Engineering student here. Put most engineers in a room and you'll hear us slamming each other's education and ideas all the time. Heck, hang out long enough and you'll hear us admit our own stupidity equally often. The difference is that we have to be able to accept a valid counterposition without taking it personally. We deal with the physical world. If we're wrong, the bridge falls down, the building collapses, or some poor schmuck gets electrocuted. We understand that not everyone has either the inclination or the ability to grind through a rigorous STEM curriculum. Our disdain is reserved for those who refuse to admit they are wrong, refuse to learn from mistakes, and who are absurdly proud of their cultivated ignorance. What would I think about someone who considered me a dumbfuck? Happens all the time.....I'll listen to their position, define my own position, test their reasoning (this is what most laymen consider arrogance), and if their logic holds up, will say "Yep, you're right, I"m a dumbfuck". Of course, having admitted this and learned from the experience, I will no longer be a dumbfuck. Unfortunately too many people would rather feel good than say "I am wrong." I sincerely hope I never have to drive across a bridge designed by someone who can't admit to and correct a flaw because it makes them feel inferior.

Food for thought: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
  Isaac Asimov

Your "calm, rational counter-argument" might be more widely read if you'd post under a registered ID. That said, I'm replying in the hopes that your post elicits a response. I agree that software patents should be invalid on the grounds that 1) algorithms are mathematical constructs, and 2) source code is already protected by copyright. While the patent system in general may have other flaws, these are two that meet the OP's request of applying specifically to software.

According to my fellow math geeks, the 'i' indicates that they are not REAL devices. :)

I'm confused. You say that net neutrality legislation is likely to make actions like the blocking of TPB happen, and yet it HAS happened in the current non-regulated environment. If that's true, it makes more sense to advocate for net neutrality which only has a possibility of promoting such events rather than advocating the status quo in which such events are guaranteed (have actually occurred). Of course there is the third option - that you have a brilliant alternative to net neutrality that will solve this dilemma, in which case please present your solution for peer review.

Words are important. To convey, communicate, and represent an idea accurately is a difficult skill. But words do not do damage. As you say above, words are "how we transmit facts and opinions". Communication, however involves more than simple broadcasting. Communication requires that the message be both received, and understood. To blame the protocol by which the message is sent for "causing damage" is illogical (both in theory and face ? ). Discomfort does not necessarily indicate damage. Responsibility resides with all parties. The teacher's choice of words, if not her actual meaning, are ill-suited to the audience (whether intended or no) that read, and (mis)interpreted them. The audience bears responsibility for attempting to reconcile context, intended audience, and personal empathy in understanding the words on the blog. Two participants in a conversation each blaming the other for "bad words" reflects poorly on the communicators, not the terminology.

Forgive me, but I fail to see how a few quotes that reference the word "God" or illustrate a belief in the potential of a "Creator" makes the authors of these quotes "Christian". Even regular church attendance in an era where a church was simultaneously a house of worship and a community gathering place does not justify the label. Show me their writings in defense of religion and religion alone. Show me private documents (not those written for a public, and often Christian audience). Show me references to Jesus, Apostles, and core tenets of Christianity. Tell me what denomination each followed (I continue to marvel at how each denomination/sect is "wrong" until a "Christian majority" is needed). I use both "God" and "Creator" in discourse when it eases communication to my audience. This makes me neither deist, or Christian - merely cognizant of constructs that are widely recognized. The ultimate irony to me is, even should this "rewriting" of history succeed....simply look back at the Roman empire to witness what a devout populace integration of church and state engenders.

I thought you might...but this being slashdot, it never hurts to go a little overboard in an arguement. Besides, we might get a nibble from someone who thinks they can prove a religious "TRUTH" logically exists (good luck, I can't think of any way to do it without defining the religious truth in relation to physical/temporal truth) which may make for an entertaining read!

Yours is a very interesting post, and while I completely agree with the sentiment (and your logic), this being slashdot I've decided to throw in my own two cents.

If I summarize your chain of reasoning correctly, you argue that IF ("anybody who dismisses another's ideas and/or beliefs, regardless of their rationale for doing so, is guilty of succumbing to their own biases" is PRESUMED TRUE), THEN ("it's all relative, there is no such thing as truth").

However, you neglected to define "truth". Both you, and the OP can be "correct" if "TRUTH" is a variable indicating the frame of reference of the person. You obviously intend this reference point to be the physical, quantifiable system with which we interact via the senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. It is possible, however, for the contrary position to define "TRUTH" to be an arbitrary (even imaginary) spriritual reference, in which case your chain of logic does not necessarily refute the OP. I believe this is the core argument of many theologists (the "temporal" world is temporary and dependent upon the theologically-accepted definition of "TRUTH". In this case, all viewpoints are both equally valid and invalid as all viewpoints are completely arbitrary (defining Validity as a function of "TRUTH").

The underlying premise of your refutation, is therefore NOT that the OP defined relative bias incorrectly, but rather that he used a reference point that you did not recognize. Instead, you should argue that the only value of "TRUTH" that is universally understood (i.e. "proven" - a value exists for:)d is that of the physical senses in the temporal world. Other values of "TRUTH" may or may not exist, and as such cannot be used to derive Validity without first having 'proven' their existence.

Taken from ahref=http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarweapons.htmrel=url2html-3234http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarweapons.htm>. I'd dig up more references but it's late and I'm lazy. You are correct that (especially in the south) weapon issue was uncommon, but most "home" weapons were rifled - even if muzzle loading (muskets are useless for hunting which is what many of these home weapons were used for in peacetime). Rifled barrel == rifle with all the accuracy increases that warranted the aforementioned change in tactics.

You're off by a war. What you say is true of the War for Independence, or even the 1812 war, but by the 1860s (civil war) troops were primarily issued RIFLES, not MUSKETS. The tactics you speak of are true for muskets and reached their peak during the Napoleonic wars. During the civil war, use of these same tactics resulted in far higher casualty rates (Antietam, Fredricksburg, Gettysburg day 3). In the civil war, the most successful generals were pioneers in the tactics that would only become accepted as doctrine during WW1 (Longstreet and Jackson being prime examples). While trench warfare was proven effective, it was widely ridiculed (R.E. Lee "King of Spades") in favor of the outdated musketry tactics a "gentleman" would employ. Rifles made musketry tactics obsolete in the 1860s, but it took machine guns in the 1910s to finally force the brass and politicoes to accept that fact.

You're right. A much better response would be to stir up a holiday panic over the failed antics of a none-too-bright criminal. Oh wait...I mean a highly skilled international assassin who "almost" singlehandedly destroyed mom, baseball, and apple pie... Yep, I agree....there's a gang of "bad guys" who tried to kill us 9 years ago, who suddenly want to kill us "more" since we've swapped out Prez Tweedledee for Prez Tweedledum, and who are simultaneously smart enough to whip up a bio weapon in their kitchen while managing to be dumb enough to be detained in an airport security line for making a joke or buying a one-way ticket. Then, as now, we should lay the blame for the existence of these bad guys, the existence of all evil, and the poor self esteem we picked up in high school on one guy who's held office for a year rather than the several hundred who've held office for 50.... Now stop making rational arguments while I go back to living in Fear (of them, of us, it doesn't matter as long as I'm scared....except for driving on busted up roads in a 4 year old car on my way to the nearest gun range to film a jackass-style stunt to post on myspace to impress this guy who follows my twitter feed who finally wants to meet.......that doesn't scare me at all).

You are correct sir, in that the concepts I attribute to Aristotle are not specifically stated in such concise form in Politics. However I ask that you reread your linked text with an eye toward the bigger picture. With a great deal more complexity (as befits a thinker of his reputation), he discusses the realities of each genre of government: rule by a man, rule by a group, rule by all. As he considers the complexities of each genre, he begins to blur their boundaries. One of the most literal transitions can be seen in the transition between sections 13 and 14 where he discusses the ostracism of Heracles (an iconic aristocrat - "better" person). Discussing the decisions of the mob (e.g. the crew of the Argos - the 'democracy' currently in power), Aristotle asks

With that, begins the discussion of Royalty/Monarchy. Other such transitions are evident in his analysis, however I leave it to you to find them. I am hardly the first reader of Politics to see this cycle within his arguments although I do applaud your familiarity with the text. While not literal, the discussion of the political cycle is a common interpretation of this work, enough so to be introduced as such in many Political Science courses.

True enough. Although who's to say he didn't mention this to Alexander. It certainly would be a leap to presume that Alexander would have done things differently had he known his actions could collapse democracy. You can lead a horse to water.....

Happy mediums can exist in many places within the cycle. The problem is that the conditions under which the form of government becomes stable naturally erode over time. All governments fail eventually, the best we can hope for is to increase the MTBFR.