Slashdot Mirror

You're trolling, right? Because what you said is textbook stupid, an example that sounds contrived because it too perfectly illustrates the links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/N...

Is nitrogen used because it is cheaper than oxygen?

This is not exactly a joke, at least not directly. It is a reference to a blogger called The Food Babe who has offered up some laughable ideas - in this case opining on the health effects of airline travel. She famously complains that : "The air you are breathing on an airplane is recycled from directly outside of your window. That means you are breathing everything that the airplanes gives off and is flying through it’s mixed with nitrogen, sometimes almost at 50%"

For those who don't get the laugh-out-loud moment, it isn't the bit about how the cabin pressurization works, or even the bit about mixing the air with nitrogen.... yes, those are crazy goofy, but if you still are in the dark, give a quick google for the percentage of nitrogen in the atmosphere around you.

key point: "proven to be correct".

Galileo won because he was correct, not because he was persecuted by the establishment.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.

No, it doesn't. The mainstream predictions are actually doing ok. The simple fact is that you do not understand climate science and thus you assume the experts know nothing about it either.

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

At a certain point, I simply don't care if it's malice or incompetence.

Because once you're so massively incompetent .. it really doesn't matter.

If they won't fix their incompetence, then treat them as if they're malicious. The results are the same -- they are not trustworthy. Not even a little.

"For months the message among Slashdot commenters was that he's strong-arming the distros into accepting systemd." - and you accepted what you read in posts as true? you need to visit http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/T...

http://www.vaccinationcouncil....

Your herd mentality will not protect you. You subscribe to buying immunity and forcing your will on others because you are scared. Using fear to motivate someone is called terrorism. "Buy our products and never ever get sick...er...unless your neighbors don't buy it in which case flog them in the public square! While they are tied up we can together force them to buy it! We at VaxCorp care about your immunity and not about anything else. Oh, and you can't sue us for damage caused by our products"

I'll just leave this here for you. How people can maintain a medical license while spewing such nonsense is beyond me.

To follow up this post: Link

He was specifically referring to the building itself with "Isn't the airspace around the capitol restricted?" so your post is not even wrong.

I'll be signing off now.

Uh-huh.

No, you'll be back to seek more validation for your persecution fantasies. At most, you'll change usernames.

Done now though... the well is poisoned, time to move on.

Sure it is.

I'm just using the vocabulary of GamerGate to talk to a Gamergator.

Don't believe me?

http://www.8ch.net/gamergate/ (Scroll past the stickies)

I just did a cursory count on that 8chan GamerGate page. It's their clubhouse.

The word "autist" or "aut" appears 17 times.

The word "nigger" appears 8 times

The word "faggot" appears 26 times

These are the words they use when addressing each other. But when it comes to referring to women, they lose all creativity.

"Cunt" appears 12 times. "Slut" appears 5 times. "Pig" appears 3 times (in reference to a woman). "Whale" appears 5 times (again, in reference to a woman's appearance). I can go on, but I've got to get up early tomorrow.

Just in case you think I was being hyperbolic when I said I was speaking to the Gamergator in his own language.

If you wonder how GamerGate got it's reputation a for misogyny..

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

I thought we were talking specifically about the disproven child porn charges and not your little SJW anti-gamer spin-job?

Sorry, I had my autists mixed up. Here you go:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Just don't bring up Roko's Basilisk: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...

Oh, they have that already: see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...

It's interesting that even posting about Roko's Basilisk may cause great distress to certain individuals on LessWrong, who once tried to suppress it's very existence: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...

Some people familiar with the LessWrong memeplex have suffered serious psychological distress after contemplating basilisk-like ideas — even when they're fairly sure intellectually that it's a silly problem.[5] The notion is taken sufficiently seriously by some LessWrong posters that they try to work out how to erase evidence of themselves so a future AI can't reconstruct a copy of them to torture.[6]

Oh, they have that already: see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...

It's interesting that even posting about Roko's Basilisk may cause great distress to certain individuals on LessWrong, who once tried to suppress it's very existence: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...

Some people familiar with the LessWrong memeplex have suffered serious psychological distress after contemplating basilisk-like ideas — even when they're fairly sure intellectually that it's a silly problem.[5] The notion is taken sufficiently seriously by some LessWrong posters that they try to work out how to erase evidence of themselves so a future AI can't reconstruct a copy of them to torture.[6]

Ooooh, you mean "common sense" !! So, let's see what that is, from rationalwiki:

Common sense is something which you think you know to be true but that may not actually be true. It is a way of reasoning based on heuristics, and basic rationality applied to that knowledge. However, the danger with common sense is that the scope of knowledge can be quite wrong, and the basic rationality can simply not be deep enough for an attempt at finding truth.

From this, we can deduce that:

1) rationality is not apk's strongest point
2) apk is paranoid
3) apk is an idiot, that's been proven by common-sense over and over again.

care to prove us wrong ? no you won't !! Why's that? YOU CAN'T... & you know it (hence your omitting doing that of course) - truth & fact are like that!

I would take a quick glance at the author/proprietor's wiki page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A...

It may shed some light as to why that specific site isn't exactly treated as though it has any scientific credence.

-Rick

A lot of the "Dr." titles that appear on anti-evolution petitions are MDs, the general phenomenon is called the Salem Hypothesis.

i can't find any links to support "recent archeological finds found some additional Roman correspondence that mentions him and his followers" but i found these http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E... and one self-serving http://www.ucg.org/science/sur...

so the jury is still out until i see the "finds" you refer to. you also have to keep in mind that there was probably more than one person called jesus at that time.

That would be all well and good if people were to scrupulously stick to a reasonable definition of 'denier' vs 'skeptic'. But this doesn't happen, denier is mud to be flung around and it is flung far and wide and all that is happening here is to try and legitimise this practice of use de-legitimising snarling at people that one disagrees with.

Consider this wiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S.... "Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier.". Just a hateful little snarl directed at someone who most certainly doesn't merit it. McIntyre has never made his view on AGW public, he has gone to great pains to emphasize this. I personally suspect he is somewhere between 'jury is out' and a lukewarmer; but who knows. His focus is mainly on peleoclimate statistics. By your definition he is in no way a denier.

But it is so typical of this whole AGW issue, people play fast and loose with definitions, data, evidence. A massive lack of imprecision, anyone who comes along want precision is also a denier apparently. Amongst climate skeptics community they self identify with two broad camps, lukewarmers and sky dragons. The two terms are well defined, it is quite clear what is what. Consensus community could co-opt these definitions too, but that would risk legitimising the lukewarmers, better and easier to tar them all as deniers.

Nothing in Ham radio requires encryption.

But the rules don't actually talk about encryption, they talk about obfuscating the meaning. There are a large number of people using what used to be called HSMM -- basically, 2.4G wifi -- and they have encryption enabled. Why is it necessary? To keep Joe Ignorant from using his unlicensed laptop from connecting to a licensed NAP.

Do you have their call signs? I'd love to know. Encryption is not legal. If I open a hinternet, I cannot encrypt it.

Packet Radio has mostly turned into APRS anyhow.

Also wrong.

give me the citations then. Shouldn't be too hard. I have emcomm folks wanting to take my aprs repeater for their use. Seems odd if they already have their own. There are a few packet repeaters, but it's definitely an off use of them. At least here, it's NBEMS or some Winlink (although the Winlink stuff often doesn't play well with others. I've had a lot of PSK31 contacts interfered with by unattended Winlink stations just opening up on us, mid QSO.

There is a lot more to Ham radio than whacker's dreams of green vest glory.

Got no idea what you think you're saying here.

Google "Whacker", some fun imagery too. Short version, a whacker is a person who gets into emergency work Fire, Ham Radio, with dreams of glory. Usually wannabe police, who couldn't cut it. They tend to be an annoyance.

Here's a pretty good definition:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/W...

They tend to get big pickups with a lot of lights, or retired police cars. Put a whacker bar across the top.

And they just looooove badges: http://www.maxarmory.com/ham-r...

If you have a pretend police badge, you just might be a whacker.

The demand for encryption, as I noted before is not to increase usage, it is based on the pipe dreams of Emcomm people, who claim it is impossible to send Health and welfare information that isn't encrypted.

Also wrong. Nobody has said it is needed to increase usage,

Try to keep up here, The very specific post I was replying to included this exact text: So spare me the "No one said".

"If these changes allow ham radio in the UK to increase in usage, then maybe similar regulation changes in the US could help increase usage"

and "health and welfare" traffic has nothing to do with it.

What is involved is the integration of amateur volunteers (and non-volunteers) into hospital emergency communications plans.

Tell me exactly why it is not possible to incorporate Amateur radio into hospital emergency communications plans without encryption? It has been done for a long time. We've had a station at our local hospital long before it was fashionable, and has not sent a single encrypted message. Has sent health and welfare.

And now, the excuse that the hams passing that traffic won't be employees of the hospital is gone, because it is highly likely that at least some of them will be. They'll have a radio in their hand they cannot use because HIPAA applies to them.

Oh dear, you are parroting the early post 9-11 hysteria, when As an example, emergency types were coming around and trying to declare eminent domain on our repeaters. It doesn't work. Guy in camo and desert storm boots comes to our meeting, tells us how since by definition, everything they do is emergency work, we had to turn over our repeaters to them. It was politely suggested that who was going to build the next repeater if there is a problem. He said we'd build his group another. Wrong. Ambulance guys were getting licenses, and hoping to gossip about their bosses a

but you have not come close to proving I've said any lies.

The untruths consisted of:

1. Accusing Republicans of passing the Patriot Act in 2000 — the stupid law passed Congress 357 to 66, and Senate — 98 to 1.
2. Accusing Republicans of introducing the civil forfeiture laws — a mistake you've already acknowledged since.
3. Implying, Republicans are the reason, our Second Amendment right is trampled — and, at best, is treated as a mere privilege at best. You said nothing on this explicitly, but your post was a reply to mine, where I was talking about the Second Amendment and nothing else.

No, you didn't explicitly say "Democrats are innocent", but a lie by omission is still a lie.

If you don't agree with everything the ACLU

The one time I sent ACLU money, they sent me a membership card (I still have it). Two weeks later a solicitation to subscribe to "The Nation" (a disgusting Communist rag) arrived at the same address (I tag both my electronic and regular mail addresses with strings identifying the correspondents). The card had a picture showing American President in chains on it — anybody publishing such a picture today would've been denounced as "racist" and investigated by the Secret Service.

That ACLU would choose to ally itself with Illiberals in general and Communists in particular is why I'm now deeply suspicious of anything else they do. The staunchest of American Conservatives treat gays and the Freedom of Speech better, than Hamas or USSR, which are subject of much sympathy and even praise of "The Nation"...

To a first approximation, the modern Democratic party is almost exactly like the modern Republican party.

Nope. Though neither are, of course, Libertarian, the Democrats are much worse. What a Republican like Bush would do reluctantly and as an exception — be it the already mentioned civil forfeitures or drone killings — a Democrat would do willingly and make it a rule.

Lastly, Republicans may not agree with Libertarians on everything, but only Democrats openly sneer at us. Right here on /..

Oh, I'm sorry. Is my tone offending you?

I have a lot of growing up to do, huh?

Fuck off.

Alright, I went and prepared an article just for you, with cites.

My conclusion: don't use cayenne without a real medical doctor recommending it for you.

when he saw you wrote about the "Igon Value" problem? Wasn't he a math professor? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/I...

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Karl Popper, Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

Paradox is not necessarily a fallacy, and blind moral relativism is not a good thing. There is no need to be tolerant of the views of murderous dictators, rabid extremists, or any other group which opposes freedom and tolerance. Resisting bigots results in more tolerance, not less (although if you're a bigot you might think the distribution is unfair).

Btw, the legal name you think is your's is copyright protected and owned by the Crown Corporation and hence they own you, the body of the work. You better lose the legal name quickly or continue being a dead by consent slave!

This "birth certificate fraud" stuff sounds like the discredited "freeman on the land" theory.

I'd say quite a few casual programmers use Javascript, though many of them surely do their best to ignore its functional aspects.

But you're right in that casual and beginning programmers, or experienced programmers when they're only throwing together something quick and dirty, may be drawn to more forgiving languages or the languages they were taught in school/university, and this would bias the projects written in those languages.

Statistics is hard. You can't simply use a random selection, or else you might conclude children with large feet have better reading skills.

The devil's in the details, isn't it? If you go through my posts, I'm for ensuring everyone has access to internet, but against doing a lot of these things as long as the US doesn't have its undocumented (fuck PC... ILLEGAL) immigrant problem under control. Makes for a complicated problem, and that's why I'm not a politician, or even an activist. I'd just fuck it up.

I'm not sure how illegal immigrants fit into this discussion, since they aren't eligible for most Federalwelfare programs. Eligibility for state benefits varies from state to state. I suggest you educate yourself, friend.

That said, I pay more in property tax than a minimum salary worker makes pre-tax, and my wife and I together pay more income tax than the average household income in the US. The only "tax shelters" we have is our 401ks, and only real deductions are the property tax and mortgage interests (I guess I deduct my transit cards too...how greedy of me).

So that probably pays for my share?

Good for you. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand either. Are you complaining that you pay too much in taxes? Are you unhappy with how your tax dollars are spent? If so, these folks may be able to help.

God said we couldn't eat pork or wear blended fabrics, then Jesus died for our sins so we can have bacon and spandex. Read more here.

Sounds like he spent some time reading about Roko's Basilisk, and since he's trying to prevent its creation, we all know what the next headline will be...

Indeed, they're certainly taking the any differing view is heresy line rather than the let's develop our ideas to fit the facts line.

They've clearly decided their position 'ahead of time' rather than establishing a position after learning the facts, but we shouldn't commit the fallacy fallacy by dismissing all their actual arguments without hearing them out (despite that I'd bet money that their arguments are all utter nonsense).

Please don't link to RT.com as a source. They are nothing but a Russian propaganda machine. If there are other sources to cite, please use those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosieg...

any foilage[sic] will be a problem.

That's okay. We'll just cut down the trees. They cause pollution, anyway.

Because that's who the FBI work for... our precious Jewish 'masters'...

Can't have people finding out that the 'holocaust' was a lie, can we...

www.nazigassings.com

Quick, mod me down, don't think for yourself! Don't question what the JEWS have been telling you all your life, they'd never lie to you, would they...

As an atheist of Jewish extraction, I can tell you that the dues I pay to the International Jewish Conspiracy don't have the same benefits they used to have. It used to be that we'd get to choose from at least half a dozen christian babies for our blood drinking ceremonies. Now, we're lucky if we get two. Also, the royalty checks (you know, the one that's our skim) from all the world's economic output) have been down quite a bit since 2009.

It's getting harder every day to be the masters of the world. Sigh.

"If you are robbing a liqueur store, you're committing a crime"

Just because it is phrased in that way doesn't mean it is a fallacy, and even if it were a fallacy that doesn't mean that the conclusion is incorrect.
We have come to a point were the fallacy fallacy is the most common fallacy in discussions.

False positives create selection bias. A polygraph detects people that are *nervous about there lies*. It won't detect the unaware and clueless, because they do not know they did anything wrong. Most people download songs to their iPhone, and assume it is legal. The polygraph not detect people that assume they are innocent. On the other hand, some people lie all of the time. A sociopath will pass the lie-detector test because they don't believe they are lying, and one person in 25 is a sociopath.

These problems have already been encountered in the preemployment screening industry. This is one of the less biased artlicles. To quote:

One recent study found faked answers for one quarter to one half of the applicants.[44] So how can employers who want to use personality or EQ tests in their selection process mitigate against the risk of applicant faking? Counter-measures to faking include the test and retest approach to see if an individual is consistent in their answers, or asking questions that require quick responses.[45] But counter-measures to faking may result in less reliable and valid results since some tools used to detect faking do not work well.[46]

Bluntly, if your goal is to hire people that have done no wrong, then chances are that your hires have either lied to you, or are too clueless to realize their mistakes. Either way, it is really bad for the employer, especially if the employer is the FBI.

the Open Source community is full of a#@&oles, and I probably more than most others am one of their most favourite targets.

So he's a troll who specializes in trolling trolls. Why are we feeding him?

Do Not Feed The Trolls

And here goes the lying liar linking to another lying liar, again.
The only reason they're inexplicable, is because he's not a scientist.
The blog post refers only to land based sensors in the US, and the difference it causes is less than 0.02%, and it onyl affects a single data set for the US.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

"Denialists jumped on the bandwagon in regards to this shift making many grandiose claims that it invalidates all of the data that proves this has been the hottest decade in recorded history. This is not the case; it only makes a tiny difference that does not change the decade averages or the global averages."

So.. once again: nothing you have stated is valid.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Gish Gallop.

The laffer curve is a fictional construct of corporate greed.It is laughed out of any conference of economists for it's absurd leaps of faith and lack of supporting evidence.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rvd...
http://scienceblogs.com/goodma...
http://business.time.com/2012/...
http://www.theguardian.com/bus...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/L...
http://economistsview.typepad....

No I didn't. I specifically said twice that it does not need to be within earshot.

Why would anyone do that, oh yes ... certainly in your experience this happens.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E...

That's what this subthread is about.

I know what it references. I also know the blog.

You'll find the democrats can be just as anti science and math.

Anti Vaxxers
Anti GMO
Anti Nuclear

You'll find the democrats can be just as anti science and math.

Anti Vaxxers
Anti GMO
Anti Nuclear

You'll find the democrats can be just as anti science and math.

Anti Vaxxers
Anti GMO
Anti Nuclear

... employees with STEM degrees have critical thinking skills *and* STEM degrees. Just sayin'.

Hrmmm. Just some random thoughts, as someone with a film degree that also codes and has a highly technical job -- I am a sound designer and a recording engineer. I will to some extent generalize, but that's what we're doing here.

1) I've noticed that people can have really extensive technical knowledge but really not have any concept of social context or even the social utility of what they do. Indeed they'll often argue that the social utility is meaningless when compared to some teleological "search for knowledge," which is portrayed as valueless and objectively good, and questions of economy and competing interests are morally inferior.

2) STEM people can be total philistines. They'll often deride art and creative pursuits as somehow less essential or necessary than the cause of science and progress. They don't seem to understand that "progress" itself is a moral concept deeply embedded within a complex philosophical value system, and indeed a lot of STEM people know nothing of philosophy or epistemology, and think the entire enterprise of philosophy is some sort of academic scam. I love me some Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but he's completely put the foot in his mouth on several occasions when he thinks he's talking about philosophy of science, and I loved the new Cosmos but his depictions of certain historical events, particularly about Giordano Bruno, were glib and lacked rigor or sensitive knowledge.

3) I've noticed that a lot of people with an engineering or medical background are subject to many forms of woo, quackery and crank ideas. Whenever someone prints a list of "scientists" who oppose Evolution/Global Warming/Old Universe, take your pick, the list is generally chock full of engineer Ph.Ds.

4) Relatedly, I've noticed a lot of engineers are dilettantes who tend to see all problems in the world as simply problems of applied computer science, who don't respect professional expertise or knowledge, or respect the fact that things in the world can fundamentally differ in kind from the problems of science and engineering.

5) Some STEM people can be highly dogmatic, if you ever get into an argument with one over some point they will not let go of, eventually they'll resort to some form of scientism, and insist that the thing you believe is false because its existence cannot be falsified. An important part of exposing yourself to art and creativity is acknowledging that you can't prove beauty exists falsifiably, and everyone can argue over wether this or that tulip is beautiful, but beauty exists.

Now lets say some well meaning and compassionate politicians decided to take care of them and built high rise apartments for all of them who were having trouble paying their rent to live in. Sounds good and compassionate right?

By Hanlon's razor as modified by Clark's law, this is more likely a simple backfire of what was intended to be a helpful act rather than some sort of evil plot; nothing deliberately planned would have gone so horribly right.

This the change you're referring to. It is explained quite well, and the total change in the data is onl\y 0.2%.
As in, basically nothing. Not that that has stopped deniers from saying 'NOAA IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...