Slashdot Mirror

http://law.lclark.edu/live/fil... a detailed paper on the matter if you'd prefer. Note to those who think this might be a "democrat vs republican" thing - Clinton enacted the deduction, Bush extended it, something they could all agree on.

http://www.skeptically.org/oil... for another summary of it, though horribly biased in its language.

A counter-quote: "You make your own luck."

Not only were Kennedy, Khrushchev and Castro rational, but also Stanislav Petrov and the dozens of other people over the decades who didn't panic (much):
http://www.skeptically.org/onwars/id7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

I guess you have me there. It is my assumption most people are responsible and can do simple math. You said she was a college student, so I was doubly certain this was a safe assumption. To me, the whole point of a college education isn't necessarily WHAT you learn but HOW you learn. (The notable exceptions to this are Electrical and Mechanical Engineering degrees). For example, my MBA didn't make me any smarter than the average man (although this argument is making me rethink this position), but it did give me more tools to learn faster, better and more reliably. Most importantly, it taught me to know what I DON'T know, but have a big picture. For example, a CPA accountant will be able spin me in circles with tax preparations, income statement generations, etc, but if he hands me a balance sheet where Assets, Liabilities, and Equity aren't right, I'll spot it.

Let me put this a different way, a large majority of Fortune 500 company CEOs are Bachelor of Arts graduates. They didn't go to a school of "Science" or get a business degree (usually a Science school, if you see a business degree listed as a Bachelor of Arts, don't enroll...). You learn critical thinking skills, such as, if I agree to a $1500 a month mortgage but A) Don't have a job B) Have a job but I only make $2,000, then it's probably something I should run by a neutral third party. At the least, Google "mortgage calculator". Put in your loan amount and the term (e.g. 120 months, 6%, $200,000). I just bought a 2010 Camaro and I ran the numbers at least 5 or 6 times (online) even though I could figure the numbers in my head from previous car loans. I go back to my banking statement (online) and look at my lowest balance for the whole year. Does it cover it? Or, if you have a trade in, how much more will I spend? I commuted 130 miles a day for work, and I figured the gas savings alone would cover the difference between my existing car payment and a new Prius. Plus I get to use the carpool lane.

But I've digressed. To me, these are normal. You're saying it's not. I'm half joking when I say you might want to warn her the Prince of Narobia from the English Wales Bank of Commonwealth does not have $5 Mil pounds that he wants her to help due to the unfortunate demise of the late Sir Paul McCarthy, who has no living heirs to his estate, and that by helping she'll get 10% if she sends her banking route and account numbers. :)

I'll leave the Euro debate alone for now. Back in 1999 I was taking part in a study exchange between Pepperdine and Oxford University in the UK. I met the actual "head guy" who made the decision to NOT join the Euro. I think if you walked up to the average person on the street in the US, ok maybe from your point I can't ask the average person this, but let's say I could, and asked them, "Do you think it'd be a good idea to tie your US dollar's value to Mexico and Cuba's GDP?" I'd think people would have a hard time stopping their laughter to answer the question. This issue is complex, and to me points out a glaring strength of the US versus Euro monetary problems. In Europe the monetary problems are political. In the US, we've purposely decoupled it from politics. Recently we've seen political pressure to influence monetary policies (e.g. Senators saying the Fed should do blah blah blah), but the awesome thing is that they can't touch it! So instead of political pandering, you've got (until very recently) a PH.D in Economics who understands what the hell is going on making currency decisions. Tons of people try to blame Greenspan, but he was shooting all the warning shots loud and clear for anyone competent and listening. "Irrational Exuberence" ring any bells? He called the dot com three years before it hit. He called the housing crisis two years before it really hit full tilt. I guess I didn't leave the Euro argument totally alone. Hahah... My p

Thanks! I also like Michael Shermer's alien abduction story that he relates in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things". It's another example of how different an experience can be if you look at it from the perspective of a skeptic vs a believer.

Since I hate to leave it at that, I decided to look around and I managed to find the story recounted here.

Or take a look at the list of quotes from the founding fathers on religion. http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Einstein did not believe in a personal god.

True; clearly it should be "...gay dick up an elephant's cunt".

(Edit: Fucked up the post the first time.)

You're forgetting the old trunk up the ass trick.

Seriously, the trunk. And the ass. What the fuck is it with elephants.

There's a joke in there about Larry Craig and the rest of the Jesusmentalist wing of the Republican party somewhere, but I've googled "elephant ass" more than I ever wanted to in my lifetime, so I'm off to the EA forums to ask my friends for some help with my new Spore creature design project.

True; clearly it should be "...gay dick up an elephant's cunt".

You're forgetting the old trunk up the ass trick.

Seriously, the trunk. And the ass. What the fuck is it with elephants.

There's a joke in there about Larry Craig and the rest of the Jesusmentalist wing of the Republican party somewhere, but I've googled "elephant ass" more than I ever wanted to in my lifetime.

You said:

I assume you include Albert Einstein (who believed in a creator or "God") among the unscrupulous exploiters of people's scientific ignorance.

It's actually the ignorance, propaganda and outright lies amongst the religious that have caused me to loose my faith over the years. What you say is complete nonsense, and has been commented upon by well known scientists (and atheists) such as Richard Dawkins .

Here's a reference (pertaining to Einstein's "Faith") for good measure:
- http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

Of course it is (again, trivially) true that all human institutions are reflections of human characteristics. What matters for the human impact of those human characteristics is the force-multiplier that the form of institution provides. Individual Huns were little nomads whose particular species of bloody-minded clannishness was not particularly unique or scary. But when pushed out of their grounds by the economics of famine and overpopulation, and organized as shock cavalry under the leadership of Attila, they committed mass murders in Europe on a scale that only the 20th century could equal.

I honestly have no idea what you mean about corporations offering major advantages in terms of control vs. non-corporate forms of organization. Major corporations can get just as out of control as a criminal gang. Jeremy Scahill has already documented how Blackwater Int uses the corporate veil and not-so-secret political connections to operate essentially outside the law. No organ of law-enforcement or other government institution seems able or willing to take them on; after all, they are a legitimate corporation! Are you going to suggest that a billion-dollar private army, operating in the United States and controllable by no authority other than its mostly secret board of directors, is doing no more damage to the nation than, say, some gang of SOF-reading vets robbing a few banks in Idaho? David Korten and many, many others -- from Ralph Nader to Naomi Klein -- have documented how the Supreme Court's Buckley decision, giving corporations the same privileges as individuals in making political contributions, has had enormous deleterious impacts on American democracy for over 30 years. Every attempt to pass legislation to control this influence has ended up doing essentially nothing. Why? Do you really doubt for even a moment that this lack of success has any other cause than the influence of corporate money?

My friend, what's missing from your discussion (and perhaps your thinking) in this area is any consideration of the public interest. I consider that an essential entity. It's the very foundation of my country. It was the first item on the "To Do" list for the Framers of the US Constitution, which is all about defining the public interest, and separating activities supporting that interest (like the press) from all the many legitimate private interests (like other forms of commerce) the constitution also protects.

Please don't mistake me: I don't hate corporations. They represent human art and industry, as well as evil and greed, and as you say, create wealth. There are many good ones who take the public interest seriously and do their bit to promote it in addition to making a profit (I believe I work for one). What I despise, and fear, are contemporary politicians, and the media reporting on them, who seem to take as an article of faith that there actually is no such thing as the public interest -- only competing private interests, which can be organized or not, and supported or not. Your comments above suggest that you (I don't say that you actually do) think the same way. If so, then I really am very surprised indeed, and would invite you to consider more seriously, or at all, the point I'm making. Because if that really is your opinion, and lots of other Americans think the same way, then I'm afraid that a lot more than just the newspaper is dying.

So Einstein was an idiot to? [sic] He was quoted many times saying the same thing about science and deity.

Sigh. Here we go again. No, he wasn't. Here's a quote that should clarify Einstein's opinion: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. This quote (also others, and more detail) can be found at the site linked above. And, if you cared to read Dyson's actual speech from the link in my initial post, you could have seen that his theology is very different from Einstein's.

• He opposes the separation of Church and State, and wants a Christian USA as he panders to the religious right.
• He claimed to oppose Roe v Wade because regulating abortion isn't an enumerated federal power. Yet, he has no problem seizing that power to ban D&X abortions. No matter how you feel about D&X, either regulating abortion is a federal power or it isn't. He doesn't care, he just wants to fight abortion however he can.

Millions in development costs? You seem to think that somehow that is a lot of money. Please, let me correct you on where the real costs for drug companies are.

Think of the implications of the 100 plus million spent in lobbyists to get new bills passed. http://skeptically.org/polrec/id14.html

Or the nearly 5 Billion spent in advertising, which averages to an average TV Viewer sitting through 30 hours of drug ads per year.http://www.wtop.com/?nid=106&sid=1117765

While profits aren't a dirty word, your millions of dollars in development costs pales to the 8 billion plus *increase* in profits the pharmaceutical companies had in only 6 months since January 1, 2006, http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/2006091911562 3-70677.pdf (PDF Warning!)

The "races" aren't "favored", certain individuals, possessing certain heritable traits, are better at surviving and reproducing in a given environment. That says nothing about whether the survivors are more 'desirable'.

As for what Hitler, Stalin, etc. used to justify their bad actions, they had numerous reasons, both religious and secular. There's certainly a _long_ history of people using religion to justify their actions: The inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunts, and more.

You might also look into the evolutionary theory for altruism and consider that destroying the environment isn't usually in any organism's best interest.

As for my friends, I prefer people who can think rationally.

It wasn't. The lame protestants just want you to think it was.