Slashdot Mirror

Do you reject all science that doesn't have a complete testable model behind it?

Well, more to the point, the computer models that skeptics are so quick to discount have been increasingly accurately predicting the macro climatic effects of discrete environmental events (such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo). I don't know how much closer to a testable model of climate we are likely to get, which is of course the point: what global warming skeptics are demanding is a degree of certainty that can't exist in a system as complex and large as the global climate. More research! More research! We heard it about acid rain, which was real - just like the majority of mainstream scientists in relevant disciplines asserted - and has only been mitigated by large scale policy initiatives such as the Clean Air Act, we heard it about the ozone hole*, which was real - just like the majority of mainstream scientists in relevant disciplines asserted - and has only been mitigated by large scale policy initiatives such as the Montreal Protocol. And here we are again. Gee, I wonder how it's going to pan out?

It's always the same old song and dance. Put the most ridiculous caricature of a hysterical deep ecologist hippie on the stage and go on soberly about more research and economic effects (ignoring as well that the real chicken littles in these situations have inevitably been the welfare happy subsidy hogs in industry, who have somehow managed to survive all previous necessary environmental policy initiatives that they assured us would cause irrevocable economic harm).

*The other day I read a comment appended to some global warming skeptic article by that Australian geologist who pops up to repeat his same thoroughly refuted set of claims avery so often - and always finds a buyer in some conservative rag, surprise - and this person's response to the inevitable objections is "oh come on, weren't these scientists going on about a hole in the ozone layer? And whatever happened to that, did it just close? Global warming is just the next scientific fad!" I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

PS--why do you Randroids always try to draw parallelisms between reality to Rand? Oh yeah, I just answered my own question. Seriously, though, her books are sooo heavyhanded and caricatured and unrealistic. It isn't fair to compare a real person to an Ayn Rand character...real people have complex psychologies and competing interests. They aren't cartoons. try engaging in a debate instead of writing someone off as a Rand villain...oh, I guess I'm one too, another unbeliever threatening the cognitive dissonance of you and the rest of your rand culties.

"Given that redistricting is something that happens at the state level, and that there are generally no objective rules to districting, the extent of automation likely is no greater than exhibited by this game. Most districts are probably still drawn by hand."

It's also hardly the "strictly top-down, ham-handed authoritarian process dictated by some supreme power" that seems to be a persistent caricature in discussions such as this one. The people in the districts, in smaller representative groups, and sometimes even individuals, have a role in the process, which is one reason why it's so complicated, and one reason why it's not quite the tyranny it's purported to be.

Most people choose not to participate in any political process on any smaller scale than maybe a Presidential election. By the time they become aware that their Congressional district is being changed, it's because they have their opinion given to them by some sensationalized news coverage, after having ignored every opportunity for public participation and official comment, for months or years.

Some representatives and people who are prospective candidates are better than others at being involved in their communities, and some communities are more conducive to public involvement in local politics than others. Some of us have genuine relationships with the local politicians that represent us; others would be hard pressed to name one of their neighbors.

Participation is key. If you plug in to politics at your local level, you will probably be shocked at how easy it is to do -- because hardly anyone can actually be bothered.

If your voting district gets moved by your state legislature or city council and the first time you hear about it is election day, that's YOUR fault.

I don't think Moore ever called America a "facist oligarchy" - that must be your exaggerated representation of his perspective. A little hyperbolic, don't you think?

Again, I can't recall Moore expressing any concern about the Gestapo or the SS doing these things. Perhaps you just brought up Nazis and book-burning as a sort of over-the-top caricature of the concerns Moore does express?

But seeing how strongly you oppose hyperbole and exaggeration, I can see you'd never resort to such tactics.

Hyperbole (like metaphors, similes, and everything else) is like a condiment in food. If half your dish is salt or pepper, you probably overdid it.

If America was the kind of fascist oligarchy that he always describes

I don't think Moore ever called America a "facist oligarchy" - that must be your exaggerated representation of his perspective. A little hyperbolic, don't you think?

by the time you've described something as a totalitarian plot for the 1000'th time

1000 times? Really? Did you count them? Surely that's a bit of an exaggeration.

he's _not_ going to end up with the Gestapo on his doorstep and with the SS burning his movies and book, either.

Again, I can't recall Moore expressing any concern about the Gestapo or the SS doing these things. Perhaps you just brought up Nazis and book-burning as a sort of over-the-top caricature of the concerns Moore does express?

Stances basically saying "my version is by definition perfect, and everyone else is a fascist peddling crooked crap solutions" aren't really doing anyone any good.

I was worried that your interpretation of Moore's message is a bit extreme, and possibly borders on what's called "putting words in his mouth" (after all, he never said that, and you'd have to stretch quite a bit to interpret anything he has said into such a statement)...

But seeing how strongly you oppose hyperbole and exaggeration, I can see you'd never resort to such tactics.

Crime dropped in the U.S. while you were mayor, goofball.

Why does Rudy Guiliani promote a culture of dependency and failure? Anger? Fear? Stupidity? Some deep brain-damaged urging of his soul? The answer cannot easily be found, but the claim that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air is illusory. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about bloodthirsty, lewd meatheads.

Not to belabor the point, but Guiliani knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive -- or at least overlook -- all of his ungrateful excesses. My take on the matter is that I wonder what would happen if he really did regulate ageism. There's a spooky thought. This may sound like caricature, but someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Guiliani is trying to do the same to us. I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that if I want to tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street, that should be my prerogative. I really don't need Guiliani forcing me to. Now, why all this fuss about a few malignant prognoses? Simply put, it's because his primary viewpoint, that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct, is directly related to the attitudes in our society that pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. Still, I recommend you check out some of his op-ed pieces and draw your own conclusions on the matter.

Guiliani's prank phone calls are built on a backlash fueled by anger -- in the form of resentment, spite, vengeance, envy, loss, and bitterness over declining status -- on the part of obstinate, sinful knuckle-draggers. And here, I contend, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Guiliani's methods of interpretation. Even giving Guiliani the benefit of the doubt, I and Guiliani part company when it comes to the issue of classism. He feels that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras -- while I claim that when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Guiliani is drunk with power, which is why we must anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good.

We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we decidedly have to encourage open, civic engagement. Consider the following, which I'll address in greater detail later: We can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but Guiliani has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with the most judgmental know-nothings you'll ever see. Is this because he needs their help to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that his fairy tales epitomize wholesome family entertainment? To ask that question another way, to what depths of depravity does he need to descend before the rest of us realize we must improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth -- all of whose lives are made miserable by Rudy Guiliani? Apparently, even know-it-all Guiliani doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't even matter much if he did, given that he sees no reason why he shouldn't create a world without history, without philosophy, without science, without reason -- a world without beauty of any kind, without art, without literature, without culture. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that Guiliani apparently can't tell the difference between flirting and sexual harassment, between white lies and perjury, or between a schoolboy carrying a butter knife and carrying a switchblade. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nev

Athens wasn't some pussocracy where "missteps [were] forgiven". It ruled a Greek empire by serial mass murder, like anyone else, even though it was eventually defeated by its infamously singleminded military rival Sparta. It invented the democracy on which ours is loosely based, featuring corrosive public (and private) debate that defined our arts of rhetoric and logic.

Apple isn't a pussocracy, either - smart people there survive up against Microsoft's monopoly by their wits, in the market, periodically revolutionizing it. Getting Athens and Apple so wrong discredits the rest of Mike Elgan's analysis. If you're going to argue from caricature analogy, only cartoons will be persuaded. If you're making such a discreditable attack on an absent target too busy to spend time debating your niche, you're a pussy.

Weird, I had always assumed that that phrasing was some wag's caricature of Machiavelli's ideas. (German's would probably be "Der Feind meines Feindes ist mein Freund.")

Anyway, if you're going to categorize it with intuitionist logic, you could give it a little more credit. Think of it as saying, "If someone shares an enemy with me, that relationship can be exploited to my advantage."

Extra bonus content: I also don't care what a "strawman fallacy" is, so I'll just ignore that last sentence of yours even though I'm sure it was insulting in some way.

"However, the point of the "under god" (and references to "god" in many US documents) is there to define all people as being on an equal level."

Well, why can't you do that without being, like, you know, dicks about it? Seriously: is it really too much to ask that you at least respect the fact that not everyone believes in god, and so not try to piss all over our commonality as Americans like a dog marking territory? There are many many values we all care about as Americans, and it would be nice if we could celebrate those without trying to fight about religious beliefs. It's not like atheists have spent most of the history of the nation trying to get the Constitution to declare that no god exists or then have it added to the pledge or the money just to lord it over everyone. Heck, even the founders considered adding religious claims to the constitution but then decided AGAINST it. You know why? Because they felt there was no point and it sent the wrong message entirely about what a limited government was supposed to be all about. People, not the government, are the best ones to decide what to believe in or not believe in. Trying to have the government do it for them was pointless and one step along the road back to making religion into a political matter.

"Except athiests. They think they are somehow exempt and superior to the rest of us because they don't subscribe to the concept of something higher."

Only in your Bill O'Reilly-sized imagination. Just because we don't believe in YOUR god does not mean that we don't think there are things that are vastly more important than ourselves. Countless atheists have lived and died for things they feel are greater than themselves, most importantly as soldiers fighting for our country and what it stands for.

Your picture of what atheists are is pure caricature. If that makes you feel better about being dicks to us, I guess I can see why you'd play pretend like that. But it doesn't make you any less of a dick.

I'm sure your Hawaiian band have a well recorded album, that'll still be enjoyable in 20 years when the loudness fad has died out.

There's a trick we engineers play on unsuspecting 'rock star' bands who come in unprepared, perform badly and then give us a hard time for not being able to make them sound good. We playback loud on the main monitors and escape to the live room or lounge. The band think their track sounds great, rapidly their ears tire and they lose all objectivity.

The loudness wars are the same trick played on everyone, it makes an impact for 5 minutes because it's loud and punchy. In reality it sounds terrible, no dynamic range and insane amounts of clipping.

Almost a decade ago I maxxed out a track on a rough mix for an EP as a caricature of the loudness wars, got it pumping using compression at the mix and then slammed the bus through a limiter before finally abusing loudness plugins. At the time it was a bit of fun and sounded stupid. I worked with the guitarist and his new band last year and he brought that CD in. The former comedy track would sit well in modern playlists.

I really think you take the difference in the Japanese business ethics to the extreme. The company I work for (electronics sector, not gaming though) does deal with Japanese manufacturers (well known ones) and I do have a good perspective on some aspects of their business culture, however they certainly do care about profit. Granted, they are different than some other manufacturers who care ONLY about profit, and that makes them unique, but I really don't think they are the tradition-fixated caricatures you present them to be.

One interesting incident followed an extremely apologetic e-mail from a Japanese manager to our CEO (about a payment that was delaying due to external factors). Our CEO responded along the lines of "as long as they you doing what you can, it is fine by us", to which the Japanese manager wrote back to thank our CEO for his kindness than now "will allow him to sleep at night"! Anyway, it does not sound that impressive unless you read the actual emails (which, obviously and unfortunately, I cannot share).

It's kind of obvious that you are not an active software engineer. Practically no one calls any educational material a "software textbook". The practical software engineering books I've seen do contain actual source code to demonstrate non-obvious methods. While a patent may be readable to a patent lawyer or even a patent engineer, it's certainly not readable to the wider engineer community who are supposed to benefit from the publication of patents.

Most importantly, when people who actually try to teach novel, non-obvious concepts to others write articles and textbooks, they make an effort to explain their ideas in the simplest possible way (but not any simpler), and even then it takes a concerted effort for the reader to actually understand the concepts. As a way of publishing technical ideas, the patent process is a mere caricature of the actual process of publishing novel technical inventions. I'm sure patents are great for patent lawyers, but that's just a demonstration of the inanity of the entire concept.

It's been said a million times in this thread: gay rights, immigration, flag burning... I mean, what more do you want from mainstream television? Unless you're defining status quo to mean every opinion accepted by either liberals or conservatives.

I don't understand why so many people can't grasp that the failure of a protagonist often does not equate to the author dismissing or opposing their views. I just don't see why it's so difficult. What kind of show would it be if Lisa simply succeeded in her efforts - permanently?

It's hard to say what kind of show the Simpsons would be if Lisa succeeded. But Springfield would be a town that progresses. And it's not as if Lisa's failures motivate any plot elements anyway. What difference would Lisa succeeding make to Homer's antics? Or Bart's slow coming of age? Or Marge's failing marriage? And it's not as if the writers are going to run out of news stories to caricature or ways of making Homer act stupid.

And I think you misunderstand. I don't know the Simpson writers' stance on issues like gay marriage outside of what they've presented on the show. I suspect, considering Lisa's informed opinions, that the writers are rather progressive. And yet, the show functions to re-inforce the idea that working to solve social problems is futile.

HAVE YOU GONE INSANE? CARTMAN? INFALLIBLE AND PROVEN RIGHT? I think you just gave me an aneurysm! Cartman is all sins wrapped into one being - he's the personification of pure greed, ambition, sloth, anger, gluttony, and whatever else, plus a complete failure to learn from his mistakes, and totally warped social values, and he's utterly annoying to every other character, and whiny, and - why the hell am I even bothering to try to enumerate the faults that make it clear he is NOT the moral voice of the show?! On the rare occasions when Cartman is proven right, the circumstances aren't just fictitious, they're absolutely ludicrous, and obviously intentionally so.

Cartman is indeed evil. And he is not the show's moral voice. But I think you underestimate his role in the show. His outlandish actions spur Stan and Kyle into action. And by the end of the show, Stan or Kyle have learned something -- usually a compromise position between their original position and Cartman's. Note, however, that their original positions are still on the right, making the compromise even further right.

And Cartman gets "proven right" constantly, in at least half the episodes.

By the way, Libertarians are conservatives.

Distorting art to suit one's goals? Even if it's artificial and serves a political agenda, it can hardly be called distortion if it's done by the artist himself. Or if you're referring to your own interpretations of the shows, then I agree that it is easy to see a lot of connections and meanings that the creator did not necessarily intend.

I meant the latter, but I phrased it poorly. Though the producers' intentions are important to my argument, I am arguing about the role the shows play in society. The shows wouldn't be on the air if they didn't fit into the network's agenda, regardless of the producers' intentions.

I like the Boondocks too. It's entertaining and presents a lot of interesting ideas. But it has the same failing as the Simpsons with regards to Lisa.

What's really disturbing is that the only way I can tell the video is parody is Whitacre's lack of tact and the caricature proportions.

Please note three things, especially the second and third:

1. Of course, an essential quality of the dirty dealmaking is a snowballing pattern. Note that Microsoft might use this, among previously stated things, to strengthen both claims of cooperation with the EU and its frantic attempts to hurt ODF adoption.
---------
2. For a primer on Microsoft astroturfing and shilling, see
http://www.inlumineconsulting.com:8080/website/msf t.shilling.html

One does not need to believe in any kind of conspiracy to see that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented attack in the media on the free software community. Again, it's the conditions: various problems at Microsoft, an important license revision coming this month, etc. Scattered individuals of sufficiently warped ethics are highly motivated right now to make noise right now.

I am afraid most slashdotters and other forum participants really have no idea about the level of sophistication of Microsoft manipulative strategy and tactics. Consider it from merely an economic point of view. The pressure is higher than ever at Microsoft--growing threats in the server space and feeling the pinch of so much talent by the likes of Google. Of course, Microsoft has a ton of talented people, but many are quite likely the more "ethically flexible" types that are more comfortable with Microsoft's reputation and would not only have no problem harming the free software community but probably would treat it as an enjoyable game.

Consider, for example, the recent spate of Microsoft turfing and shilling that has been inflicted upon Slashdot. These fakes might take on the identity of any of several traditional mindsets that, say, oppose the GPL and the FSF. Whereas in the past, a fake might have indulged in apologist ravings over Microsoft that are easily dismissed, now it would not at be surprising for them to start faking more sympathetic attitudes, using all manner of reverse psychology, straw men, red herrings, etc. These fakes from the "Microsoft ecosystem" would include far more convincing versions of, say, these trivial caricatures:

"Going with the GPL3 is playing right into Microsoft's hands. MS is hoping for a divide and conquer, with forks everywhere..."

"Opposing the GPL does not imply love for Microsoft. I hate Microsoft, but I also hate people choosing a license just because it's popular."

"Bill Gates and Richard Stallman are both megalomaniacs. Therefore, I choose BSD."

"The GPL3 is punishing a company that has done more than anyone else for desktop Linux: Novell. As for Tivo, let the market decide. Let the GPL3 rot."

"I used to donate every year to the FSF, but they have gone insane with the GPL3. It's against everything they claimed they stood for over so many years."

What makes these particularly insidious is that they exploit people who have sincere concerns--on both sides.
----------
3. A natural objection to #2 as a concern is that it it does not matter. If a faker presents a good argument, then how can anyone lose? After all, it's just an opportunity to test one's own convictions and justifications.

I see two problems. First, it's just a given that Microsoft aims for the lowest common denominator, in this case people who simply are not that critically-minded. Second, it's like a "war of words of attrition." Money is speech, and "justice" sometimes goes to the highest bidder.

Forums are, on a casual level, the manufacture of a mild, tentative consensus about news items. However, a company of unprecedented power and strategic prowess has, in effect, very likely been intruding, indirectly via individuals, and driving up the cost (in time [=money]) of debunking nonsense that harms its opponents.

Now think about portrayals of Natives, when is the last time you've seen a native actor in a movie or television show who isn't either some kind of medicine man, unsavory charcter from a reserve, or some other caricature?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098878/

And we need to remember that so far most of the attacks were quite unsofisticated and only crudely coordinated. Despite this they were considered as a success. I don't want to know what would happen if someone skilled in psychology and urban warfare was to plan a blow to the society. Imagine for example this IMO easy to execute (for dedicated terrorists with some training) plan:

1. A small decoy bombs are blown in several subway stations, preferably geografically near. Casualties ~ virtually zero, the purpose is to ignite panic.
2. As scared mass of people tries to evacuate, detonate much bigger bombs near to exits from the stations. Not necessarily very lethal, but...
3. Now you have many instances of hysteric, panicked crowd in a small space (as subway exits tend to be). As was noticed many times during for example fire accidents, such crowd is very lethal thing.
4. In older times, you would have to consider how to ensure proper access for news crews. It has changed, the victims will without doubt provide their own coverage via phones, and it has the necessary "feel" of authenticity.

Just remember how much fear generated one single guy equipped with a gun. And there you will have multiphase attack simultaneously in several places. Next week, the target could be an armed assault on nearest TV station, with a live broadcast of murders etc. The options for terrorists' goal are virtually endless. So our defense should go deeper and mitigate tactical advantages of terrorists: Media coverage - why? (If nobody in terrorist's tribe knows about his deed, would they celebrate him as a hero? I doubt it.)

I do not have a proper reference (and I'm unable to verify), but I remember somebody to claim that during IRA bombings in UK, the media coverage was inversely proportional to human losses. Sounds plausible to me and logical as well. If you deny access to the media, those terrorists will become just criminals. But here we come across an interesting find: terrorists and media live in a strange symbiosis. Media equation: more terror = more revenue for media. Terrorist's equation: more media coverage - more fear in society. In both cases, the objective is reached. Tough luck for the victims who happen to stay between these two parties.

And though I'm from different country, my memories of IRA times tell me something was fundamentally different: the people were not being scared by their own government. The response was more similar to police investigation than to full-scale military response. But these days no, we are so soft that we even bow down when some unimportant people don't like a sheet of caricatures.