead and suggest one. It's that simple. I might discuss some aspects of the conflict and speak my (biased) mind, but that's about it.

-- Arik

Re: Security: Implementing A Secure And Usable Internet Password Scheme

Arik — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:26:45 -0000

Hi Daniel,

I used to work like this, and I have decided against it. It's too much of a hassle to remember even the simpler ones. Writing is outside of the question, because putting the password in your wallet increases the value of your wallet. In case it is lost, the passwords are lost too and then you need to recover them.

I ended up using Personal Info Keeper from a small software company called HighCriteria - http://www.highcriteria.com/productfr_pik.htm - it costs $11 but it's worth it. The entire repository is encrypted and you can back it up. It also remembers the last 3 passwords so if your password change attempt didn't go well you can retrace your steps. Very neat.

I don't work for HighCriteria and I don't get paid to say this, I just think it's a good value and it solved most of my password problems. Obviously the hidden assumption is that you have that repository with you whenever you need it, and I have my laptop with me most of the time. If you don't... perhaps it's not for you.

-- Arik

Re: Security: How Network Ports Work

Arik — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:36:04 -0000

Gotta love metaphors.

-- Arik

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:41:04 -0000

So, basically, what you're saying is that to get a better understanding, you put out half-baked ideas and thoughts, which you know your knowledge of is incomplete, and then watch people claim otherwise and learn from it?

I don't know, man.

-- Arik

Re: Fun With Numbers

Arik — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:47:44 -0000

Donno about that, looks a bit like the drawn numbers were drawn to fit the theory rather to prove it. Look at 7, 8, 9 and 2.

Sorry, personally I don't buy it. Take a look at older numerals in http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Mathematics.ht...

Also, since the Arabs invented the modern day Algebra and the zero, you'd think their numbers are the "originals" Arabic numerals. No angles there. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

-- Arik

Re: Religion: Muslim Father Wants Atheist Son Killed

Arik — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:33:44 -0000

You're doing it again, Daniel.

-- Arik

Re: Religion: Muslim Father Wants Atheist Son Killed

Arik — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:16:51 -0000

I'm not saying you shouldn't and it's forbidden. I'm just saying that you can say that according to your moral standards it's unacceptable, but that's about all you can say. Feelings of superiority only mean that you will underestimate, misjudge and be prejudiced against individuals from the other culture.

Yes, I also think that this culture is incompatible with the Western culture. Guess what, both Arab/Islamic and Western cultures are in a minority.

The only intelligent thing I can say about it is that Egypt is trying its damned best to become Western. It's the first Arab country to have a peace accord with Israel, It's getting aid from the US, and it has some sort of parliamentary government, although not democratic. These incidents don't help much with those efforts.

-- Arik

Re: Disproving Stupid Things

Arik — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:05:00 -0000

"He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative."

Well, I'm an Atheist and I do not need proof that there is no god. Atheism is a belief system just like deism.

-- Arik

Re: Female American Soldiers Being Raped In Iraq (By Male American Soldiers)

Arik — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:45:06 -0000

Don't you think it's a convenient excuse for people who are not socialized properly to claim innocence when they rape their fellow soldier, regardless of sex?

-- Arik

Re: Disproving Stupid Things

Arik — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:47:50 -0000

It's not that I don't believe in a deity.

I have a strong belief in the absence of one. That is, I believe that a deity doesn't exist. If a god will descend from the heavens and proclaim me a sinner, I will look for the candid camera.

-- Arik

Re: Disproving Stupid Things

Arik — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:07:50 -0000

I can say something but I'll save it for your atheism definition article.

-- Arik

Re: The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is NOT A Belief

Arik — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:00:08 -0000

"Atheism - The lack of belief in gods as they are conceptualized in human civilization. This is not a proclamation of divine knowledge, i.e. that in all possible existences an atheist is positive that nothing like a God exists, anywhere. That would be stupid. The word is used (or should be) to describe a lack of belief in the Gods that are worshiped throughout our world. It’s a practical definition, based on the theistic reality we interact with every day."

Call me stupid then.

I disagree with the source of your definition, and in case you are the source, I disagree with you.

That point where you are not at all convinced in anything, and you proclaim that you will believe anything given proof but don't actively seek that proof. That point where you fear everything that has to do with belief, because you feel a vehement need to distance yourself from it. That point where you challenge the world to prove to you that there is something out there, hoping in secret that no one steps up to the challenge, because they might have something to say that will shake the foundation of your world. Search yourself. Be honest with yourself, now. That point, where you are now, Daniel, is agnosticism.

It is a local maximum. It is a high energy point. It's like a ball balanced impossibly at the top of a mountain, where all other options lead to faith and belief in something. You, my friend, are balanced at that point, and since it is a very unstable point you are exerting a lot of energy to maintain that point. You are always fighting against the inevitable pull of gravity.

It is not an easy point to reach, and I congratulate you for reaching this point. You had to fight and win against the values that have been infused in you since you were born, against your surrounding, against people who believe in objective truth, against a hoard of people yelling merry Christmas to you and scaring you on Halloween and telling you tales of the easter bunny and the tooth fairy and sin and hell and redemption and atonement. You've done all that. Now it's time to

STOP

close your eyes, and see, Daniel.

You are at the vista now. You can see what lies beneath. It is time to make your choice and decide which way down is best for you. While staying up there is an option, it is also very difficult and not effective for the long run. Search yourself. What do you feel? It's your choice now. I recommend you make it.

I've made my choice. I'm an Atheist. I believe that there is no deity. It is true for me. I do not question this belief, beyond an academic discussion. It is the basis on which I build my life, every day when I wake up and when I lay myself to sleep. And I sleep easy. I don't need to worry about balancing at that fickle point where gusts of wind threaten to sway me this way or that. I am grounded. I've left that mountain and walked along the path I have consciously chosen. I know the mountain is there. I've been there. It has been a hell of a journey, pun not intended. Being a believer has the advantage of packing all those questions about life and meaning and treating them as solved.

Oh, I don't pretend that they are solved. Belief is a tool to deal with them in a consistent manner. I've been up there and I know that they are not "solved". It's just that dealing with them does not bother me on a daily basis. I have my answers for now. My own, personal, subjective truth.

Having walked that path and seen what you see serves me for I know that there is no one objective truth. Everyone has their own. Knowing that lets me interact with people of different beliefs and faiths, because I respect them as human beings and ones that have a right to their belief, even though it differs from mine. I also find myself in conflict with other people at times. It is invariably at the point where they believe that their truth is objective and that they in some way try to force it on me.

So, Daniel, my belief is a belief (ouch). It is not a lack of belief. It's not not-collecting-stamps or not drinking from the empty glass. Those metaphors are broken, because they describe a linear scale from 0 to n, and I'm talking about a vector field where 0 is lack of belief and there are vectors in all directions, which stand for the myriad of beliefs that exist. You can still believe as strongly as your fellow man and have opposite opinions.

I wish for you, Daniel, that you find your path.

Take care,

-- Arik

Re: The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is NOT A Belief

Arik — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:12:31 -0000

Coming back to this thread after a few days of absence, I feel like crying. So many people just confuse the terminology and the concepts... Carl M, you got it right. Daniel, you've created a monster, and I can't but feel like I was an accomplice.

Sources of most of the problems, from my brief 5 minute analysis:

1. Subjectivism in disguise of objectivism. I'm at fault for this one as well. I rely on definitions of terminology without saying what they are to me.

2. Confusion of the following terms: Religion, Theism, Belief, Belief system, Atheism, Agnosticism, Knowledge, Proof, Science. Maybe I missed a few. I would create a baseline of terminology had I thought there's a slight chance everyone here will agree on the terms.

3. Meta - "Belief in Atheism" is one example that comes to mind. Enough said.

Good night, and Flying Spaghetti Monster bless,

-- Arik

Re: Why Atheism Isn’t A Belief

Arik — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:00:09 -0000

I'm probably a glutton for punishment.

I would like to suggest the following definition for a belief:

* A belief is a mental process that affects a decision you make, at the point in time when the decision is made

So when you make a decision, the beliefs you hold determine the result of the decision.

When you bought your car, the belief that you have the money or that you can pay the financing fees and that a BMW is a good reliable car, and that the car will change your life in a particular way and so on and so fourth - made you decide to buy the car. It's a bunch of them together.

Belief in a deity, or Deism, is one such belief. When you are about to commit a sin, like eating pork, that belief (the deity Gaga exists, and it forbids its chosen people from eating lettuce, and I am one of his chosen people) is factored into the decision.

So if you remove those beliefs, you end up with no particular reason not to eat lettuce. Your belief that you are hungry, that lettuce is good food and that there is lettuce in front of you win over. Now say someone comes to you just before you are shoving a juicy leaf of lettuce into your mouth, and says, Hey, what are you doing with that leaf of lettuce? Don't you know Gaga forbids his chosen ones from eating lettuce? You might end up not eating the leaf because you now believe that there is a possibility that Gaga exists.

Then, what if you introduce a new belief: There is no deity. Gaga does not exist. That is a belief according to the definition, because now with this belief, you go on to eat the leaf of lettuce. You are immune from this person's attempts at conviction, because your existing belief would not let his attempts become a new belief. Bon appetite!

I hope I'm clear this time. If not, let me know about any ambiguity and I'll correct it.

-- Arik

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Arik — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:32:19 -0000

Yeah, it's always easy to blame your parents. It takes all the responsibility from yourself and makes you feel all nice and righteous.

Just look at what you wrote - "The answer is for parents and teachers to foster within children curiosity and interest in a wide range of subjects" - how do you go about doing that?

How about, instead, forget about the college, which belongs in the past, and think about the ways you can change the future for yourself?

-- Arik

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Arik — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:21:40 -0000

Hi Carl,

Don't get me wrong, I agree that many people (sorry to say but Americans are not alone in this) want the diploma, and have no desire to learn. I've studied with them and interviewed them. "Oh, you have a CS degree... does it pay well?" was the predominant question. Oh well.

My comment was meant specifically to Daniel, who will do better for himself finding ways to improve himself rather than be righteous.

I'm not sure what the solution is. So far I've seen kids who love to learn and kids who hate it. I think curiosity has something to do with it, but how do you develop that in a child? Or rather, how do you not stifle it in a child? I don't know.

-- Arik

Re: IQ Is Real, And It Matters

Arik — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:56:43 -0000

"And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

Ecclesiastes 1 13-18

-- Arik

Re: IQ Is Real, And It Matters

Arik — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:57:08 -0000

Hey, I think King Solomon was an Atheist, and Ecclesiastes was patched later on to portray some sort of religious belief. Read Ecclesiastes again and look for style inconsistencies. They had a hard time accepting a book that says:

"The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.

Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.

For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool."

Same 2 14-16

The Hebrew version is better. It actually says in 14: "The same fate will find them both" (my translation).

Don't confuse the bible with religion, and don't let religious people tell you they own this literary and historical masterpiece. We all own it.

-- Arik

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Arik — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:30:20 -0000

Hey Daniel,

Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you. Shock - yes, but not hurt. I apologize. I've conjuncted that the last part of your post was you blaming your parents for your lack of interest in college. I was reaching, and it was unfair. I apologize again.

Let me explain what I wrote and why.

If you read your post, it contains 4 parts:

i. Lots of people learn nothing (in college)
ii. People who do learn are curious
iii. I didn't learn (programming) because it wasn't interesting
iv. Parents and teachers must impart curiosity (vs. knowledge)

This looks like a rant, because in i-iii you're specifying a given state of affairs, and in iv you're setting an obscure goal for the rest of the world, even excluding yourself - you could have written, for example, when I have kids I will do my damn best to make sure they are as curious as possible - but instead you wrote "parents and teachers should". That's a rant, it's inoperable.

This concludes my analysis of your post.

NOW

Lets engage in an exercise to rewrite your post in a non-rant way. I would leave i and ii intact, because that is stating the existing state. iii is redundant, because it's just giving yourself as an example to what you already stated.

To be useful, part iv should look to the only place which would make the exercise useful - the future. What are we going to do? What are you going to do to make it happen?

Let's brainstorm here. I would start by developing my own curiosity, because children emulate and if you're openly curious about your environment, they will allow themselves to be curious about their environment. How about giving an incentive to curiosity? Like for example, I've heard that Google's interviews talk about a broad interest in non-work-related subjects. Or encouraging extra-curricular activities. Specialization is an incentive to not be curious and do what you do best, so how about education that gives you bonuses for breadth rather than depth - for example, make your core courses for your major in college worth 40% and ancillary purposefully unrelated courses 60%? How about setting aside 20% of school-time for personal interests, and bringing outside consultants to help kids achieve goals in subjects they're interested in if it's outside the capacity of the teacher? We can go on and on with the brainstorming session. Since it's brainstorming, there's no criticism.

And then part v would be back to reality, grading some of those possible solutions and finding practical ways to implement them or at least follow their gist.

Always look forward is my motto here.

-- Arik

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Arik — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:46:20 -0000

You might want to consider mentioning that. This is how I understand what you wrote. Perhaps I misunderstood the subtleties, being the foreigner and all.

-- Arik

Re: IQ Is Real, And It Matters

Arik — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:28:47 -0000

"Can you imagine the peace and quiet of your brain not constantly processing?"

Michael,

I suggest you learn some sort of way to get yourself into altered states of consciousness - Meditation, self-hypnosis, martial arts, TM - would be my first choice, and then there are practices like sweat lodges or isolation chambers or use of chemicals (either synthesized or from plants) - which I recommend you stay away from.

It is possible to get that state when your brain is not constantly processing without lowering your IQ, and it's a very rewarding and peaceful experience.

-- Arik

Re: Atheism and the Substitution Phenomenon

Arik — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:53:19 -0000

Hey which am I? I'm curious to know.

-- Arik

Re: Why Atheists Should Consider Discussing Religion With Their Moderately Religious Friends

Arik — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:56:33 -0000

Hey Daniel, Erich,

Like others said before me, I too find absolutely no reason to try to convince my deist friends and acquaintances that their belief is false or otherwise defective.

Let me also state this: I believe that the best way to make them reconsider their beliefs is to live a good, successful and moral life as an Atheist. Lay all the claims that Atheists are for some reason bad, immoral or disloyal to rest; be the anti-thesis to their stereotypes.

Beliefs are like a house of cards. Take a card away, and the house becomes unstable. Take the right one away and tumble it will. One such card in a deist's belief is that Atheists have unfavorable properties. Take this card away, and they will start questioning other components of their belief.

Lead by example, Daniel and Erich. Be the reason. It's a very gentle, subliminal and powerful persuasive tool.

-- Arik

Re: Why Atheists Should Consider Discussing Religion With Their Moderately Religious Friends

Arik — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:36:43 -0000

Uuuh Zeth, Git off ma propty! Stop messing with my metaphors!!!!1

Now seriously, you took it too far. What I meant is that, rather than shoving the fact that, rather than shove the fact that I'm an Atheist in people's face and argue unarguable points, I prefer to let people face to the fact that indeed there is an Atheist in their vicinity who is leading a life which is - surprise - at least as moral, full, satisfying as they do, without the need for a deity.

What you're talking about is realizing you need faith in your life and choosing your path according to the factors you've mentioned. Most people are not like that. I'd say 99% of deists are not like that. They loosely believe in some deity and its power over them, for better - or most likely - for worse. The fact that there is a life possible without it is news to them, hence my metaphor.

Now look at you - you're writing in an Atheist's blog in a civil way. It means that whatever your faith is, you recognize other people's faith as well, which means that you don't need this lesson anyway. You are at least willing to accept that other people have their own truth.

-- Arik

Re: Why Atheists Should Consider Discussing Religion With Their Moderately Religious Friends

Arik — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:53:15 -0000

Zeth,

I like your reasoning but I think your numbers are way off.

I think that if you look closely you'll find that a lot of the great minds of the 20th century are actually Atheists. I don't agree to your football field theory (although it does make me pretty unique - one in 3 million).

Moreover I think that there are great people out there that are totally Atheist in much the same I am but don't talk about it or reveal it. When I find someone who's an Atheist in the US, I broach the subject after probing gently for a while. And when we both affirm we're Atheists it's like we both share some sort of a secret. It's not easy to be an Atheist in a more then 90% Deist country. I think there are more closet Atheists among us and you can't really tell. Heck I invoke God every now and then, just to maintain rapport.

My friends obviously know. Not many others do, even people I'm in constant contact with.

Now as far as contribution - I would risk going out on a limb and say that I think Atheists contribute more than their relative number in the general population. Here's my half-baked and lame rationalization: If you take all the people who don't question their faith - how can they ponder questions of global magnitude when they don't know themselves? Atheists living in a Deist world must be holding their faith after pondering the possibility of being a Deist and finding it lacking. These vary people are at least capable of independent thought and hence capable of contemplating other problems. I believe then that per capita Atheists contribute more.

-- Arik

Re: The Best Way To Create Terrorists

Arik — Sun, 06 May 2007 06:17:41 -0000

The Best Way To Create Soldiers Who Will Ignore The Pleas Of Children:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvpCrW4mU4A

Re: How To Create The Hatred That Leads To Racism

Arik — Mon, 07 May 2007 02:52:28 -0000

You kinda scrambled my title of it from your previous post.

Re: The iPhone Will Dominate, But Not Because Of Features/Functionality

Arik — Fri, 11 May 2007 00:55:38 -0000

That special something is Apple's marketing machine.

-- Arik

Re: Judging Risk Based On Genetic Testing

Arik — Mon, 14 May 2007 00:39:17 -0000

There has been already a movie about this very scenario - Gattaca or The Eighth Day

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177

It's excellent.

-- Arik

Re: IM: Gtalk –> AIM

Arik — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:27:14 -0000

*cough*Adium*cough*

-- Arik

Re: An Alternative View of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:42:41 -0000

Hi Daniel,

I think we had that discussion before. Go back to the discussion where I suggested that the US and Mexico will unite, because it makes sense.

Just to summarize, the reason why this will not work is cultural. These are people with traditions and a way of life and paradigms of thought and behaviors and history and nationalistic feelings and all that jazz. You can't just shift them like pawns on a map to the same area and say "Live together in peace and create a government". They just won't. It never happened before - and they did try it. Look at Spain, look at Czechoslovakia, look at Ireland, look at Bosnia, look at Iraq - and tell me that you know what the solution is.

Hey, have you seen what's going on in Gaza these last few days between two factions - the Fatah and the Hamas - trying to rule that piece of land they cherish so much?

-- Arik

Re: An Alternative View of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Arik — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:03:09 -0000

> Sure, Mosad probably had a hand in it.

Oh please. I can say with the same amount of validity or actually even greater that Hamas is an Iranian-backed entity.

It's not about being above it or not, what they are doing right now, believe it or not, is culturally acceptable. Now this statement is going to incite some respons, so let me explain: Most people are simple individuals with no political aspirations etcetera and are normative even by our Western standards. The difference is in how far you allow yourself to go to win politically. I'm not an expert, but I think that this is incompatible with democracy.

You were saying something about a one state solution?

-- Arik

Re: iPhone Nmap Results

Arik — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 03:58:11 -0000

If you can calculate the next TCP sequence number without a calculator (0x66 difference), it IS a joke. It means someone implemented the specs without considering the security implications.

-- Arik

Re: The Atheist’s Dilemma: Logical Conclusions to the Lack of Free Will

Arik — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:16:40 -0000

Oh, I have another one for you to sink your teeth into:

There is no free will, because there is no god and we are all responding to stimuli, so everything is perfectly predictable; BUT - the system in its entirety is so complex that in order to predict it you need to simulate every piece of it, which for us, today, is impossible. So while there is no free will, we look at the world as if there is because we cannot know what it is that we will do lacking means to predict it.

And another one:

Quantum theory predicts a certain randomness that's impossible to predict, only to calculate the chance (probability) of an event happening in a particular way. It has been shown to be a good description of reality so far and made semiconductors possible. If this theory is true, there is a lot of randomness to manifest an arbitrary decision maker or a god instead of the randomness. Albert Einstein realized that, and was very much against the theory, with his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe".

In conclusion, from my experience, talking about free will is pretty much meaningless, because the way we subjectively perceive the world determines whether we perceive an action we made as 'free willed' or not. For the same action some would say it's free will and some would say it's not.

Take care,

-- Arik

Re: The Atheist’s Dilemma: Logical Conclusions to the Lack of Free Will

Arik — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:23:07 -0000

Daniel,

"I think that little bit of randomness represents yet another hole in our understanding — not something truly unknowable."

Science being what it is, I can't say that your hypothesis is wrong. I can however suggest that there is a good argument for the 'truly random' - and probably more that I don't understand:

1. The distribution functions assume true randomness, and so far the universe behaves according to the predictions

2. Hawking has shown that for black holes to exist they have to radiate somehow, and that particular randomness enables it. I don't claim to understand exactly how, it's beyond me.

It is of course possible you're right, and there won't be any randomness in future more accurate models of the world. As of now, there is plenty of randomness, enough to cause some of the biblical miracles if you assume a conscious entity manipulating that randomness in a certain direction...

I can't believe I'm giving pro-deist arguments, but if you want to present a topic, better present it whole; and if you're talking about complete predictability - you can't predict actions if there's an element of randomness.

-- Arik

Re: Why Scott Adams is Wrong about Atheism

Arik — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:02:44 -0000

Hey Daniel,

Don't worry about Scott Adams. He has already half admitted to write all of it as a satire and because he enjoys getting people all riled up about it.

-- Arik

Re: The Ultimate Response to “Do You Accept Jesus as Your Personal Savior?”

Arik — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:52:29 -0000

You said "People should not be able to harass you about their pet delusions without facing real responses".

Perhaps that's the point you need to explore - how come another person stating a belief has the power to harass you.

Usually people who state their belief don't harass me (unless their belief includes me not being alive or such AND they are going to act on it). It won't bother me because I don't let it bother me.

-- Arik

Re: Atheistic Societies Are Happy Societies

Arik — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:45:44 -0000

Hi Daniel,

Always remember the important rule: There are lies, there are damn lies, and there's statistics.

You are most likely looking at two factors that have a high correlation. Let me let you in on a few others:

The chance of reaching age 60 vs. abortions http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/hea_pro_of_not...

Broadband subscribers per capita and phone subscribers
http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/int_bro_acc_pe...

Look at that last one - The number of phone subscribers didn't cause broadband availability - there's a factor that happened to affect both.

-- Arik

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Arik — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:49:04 -0000

Finally!

You have moved one step closer to belief. Congratulations. Welcome.

Next step: Science AS IT IS PERCEIVED BY MOST OF THE NON SCIENTISTS is based on belief too. You can only disprove a hypothesis, cannot prove it. If someone says that science 'proves' something, they only mean that it is proven if some assumptions are true, and those assumptions were not disproven in so many centuries. If you BELIEVE that not disproving an assumption for a millennium is the same as proving it, then you BELIEVE the resulting proof, and this is it.

So this empiric evidence that supports evolution is not proof. It is just more of the same 'It looks more difficult to disprove if this evidence is here'. The sheer amount of evidence strengthens a hypothesis, but that perceived strength is just that - perceived. To Rick, the bible is more proof than a thousand fossils and a billion DNA tests. Did I say subjective in this comment yet? Yep, I just did.

I hope that you like me will get to the conclusion that you have to either shun all belief and be at an unstable point where everything that can cause you to change your mind will, or accept that what you feel strongly is true is in fact a belief.

-- Arik

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Arik — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:19:58 -0000

@elpres

"For a rational human, that’s proof enough"

There it is. This sentence encapsulates your belief in the ability to derive a proof based on an experiment, where in fact it is possible that you experiment with gravity again and get a different result. You can drop the apple on your head 999 times and you still cannot prove that it will fall on your head for the 1000th.

But, as you said, "a rational human" would create a hypothesis, and claim that the hypothesis has proven to be right, when in fact it is only shown to be right 999 times. This is all you know and all you can claim as absolute truth. Which is also a fallacy because the only thing holding that truth is your memory which is fallible.

I'm sorry if it disappoints you, but you are, still, a believer.

One more point: You claim that 'They grew up and kept hearing “god this” and “god that”, and sooner or later they just take it for granted'. This is not the only way to come onto religion - what about people who come onto a specific religion later on in life, or, like me, switched religions? I switched from moderate Jewish deism to a much less mild Atheism. I did not hear about Atheism as a child, it's a choice I made when I was late in my teens. It's a pretty difficult belief system to come to terms with, and it was by choice, after experiencing Agnosticism for a while and not liking it one bit.

Take care,

-- Arik

Re: Oh My God This is Scary.

Arik — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:56:39 -0000

Hahaha!

That's so cute!

Just show you how kids would believe anything and do anything.

-- Arik

Re: Oh My God This is Scary.

Arik — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:57:17 -0000

Oh yeah,

I certainly believed what I was told as a kid. With all my heart. The questions came later.

-- Arik

Re: The Frickin’ Balls on Israel

Arik — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:05:05 -0000

I thought I'd say something, but then I thought better of it: What's the use, it's not like you'll listen.

It's not as if you actually do the research, or write things like: I didn't do the research, and this looks strange to me. What do you think?

It looks like you just write in the spur of the moment, spewing whatever undigested idea you had onto your blog. Why should I invest in writing a long coherent argument if the next time you'd just do it again? I give up.

-- Arik

Re: The Frickin’ Balls on Israel

Arik — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:25:31 -0000

@Zhasper,

It's not the undigested opinions that matter to me; it's Daniel's constant attempts at using them to elicit responses from people. That's emotional manipulation. It's not - "here is what I think, what do you think?" - it's "this is the way it is, so there, in your face". Daniel has admitted in the past to using these tactics to elicit responses, and I just don't think it's fair.

Reading this post I was going in my mind - who does this guy think he is, an impromptu expert on international relations? - and then it dawned on me that this is yet another attempt at manipulation, so I abandoned my attempts at phrasing a proper response, and responded like I did. I then proceeded to unsubscribe from the RSS feed.

I only came back now because I got an email from Daniel, to the email address I left in my comment, saying he responded.

@Daniel,

I'm sorry but I will not relate to the contents of your message, joke or no joke. I have told you in the past that I dislike the way you elicit responses from people, but I kept playing the game. This time I think you overdid it, for me.

As an Israeli, it kinda caught my eye having a huge Israeli flag in my blogroll. Then I read your post, and I got angry there for a few seconds. Yes, you hit a nerve in a subject I am emotional about. It's not the first time.

But I have put a stop to it, and unsubscribed from your feed. NOT because you're either pro or anti Israel or whatever. Hey, I can hold my own in a discussion about subjects I'm passionate about. It's because you're using (maybe unwittingly but I don't think so) the emotions of people reading your blog to elicit a response; and I had had enough of that.

Regarding the joke issue - I don't care that it was a joke. I don't care if you like or dislike Israel, I don't care if you have Israeli friends or if you like the war stories or appreciate the Mossad. Joke or not, your way of having an argument is not to my liking; So, I can either cope or disengage. Is staying subscribed valuable enough for me to cope? I don't think so.

I wasn't going to persist in persuading you to do otherwise, because my previous attempts have failed. I was going to just silently disappear. This very comment was caused only by your email. contemplated writing all that in a private message, but since the content of your email was simply "I responded to your comment" - I assumed you want to take it out in this public forum.

Take care,

-- Arik

Re: No, It’s For Real: Aspartame Causes Cancer

Arik — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:27:08 -0000

Unfortunately, with these kind of questions there'll never be a conclusive study.

The artificial sweeteners are a very high profit industry. As such, a lot of money goes to make sure that a company's products are sold. As a layman you have no idea which of the scientific studies were constructed to fit Ajinomoto's idea of truth, Tate & Lyle's or any of the other incumbents.

Think of any controversy which is highly profitable to at lest one side, and you'll discover scientific papers "proving" either side. Tobacco, cellphone use, greenhouse gasses. When money is involved, it's difficult to find an objective opinion just by reading the media. Not unless you're personally involved.

-- Arik

Re: I’m With Ann Coulter on This One

Arik — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:01:44 -0000

I wonder why you even care.

-- Arik

Re: The Best Argument I’ve Ever Heard For Why Someone Believes in God

Arik — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:02:14 -0000

There is no possible next step.

That person has expanded their list of things they accept based on faith (call them axioms or however you make axiom plural) to include their personal subjective experience. From thereon anything you say can be reduced to:

<ol>
<li>Your statement is a scientific hypothesis</li>
<li>If your statement is true, then this (deduced) list of statements is true</li>
<li>One of those statements contradicts my subjective experience</li>
<li>My subjective experience is true, because it's an axiom.</li>
<li>Ergo by negative example your statement is false</li>
</ol>

I'll show you what I mean:

<ol>
<li>A person cannot walk on water because he is heavier than water. Hmm... Let's see.</li>
<li>If a person cannot walk on water, and Jesus was a person, then that means Jesus did not walk on water. Then the description of Jesus walking on water is wrong, hence the New Testament is wrong.</li>
<li>My subjective experience is that the New Testament is true, and you're claiming that the new testament is false.</li>
<li>Based on the axiom that the new statement is true, the deduced statement that the New Testament is wrong is itself wrong.</li>
<li>Ergo by negative example your hypothesis is wrong</li>
</ol>

2 points if you can detect the steps I've skipped in the proof. I hope you can see how that argument and any argument like it will be pointless.

-- Arik

Re: I’m With Ann Coulter on This One

Arik — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:10:23 -0000

@Daniel

So what? Do YOU come from the standpoint of Christianity?

If you accept the "right" statements as true, you can have any standpoint you want. People arguing are explaining their own inner, subjective, truth. Does it matter?

I thought you can at least see that both sides are true; in their own way.

@DavidG

FYI there is a concept of heaven and hell in Judaism, and it is actively used to intimidate people into becoming more religious. Jews are interested in the afterlife, and it is definitely a driving force.

The difference is that Judaism isn't trying to convert non-Jews. But if you were born in the Jewish NATION, i.e. of Jewish lineage, you're considered as a member of the Jewish religion by Jews, regardless of what you choose to believe, and they will try with all their might to "convert" you to more orthodox Judaism. Oh boy will they ever. Very annoying.

-- Arik

Re: Read This if You Believe in Man-Made Global Warming

Arik — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:42:19 -0000

Hi Daniel,

I was about to write something about jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence, and it wasn't going to be as scathing as exabyte's, but I'll let this one go now.

Personally, I don't believe in the human impact on global warming. It is a matter of belief, as I'm not an expert in the subject. I just heard a few things here and there and developed a theory of my own.

But darn it, I don't mind if the rest of the world believe in it. Even if it has zero impact in real life. Because the sooner people stop using fossil fuels, the better we are.

To me, every time I put gas in my car, I'm contributing to OPEC, and every time I'm contributing to OPEC I'm helping fund terrorists. If fossils fuels fall into disuse, the price per barrel drops to $2.5 and its use is mostly in the polymer industry, most of the funding for terrorism stops. I value that more than stopping the CO2 emissions, which I believe are insignificant anyway.

So stop global warming now! Reduce the carbon footprint! Yay Al Gore!

Me? An agenda?

-- Arik

(note: If you didn't get it, it's a metaphor)

Re: The Expectation Lens

Arik — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:26:39 -0000

What about the movies that you expect to be good and are in fact good? I'm pretty sure there are a few of those around.

-- Arik

Re: Was the Last Time Your Last?

Arik — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:04:12 -0000

Never say never.

One day you may have kids.

-- Arik

Re: iPhone Source Addresses

Arik — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:05:06 -0000

Well.

It's not really selective access if you give it to so many ranges. Specifically to a highly hackable platform, that can run generic software. Either open your service to everyone or to no one.

Or tunnel the services through something, say SSH. Or use some port knocking thing.

Re: Eating Beef Jerky in the Dark

Arik — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:49:41 -0000

Must have been some drive

-- Arik

Re: Performing a “Cold-Boot” Proof of Concept Without Princeton’s Bit-Unlocker

Arik — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:02:24 -0000

You don't actually have to shut it down.

You can take a laptop that you, presumably, got illegally in sleep mode, cool its memory chip as it's sleeping; then pop it off its holder and into a new computer with the software.

-- Arik

Re: I Honestly Don’t See Any Way For the U.S. to Succeed

Arik — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:49:21 -0000

Daniel,

You simply have to see the movie "Idiocracy" by Mike Judge.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

-- Arik

Re: Lifecasting: What It Is and How It Will Change Society

Arik — Mon, 12 May 2008 03:20:11 -0000

Basically the playing field changes from having advantage by controlling information to having advantage by knowing what information is important and what isn't.

I suggest you read "Snowcrash" by Neal Stephenson, where the "hero" turns himself into what's called in the book a "gargoyle". Won't spoil it for you by telling you what it is.

-- Arik

Re: Are These Guys Really That Dangerous?

Arik — Fri, 30 May 2008 03:45:34 -0000

Well, if you're interested the conversation in Arabic, when it's not "ouch that hurts" is along the lines of "Did you shoot the Jew?"

You can see that their posture is all wrong, they lean away from the gun instead of into the gun. The guy at the end does it almost perfect.

-- Arik

Re: Ah, So This is How They Do It…

Arik — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:14:23 -0000

Well, I'll be the last to condemn a person's belief (unless it says they should hurt me), but this is praying on the weak. Connects very nicely with the stories about US soldiers in Iraq handing out silver coins with quotes from the scriptures... In Arabic...

Thanks for the link.

-- Arik

Re: Oh, Hai

Arik — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:48:49 -0000

Those pesky world-wide deployed DNS servers. So flaky.

-- Arik

Re: Flat Tire Evangelists

Arik — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:04:05 -0000

Nice!

I had the opposite thing happen to me the other day.

I stopped to buy something to chew on for a drive in San Mateo in a gas station. The attendant asked me where my accent was from, I said Israel, so he asked me if I was a Jew.

I usually don't say that to people in the US, because of the high rate of believers, but I figured my contact with this guy was very brief so I answered Atheist.

His eyes widened and he asked some of the usual questions (so what happens when you die etc). Then in comes a guy who's wet from the rain asking for jumper cables. The attendant had some in the shop in the back but he said he can't open it at night because he's the only one there.

Although I didn't have any on me, I offered to help him out. I drove him around to find cables, and eventually we found some guy who was willing to lend us the cables, I drove him to his car, we jump-started his car with mine. I gave him my business card and he promised to keep in touch. I refused the money he offered.

As I drove back to the gas station to get my candy (I finished the previous one and shared it with the other guy), the attendant was very surprised that me out of all people helped that guy. I said, "you'll probably say I was sent by god to help him" and he was again surprised I guessed what was on his mind.

Then a few days later I get the following mail, to my work address:

-- start quote --
Subject: A Question About the life?

Hi Arik

I hope you don't mind the direct contact.
i have a question which always becomes nightmare for me is it true that one day i will not be alive?
if it's true then why we are crazy to collect those things which will not go with us Please suggest me or will you forward this note along, or suggest to me who the best person is to know this?

Thank you so much!

[name removed]
[address removed]
Santa Clara
CA 95054 USA

-- end quote --

I don't really remember the guy's name, so I don't know for certain that it was him, but the timing works out. I don't usually get personal messages from people I don't know.

Weird.

-- Arik

Re: 25 Questions to Ask During an Information Security Interview

Arik — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:30:15 -0000

A network analysis D&D? Ouch.

Nice list, Daniel. I think you should float all the easy questions to the top, so that you can vet the incompetent early in the process.

What I like to ask a candidate is "what are you best at? what do people come to you about when they need help?" and then drill down into the bits and bytes on that topic. That shows me if they take what they do seriously enough to have an in-depth understanding of it. Also, at some point in time my questions inevitably exceed their knowledge (I might ask about things I don't know about...) and then I expect them to tell me they don't know and will find out. If they try to BS me... NEXT!

Also as mentioned I like to ask about the bigger picture, what does it all mean from an organizational point of view.

-- Arik

Re: Data Loss Database

Arik — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:18:26 -0000

They have an RSS feed. Knowing what I do you can probably guess I have been reading it with great interest.

-- Arik

Re: Subtlety –

Arik — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:32:41 -0000

Unfortunately what ozzy is saying reflects the opinions of a lot of ignorant religious people about Atheism.

Like ozzy, they have been fed lies and fear about Atheists, and all they know is to spew it verbatim ignoring all evidence to the contrary. And there's plenty.

Ozzy, Atheists do have moral values. In fact, Atheists' moral values are not affected by what some Ka'di or some Rabbi or some Pope says, so in a sense, they are stronger and more resistant to corruption.

But that's not going to help you, Ozzy. You're not seriously going to study the moral life of countless people who helped humanity and are Atheists. You are going to sit there reading this comment and gloat at the "Atheist infidel" that's writing it and feel all warm and superior and fuzzy inside; and that's okay with me.

Just as long as you don't follow some crazy idea and try to hurt me or my way of life - you can say and write whatever you want.

-- Arik

Re: “אל תצטטו אותנו” – הטיפשות של AP

Arik — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:41:15 -0000

בעיה שתפתור את עצמה...

AP ייכנעו מהר מאד או שיכחדו כשאר הדינוזאורים. הכלכלה לא סולחת (אבל לפעמים שוכחת).

-- אריק

Re: כך נאבדתי בנבכי ה-MX של ה-DNS

Arik — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:22:35 -0000

אוף

אתם מבלבלים, מתבלבלים וכדומה.

הנה ההסבר המלא:

על מנת להחזיק אתר ולקבל שירות דוא"ל אתה צריך שירות ממספר גורמים:

1. רשם שם המתחם. במקרה הזה, ISOC. לא הרשם האידיאלי לשמות מתחם ישראלים, אבל מכיוון שלדומיין שלך יש עוד מעל שנה לפוג אני מניח שתישאר איתם למשך השנה הזו. אחרי השנה אני ממליץ לעבור לאחד מהאחרים - רשימה מלאה באתר של ISOC. הרישום ב-ISOC כולל הפנייה לספק שירות ה-DNS שלך.

2. ספק שירות ה-DNS - לפי בדיקה במתחם שלך הוא GoDaddy. כאן יש לך שתי אפשרויות:

א. להישאר עם GoDaddy - במקרה זה עליך להוסיף או לשנות את רישום ה-MX בשרת ה-DNS שלהם באמצעות התפריט שלהם
ב. לעבור לספק אחר, בחינם או בתשלום ולהגדיר את הגדרות ה-MX שם. זה דורש שינוי ההפניה ב-ISOC לספק ה-DNS האחר.

אני חושב שכל עוד אתה מאחסן את האתר שלך אצלם הם נותנים לך לאחסן את ה-DNS בחינם, ולפי שיטת נותנים-תיקח אני ממליץ לך לבחור באופציה א. מה גם שזה לא יצריך שינוי ב-ISOC שדורש פקס, דגימת DNA, חתימה נוטריונית וזיהוי רשתית.

ספק ה-DNS מכיל הפניה שנקראת "MX Record" שקובעת מי ספק הדוא"ל שלך.

3. ספק הדוא"ל. כיום הגדרות ה-MX שלך הן:

holesinthenet.co.il MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = mailstore1.secureserver.net
holesinthenet.co.il MX preference = 0, mail exchanger = smtp.secureserver.net

כלומר ספק הדוא"ל שלך הוא GoDaddy.

על מנת לעבור לספק דוא"ל אחר, בהנחה שאתה נשאר עם GoDaddy כספק ה-DNS, אתה צריך לשנות את ההפניה הזו. אינני מכיר את מנשק המשתמש של GoDaddy מספיק על מנת שאוכל להגיד לך איך, אבל החבר"ה בגוגל עזרו לך כאן:

http://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?h...

אז תעקוב אחרי ההוראות ובהצלחה. קח בחשבון שיקח זמן עד שהדוא"ל יתחיל לזרום. כמה זמן? אם תעקוב אחרי ההוראות בגוגל, בין שעה לשעתיים (זמן פקיעת תוקף הגדרות ה-DNS שלך עומד כיום על שעה, תוסיף לזה הזמן שלוקח ל-GoDaddy לעדכן את השרת).

אתה מוזמן לפנות אלי בדוא"ל להבהרות נוספות.

-- אריק

Re: כך נאבדתי בנבכי ה-MX של ה-DNS

Arik — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:42:00 -0000

@הרב השובב

אתה צודק. אם גל יעביר את שם המתחם הוא לא יצטרך לשלם עבור העברתו ותוקפו יישאר התוקף המקורי. שכחתי לציין.

אבל, מכיוון ששם המתחם בתוקף לפחות לשנה, הפעולה אינה מחויבת המציאות על מנת לפתור את בעיית הדוא"ל - שכפי שהבנתי היא בעיה דחופה הרבה יותר.

אינני יכול להמליץ על livedns למרות שאני משתמש בהם, פשוט מכיוון שלא ניסיתי את המתחרים (הרשימה המלאה: http://www.isoc.org.il/domain_heb/accredited_re... ). כשהייתי צריך לבחור רשם חליפי ל-ISOC, הקריטריונים שלי היו:

1. שיעבוד ב-firefox
2. שיהיה מנשק משתמש הכי פחות מצועצע ועם הכי פחות אנימצית flash - אבל שלא יגעיל אותי עם ממשק מהמילניום הקודם
3. שהמחיר יהיה נמוך

באותה תקופה livedns עמדו בקריטריונים בהצלחה ולכן בחרתי בהם. אני אפילו לא בטוח שאף אחד מהאחרים לא עמד בקריטריונים, אני לא זוכר אם בדקתי את כולם.

-- אריק

Disqus - Latest Comments for Arik

Re: An Unpopular Thought on Homosexuality

Re: The all new Skype 4

Re: A Video About Atheists

Re: A Video About Atheists

Re: The Atheist’s Prayer

Re: The Atheist’s Prayer

Re: Proof There Is A God

Re: More On Incentives

Re: Hanlon’s Razor

Re: The Worst Anti-Spam Technique Ever: “Bouncing” Spam Messages

Re: I Just Watched “An Inconvenient Truth”, You Should Too

Re: We Are Engaged

Re: Benny Hinn: Let The Bodies Hit The Floor

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Re: The Myers-Briggs Personality Test

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Re: How To Save The World: Step One

Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Materialism

Re: 10 Questions To Ask During An Information Security Interview

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: Atheism: An Audio Presentation by Sam Harris

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: Security: Implementing A Secure And Usable Internet Password Scheme

Re: Security: How Network Ports Work

Re: A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: Fun With Numbers

Re: Religion: Muslim Father Wants Atheist Son Killed

Re: Religion: Muslim Father Wants Atheist Son Killed

Re: Disproving Stupid Things

Re: Female American Soldiers Being Raped In Iraq (By Male American Soldiers)

Re: Disproving Stupid Things

Re: Disproving Stupid Things

Re: The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is *NOT* A Belief

Re: The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is *NOT* A Belief

Re: Why Atheism Isn’t A Belief

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Re: IQ Is Real, And It Matters

Re: IQ Is Real, And It Matters

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Re: IQ Is Real, And It Matters

Re: Atheism and the Substitution Phenomenon

Re: Why Atheists Should Consider Discussing Religion With Their Moderately Religious Friends

Re: Why Atheists Should Consider Discussing Religion With Their Moderately Religious Friends

Re: Why Atheists Should Consider Discussing Religion With Their Moderately Religious Friends

Re: The Best Way To Create Terrorists

Re: How To Create The Hatred That Leads To Racism

Re: The iPhone Will Dominate, But Not Because Of Features/Functionality

Re: Judging Risk Based On Genetic Testing

Re: IM: Gtalk –> AIM

Re: An Alternative View of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: An Alternative View of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Re: iPhone Nmap Results

Re: The Atheist’s Dilemma: Logical Conclusions to the Lack of Free Will

Re: The Atheist’s Dilemma: Logical Conclusions to the Lack of Free Will

Re: Why Scott Adams is Wrong about Atheism

Re: The *Ultimate* Response to “Do You Accept Jesus as Your Personal Savior?”

Re: Atheistic Societies Are Happy Societies

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: Oh My God This is Scary.

Re: Oh My God This is Scary.

Re: The Frickin’ Balls on Israel

Re: The Frickin’ Balls on Israel

Re: No, It’s For Real: Aspartame Causes Cancer

Re: I’m With Ann Coulter on This One

Re: The Best Argument I’ve Ever Heard For Why Someone Believes in God

Re: I’m With Ann Coulter on This One

Re: Read This if You Believe in Man-Made Global Warming

Re: The Expectation Lens

Re: Was the Last Time Your Last?

Re: iPhone Source Addresses

Re: The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is NOT A Belief

Re: The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is NOT A Belief

Re: The Ultimate Response to “Do You Accept Jesus as Your Personal Savior?”

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?