WingNews logo WingNews GitHub [2]

agrinshtein's comments

agrinshtein | 17 years ago | on: Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating

Ask yourself this question. When someone starts spreading slanderous lies about you, whoever you are, which threaten your family and your business are you going to resort to the statement that "free speech is free speech."

Anyone with a basic knowledge of how the Holocaust started would be surprised how easy it was to rile up the mobs of people against a segment of people in their society.

Speech is powerful. Things start in the mind, move towards speech, and come to final expression in action. It is no surprise that Ahmadinjehad is one of those who actively denies the Holocaust happening and openly intends to wipe the Jewish state of Israel off of the face of the map. Speech >> Action.

agrinshtein | 17 years ago | on: Please tell us what features you'd like in news.ycombinator

I get so engrossed in this site and it is turning out to be a major time waster. There are a lot of interesting articles but I really need to more productive and reading HN isn't helping with that.

Perhaps a solution.

I would like to have the option of reading the highest rated article of the day. Just one article on the page. The 'active' page has a lot of articles. I just want one article. Period.

What do you think about that idea?

agrinshtein | 17 years ago | on: Quantum arguments for God

Just to put a little twist on this discussion.

I never understood alternate theories of how the world came into being. I never understood the theory of Evolution, nor the Big Bang Theory. My logic has always led me to conclude that there must be a G-d.

Disclaimer: What I have to say is so simple, that due to its simplicity people may tend to discredit it. As a group of Hackers though, I figure you will appreciate the simplicity. Realize that this topic is much simpler than Philosophers/Scientists like to make it. (If things were so simple philosophers would be out of a profession:-))

Disclaimer #2: These types of discussions are usually a waste of time because for some reason people have emotional attachments to either side. I figure that this is a group of intellectuals who may be able to divorce their emotional attachments from this discussion and talk about basic logic and sensibility.

There is a basic logical axiom that everything we understand, everything that we can quantify, everything we can touch with the fingers of our hands or the 'fingers' of our minds must come from somewhere. Everyone agrees that the table that their computer is sitting on was put there by someone, was built by someone, or manufactured by something. Anything definable must have a source. Your table. Your computer. Your actions. Your feelings. Your thoughts. A tiny atom.

Based on this axiom we ask ourselves the age old question, "What is the source of this world?" Generations have grappled with this question. People ponder this question. Solutions are offered. Evolution. The Big Bang Theory. So on and so forth.

I don't understand them.

Evolution. We evolved from something. Go back to the first thing. Whether it was an atom or a quark or anything else. Can you define it? If it is, than you still have the question, "How did that get there?!" Remember, anything definable falls under the axiom of needing a source. Where did that first thing come from?

Big Bang. Same question. Where did all of the matter that came together to create the 'big bang' come from? There was matter? How did it get there?

So we track back. We have a world. How did it get here? There must have been 'something', alright, we don't know what that something was but it was something. So where did that 'something' come from? Alright, so 'something' created that 'something' which created the world. Alright, well what created THAT 'something', you get the drift.

However, here is the catch. You already don't know what that something is. You can't define that something. So now who says that 'something' is bound by the axiom of having to have had a source. Once you are dealing with a dimension beyond your comprehension you are no longer able to ascribe rules that applied in a dimension that you did comprehend! Rules that applied here, can not be applied there.

G-d is that something. G-d created the world. 'Something' created the world.

What is G-d? The moment I give any sort of definition I have left what S/He is. G-d isn't anything. G-d is everything and nothing - at the same time. You ask how that works? You can't ask that. You have just committed the same mistake that you were trying to avoid. Applying a set of logic to a dimension you have no conception of whatsoever. The question of where does G-d come from doesn't apply. The question of how can I say G-d is nothing and everything at the same time doesn't apply.

This is just a tip of the iceberg. There is more to say but for the sake of this discussion I think that this is sufficient.

(What I mean when I say that this is just the tip of the iceberg...in Judaism there is a very large study that discusses the inner workings of creation and it is a fascinating study. For example, Dan Benjamin - Hivelogic - recently put up a post about meditation. I found it interesting. In Chassidut/Kabbalah one of the faculties of the soul are the "Ruach" which literally means breath in Hebrew. It is one of the more external aspects of the soul. These concepts of breath and tuning into a deeper part of your psyche/soul than the standard drone of day to day life allow are basic basic concepts in Chassidic/Kabbalistic thought)

agrinshtein | 17 years ago | on: Spolsky: Why Circuit City Failed, and Why B&H Thrives

Agreed. People are still human even though that they may try to follow a principled life.

Think about yourself. You have certain principles which in moments of weakness are violated.

I, in principle, go to sleep early. Here I am posting at 10:17PM (South African time) on Hacker News. Principle violated. People are only human.

agrinshtein | 17 years ago | on: YC Terms are Poor

I like the provocation! You have gotten people thinking.

Personally, from the writings and essays of Paul Graham I don't think his goal is to make money. He is a visionary with the intent of creating more value in the world for people. He, as an individual could go and do his own thing for the rest of his life and not bother with this. Hawaii here we come. However, as people look for purpose and meaning in life, when one looks back and sees that they were an integral part in creating a great deal of 'wealth' (the way he defines it)for the world that is very rewarding.

Their terms ...

Just as it is integral for them to give of their expertise and experience so too it is of equal and perhaps greater importance to be able to curb their giving. This empowers founders to dig deep within their own reservoirs of strength and character and develop their company with minimal resources, i.e. money.

Just as a parent wants to give it is perhaps more important for him not to. It is important to discipline.

agrinshtein | 17 years ago | on: Things I’d Tell My 21 Year Old Entrepreneurial Self

Ditto. There is bountiful opportunity in the world for those who just open their eyes.

In the words of a sage, "Time is short, work is great, workers are lazy, the reward is great and the master is pressing." In the world there is a high demand and low supply of making this world we live in a better, more productive place. Those that help that get done will reap its rewards.

Good Luck. Open your eyes.

page 1
more