Slashdot Mirror
Nine Crazy Ideas in Science
Here's the deck of nine ideas under consideration:
- More Guns Mean Less Crime
- AIDS is Not Caused by HIV
- Sun Exposure is Beneficial
- Low Doses of Nuclear Radiation Are Beneficial
- The Solar System Has Two Suns
- Oil, Coal, and Gas Have Abiogenic Origins
- Time Travel is Possible
- Faster-than-Light Particles Exist
- There Was No Big Bang
So in this review I'm going to give you generalities first, and bury "the butler did it" type information after a SPOILER warning.
One of the problems with the execution of this work is that you can pretty often tell when Ehrlich is enthusiastic about an idea just from his general tone as he writes about it... and conversely, in retrospect I think I should've been able to spot when he disagreed with, because the writing in those chapters was a little confusing.
Part of his schtick is that at the end of each chapter he rates the idea on a scale of 0 to 4 "cuckoos". Oddly enough I often find that I strongly disagree with his cuckoo ratings even just based on the evidence that he presents. But the absolute magnitude of my disagreements are typically no more than a single "cuckoo".
I was worried about some of his evaluation criteria (see the introduction available on-line as a sample chapter), because he includes several points that strike me as fairly dicey: "Who proposed the idea?"; "How attached is the proposer to the idea?" and "Does the proposer have an agenda?" These all relate to judging the person rather than the idea itself. (Consider that "consider the source" and "ad hominem argument" are pretty much the same as far as logic goes.) But he does clearly understand that these are just rules of thumb, and I note with some amusement that he doesn't resort to these particular rules anywhere in the later chapters. He's more interested in the logic of the arguments, which is as it should be.
I could bring up lots of quibbles (and I probably will after the spoiler warning), but overall I found this to be a great breezy read. I learned quite a bit from it. While nothing here made me do a reversal of my beliefs, I was often surprised that the evidence for something was stronger or weaker than I'd supposed.
Here we have an educated, astute, person doing a relatively independent review of some controversial, interesting technical subjects. Why aren't there more books like this?
Ah, but at least there's one more! I see that a sequel has just come out: Eight Preposterous Propositions: From the Genetics of Homosexuality to the Benefits of Global Warming . I bet I'll be submitting a review on that one shortly ...
Anyway, now into the nitty gritty. Here's your SPOILER WARNING. Skip the following if you want to play the "guess where he's going" game with this book. Let's take it chapter by chapter:
More Guns Mean Less CrimeI'm a "right to bear arms" kind of guy myself, and I was surprised that the data doesn't seem to support private ownership of guns as a crime deterrent. Ehrlich argues persuasively that the statistical evidence for this is very weak. I appreciate the fact that Ehrlich concludes that both the pro and anti gun sides are nuts: he rates them 3 and 2 "cuckoos" respectively, where a 3 is "almost certainly not true" and 2 is "very likely not true."
But here, we come to my first strong disagreement with him. If the effects aren't strong enough to measure, why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side? I might rate them both at a 2 myself.
AIDS is Not Caused by HIVI've had the impression that the the Duesberg hypothesis was pretty screwy, but I was willing to tentatively consider it might have something of value. For example, what about the possibility that multiple diseases are now being diagnosed incorrectly as one single syndrome "HIV"?
But Ehrlich's analysis satisfies me that there's not much of scientific value in Duesberg's ideas at all. I don't argue with his 3 cuckoo rating (but I wouldn't blame you if you thought it deserved the full 4).
Sun Exposure is BeneficialEhrlich concludes that this looks fairly plausible, and gives it a 0 cuckoo rating, pretty much as I would have expected. Many people might find this surprising though, certainly the popular impression these days seems to be that sunlight is deadly.
Low Doses of Nuclear Radiation Are BeneficialHere, Ehrlich lays out the case for "radiation hormesis", and I really don't think this is that fantastic a notion (the difference between a poison and a medicine is often a matter of dosage, why wouldn't this be true of radiation?). But radiation is so demonized in the popular imagination that "radiation is good for you" comes off an insane joke. Ehrlich takes it seriously, and essentially concludes that while there are reasons for suspecting that this effect exists, it hasn't been entirely established. And here we have one of my quibbles: he awards it 1 cuckoo, which translates to "probably not true, but who knows". But there is no reason for saying it's probably not true. If something is not crazy, just not established, I would be inclined to award it "0 cuckoos," aka "Why not?"
The Solar System Has Two SunsThis is the "Nemesis" hypothesis, which it will probably come as no surprise is rated at 2 cuckoos. The short version of the story: originally they looked at part of the extinction record, and it looked like there was a definite cycle. But if you look at the whole record it doesn't seem to be there.
Oil, Coal, and Gas Have Abiogenic OriginsThis is subject that's been of some interest to me, ever since I heard Thomas Gold give a talk on this idea about a decade ago. It turns out that this is now looking much less like "an intriguing possibility" and much more like a truth awaiting a few funerals before it will be declared established. The odds are good that "fossil fuels" don't actually come from fossils, rather they're from hydrocarbons that pre-existed the formation of the earth, which means we're probably not going to run out of them. (So that means we can ignore those environmental wackos, right? Nope: imagine what happens to the atmosphere if we keep ramping up the rate at which we burn this stuff.)
Ehrlich rates this at 0 cuckoos, but maybe he should have invented a "-1 cuckoo" for this one.
Time Travel is Possible2 cuckoos: no surprises.
Faster-than-Light Particles ExistEhrlich mentions in his introduction in the interests of "full disclosure" that he's actually strongly attached to one of the ideas discussed here (the existence of tachyons), but by the time I'd gotten to that chapter I'd entirely forgotten about this, and I was disappointed to realize that he was being an advocate, not an independent reviewer (it includes a picture of him wearing a "no tardy-centrism" T-shirt).
Ehrlich rates this at 0 cuckoos, but come on. Even just based on the write-up he presents, it's a clear 1 cuckoo.
There Was No Big BangClocks in at 3 cuckoos, as you might expect.
You can purchase Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
v 3.91.0
$YodaBSD: src/release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/yodanotes/9steppro cess.sgml,v 3.91.0 2003/11/24 20:30:25 tsarkon Exp $
All in a days work with a Yoda figurine rammed up your ass.
I HAVE A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS!
GO LINUX!!
Tux is the result after trimming Yoda's ears off so that Lunix people don't rip themselves a new Aasshole
I first used GNU/Unix and C in 1978. I rediscovered GNU/Unix in 1987. I have administered GNU/BSD,
GNU/Ultrix, GNU/HP/UX, GNU/SunOS 4.x, GNU/SunOS 5.x and more flavours of GNU/Linux than I can
remember although I started out using GNU/SLS with kernel 0.9.x.
GNU/Linux has progressed so much in such a relatively short amount of time that I am in awe at
where it is today.
To GNU/gentoo. Then I remembered someone on cola mentioning a new distro named GNU/gentoo.
Once this stage has been reached GNU/gentoo is as easy to maintain as any GNU/Linux distro I know.
There is excellent documentation on the GNU/gentoo website. There is an excellent GNU/document
describing the USE variable which should be read before installing GNU/gentoo.
Apart from everything being compiled from source so that it is optimised for your hardware and the
USE variable to tailor the type of system you want, GNU/gentoo has another little gem. This is the
GNU/gentoo init system. It is based on the excellent GNU/SYSV init system but enhances it and
makes GNU/gentoo a class apart from any other GNU/*nix system I have administered. To be brief,
GNU/gentoo init GNU/scripts allow you to specify GNU/dependencies. There is no need to GNU/worry
about S script numbering as in GNU/SYSV or where GNU/you place the startup code in GNU/BSD type
GNU/init scripts (I'm referring to GNU/BSD 4.3 here. I don't GNU/know if the free GNU/BSD's have
changed GNU/things).
To summarise: GNU/gentoo is a very special GNU/Linux distro. It may not GNU/be for the the
GNU/Linux GNU/neophyte (I'm sure GNU/someone posted to GNU/cola recently that GNU/gentoo was their
first GNU/Linux GNU/install) although if GNU/you read the GNU/docs and GNU/understand what is
going on GNU/gentoo is an excellent GNU/distro.
GNU/Support GNU/is GNU/excellent GNU/via GNU/the GNU/gentoo GNU/forums GNU/and GNU/mailing
GNU/lists.
Politicians are all the same, they promise to build a bridge even when there is no river.
When it was first thought of, the theory of relativity was just a 'crazy idea'.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
VeryGeekyBooks has more reviews of this book.
God smod - I want my monkey man!
Actually I do think there was no big band having heard the evidence against it actually. so does that make me cuckoo? lol. Ahh well. Fun..
With this in mind, there's another crazy idea I've been reading up on lately. Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community that it is being taught alongside evolution in many schools and colleges, explains that to even reach the stage at which we exist there are no fewer than twenty-six variables necessary for our universe to even consider permitting life and a further sixty-six within our galaxy and Earth itself that allowed the multitude of living beings not only to come into being but to flourish (this whitepaper that was in My Favorites breaks these criteria into probabilities -- great read if you prefer to see the evidence of this hypothesis); in a nutshell, this concept is summed up in Asimov's fantastic quote "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
Some perhaps are content with chaos theory, but I'm glad there's another scientific viewpoint that can rationalize the concept that free will is the only variable that yet seems unaccounted for... and with all likelihood, scientific viewpoint that can rationalize the concept that free will is the only variable that yet seems unaccounted for... and with all likelihood, that too was carefully strewn into the universe to keep a perpetual working model. Although I suppose we have to keep in mind that this too is only a theory, and while it's possible everything was made to work smoothly from the beginning (on the whole) I'm more comfortable with the idea that somebody's looking in from time to time. One has to start somewhere to reconcile observation with history in order to get closer to the truth.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
When it was first thought of, the theory of a greased up Yoda doll was just a 'crazy idea'.
1. Duplicates are a thing of the past
2. Editors will stop rejecting relevant stories that aren't theoretical (ie overheated Teflon causes flu-like symptoms for 2 days)
3. Spelling errors will become a thing of the past on the front page
4. Trolls will be stopped
5. Reviews about books written over a year ago won't appear on the frontpage
Human beings "evolved" from other animals.
why stop trolls, fuckerhead? anyone with a brain does one of two things: stop coming to and posting to /. OR start trolling so the troll and his friends can laugh at fucking assholes like the editors and goodie two shoes know nothing fucking lamers.
FUCK you.
Before writing this book he should have read "HTML for Dummies" before putting up a site.
where apes evolved from men?
I mod this post "-1, Cuckoo".
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
...anything about crime rate? The right to bear arms is granted without regard to the crime rate.
...atomic power should be a consumer product. Many people would rate this as a 4 cuckoo because of the "danger" of terrorists developing a nuclear weapon. The truth is that atomic power is exceedingly easy, safe, and clean to produce and should be a zero cuckoo idea. Don't think that they'd completely rid us of batteries tho. In order to power your car with a RadioIsotope Generator (non-fission), you'd need hundreds of pounds of plutonium. However, if combined with batteries, you could reduce the amount of plutonium significantly, and have an auto-recharging electric car. Sure, it means a few more pit stops on long trips, but you NEVER have to refuel!
A great site on atomic energy is:
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AEI_Topics.html
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
(So that means we can ignore those environmental wackos, right? Nope: imagine what happens to the atmosphere if we keep ramping up the rate at which we burn this stuff.)
Well, yes it still does mean we can ignore them as CO2 absorbtion by sea water covers the excess not "eaten" by plants. SO2 gets washed away, but it can be a localized problem, like was in Copper Hill, TN and other places where intense smelting was conducted.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Slashdot: nearly 700,000 cuckoos.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
I'm not a geologist, but I was under the impression that fossils are regularly found in coal, and that we've observed the intermediate steps of its formation from peat bogs.
Hurblbblelelble yadalallalalalala
Restrain me down, I'm ready to go GA-GA
I'd have given 2 cuckoos to tachyons, only 1 cuckoo to time travel..General Relativity does have solutions that would possibly allow time travel, although in pretty rare circumstances, but still..
This has to be the funniest troll ever posted to Slashdot. Ever.
Did he forgetcrazy idea #10: not typesetting a book with TeX? I mean, if you want your book to be readable, you need to use TeX for the typesetting.
It goes like this:
When 2 or more negroes group together, violence is bound to break out in time t, where t is directly proportional to the number of negros divided by the average of their respective ages.
This is just another example of spineless crap moderation here on
Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pinochet, Mussolini, Marshall Joseph Tito, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Juan Peron, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Pol Pot, Fransisco Franco, and certainly the worst of the bunch, SLASHDOT's editing/moderating [read: censoring] "community"(*) ALL AGREE on ONE THING:
(*)Note, the word community used often on Slashdot, this is referring to a proto communist commune.
So, you busy little plebian proletariats, get busy, you have some censoring to do! FUN! Do the bidding of your fat, undisciplined masters who never subject themselves to peer review!
Good job you little neo-commies. Don't want to hear the other side, shoot the fucker in the head as an ENEMY OF THE STATE [In this case anyone who seeks to improve the sad state of/.].
A few haikus to commemorate the sucktitude:
Crack Pipe Moderators
Crack smoke wafts though air
Dumb shit moderator!
Try to suck less, please
The Humorless Moderator
Crack smoke wafts through air
Humorless moderator!
Why do you hate me?
The Proletariat
Slashdotting Commie
Moderator fears new idea!
Censor him quickly
The reason China blocked Slashdot is that when Jiang Xemin saw at how good "The Editors" at Slashdot are at suppressing the community, he knew that if more of his party members saw this degree of suppressive efficacy, he would be deposed, for the good of the people, of course, in favor of Rob Malda as the all new supreme dictator and premier of China.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. - Sir Winston Churchill (Especially when your democratic peers twist democracy into a reason commit censorship, to squash dissenting or unpopular opinions, and refer to them as trolls, flaimbait overrated or offtopic when they aren't any of the said)
Reading Slashdot at anything above -1 is like trying to put a shit filter on your ass.
Get busy moderating this down, you little pack of obedient prefects of the corrupt state! You are the vanguards of purity, and dissent is not allowed!
HAIKUS
MODERATORS Crack smoke wafts though air - Dumb shit moderator - Try to suck less, please
KAZAA Fuck R I A A - Network sold behind their backs - Stupid fucking cunts
Haiku: to the Slashfags. Fuck slash editors - The cumlicking fags they are - I shit upon them
TACO pondering GOATSE: I stare at the goat - His huge gaping ass so wide - And I want to eat
Haiku: The ancient haiku: - Flame Taco and CowboyNeal - With lame poetry.
CowboyNeal A mountain of fat, - butt cheeks jiggling like Jello. - What an odd poll choice!
CmdrTaco Watching Pokemon - With cum stuck on his goatee. - Newbie loser scum.
Stinky Kathleen Fent Cockeater Taco, - Proposing to Fent online, - I fingered her too.
Rob Malda and Kathleen FentChubby breasts, fat ass - Distract us from Rob's boylust. - But they both suck cock!
Taco Tuesday: Too much mexican. - Angry poo, firey hot. - Where's my antacid?
CHOAD licking Taco: Malda in the dark - Swallowing choad for profit - He rips his anus
Fuck KATZ Katz is a Jew - michael is a Mormon - Or is it Timothy?
Martini Fuck off That is fucking good. - I nearly spilt martini - On my nice trousers.
Slap my Ham, rub it off, fuck Spank fast wank it hard - Jerk that dick to Pokemon - Party at Taco's
GOAT I just came again - looking at the goat-see man - more kleenex required
Cock BIRD The Dead Penis B
Doom, you need to cease wasting your unparalleled intellect on scientific book reviews and concentrate on gaining revenge on that accursed Richards!
Re guns: If the effects aren't strong enough to measure, why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side?
Because (like the vast majority of such things) the pro- and anti- positions are themselves asymmetric -- the anto-gun position is not a simple negation of the pro-gun one, similarly the pro-life position is not a simple negation of the pro-choice one.
It's something quite a few studies like this one suffer from, too many fall foul of the same few logical fallacies.
"They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Any suggestions how to vent anger?
When Galileo originally proposed a heliocentric model of the Universe, he was criticized for his ideas, because "As any fool can see, the sun goes around the Earth..."
The Cuckoo rating is entirely irrelevant. Consider the Big Bang Theory. It hasn't yet been formally accepted (as a Physical Law*) by the scientific community, yet the author considers the notion of the Big Bang never happening to be nonsense?
The fact of the matter is, the scientific community has been wrong more often than right. With further investigation, ideas are refined, and those that don't fit the observations are rejected. But the process takes a long time. For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That's a long time to be wrong about something so big.
So even though I believe that the scientific method has its merits, I recognize the limitations. If I had a time machine and could travel to the future, I would not be the least bit surprised if 500 years from now the Big Bang theory and Evolution were considered myths from the past. Even now, there's substantial logical and statistical problems with the "proofs" of Evolution.
* - Yes, I know it wouldn't be called a law per se.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Is a cuckoo positive of negative?
YES! My proudest accomplishment on slashdot!
ASCII YODA HEAD looks like he's gonna lunge outta the screen and grab me!!!
"Dogs Flew Space Ships!"
"The Aztecs Invented The Vacation!"
"Men And Women Are The Same Sex!"
"Our Forefathers Took Drugs!"
"Your Brain Is Not The Boss!"
Yes, That's Right, Folks.....
"Everything You Know Is Wrong!"
It has become clear to me that although my views, experience, and training might be severely biased, pathetic, and inadequate; I too can write a book about just about anything. It's only a matter of time until I make a killing off of all you Slashdot freaks who write down crazy stuff. I'll stuff it all into one little 150 page paperback which is nothing more than fluff, has really sad grammar, and leaves you empty and bored at the end. It doesn't matter that my book will suck, as long as I can convince some poor schmuck of a publisher to take it and print it for all the world to see, with nice royalties coming back to me for putting in the time and effort to put all my whacky thoughts on paper.
That's a lot of robotic dogs!
Well duh, that is one way our body makes vitamin D, if I remember correctly. It is the amount of exposure that matters. Speaking of sun exposure, my favorite university memory of walking across the medical school campus was the cluster of smokers puffing away and sunbathers roasting right next to the Cancer Research and Treatment Center sign. One of these days I have got to take a picture of that.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
It depends on what you accept as "evidence." For instance, the major reason some people oppose the Big Bang theory is because it goes hand-in-hand with evolution, and necessitates a univers billions of years old. Since this "goes against the Bible," both the Big Bang and Evolution are considered false.
If this is your evidence, then yes, you are cuckoo.
However, if you have compelling, or even rational, evidence to the contrary, please let us know.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There is no greater proof that science has won the Evolution VS. Creationism argument than the "Intelligent Design" theory. The religious right knows that they cannot win with a "faith based" argument in this day and age, so they've resorted to rhetorical jujitsu and created "Intelligent Design" theory. (Intelligence Design summary : the world is so gosh darn complex that SOME higher power must have created it, right?).
...to Maryland Governer Robert Ehrlich (http://www.gov.state.md.us/).
Even better is "Ground Control to Yoda doll".
would you ever see such a quote:
"But the absolute magnitude of my disagreements are typically no more than a single "cuckoo"."
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
One theory proven and thounsands of nuts are forever vindicated! ;-)
Quack, quack.
Most scientist will assume the ideal situation and assume that colleagues are playing fairly. Therefore, the system is fairly easy to game, for at least a little while. All it takes is a small group of 'scientist' with an agenda. This usually involves some idea that they really want to be 'true'. These characters only need to selectively choose demonstrations and filter data in such a way that their 'truth' is shown to result from the data. Of course real science has great difficulty defending against such attacks because, as in all things, playing by the rules to discover truth is vastly more difficult than just asserting something is true and then picking the few examples that support the position. Even when no malice is involved, such fictions have taken years to disprove.
In the case of softer sciences, or even the harder sciences where duplicating of demonstrations are really difficult, the credibility of the person is critical. The ease by which such sciences are gamed is the reason why we have so much confusion over a variety of social issues, even though the basic consensus is amazingly clear. OTOH, consensus can be wrong, which is why science uses resources to look at all sides of the issue
As an aside, the physicists, and really scientists in general, I know are extremely open minded. They just get jaded after a while due to the number of malcontents that abuse science to promote personal doctrine. To a trained and logical mind, the rhetoric some of these idiots spout is really equivalent to just throwing throwing feces everywhere.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
John Baez's Crackpot Index is a great way to quantify your ad hominem atacks in physics. http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
The Crackpot Index A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics: A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comp
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Take your ass grease pills and put your helmet on
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Commencing countdown, engines on
Check ignition and may God's love shove up you
Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, One, Shove Up
This is Ground Control to Yoda Doll
You've really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose butts you tear
Now it's time to leave the suppository if you dare
"This is Yoda Doll to Ground Control
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm stinking in a most peculiar way
And the ass look very different today
For here am I sitting in an ass can
Far inside the butt
My face is turning blue
And there's nothing I can do
Though I'm past one hundred thousand bowels
I'm feeling very still
And I think my buttship knows which way to go
Tell my wife I ream her very much, she knows"
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you....
"Here am I floating in my ass can
Far inside his Moon
My face is turning blue
And there's nothing I can do."
It has been readjusted (I take it you're speaking of the general version) multiple times, not the least because of quantum theory and Feynman.
As for the reviewer agreeing that "there was no big bang" is absolutely kooky, and deserves a full set of birds, I beg to disagree. If you read up on Stephen Hawking's works, you'll see that there's multiple possible alternatives to a Big Bang -- at least a Big Bang originating from a singularity. String theorists have also lent credulence to this, where a 10- or 26-dimensional universe doesn't necessarily have to have gone through a Big Bang, nor will it ever have to go through a Gnab Gib or infinite expansion.
In short, the hon. author and reviewer have managed to call Stephen Hawking and many other leading scientists cuckoos, without being able to refute what they said -- probably because they never read it.
Regards,
--
*Art
Five cuckoos.
From the original Slashdot article:
Science is a human endeavor. It's conducted by humans. Science is a process, however, and that process is defined in such a way that it doesn't matter which humans conduct it.
Perhaps with homeopathy and other forms of medical quackery coming as a close second, "creation" "science" is the canonical example of why "Does the proposer have an agenda" and "How attached is the proposer to the idea" are important questions you have to ask yourself when evaluating a theory.
The scientific method is independent of humanity. Any sentient being is capable of doing science. But to the best of our knowledge, the only sentient beings that are performing science are humans. We know from observation that humans are fallible. Humans let their emotions get in the way of the facts. When a human is very attached to a theory, and even more so when a human has an agenda that can be advanced by promulgation of that theory, it's not guaranteed, but it's highly more probable, that the human will depart from the scientific method in an effort to cling to a theory that's been repudiated.
One of many links: A Bullshit Detection Guide
Creation "science" fails on: 1A: Manipulative buzzwords - "Intelligent"? "Design"? :)
1C: Audience the BS appeals to: Self-explanatory here
1E: Underdog appeal: "Just the little ol' Christians fighting the hordes of Godless Atheistic Communistic Scientists that Run the Schools"
1F: Requires A Negative View of Authority: As above. Evolution is part of the Grand Conspiracy to Keep The Christians Down.
2B-1: A small group of "experts" pretending to own the field
2B-2: Experts beyond their field of expertise.
2B-3: False claims of objectivity. It used to be called Creation Science, then it got renamed to Intelligent Design. Wonder what it'll be called next week when the scam is exposed?
2E: Blizzard of Numbers - the Creation "scientist" to whom I'm responding is the case in point: "26 variables? 66 variables? Does he really know enough about physics, cosmology, and biology to be sure it's not 27, or 65? Does anyone?!?!
Intelligent Design: Pegs the BS Detector. Five cuckoos.
ID is a nice belief system if you're already a creationist who accepts on faith that the Universe was created by the God of Genesis (optional: 6,000 years ago in a week), but it's not science.
For the record, I'm not bashing Christians here. Frankly, I see zero inconsistency between Genesis and our presently-understood notions of cosmology. Take a guy from 4000 BC and show him a PBS documentary on current theories of cosmology, and ask him to write what he saw. You're likely to get something like "Umm, I saw this vision with moving pictures about how the universe came to be. So, like, first there was nothin'. No time, no space, zilch. Then Something Happened, a couple of branes smacked into each other and nobody knows quite what that means yet. But that was the start of our universe. Then they said something about electromagnetic force breaking symmetry with the weak force, which I couldn't understand, and there was light, which I could understand. Then it cooled enough that the mean free path of a photon got pretty long, and I didn't know what that meant, but that was when it b
I think the non-fossil origins of oil and other subterranean hydrocarbons is just about a lock. Of course, I'm not any sort of chemist or geologist, but the idea that only biological processes can produce hydrocarbons has been in trouble ever since we found out Titan has a methane atmsophere (aka "Natural Gas").
When you consider how much biomatter would have to have been tied up in swamps and then covered in just the right ways and held at just the right pressures and temperatures to produce the amount of oil and coal we've already pulled out of the ground, and how inefficient that process would have to have been, the "fossil" explanation becomes pretty unlikely. When you look back at the history of that explanation, it becomes pretty clear that nobody cared much, then someone noticed plant leaves and bark patterns in some lumps of coal and everyone said "Oh, that must have been it." (HINT: Petrified forests weren't grown by stone trees)
Cook's theory isn't really "abiogenic", BTW. The only abiogenic "fossil fuel" under his theory would be plain methane. Rather, he believes that methane left over from planet formation is steadily separating out, and somewhere in the mantle (around 10-30 kilometers subsurface) a bacterial ecosystem based on sulfides and methane is forming it into complex hydrocarbons. Given that we already know of sulfide-based, high-temperature ecosystems in the deep ocean thermal vents, it's really not much a stretch anymore.
By that theory, the oil-richness of the Middle East becomes inter-related with the East African Rift (both being the consequence of a deep upwelling of methane-rich rock). But we're going to have to wait for those funerals before it will be acceptable for a petro-geologist to admit they have been back-asswards about it for the last century. The "Appropriate Technology" bunch is going to have a screaming fit, as well.
--Dave
Greased Up Yoda Doll is My Lover
Written & composed by Greasedyoda Jackson
He was more like a beauty queen from a star wars movie scene
I said dont mind getting greased up, but what do you mean I am the one?
Who will grease up on the floor in the round
He said I am the one who will get greased up on the floor in the round
He told me his name was Greased up Yoda, as he caused a scene
Then every purple head turned with eyes that dreamed of being the one
Who will grease up on the floor in the round
People always told me be careful of what you do
And dont go around breaking boys rectums
And mother always told me be careful of who you grease up and shove
And be careful of what you do [in the ass] *cause the lie becomes the truth
Greased p Yoda is my lover
He's just a "girl" who claims that I am the one
But the kid is my greased up Yoda and my son
He says I am the one, but the kid is my greased up Yoda doll!
For forty days and forty nights
The law was on his side
But who can stand when hez in demand
His schemes and plans
cause we greased up on the floor in the round
So take my strong advice, just remember to always shove it up a greased ass twice
(do shove twice)
He told my baby, we where anally gyrating till 3:00
Then he looked at me, he showed me a photo
My anal lover cried, cause his anus wasnt as wide as mine
People always told me be careful of what you do
And dont go around shoving Greased Yoda Dolls in you ass!
He came and stood right up my ass.
Then the smell of sweet anal fumes
This happened much too soon
He called me to his room
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
Hez just a doll who claims that I am the one
But the greasy anal remnants is my son
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
Hez just a guy who claims that I am the one
But the Yoda doll is my anal toy
He says I am the one, but the Doll is in my ass
He says I am the one, but the Doll is in my ass
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
Hez just a doll who claims that I am the one
But the Yoda doll is my anal toy
He says I am the one, but the Doll is in my ass
He says I am the one, but the Doll is in my ass
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
Greased Up Yoda Doll is my lover
*sigh*
Even secular science is constantly questioning "The Big Bang". For example, M-Theory (modern string theory) postulates that the Universe could have been born of a collision with another M-Brane (i.e. Universe). Such a collision could produce more than enough stress on space-time to produce the matter and energy in our universe. Thus the inception of our universe was less of a "bang" and more of a "splat".
Personally, I think that's one of the best theories I've heard to date. The only problem is that until we can find some unique properties of M-Theory that allows us to develop proofs, we can't prove that the Universe started in that fashion. (Similarly, the traditional laws of physics break down in the "Big Bang" concept.) On the other hand, if the M-Brane theory is correct, our Universe could be destroyed far sooner than we expected. A single collision from another M-Brane would completely reorder all the material and energy currently in existence. Not a pretty thought...
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If the effects aren't strong enough to measure, why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side?
With an obvious answer. An excellent review! This is really useful information in deciding whether to buy the book. Since I prefer not to pay for biased pseudoscientific drivel, I won't be purchasing the book.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
Seriously though, it would have been so much easier if you'd just said "I'm a Creationist" right at the beginning. Then we could have laughed and pointed that much sooner.
Anyone know anything about this two-sun theory? I have never heard of this and it seems rather bizarre to me. I'm disappointed that the review doesn't say what the theory is.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Um....if they prexisted the formation of the earth, but they're in the earth now, where would they be coming from that "we're probably not going to run out of them"?? Unless there's some wormhole down there in the bowels of the planet, their origin doesn't affect their finite nature, only the possibility that our estimates of their quantities are wrong.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me
Oompa Loompa doompadee dum
CmdrTaco and Hemos like to drink cum
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are a GNU/Faggot you will listen to me
Who do you blame when you're covered in scat
Out with transexual hookers, high on smack?
Blaming the trolls is a lion of shame
You know exactly who's to blame:
CmdrTaco, Hemos, and their undeserved fame!
Oompa Loompa doompadee dah
If you're not using Linux then you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do!
What do you get when you guzzle down cum
Eating as much as an elephant eats
What are you at, getting CowboyNeal fat
What do you think will come of that?
I don't like the look of it
Cock chewing's fine when it's once in a while
It stops you from masturbating and brightens your smile
But it's repulsive, revolting and wrong
Chewing and chewing all day long
The way that Rob Malda does
Who do you blame when your kid is a fag
Pampered and spoiled like a siamese cat
Blaming the fags is a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame
CmdrTaco and Hemos
What do you get from a glut of Cock?
A pain in the neck and an IQ of three
Why don't you try simply fucking a girl
Or could you just not bear to look
You'll get no
You'll get no
You'll get no
You'll get no
You'll get no HIV!
Oompa loompa doompety da
If you're not GNU/Faggot, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do
Doompety do
john titor would dissagree with the time travel one.
Sheesh.
If there is just one civilization, that just means that it is very hard for a single universe to get the parameters right for life. There is no particular reason to think that only our set of parameters exists. According to Big Bang theory, the number of non-circular dimensions and some nature constants where set early on. But according to the many-worlds (which I would argue is almost certainly more correct than the Copenhagen interpretation) interpretation of quantum physics all the other possible parameters were also tried.
You simply find yourself in a universe well suited for life, because of observational bias (for the same reason that you find yourself on a planet well-suited for life). If it is the case that most sets of paramers will just give a sterile, boring universe, then it would seem very likely that almost every life-bearing universe would have only one civilization.
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
Great idea. Clearly there is not the slightest danger in placing highly radioactive material in the hands of every single car owner on the road. The average citizen is so intelligent, thoughtful, and environmentally conscious, there would be not even be any waste problem. No person on the entire planet would ever do something stupid like disposing of a car improperly. Even if they did, it's really easy to clean heavy metals out of groundwater. ::eyeroll::
The real problem isn't with terrorists. It's with everyday morons, who are less predictable, more randomly destructive, and far more common.
A curious teenager once seriously contaminated most of his neighborhood, just with the insides of a bunch of smoke detectors. Consider what would happen if someone just as curious, but even stupider, started playing with a few pounds of plutonium. It's not a pretty thought.
Heh I don't think anything as ever really been proven right. Other than the ol' "I exist" clause. But even that's questionable in some circles.
- shazow
INFLOTTAD YODA !
8 steg for att smorja in ditt anus i forberedelse till inforning av yodadocka
1) utfor tarmuttomning. helst efter inmundigande av laxerande medel,
plommon, kal samt starksaser.
2) stryk anda med Hamamelis Virginiana (LINN.), avbar ohyggliga klador
3) fardigstall anus genom att slappna av.
4) applicera rikligt med vaselin eller dylikt glidmedel in i andtarmen
atminstone till krokningen, samt anlagg aven din yodatval alternativt
yodadocka med namnd substans.
5) peta i analoppningen ett antal ganger for att aktivera ringmuskeln sa
att yodaforemalet lattare gar in.
6) medelst grensle, glid ned over din yodafigur
7) se till att ha i beredskap, en apparat for att fiska ut yoda fran ditt
rektum. har du en yodatval med snore sa tjanar naturligtvis detta som
namnd apparat.
8) ror dig glatt runt i din kontorsstol medan ditt feta, sexlosa jag
njuter av andtarmsmassagen du far. Las slashdot. Onanera till japanska
tecknade serier. Skicka e-post till en av redaktorerna, i hopp om att de
hedrar dig med ett svar. Sok medlemsskap i flera kontaktannonser utan att
lagga marke till (foredrar engelsktalande) samt (foredrar laskunnig). Du
antar att du kan ha battre forutsattningar da. Bestall nagot javla skit
fran Think Geek. Fa Linux att starta pa en Black & Decker apparat. onska
att du kunde ha rad med en ny dator. Vidhall att IDE ar battre an SCSI
darfor att du inte har rad med SCSI. Vidhall hur Linux ar overlagset.
Kompilera en karna pa din 486SX. Pasta att du avskyr Windows men anvander
det till Everquest. Beundra Ghyslains mod i att gora den dar underbara
star wars filmen. Konvertera officiellt till religionen Jedi. Tala om hur
intressant Mega Tokyo ar. Forsok att se till att du utfor dina vanliga
femtio tilltyck pa Slashdot, samtliga som blir avvisade eftersom folk som
inte ar fetare an CowboyNeal far skicka in. Hantera rakliknande penis
medelst uttryck en yodarost som sager: Kann kraften, padawan, kannn
krrafftttennnn. hurgm. Ja. Ja. Nar nio hundra ar du nar, en penis halften
sa stor kommer du inte att ha.
Allt detta pa en dag med en yodafigur uppkord i din rov.
Unlike you, most people find that site to contain very useful content.
In special relativity, faster than light travel (FTL) implies time travel quite directly.
So to treat the two subjects as being significantly different means to be working in a theory other than relativity.
Special Relativity (SR) is nice and simple but fairly limited in scope, but agrees extremely well with experiments within that scope.
Its extension to cover gravity, General Relativity (GR) is extremely elegant, and also agrees well with experimental observations, but is not integrated with the rest of the infrastructure of fundamental physics (quantum physics, quantum electrodynamics, the Standard Model...)
So general relativity may eventually become obsolete, even though currently it's currently a great theory, and whatever replaces it may modify special relativity too. So this isn't some kind of absolute statement.
Still, in the absence of a theory that is trying to supplant relativity, FTL implies time travel. Presumably the author of the book knows this, despite listing FTL and time travel as two different subjects.
For more info see these two sections of the relativity FAQ: relativity: time travel and relativity: FTL , hosted by and partly written by John Baez, a quantum gravity researcher with impeccable physics background (I've done some online study under him; he's also a fantastic teacher).
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
Well, since evolutionary theory is less than 200 years old vs creation theory which is at least 4000 years old... I propose that we give it more time... If evolution is right then it will prevail regardless of resistance and if it is wrong it will fail under its own weight.
it took quite some time for a complete understanding of gravity and the size/shape of the earth to be solidified... so let's give origin science the same chances...
and of course, both theories adequately and accurately explain biology as we know and understand it today... and since we can't know with certainty that the earth/universe is more than ~10K years old... let's wait on more evidence...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Of course time travel is possible. I'm doing it right now. Going backwards is still a problem, though.
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
- There are observed objects older than the suggested 10-15 billion years ago that big bang happened, including Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy
- Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years
- our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape
- There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.
Read up a little before you laugh and pointSaying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
The most intriguing explanation for the Big Bang I've seen recently come from String theory.
The idea is that the Big Bang may have been another universe colliding with our own at a single point in 11-dimension space. The energy of the collision resulting in a huge amount of mass being created.
If this is true, this means that there may be more than one Big Bang (or more in the future). For more on this read the Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, or watch tv series at here.
My, my, what an excellent representation of a pop-scientist, rather than an actual one. An actual scientist uses evidence to prove or disprove theories, and doesn't hold on to a theory just because he wants to, even though the evidence is against it.
Just because someone doesn't believe in the completely unproven Big Band Theory or the ridiculous Theory of Evolution does not make them a Creationist.
Seriously though, it would have been so much easier if you had just said "I'm an idiot" right at the beginning. Then we could have laughed and pointed that much sooner.
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
One clue as to the reliability of any claim is whether the person has any record of expertise in the matter.
A TV actor dressed in a white smock, for example, may not be a reliable source of medical advice.
Falsifiable: [adj] capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
Creationism is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It's a faith-based story.
Someone find me an oil or coil reservoir outside of a sedimentary basin, and I'll swallow this B.S. That some methane may have abiogenic origin is conceivable, but the natural gas we collect now is clearly primarly biological in origin. Petroleum geologists are not so dumb that they could so seriously wrong about the origins of petroleum.
The data on gun ownership alone is not particularly correlated with crime deterrent, but that's conveniently ignoring the data on concealed carry licenses published by John Lott, not-coincidentally in a book called "More Guns Less Crime"
His data showed a consistent and predictable decline in violent crime after the passage of concealed carry laws. Furthermore his data shows that violent crime was exchanged for crimes where there was less risk of meeting a person during commision (car theft, etc). Both of these are consistent with basic economic hypotheses (ie. greater risk costs means less people participate)
Of course when it comes to criminals evaluating their risks, it doesn't matter how many people have guns locked in cabinets at home, it matters how many people MIGHT have them hidden under their jacket.
John Lott: More Guns Less Crime
Kleck and Kates: Armed, new perspectives on gun control.
are the two most important available books that use logic and statistics to examine how firearms affect crime.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
Hmm, nows the time to plug an upcoming book from James P. Hogan. It WAS going to be called Truth Under Tyranny
Major headings from the Table of Contents: .
ONE
HUMANISTIC RELIGION
The Rush To Embrace Darwinism
SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND LOGIC
DARWINISM AND THE NEW ORDER
A CULTURAL MONOPOLY
ROCKS OF AGES -- THE FOSSIL RECORD
ANYTHING, EVERYTHING, AND ITS OPPOSITE: NATURAL
SELECTION
THE ORIGIN OF ORIGINALITY? GENETICS AND MUTATION
LIFE AS INFORMATION PROCESSING
INTELLIGENCE AT WORK? THE CRUX OF IT ALL
TWO
OF BANGS AND BRAIDS
Cosmology's Mathematical Abstractions
MATHEMATICAL WORLDS -- AND THIS OTHER ONE
COSMOLOGIES AS MIRRORS
MATTERS OF GRAVITY: RELATIVITY'S UNIVERSES
AFTER THE BOMB: THE BIRTH OF THE BANG
THE PLASMA UNIVERSE
OTHER WAYS OF MAKING LIGHT ELEMENTS . .
AND OF PRODUCING EXPANSION
REDSHIFT WITHOUT EXPANSION AT ALL
THE ULTIMATE HERESY: QUESTIONING THE HUBBLE LAW
THE GOD OF THE MODERN CREATION MYTH
THREE
DRIFTING IN THE ETHER
Did Relativity Take A Wrong Turn?
SOME BASICS
EXTENDING CLASSICAL RELATIVITY
THE NEW RELATIVITY
DISSIDENT VIEWPOINTS
THE FAMOUS FASTER-THAN-LIGHT QUESTION
FOUR
CATASTROPHE OF ETHICS
The Case For Taking Velikovsky Seriously
EARLY WORK: THE MAKINGS OF AN ICONOCLAST
WORLDS IN COLLISION
SCIENCE IN CONVULSION: THE REACTIONS
TESTIMONY FROM THE ROCKS: EARTH IN UPHEAVAL
ORTHODOXY IN CONFUSION
SLAYING THE MONSTER. THE AAAS VELIKOVSKY
SYMPOSIUM, 1974 AFTER THE INQUISITION: THE PARALLEL UNIVERSE
FIVE
ENVIRONMENTALIST FANTASIES
Politics And Ideology Masquerading As Science
GARBAGE IN, GOSPEL OUT: Computer Games and
Global Warming
HOLES IN THE OZONE LOGIC. But Timely For Some
SAVING THE MOSQUITOES: The War On DDT
"VITAMIN R": RADIATION GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH
RIP-OUT RIP-OFF: THE ASBESTOS RACKET
SIX
CLOSING RANKS
AIDS Heresy In The Viricentric Universe
AN INDUSTRY OUT OF WORK
SCIENCE BY PRESS CONFERENCE
AN EPIDEMIC OF AIDS TESTING
"SIDE EFFECTS" JUST LIKE AIDS: THE MIRACLE DRUGS
A VIRUS FIXATION
The correct link is http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4855/bs.htm
;
the page is titled "A BullSh-- detection Guide"
so I hadn't found it in a google search, either
(usually my first line of defense for bad
URLs)
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
Surely he could have found one or two to fit the high end of the scale.
How about crop circles by electromagnetic fields?
Trust me, you can't reason with the pro crop circle camp, I've debated with them over at Space.com
Some other over looked -- way out ideas.
No Anti-Gravity Speculation?
The Anti-Gravity by Spinning Super-Conductor: Seems to be clocking in at 3 cuckoos by my estimate
However
Gravity Wave Detection and coupling to Electromagnetic Fields: a 1 cuckoo currently, but could go higher or lower in the
near future with new experiments.
Multiple Universes: I'd give this a zero, but experimental confirmation is going to be a real bitch.
Dark Mater: a zero cuckoo for sure, but we haven't really seen the damn stuff yet.
Brane Collision origin of the universe: 1 to 2 cuckoos, but could gain respectability. Less violent than Big Bang, less
inflation, but still an abrupt origin in the 10-20 Billion Year range.
String Theory: a zero cuckoo. It's hard to bet against a theory that just keeps changing, refining, and redefining itself.
In the end String Theory will probably be the GUT, but by then will probably have no strings
Underlining process to Universe are computational: Main premis to Stephen Wolfram's "New Kind of Science." I like Stephen, and even use to work for him, but he has a long way to go before being able to claim a truly "New Kind of Science." I'd say 1 cuckoo.
Cold Fusion: I'd give it 2 cuckoos (these guys just won't go away)
Homeopathic Medicine: I'd give this one a 5 on the 4 cuckoo scale.
MOND Modified Newtonian Dynamics: 1 cuckoo probably, but could really upset the apple cart in physics. Has even had write ups in Scientific American
see
Where's the Dark Matter?
These are just a few off the top of my head, I look forward to seeing some other Slashdotters lists.
Letter To Iran
Dogged resistance to Copernican theory was cultural, based as it was on religious ideas about our central role in the universe. To suggest that the earth-centered universe lasted for 2,000 years despite the scientific method, to use it as an example of the flaws of the scientific method... that's darned rich foolishness, friend. You use the example of Galileo, but you don't seem to know how the story goes -- or even how it turns out. Or are you willing to say the Heliocentric solar system, too, may go by the wayside in 500 years?
Fast forward to Darwin. You may recognize yourself on one side of the old Copernicus story this time, clinging to an ideology rather than trying to understand the world as clearly as people can make it out. You're also engaged in a truly sloppy, relativistic argument -- seemingly in the service of an absolute truth you'd prefer not to admit to, for fear of scaring people off. Pretty murky territory. Does it worry you to lie in service of that higher truth, at all? It'd make my stomach a little queasy.
As far as your specific objections to evolution go, you don't make any, so I'll just leave you to your Michael Behe, Watch-Watchmaker reading. Might want to try something in a peer review journal sometime. Just a suggestion. (That's assuming you're not a Richard Milton sort of a dork; I wouldn't dream of insulting someone that way...)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
This thread seems purposely designed to generate a flamewar. Of that much, I am certain.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Wow, you read Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science," too?
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
scientific community has been wrong more often than right
(followed by)
For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
The "scientific community" as we know it didn't even exist 2000 years ago. Blaming science for the mistakes of it's predicessors makes as much sense as blaming Christians for feeding Socrates Hemlock for daring to question the established order of things. It happened before they were even around yet.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I doubt any seal is tough enough to keep out a bunch of rednecks who "wanna see wutz innit." I once saw some guys drill straight through an old engine block just for fun. They blew apart a bowling ball with stolen dynamite because they believed that old UL about human body parts inside.
Give them a power plant that they know has "sumthin' radial active" inside, and it won't last a week. Sawz-all, Hole Hawg, and a bunch of construction explosives will eventually open just about anything.
I read this tomorrow.. erm yesterday..
Time flies like an arrow...
(with a stopwatch? With tomato ketchup?)
Actually, no theory can ever be proved to be true. Theories can only be proven false. There always may (repeat, may) be conditions that prove the theory false.
Fossils are also regularly found in other things such as sandstone and volcanic ash. But that doesn't mean the sandstone or volcanic ash are of bilogical origin.
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
Proponents of intelligent design (read: God made it) argue that evolution is "just a theory". What they conveniently forget is that gravity, is also "just a theory" as are many ideas of science. It does not refute the fact of gravity that scientists have proposed a theory of its operation.
Similarly, the theory of evolution does not refute the fact that life on this planet has emerged, evolved and then disappeared leaving other life forms in its place. Confusing the fact of evolution with the theory of its mechanism is a common device among adherents to intelligent design.
Unfortunately, the colloqial use of the word "theory" has diluted its scientific standing. A scientific theory is one that has passed the intense scrutiny of the scientific process, has been accepted by peers in that field, and can be modified and improved through further science.
For a good read on an advocate of HIV != AIDS, go here.
She has HIV, does not take any of the AZT drugs and is and has been healthy as a horse for a looong time.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Check out ZetaTalk for the latest news of our impending doom.
A quick search on Google reveals much:
Tomas Gold has quite a bit of interesting information, including reference to an oil deposit sans sediments.
As an off-topic side note, if this is true then there would possibly be oil on Mars and other planets - a nice kick in the pants for space exploration once we tell George Bush...
If I was worried about Karma, I'd eat tofu.
This isn't so much a comment about the book as about the person who reviewed it here on slashdot and posted the article. The reviewer makes the same mistake repeatedly, of assuming that if an idea hasn't been proven wrong, than it's proponents don't deserve a cukoo rating at all - it should be zero.
No. That's not how it works. When positing the existence of things, or putting forth an explanative theory to describe why things that are there got that way, the burden of proof is always on the positor. Therefore someone who is willing to believe a theory purely because it hasn't been proven wrong DOES deserve at least a little cukoo rating for that.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I would not be the least bit surprised if 500 years from now the Big Bang theory and Evolution were considered myths from the past. Even now, there's substantial logical and statistical problems with the "proofs" of Evolution.
His doubts about the Big Bang theory are a result of his creationist beliefs. Are yours?
It seems to me /. is reporting more and more book reviews lately. Book reviews are merely another means of advertising.
I wonder...does slashdot get paid for reporting book reviews?
The author seems to be a bit cukoo himself... if you look at some of his publications on tachyons (I looked at the one about the electron neutrino being a tachyon), you see that he is more than a little crazy, not to mention has a rather weak grasp on physics. I'm amazed he managed to get it published in Physical Review. For one thing, making the rest mass of a field imaginary does NOT make the corresponding particle travel faster than light; rather, it indicates an instability in the theory, and it means that there are no particle excitations at all. If you want FTL particles, you have to change the sign of the kinetic term, which introduces all sorts of major problems and makes the theory non-unitary.
. a different story altogether.
Do you want to visit 3000 years in the future? Get you ass up to relativistic speeds and then come back. You'll have aged slightly and the rest of the universe will be far into the future. Ergo, time travel in one direction is trivially simple in theory, yet difficult as an engineering feat. Oh, if you want to come back, sorry...
Loading...
Sheesh.
For example, (your points 1 and 2) the error margin on the age of the universe is down to 1%, at 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years. That there are objects that appeared to be older than that is due to another recently discovered phenomena, that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating. That nowscape.com page you point to is obsolete.
(3) I have heard of the galactic rotation problem, I don't know what (if anything) the concordance model says about it.
(4) The large scale structure depends a lot on the nature of fluctuations in the early universe. Not enough is known about them to say anything, but there is no reason why a structure should take a long time to form just because it is large.
See here for a more recent article on the age of the universe.
Good argument!! There are lots of irresponsible idiots so don't let anyone have guns.
Hmmm... So it's OK to let irresponsible idiots drive 3000 pound cars. And it's OK to let irresponsible idiots buy chainsaws. And it's OK to let irresponsible idiots raise children.
The answer to the irresponsible idiot problem is NOT EVER to restrict the freedoms of responsible intellitgent adults. When will you irresponsible idiots learn this????
Do you accept the biblical account of the creation as written in the bible as being an accurate (or if you prefer, "more accurate than mainstream scientific explanations") description of the manner that the universe and animal life came about?
If so, please explain how you intend to point out the flaw in logic of burgburgburg assuming someone who calls into question the validity of the Big Bang is a creationist.
All great truths begin as blashpemies.
Sure hope that this Robert Ehrlich isn't that shithead rightwing republican suck my ass governor of ours ... If so, he can take his writing and shove it right up his tuition-cutting ass.
Of course, if it's a true science guy, kudo's!
terpmotors.com
I'm afraid your arguing on old data. As well as forgetting to check the error margins on the data.
For one I believe all the older then 15 billion objects have been eliminated as bad interpretations, or due to other problem.
The hubble constant has since then been readjusted to around 11-12 billion years as well I believe. Not quite sure on that.
The formation of our galaxies or the large scale formations in computer models do seem to be formable in our given amount of time.
On a side issue, it's not unusal for early data sets to have wide variations, and you should keep this in mind before trying to do to much with early data. This explains these considerable revisions in the dates. They've infact been revised alot through time, and in general these revisions have brought the several different threads of data ever closer to each other.
As for the compton effect, I assume this might some kind of dust related effect or something, I couldn't find it right off in my scan of the work. Though I note that even in my quick search I saw some bad argumentation. (something that always makes me a bit nervous over things)
As far as I can see, all reasonable evidence shows that all matter in space came from a very small area. This doesn't mean there arn't alot of problems left though in big bang theory. I'm not completly happy with it myself either, I can accept the later part of it. The point where the background radiation came from, however the explanation is very poor when it comes to explaing well what happened before. I suppose it's because our current physics might not be quite up to it yet.
Quickshot.
Surely then, the anti position should be considered the least plausible, since the status quo is to recgonize the basic human right to keep and bear arms.
Why is the ownership of a gun somehow special as a basic human right?
Is owning a dog a basic human right?
Is owning a house a basic human right?
Is owning a car a basic human right?
Is owning a tank a basic human right?
Is owning a cruise missle a basic human right?
Is owning a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon a basic human right?
Are any of these basic human rights distinct from the basic human right to own property? How?
Is maintaining the status quo always the least insane policy?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
A while back as an exercise for a logic class, we went over the "AIDS is not caused by HIV" controversy.
To be fair, at the time it the controversy first arose the case was far from closed and many of the objections brought up by the anti-HIV community were valid e.g. why haven't we seen any nurses fall sick from accidental exposure. Of course, since then nurses _have_ fell ill to accidental exposure to HIV. In all, sometime in the early 90's we had gathered enough evidence to fairly conclude that HIV causes AIDS.
The only remaining gap, at the time I followed this, was the possibility that a small number of chronic syphilis cases might possibly currently be misconstrued as AIDS.
There do exist data that are very hard to reconcile with a non HIV cause of aids.
If somenone has aids, they have hiv in the blood (not 100%, rarely is biology 100%). If u treat that person with azt, an RT inhibitor, the person gets better and the amount of hiv in the blood goes down
eventually that person gets sick, and they now have in their blood a lot of hiv with a SPECIFIC molecular change that confers resistance to azt ( I have phd in molecular biology, so don't flame me on minor points; i can talk about Kd of azidothymidine and rt amino acid changes witht he best of em)
if u now give that person a protease inhibitor, they get better, adn the amount of hiv in the blood goes down, and when they get sick again, they have hiv in thier blood that has SPECIFIC molecular changes that confer resistance to protease inhibitors
both times , there is a temporal and molecular coincidence.
now, it is possible to make some sort of detailed molecular model that accounts for this data.
but it is very hard to make a plausible model
What is sad is that the luminaries of biomedical research who have addressed this point of hiv/aids have not used the above argument, which is the strongest one.
one more point: science does not proceed, particulalry in biology, by rigid adherence to some rule; eg, some people say hiv/aids is a myth because we dont satisfy kochs postulates. These are simply good rules of logic,not iron laws; anyway, they are hard to apply to people (u cant deliberately infect a person with hiv)
Its
Over a dozen years ago, one of my friends (a geologist) went into a near-frothing rage at me when I mentioned the idea that an asteroid hitting the Earth might have killed the dinosaurs, and he spent a half hour telling me in no uncertain terms that anyone who suggested it was going against everything known about the science.
Meanwhile, you can get many of the major petroleum products by putting a bunch of methane under high pressure and heat for a few million years.
Geology is one of the most conservative sciences, and it takes a generation or so for startling new ideas to even be read, much less accepted.
I agree - I develop computer mapping programs for energy companies, and couldn't have said it better myself. The in-ground reserves always correlate to sedimentary deposits.
I am not an organic chemist, but I am sure there is also a linkage between the carbon chains found in petroleum and those found in biological matter.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
It has become clear t'me thet although mah views, experience, an' trainin' might be sevahely biased, pathetic, an' in-a-de-quate; ah too kin write a book about jest about ennythin'. It's only a matter of time until ah make a killin' off of all yo' Slashdot freaks who write down crazy stuff. I'll stuff it all into one li'l 150 page paperback which is nothin' mo'e than fluff, has pow'ful sad grammar, an' leaves yo' emppy an' bo'ed at th' end, cuss it all t' tarnation. It don't matter thet mah book will suck, as long as ah can cornvince some pore schmuck of a publisher t'take it an' print it fo' all th' wo'ld t'see, wif nice royalties a-comin' back t'me fo' puttin' in th' time an' effo't t'put all mah whacky thunks on paper.
Jive:
It gots become clear t'me dat aldough mah' views, 'espuh'ience, and trainin' might be severely biased, alleyetic, and inadequate; ah' too kin scribble some scribblin' about plum about nuthin. It's only some matta' of time until ah' make some killin' off uh all ya' Slashdot freaks who scribble waaay down crazy stuff. I'll stuff it all into one little 150 page sheetback which be nodin' mo'e dan fluff, gots real sad grammar, and leaves ya' empty and bo'ed at da damn end. It duzn't matta' dat mah' scribblin' gots'ta suck, as long as ah' can convince some poo' schmuck uh a publisha' to snatch it and print it fo' all de wo'ld t'see, wid supa fine royalties comin' back t'me fo' puttin' in de time and effo't t'put all mah' whacky doughts on sheet.
Elmer Fudd
It has become cweaw to me that awthough my views, expewience, and twaining might be sevewewy biased, pathetic, and inadeqwate; I too can wwite a book about just about anything. It's onwy a mattew of time untiw I make a kiwwing off of aww you Swashdot fweaks who wwite down cwazy stuff. I'ww stuff it aww into one wittwe 150 page papewback which is nothing mowe than fwuff, has weawwy sad gwammaw, and weaves you empty and bowed at the end. It doesn't mattew that my book wiww suck, as wong as I can convince some poow schmuck of a pubwishew to take it and pwint it fow aww the wowwd to see, wif nice woyawties coming back to me fow putting in the time and effowt to put aww my whacky thoughts on papew.
and the one that, in my humble opinion, lends the most credibility to the statement
Bork!
It hes becume-a cleer tu me-a thet elthuoogh my feeoos, ixpereeence-a, und treeening meeght be-a seferely beeesed, pezeeteec, und inedeqooete-a; I tuu cun vreete-a a buuk ebuoot joost ebuoot unytheeng. It's oonly a metter ooff teeme-a unteel I meke-a a keelling ooffff ooff ell yuoo Sleshdut freeks vhu vreete-a doon crezy stooffff. I'll stooffff it ell intu oone-a leettle-a 150 pege-a peperbeck vheech is nutheeng mure-a thun flooffff, hes reelly sed gremmer, und leefes yuoo impty und bured et zee ind. Bork bork bork! It duesn't metter thet my buuk veell soock, es lung es I cun cunfeence-a sume-a puur schmoock ooff a poobleesher tu teke-a it und preent it fur ell zee vurld tu see-a, veet neece-a ruyelteees cumeeng beck tu me-a fur pootteeng in zee teeme-a und iffffurt tu poot ell my vhecky thuooghts oon peper. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!
Nice post
There Was No Big Bang
...) then I'll buy it.
Clocks in at 3 cuckoos, as you might expect.
Actually, while there is tons of evidence in favour of this one, we should be a lot more leery about accepting it, given our historical record with any idea that places us in a privileged position.
For example our self-perception of our role in the universe has progressed from the center of creation to center of the universe down to center of the solar system -> well, ok at least most advanced animal -> a monkey that thinks down to a monkey that talks.
The big bang in its most accepted form places us in a unique universe that didn't exist before, which brings us back to the problems mentioned before. However if we could reconcile the big bang with non-uniqueness (say finite size universe, or multiple universes or
"Great Mind" "Good Person". For example, consider Daniel Carlton Gajdusek, who won the Nobel in 1976. In 1997, he plead guilty for child abuse. Turns out he was also a long-time pedophile.
Totally different school of science. And Sassy!
Flaw in the logic? That implies logic existed. You know, there are more theories about the origins of the universe than merely the Big Bang and Creationism. Intelligent Design for one, which shares commonalities with, but does not necessarily jive exactly with Creationism.
And yeah, I know what a T-H-E-O-R-Y is. Sheesh.
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
It was special enough to recognize in our bill of rights. The highest law of the land recognizes it as a right, that's what makes it special.
Property is never recognized explicitely as a basic human right in the consitution, but several parts of the constitution imply property as a basic human right.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If you have a better explanation that's not a total waste of time, then please share it with the world.
No? I didn't think so.
[javac] 100 errors
You are a couple of years behind the times.
There is a lot of truth to that as I'm a professional software developer, and only a hobbyist when it comes to other sciences anymore.
There is now a consistent model of cosmology (the 'Concorance Model') which, although it has obvious gaps, explains basically every known observation.
Something that has obvious gaps couldn't possibly explain anything, it can merely suggest it. There are many more holes in blg bang theory than I posted earlier (if everything is moving away from the center, how can galaxies collide.. etc....) but they are still holes in the theory.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Look: you haven't thought about it, so you're assuming that your "common sense" position is *obviously* true, but trust me on one simple, point: it just isn't obvious. Try watching the documentary "Bowling for Columbine" sometime... Michael Moore set out to do a pro-gun control movie and quickly came to the conclusion that gun control is just besides the point. He points the finger at the "culture of fear" we've got here in the states.
Didn't Einstein prove that forward time travel is possible, if only on a potentially miniscule scale? The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time, so if you were to accelerate yourself close to the speed of light, you could theoretically slow back down and be in the future? I am of the belief that travelling back in time is theoretically improbable but not into the future.
Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have already graduated from being scientific hypotheses by surviving experimental testing. Hence both are now considered to be Theories. Your post indicates either a lack of understanding of the term or a desire (like creationists) to confuse the lay public into thinking that a theory is a wild guess.
So, are you a creationist? You never answered.
A gun is a tool. If an argument is going to happen and a gun is around, it will most likely get very serious.
The person behind a proposal is an good heuristic predictor when you review an idea in most areas (probably including science) -- without doing a full research paper on the idea.
For most subjects there are many more ways to be totally wrong than there are ways to be (close to) correct. So, e.g., any randomly choosen answer to a problem (how to stop crime, etc, etc) is almost certainly non-working (or even detrimental).
People of fixed ideas (and of any ideological political (etc) opinions) have pink colored glasses that distort their world view and they base their decisions on how to e.g. solve problems (relevant to their fixed ideas) because of that. This results in an (at least) partly randomly choosen solution -- which probably is bad because randomly choosen solutions don't work (or are incorrect) -- see previous paragraph.
So it is a good heuristic to assume that cranks and people with agendas seldom are correct.
(Of course, the ideology or preconceived opinion might be correct... But it will be accepted if the cranks turn out to do correct predictions. Most to all ideologies are wrong, of course -- see argument above.)
Disclaimer: I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here -- at least in the way I've formulated this comment.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Entirely theoretical. Little or no emperical data either way. 3 Theoretical cuckoos to more guns - less gun crime for ignoring the singularity in their argument (There will be more gun crime with 1 gun than with 0).
This statement is wrong if just one instance of an HIV infection caused AIDS. The empirical data for this is extremely large. - 4 Cuckoos
Non excessive sun exposure is healthy. - 0 Cuckoos.
With one cavaet, when it is known to benefit the condition being treated. - 0 Cuckoos.
Look up. - 4 Cuckoos
Possibly, but I doubt it greatly. The ability of RNA as a catalyst to its own replication and that of and other biological materials makes it very likely that there were small ammounts of many organic chemicals, including some functioning RNA, and that the first time frame in which we see huge ammounts of organic chemicals should be the RNA catalysts putting the formation of organic chemicals into exponential growth (until restrained by the resources available). The largest producer of hydrocarbons is photosynthesis. So if lots of this stuff was formed before photosynthesis, we should find even more formed afterwards. 1 Theoretical Cuckoo for overcorrecting.
According to quantum mechanics, to a limited degree, yes. However to move a person back in time about one second you need a negative energy of about the mass of jupiter. We havn't found any negative energy, so don't hold your breath. - 3 Thoeretical Cuckoos.
Not enough research - As an idea 0 Theoretical Cuckoos, be creative. As a statement of fact - 2 Cuckoos - do more research first.
Lots of theory here - As an idea 0 Theoretical Cuckoos, be creative. As a statement of fact - 2 Cuckoos - do more research first. (There was a big bang has the same ratings.)
Robin Hanson, professor of Economics at George Mason, who has also done some work with physics, has a page that might be of interest to anyone who likes this sort of thing, called "Fourteen Wild Idea." See http://hanson.gmu.edu/wildideas.html
My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
Obligatory Douglas Adams quote:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in--an interesting hole I find myself in--fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."
-W
All unfair meta-mods are now being meta-meta-modded as retarded.
I would agree that Time Travel probably is possible. However the conditions would probably prevent the average human from ever negotiating the wormholes or whatever.
This statement could be made about everything.
should not be freely available to everyone.
should be available only to those who can prove that they are capable of handling them responsibly.
Do the same with the vote, and then perhaps we can talk.
This is my sig.
So, if we assume for the moment that this theory is true, and that new oil, etcetera is being made all the time, that doesn't necessarily mean that we aren't going to run out.
Would new petrochemicals be formed faster than we can use them up? Certainly the levels in proven reserves drop as they're being pumped up, so any regeneration is on a slower scale than our current consumption.
My video compression blog
I guess we should board up the DMV, Driving schools, get rid of VIN's, abolish all traffic infractions etc.
I mean after all, when you read the constitution all you see is, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Of course, the reasonable people recognize "A well regulated millitia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They of course pick up two cuckoos for using statistics for what Samual Clemens invented them for, as do the gun ownership advocates. But for such blatat self delusion, the gun-clubers deserve that extra bird.
Cars are VERY regulated to the point that you might need to by time on a supercomputer to virtually crash one to prove it's safe to drive. Every aspect of the operation, use, ownership and appearence is well regulated.
By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Let me ask it again:
Do you accept the biblical account of the creation as written in the bible as being an accurate (or if you prefer, "more accurate than mainstream scientific explanations") description of the manner that the universe and animal life came about?
Apparently you only read the review of the movie and didn't actually watch it. Michael Moore found that Canada has many more guns per capita than the U.S. yet a lower rate of crimes committed with a gun.
In case you missed that (again), let me speak slowly: there were more guns and less crime.
You said that none of the nine theroies were based on mathmatics. But isn't it string theory (aka m-theory) that calls for the existance of tachyeons? In which case I'd say that at least that theory has a rather strong basis in mathematics.
Actually I feel I should apologise. Quite ashamed of the shitness of that posting. I'd expected my post to be modded down immediately so didn't take as much care over it as perhaps it deserved.
Firstly it isn't the worst review ever by a long way but slightly less than I've come to expect from Slashdot.
Secondly the whole Sterling to Dollar thing confused me hence the five cents, two cents thing.. never hear anyone say my two pence.
Third, the complete lack of chart, fact or figure of any description does as you point out completely rubbish my opinions.
Fourth. Bowling For Columbine is a superb movie one I've watched many times and agree with totally on the 'culture of fear' however I fear Moore's slight pro-gun approach was simply a means to make it stomachable to the America populace. As for guns being tools, what civilised person needs a tool capable of taking another's life? Having been bought up with christian values (n.b. I'm now a devote atheist) I can honestly say I'd rather risk my own life than take another. Last time I checked you guys were predominatly christian (hell, some of you even denounce evolution theory.) Also my American history might not be as good yours (this comment not directed to you personally) I do seem to recall that firearms are legal due to an amendmant muttering about right to protect one's self and protecting America. I also seem to remember that this was drafted in order to be able to quickly rally an army against the British. As we aren't likely to invade anytime soon and small-arms really don't cut it in international disputes anymore, surely this is now defunct?
Oh and quickly the Switzerland thing; sure guns aren't the cause of crime but the difference in Switzerland is the culture, the reverent respect rather than sexing of guns and the fact that guns aren't seen as a form of crime control. I think Micheal makes this point best.
Again, apologies for my first post's shitness but at least it got the whole ball rolling on the gun debate.
Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
You should check out U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Sec. 311. for the definition of militia. For your convenience I will post it here:
So, if you are male and choose to live in the U.S. as a citizen and are between 17 and 45 you are almost certainly in the unorganized "militia" whether you know it or not. In support of that militia you, and everyone else, has the right to keep and bear arms. As a result, a militia familiar with firearms (i.e., well regulated) is available at any moment. Perhaps you have heard of the "Minute Men"?
It should be noted that serious questions have been raised about Lott's statistical methods in this book. I don't know enough about statistics to know if the criticisms are valid or not, but I do know they have caused other highly regarded second amendment scholars to suggest caution, and distance themselves from him (in the academic sense, not the "Ok now, back away slowwllyyy" sense).
HOWEVER: There is another important factor here. When Lott's critics adjust his findings in ways they say are more statistically valid, they show (or so they claim) that crime rates don't drop with increasing gun ownership. *But they also show that rates don't show a statistically significant INCREASE, either.*
This in itself is a very important finding, since the central claim of gun control proponents has been that if you make it easier for people to own guns, the crime rate will go UP. Lott's research suggests that isn't the case.
Erlich may be a physics prof at George Mason and for that I have tremendous respect. But to address the general nature of knowledge he needs to expand his treatment past the limited confines of sludging through research and thinking stuff out.
;-) will recognize that you have done a lot of hard and possibly valid work and will generally listen to your ideas.
Now that may sound crazy in itself, but to do a complete treatment of the subject matter, you really have to address the nature of reality *plus* the structure of belief.
In other words, to truly understand what is real and what is not you need to work from firsthand experience outward. Along the way you have to make a note of how you came to believe what you do and how much of what you belief you have personally checked out (science). If you are taking someone else's word for something, that needs to be accounted for.
The tendency for everyone (including professional scientists) to open mouth and rebroadcast someone else's experience or opinion is legendary. Apparently checking things out for oneself is not so important or useful as making oneself feel important by puffing up one's ego. This could be by bolstering his ego in the eyes of his friends and colleagues and reinforcing the well-established and profitable dogma of the favorite soothsayers or by denigrating someone else's obviously "crazy" idea.
The whole idea of marking an idea as 'crazy' has little scientific or social value. It's either supported or unsupported by reproducible experimental data. No support or lots of support. k=(1/2)mv^2 has lots of support. FTL travel has little (to zero).
Sometimes that is why they say that science evolves one funeral at a time. As each old-guard scientist dies it opens the possibility that some valid but exotic theory may take hold (and gain funding.) Why? Because the old guard holds the purse strings. The people who give them that money know precious little about real knowledge or true science so they send their money to what works. Sometimes, disturbingly, what works is what employs some general's brother in law.
The belief that the current scientific "knowlege base" is written in stone somewhere and those who question it should be reviled is often termed "scientism". Those who believe such things are either religious themselves, or may be scientists but apparently they are the lazy variety. The kind that thinks that the experimental method is just some dodge that we use to check-off the truth on our reality clipboards.
On the other hand, those who believe that the long-established scientific structure should be turned over on someone's speculation are lazy. Good science is hard work. If you expect someone to believe something you better lay out the difficult groundwork first. Believe it not, nearly all good men (which surprisingly includes some scientists
Changing reality in the scientific world should be just as simple as:
(1) hypothesis
(2) experiement.
(3) verify
(4) publish.
But it's rarely so simple. Usually money and politics get involved and then the firstorm begins.
That's why mathmatics is sort of dry sometimes, but on the other hand its cheap to test.
That's why I like computers. Software development is one experiement after another on the cheap.
You know the thing that suprises me is that this book attempts to analyze things that are chaotic and fraught with unverifiable data (like the gun issue) when it doesn't even bother to take a whack at cold fusion.
Now I know that some here might think I'm trying to start a troll, but there are numerous reputable scientists (mostly tenured and independently wealthy, hint) who are *still* working on this because they have been getting reproduceable excess heat as well as extremely interesting anomolous results. Granted it not a large quantity of excess heat, but on the other hand it's a net gain of energy, reproduceable with discipline and doesn't se
Words of Washington like:
I am just glad I got my education before the politically correct liberals re-wrote all the textbooks.You're right about slightly outdated data, and I posted in another thread that I'm relegated to a hobbyist when it comes to other sciences (than computer) these days. There are other holes in big bang, and I didn't want to post something that would drag on... no big deal really. All I was trying to point out was that guy who immediately flashed the "creationist" card when someone questioned big bang was off his rocker.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
So the Bloods and Crips are really displaying their attitudes towards Big Bang theory?
I am not an astronomer, but I am a physisist and I have been at recent talks given by cosmologists who are ecstatic about the recent developments, namely the concordance model. It gets the name 'concordance' precisely because it brings all of the previously seemingly paradoxical observations into 'concordance' in one single unified model.
Now it doesn't actually explain much (it is a model, not a theory), for example it says that almost all of the energy in the universe is in the form of 'dark' matter or 'dark' energy, and it gives rather precise figures for exactly how much dark matter and energy there is, doesn't say what dark matter actually is. Nor does it say anything about inflation theories (except that space is flat, and inflation is a plausible reason for this).
A link for large-scale structure is here. As for why galaxies collide, well, they attract each other gravitationally! If they are too close together, they collide. Where is the deep mystery? The link has more info on galaxy formation too.
So, by your own reasoning, why did the USA invade Iraq? Saddam Hussain was exercising his right to bear arms. Where do you draw the line on arms? Is it firearms? Is it knives? Is it biological weapons? Is it a baseball bat? Is it cruise missiles with nuclear warheads? Is it automatic weapons? All of these are "arms", where is your line drawn on what you are allowed by your constitution to bear?
I love when people start their arguments with 'I'm not a scientist but who cares, obviously I'm right anyway'. Here's a hint, you didn't spend your life studying rock formations and chemical compositions etc. in excrutiating detail, SCIENTISTS DO.
Your statements that: "When you look back at the history of that explanation, it becomes pretty clear that nobody cared much, then someone noticed plant leaves and bark patterns in some lumps of coal and everyone said "Oh, that must have been it." (HINT: Petrified forests weren't grown by stone trees)" (care to explain this incomprehensible non-sequitur?)
and:
"...the "fossil" explanation becomes pretty unlikely. When you look back at the history of that explanation, it becomes pretty clear that nobody cared much.." borders on the idiotic. Like I said before, people devote thier lives to the study of coal fossils, there are whole museums centered around the fact. Oh silly me though, I forgot, it's you the non-scientist who's the expert on these things.
What really irritates me about posts like yours is not the fact that you support a "crazy idea" in science as a pet theory; there's no problem with that. It's that you're so blinded by your own ignorance on the basic science underlying the theories you wish to supplant and simultaneously so laughably self confident despite that ignorance, that you end up making yourself look like an ass and making your theory look well...crazy.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology and am a practicing scientist, not esp successful, in his 40s. My wife is an internationally known researcher at Harvard. I say this not because I'm a credential a**** but to convince you that I might have some insights the geeks of Slashdot are missing.
Geeks and Scientists are different; IMHO, the general level of scientific knowledge on Slashdot is low. Sorry. Like listening to clients about web design, eh ? (there was a long and bitter rant about this on SD recently)
Scientists are people and there are a lot of them. In 1e6+ scientists, you can find someone who will support anything, no matter how wacko. I bet you could find PhDs who not only believe that NASA faked the moon walks, but that the moon really is made of green cheese. Simak's rule: 99% of everything is BS. Just because they have lots of letters and grants, does not mean they are doing good work. My boss comes into the lab the day they announce cold fusion, and he says, well these guys don?t look like bullshitters, they look like serious, honest people, experts in the area say they have done good work in electrochemistry, but if you do a rough calculation they are off by 19 orders of magnitude in their calculations (figure out what that means in flops, the difference between a flop/sec and one trillion megaflops per sec; it is a big number). Scientists are people. Everyone wants to be famous; it warps the mind.
Of the nine ideas, some are testable and proovalbe. And some are not. You cannot "prove" that the big bang happened. You can show that the data are consistent with the model.
You could, in the absence of ethics, prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that HIV causes AIDS: Take 500 healthy, genetically similar people. Setup a new, clean lab, with decontaminated robots to do the work, and chemically synthesize DNA or RNA genomes (this can be done; it might take a lot of money, but is well within current technology; the chemical synthesis is to eliminate the argument that "cofactors" copurify with hiv in natural preps) Inject 250 people with the new chemical DNA (possibly in a lipsome with some integrase, but that's a tech detail) and inject 250 people with water.
Wait.
You get an answer. If 220 of the + injectees come down with aids, and none of the - injectees do, you know: not in the sense that you know you like cheese, but know in the sense that 2+2=4.
How do you prove that guns cause crime? well if you were Braniac (from superman comics), you could make 50 cities under glass, and give guns to 25. With what is possible, it is very hard to come to a conclusion. IMHO, $$ on gun research is a bad ROI; like fusion energy research (u get better ROI with conservation; fusion programs are just welfare for sci entists)
One more thing: there is nothing wrong with intelligent design, it is just that the last time I looked the ID people did not play by the rules: they are not honest. They lie. They look at data that should =2, and twist and turn and sleazily say it equals 1. Sorry. U can look this up on the web and come to your own conculsion (ID begs the question of why you don?t accept that G*D made the universe to fool us, for inscrutable reasons of her own)
Sorry for the flame, but the ID people have brought this on themselves.
.
Because that nonsense costs innocent lives.
"Time Travel is Possible" is fun to speculate about, but that's about it.
You could have another indicator, for importance, a scale on which "Time travel" gets a 0, "Guns and crime" gets a 3, Bush and co's denial of global warming gets a 4, and that "AIDS is not a problem" gets a 5.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
She has HIV, does not take any of the AZT drugs and is and has been healthy as a horse for a looong time.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Petrified forests (and other fossils) are formed by a steady substitution of silicates for the organics under the proper conditions (the organics must have been included intact in sediments fairly quickly, then immersed in a mineral-rick water flow, among other things).
A similar process could easily be at work with the coal that shows the forms and textures of organic forms. In fact, when you consider how much the original organic material would have to have been compacted to form coal, it beggars the imagination that a recognizeable, never mind nearly exact, copy of the original plant appears. In fact, you have to conclude that the percursor to the coal bed formed, was compacted, exposed, took on inclusions of organic material, and then covered *again*.
I repeat, when you look at the tortuous logic used to explain the traditional model, and the inconsistencies between various elements of the explanations, Gold's theory doesn't look so far out anymore. I didn't like the bit about the coal fossils and the clathrates *before* I ever heard of Gold.
--Dave
Point taken.
I started watching this movie. But was insensed and turned the channel early on into it.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Plato
Time travel is possible. Didn't a bunch of scientists move a particle of matter a wee bit in time? Haven't scientists measured that if you travel on an airplane, you move in time a wee bit too (since you've traveled at a high speed)?
Pelé!
You make a dangerous assumption that I am a Republican. I'm not. I don't really agree with the whole Iraq thing.
The supporters of the right to bear arms do usually draw an arbitrary line.
I personally believe that the mere ownership (and by extension, the action of aquisition) of any particular thing should never be illegal. Crimes should be limited to criminal actions. When someone uses a thing to coerce, threaten, or kill someone, that's a crime.
Sure, it makes things a lot simpler to regulate and control obvious things that have very little non-destructive use, but then you are the one drawing the arbitrary line.
What's obviously something only used for destruction? There's not much. Carmack trying to get pure hydrogen peroxide is one example. It's obviously a potentially dangerous substance, but he plans to only use it for launching his rockets.
Should we ban his rocket research too, since he might fashion an ICBM of some sort?
I say it's the authoritarians who draw the real arbitrary line, and it's of a much wider scope than just guns.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The right to own a gun is not a basic human right. It is a right derived from the right to protect your own life, which is the basic human right.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
A scientist who proposes a "theory" has done a whole pile of work before even getting to this point.
It's called the scientific method. The scientific method is a tool.
If you are not familiar with the scientific method, google for it. It involves a whole lot of disinterested parties investigating an idea. And all of them getting consistent results. And all of them refining and trying to disprove that idea.
The scientific method is not a universally useful tool. I cannot explain, through scientific means, why my wife loves me. There's no question that she does. It's not the job of science to explain this. And claw hammers are not very good at installing #10 wood screws. That's not their job.
What it is is a universally objective tool. Science has to be testable. Science has to be disprovable. Science has to work for the same for everyone every time. Science can explain why a hammer moves rapidly towards the floor when I place it in the air above the floor. Science can explain why and how rapidly and how far such a hammer moves for everybody who performs the experiment. Science can predict what will happen when you repeat the experiment. That's its job. And if there's a dead guy on the floor with the hammer buried in his head, science can explain how he got that way. Well, not just for hammers and dead guys, but generally for objectively observable and measureble events.
These rigorous requirements earn statements made by scientists a certain amount of weight.
To many people, science is a religion. By this, I don't mean that those people are fanatically devoted to science. I mean that many people see statements made by the scientific establishment as dogma. They see such statements as beliefs --something which can be argued via debating techniques, and understood by merely reciting the correct words of power. They see such statements as accepted unquestioningly by the general public and by the legal system.
And they want the same respect for their own statements as the general public shows for statements made by the scientific establishment.
A fair expectation unless examined critically. After all, aren't we all guaranteed "equal protection under the law".
Critical examination, however, reveals that the statements made by scientists and those made by crackpots are fundamentally different in nature. Neither statement is more or less "valid" than any other.
"Valid" only has meaning in a given context. "My wife loves me" is not a scientifically valid statement. It's absolutely true for me. But it's not science. And it may not be a true statement for you. Such a statement is not objectively observable .
A scientific statement, however, is objective. Everyone can test it.
To the layperson, "theory" means "This is how I think the world is". Could have come from divine revalation. Maybe through psychotic rationalization. Maybe from many years of hard work at self-delusion. Maybe it's just a guess.
And if you don't believe such a statement, it's because you're a heretic. Or a blasphemer. Or unsaved. Or you're "the man". It's because your beliefs are wrong. For such statements, you don't get to say "Here is a method that would disprove the theory, were it not true." and then exercise that method (experiment) to get the same result as the person who proposed the theory.
That is a difference between science and not-science.
So, your ideas about creation, free energy, the illumaniti, black helicopters, and God's love for all men could be called "theories".
Just not scientific ones.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Right. By virtue of being alive, the bacteria do not become instantly carbonized by the heat and pressure. And what do they die of, old age? Bacteria divide, remember?
This is ridiculous.
Which is also predicated on the "being necessary for the security of a free state" which is no longer true. And the women and the disabled or infermed are obviously not part of the militia as well so they have a lesser right to arms than the would be militia.
Question:
Are the reserves located irrespective of sediments and then the correlation found, or is the presence of sediment a criteria in locating the reserves? You will only find what you are looking for.
One of the arguments for abiotic oil is that it percolates up - so most of it is deeper than we can find currently. There is also an attempt to correlate oil deposits with geothermal 'cracks' such as the middle eastern something trench I don't recall the name of. Does anyone know of studies (or even ancedotal evidence) of such linkage?
To address your second point (and no, I am not an organic chemist either), Gold posits that biological matter in oil is from microbes living in the crust - feeding on the chemical energy in the oil. Hence The Deep, Hot Biosphere.
If I was worried about Karma, I'd eat tofu.
I was surprised that the data doesn't seem to support private ownership of guns as a crime deterrent.
Presumably it never occurred to him to think beyond "Me have gun, nobody now hurt me."
the difference between a poison and a medicine is often a matter of dosage... If something is not crazy, just not established, I would be inclined to award it "0 cuckoos," aka "Why not?"
This is little more than a magical-religious belief. doom believes it for no other reason than that it seems to have a nice ring to it, a sort of symmetry. Some homeopathic schools take it to the next step, claiming that if a high dose of a poison is bad, a low dose must be good. Equally preposterous. doom's follow up reasoning is a nightmare. He is essentially telling us that if something is not established, we should consider believing in it anyway. I hope he doesn't have an Ameritrade account, for his own sake.
doom, please forgive me for giving you a hard time, but come on! Wars have been started over strong, unquestioned beliefs!
This guy seems to just post this diatribe whenever he gets a chance. I am of the mind to say: moderate this guy down ALWAYS. All he does is use his karma to post this at +2 at his earliest convience.
(Yes, I was at one time the slashdot user "YOU ARE SUCH A FAG!")
Burn in hell.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Check his posting history, in particular w.r.t. science.slashdot.org. This is the third time in recent memory he has posted the EXACT same 2 paragraph explanation as to why ID should be considered.
He posts relatively normally the rest of the time, gaining karma to continue posting this at +2 whenever possible. Slashbot Manipulation at it's finest (for fun, agenda, or profit).
Mod down. Mod down HARD.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Quite clearly, you have successfully argued that "gun rights" are not derivative of property rights and that it makes no sense to argue that particular derivation. It may be time to try alternative theories as to why so many people are so vehement about the issue.
.50-cal on either end of your boat to allow you to defend yourself against pirates that run rampant in that part of the world. But few countries are amenable to a private citizen owning such firepower. And then, .50-cal will only deter the 90% in unarmored speedboats. You'll need greater firepower to keep the more serious entrants at bay.
Perhaps a self-defense argument? Is the right to defend yourself against an attacker a basic human right?
I believe it to be, though I don't have space or time to satisfy all who might question that assertion.
If you do have a right to defend yourself, then having legal access to the most useful means for that defense (a handgun or short-barreled shotgun for defending yourself in a home) should become a great deal more plausible. IMHO, compellingly so.
The right to own a gun as stated in the 2nd Amendment is an affirmation of the larger right to self-defense, which is a consequent of our right to life, affirmed in the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" list of basic human rights.
As a completely different example, if you have an ocean-going boat and you live in Southeast Asia, I personally believe that you ought to be able to pintle mount a tri-barrel
If a government passes laws which prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining equivalence of force with plausible attackers (the tools for defending themselves), that government has overstepped its bounds. IMHO, of course.
Regards,
Ross
In the words of Dennis Leary: "I want a Patriot missile! I pay my taxes! Why can't I have one!?!"
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Oooh. Better take a close look where you get those quotations. It turns out that some of the real Washington historians, and others, are understandably disenchanted with some of the revions the NRA fans have made to history themselves. It's tricky knowing who to trust. When everyone lies, how can one know the truth. Quite the moral meditation.
u otes.htm
But. I hate to do this, I really do. And I wholely encourage you to do research into this yourself. At a library, since the internet is almost 100% bullshit and your detector needs a tune up.
Some sites, to provide you with direction when you head to the library, or sit down to write the good folks keeping history alive preserving the context from which our founding fathers legacy blossomed.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQ
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
As a parting thought I offer: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ---Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
The fact is there is a great argument to be made for gun advocacy, and the problem is the idiots shouting blatant lies (perhaps because they don't know better?) keep the less numerous and quietly sane arguments from being heard.
Have a nice day.
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that the Intellegent Design movement is the same as the old bible-thumping Creationist movement. It is not. For information see http://www.discovery.org/csc/ See particularly the articles by William Dembsky at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php? command=view&id=32&isFellow=true
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
According to Stephen Hawking in one of his books, the theory was not popular because it showed strong evidence against there being "absolutes" in the Universe, which implied that not only were things like absolute location and absolute speed nonsensical, it also implies that absolute time, and thus absolute existance are merely constructs for us to better wrap our minds around our Universe.
Hawking argues that the theory of Relativity itself does in fact fly in the face of the existance of "God" because it refutes even other absolutes like "all powerful" and "absolute morals" or "absolute truth" and other such constructs of religion.
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
2E: Blizzard of Numbers - the Creation "scientist" to whom I'm responding is the case in point: "26 variables? 66 variables? Does he really know enough about physics, cosmology, and biology to be sure it's not 27, or 65? Does anyone?!?!
I know! The number of variables is clearly 42.
Ok, I feel dumb asking this, but that looks like a case in which an ad hominem attack makes sense? Is there some way in which that is _not_ an ad hominem attack, or is it evidence that ad hominem attacks shouldn't be tossed out?
> Michael Moore...raised a very interesting point that Canada is much more heavily armed than the US - but with less gun crime.
No he didn't. Canada has 1/3 the per-capita rate of gun ownership that the US does, and about 2% the handgun ownership rate.
Calling Canada and the US comparably armed is stretching things, but possible. Calling Canada "much more heavily armed" is flat-out false.
mod parent up
I'll make no claims when it comes to oil and gas. I've no real experience there and only know what I read from textbooks that are now old enough to be fossils themselves. But the idea that coal is abiotic is lunacy. I've been a coal geologist for more than 20 years. I've thin sectioned enough of the stuff to fuel a small city through a bitter winter. I've cored and logged coal from America to Australia. And I can tell you what is in every sample of coal I ever examined: plant material. Spores. Leaves. Resins. Even the portions that are nearly pure carbon often preserve the details of floral microstructures. Coal is not only made from plants, I can, from deposit to deposit, tell you exactly what kind of environment and mixture of flora was involved. Further, we well understand the stages of coal deposition and development. We have models for most every ancient coal bed in current depositional environments (go to Indonesia if you want to see really spiffy examples). The chemical makeup of coal can be used to "reverse engineer" the pressures, depths, and time involved in it's production. There is no fricking mystery here. Abiotic coal. Jesus. When it comes to the cuckoo meter, turn this one up to eleven.
Your argument boils down to:
1) Chicago/NY/DC have low guns and high crime.
2) Vermont has high guns and low crime.
3) Thus, more guns = less crime.
Your conclusion is entirely unwarranted. Using exactly your logic, I could say:
1) USA has high guns and high violent crime.
2) Canada has low guns and low violent crime.
3) Thus, more guns = more violent crime.
Or, using your original examples, I could say:
1) Chicago/NY/DC have high crime.
2) Vermont has low crime.
3) Thus, big cities = high crime.
Which of these three things is true? Your argument can't tell us, and so provides no information.
Intelligent Design is a "scientific" front for creationists to advance their anti-evolution agenda.
to summarize the skepdic's analysis:
Intelligent design (ID) refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity. Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They believe that design is empirically detectable in nature and in living systems. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom because it is an alternative to the scientific theory of natural selection.
The main proponent of Intelligent Design is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection.
(by the way, the quote in the subject line is taken from Leonard Krishtalka, the director of the University of Kansas Natural History Museum.)
"why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side? I might rate them both at a 2 myself."
Because measuring two things in relative terms to each other and measuring two things in an absolute scale are two very different things. Being 50% more "wrong" than the other group doesn't say anything about how far away from "correct" you are. In mathematical terms, you get a direction with no magnitude.
At any rate, is this guy related to the new Maryland governor?
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Wow - I've been interested in Lott's work for a while, but it's starting to sound like he's a fraud.
He's been found creating a false identity (Mary Rosh) to bolster his arguments and attack his critics.
When shown errors in his data, he's been found to have changed his analysis in order to maintain his old conclusions.
He's even accused not only of making up quotes to support his theses, but of not doing the studies his work is based on!
Work similar to Lott's should be done, but by someone with integrity. Sadly, Lott does not seem to be an honest researcher.
Some of the history of mainstream Christianity is the foundation of most of Science, and some of it is the systematic creation of superstitions and illogical dogma.
Neither refutes the other. My point is that you shouldn't have to. The whole discussion, however, has created an atmosphere that ostracizes someone who believes this from both sides.
I am neither welcome as a Scientist nor accepted in Christianity because I dare to believe that the two are not, by their nature, in conflict. Because I believe that the conflict leads to the stupidification (is that a word?) of both sides, as each side digs in their heels and insists that their point of view is the only legitimate one. Both points of view are wrong because of the hatred each engenders for the other. It doesn't matter who "wins" at this point; nobody's "winning." You win by learning and growing. You don't learn and grow when you're trying to shout down someone else.
"I do seem to recall that firearms are legal due to an amendmant muttering about right to protect one's self and protecting America"
It wasn't just AN amendment, it was the second one, right after freedom of speech. The founders of our country felt it was so important that they made it the second issue they addressed.
" As we aren't likely to invade anytime soon and small-arms really don't cut it in international disputes anymore, surely this is now defunct?"
An important point here is not only that guns are kept for protection against foreign invaders, but also as protection against the government itself. Rightly or wrongly, many people feel that the government may at some time attempt to restrict their freedoms unfairly. Some people believe that guns help keep that possibility in check, by keeping revolution a viable option.
Why don't nine-foot seams of Ordovician or Silurian coal exist below Carboniferous strata then? Also, why does Pennsylvanian coal contain carbonized Lycopodium stumps a yard wide? There are brown coal seams from the Cretaceous, and pre-coal deposits from relatively Recent peat bogs. The four cuckoos this one deserves will outlast the funerals of Western Civ.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Some people believe that guns help keep that possibility in check, by keeping revolution a viable option.
Well now might be a good time to do just that! Land of the free.. my arse!
Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
Well said
> Why is the ownership of a gun somehow
> special as a basic human right?
I can see two tenable bases:
Because you have a right to live, and to
defend your life as necessary.
Because you have a right to liberty and
property. Consequently you have the right
to own what you can produce. Since any
reasonably intelligent person can produce
a firearm from naturally occuring materials
in a reasonably small fraction of their
lifetime, such persons have a natural right
to own and possess a firearm.
> Is owning a dog a basic human right?
I can't produce a dog from raw materials.
However, under some circumstances, a dog
might be an essential survival tool.
I would say that it is a conditional right.
> Is owning a house a basic human right?
I can produce one. Without one, I'm likely
to die of exposure. Thus, the obvious yes.
> Is owning a car a basic human right?
While I might conceivably be able to produce
one, I can't produce a fuel and road infrastructure
to operate it, so in this way the right to
own a car is a right to own a piece of sculpture.
Only under very contrived circumstances
would owning a car be crucial to life.
Definitely a social-contract right, or a
conditional one.
> Is owning a tank a basic human right?
Define "tank".
> Is owning a cruise missle a basic human right?
Definitely not as a result of the two proposed bases used above.
> Is owning a chemical, biological,
> radiological, or nuclear weapon a basic
> human right?
The right to self-preservation says
the contrary. You have a compelling
self-preservation interest in preventing
me from owning most WMDs.
However, the natural capacity basis argues
in favor.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
In practice, obviously, its what you can get
away with. In order to make a principled
argument, you would first need to establish
the acceptable premises and modes of reasoning.
Since that's not feasible in a political
discourse, as opposed to a personal or
academic one, the issue is hopeless and
will devolve to a matter of power and preference.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Actually, these are worthy considerations and I'm surprised that you think some logical fallacy is taking place here. The source does need to be considered. It is logical. The "ad hominem" argument is one in which irrelevant and distasteful (distasteful dependent on the target audience) information about the source is given. Eg, a typical 50's ad hominem attack might portray so-and-so as flaming gay, red communist, atheist, etc. so that public opinion would turn against the target and their ideas become hidden.
Any information particularly on the Internet needs to be connected with it's source. That includes consideration of how reliable the source is, it's likelihood of knowing the information, and the benefits of releasing the information and the agenda furthered by the source. Sources don't normally release information by accident. Usually there's a reason for it.
Is this bizarro slashdot or something?
No, this cleary is the regular, non-bizarro slashdot.
lol!
Aww...its funny because its true.
You can't take the sky from me...
PERCENTAGE OF VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED BY:
PERSONS USING A GUN: 8%
There are 45 million to 90 million gun owners in the United States (15% to 30% of the U.S. Population), with over 200 million privately owned firearms.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS: 25%
There are 35 million African-Americans in the United States (12% of the U.S. population).
source for crime statistics:
U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey.
Criminal Victimization in the United States. (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 Statistical Tables).
Table 40: "Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offender"
Table 46: "Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offenders"
Table 66: "Percent of incidents, by victim-offender relationship, type of crime and weapons use"
Available on the internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm
Violent crime figures exclude homicide. The NCVS does not measure homicide (because homicide victims don't answer survey questions). While homicide figures are different (65% gun : 50% African-American), their relatively small number ( 17,000 total homicides compared to 7 million total violent crimes per year) does not change the overall violent crime rate figures.
Some activists compare crime in the United States (290 million people) to countries such as Canada (30 million people) and Great Britain (60 million people), but they ignore the demographic differences. Only 2% of Canada's population and 4% of Britain's population are black.
Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo41.htm and http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib/viewerChart305.h
So by the "bar chart" logic of the more sophisticated non-Americans, one must conclude that black people cause crime. If so, what is the public policy solution?
was Demographics of Crime in the United States
i d=7601602, not http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=87689&ci d=7601686
1. Learnt is a correct past-tense form of learn. I implied that it was not.
2. I should have linked to the parent post at http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=87689&c
My apologies for those errors.
I'm flat out stating that as per US law, they are not part of the militia. People are allowed arms in so far as it furthers the interests of militias. Militia men having the greatest right to bear arms, those supporting them less so, and those not supporting the militias have none. At least in so far as the second amendment is concerned.
See, you fall into the trap I orginally described. The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia being nexessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In other words, people have the right to own firearms provided that this is in the interests of civilian soldiers who are in good order, and that these soldiers are necessary for the defense of our country. Aside from the fact that militias are essentialy replaced by the National Guard, the large professional army we have and associated accoutrements more than adaquately guard against the threat of invasion. Furthermore, the threats that do exist aren't easily solved by any number or kind of gun.
Oh, and nice try on changing the subject space cadet. Why not write president@whitehouse.gov about your plans for saving the country from the evil (presumably unconstitutional) laws by excersising your second amendment rights? The changes you undoubtedly desire won't be changed by a bullet (maybe a hail of them). Your weapon of choice should be the pen (or keyboard), but try to keep your rhetoric from flying too far off into lala land, and maybe you'll be taken seriously.
In fact sunlight is not only known to be beneficial but also absolutely necessary for your body to produce Vitamin D. It the source of almost all of your vitamin D so... Also note the fact that exposure to below normal amounts of sunlight (such as people from northern countries) is directly linked to high percentages for depression and suicide attempts. The other ideas too are not very well thought. Guns possesion does not appear to have influence on crime rates, which makes the question redundant. In my opinion it is one of the million of those scientific books produced in the States that are not worth reading (not to mention buying). Please avoid. STOP.
How does it follow from "hydrocarbons pre-existed the formation of the earth" that "we're probably not going to run out of them"? I'd think you could draw the opposite conclusion - if we use up the accessible stuff and it's not a renewable resource... how far are we going to have to dig or go out in space to get more? It becomes rather impractical doesn't it? Or is there some mechanism by which they are supposed to get replenished right here on earth?
> The main proponent of Intelligent Design is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations.
It is also a branch of what was formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, a neocon activist organization. Many think the leaders of the ID movement are interested in religion primarily as an opiate for the masses.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yeah, better raped than dead still..
Frightening other criminals is not going to make them non-criminal as long as they can't survive by other means. It'll just make them carry a shotgun and be really nervous whenever they have to commit crime. Anyone who can't afford food and living will go criminal or die, and even I myself would choose the first option if I only had those two. THAT's the point in welfare.
Also.. Get real. After a shotgun hit, good pistol hit or even a good hit from a baseball bat you're not going to be functional enough to avoid the other hit that's coming right after the first. I'd suggest you try it but I don't. Sometimes people die from a single punch in the face.
In Finland where I live, a criminal who'd rob you on the street will have nothing or a knife. Because he'd be in real trouble for having a gun, and he's fine with a knife. Still, some are killed with a knife every now and then (some ppl are shot also, but that's more often criminals fighting other criminals).
Another point; you seem to suggest that criminals are evil from hell, and they'll do whatever evil they can because they enjoy it. I do not think that's true. A criminal is a human being and has reasons for being criminal. It's those reasons we'd have to change.
Now my ideas are very humane and all, but I must agree that I'm afraid of violent narcomaniacs because they've fucked up their brain so bad. That's a real problem. Still, better to not force them to go criminal.
Well the guns or the lack thereof don't create violence or crime. But guns make it deadlier. You might live in a place where a criminal might want to break into your house and rape your wife, but I just fail to take it seriously where I live. So you americans, do whatever you will. I actually don't know what would work there, because our good solution is probably not good for you (anymore) or would at least take some 100 years of social growth. The sad thing is nobody seems to know what to do about crime.
Have you ever seen Bertrand Russell's autobiography? It's 2 volumes. Talk about pompus. There's more detail in there than I ever wanted to know.
Incidently, Mr. Wolfram has preserved his life story for us on the web as well. With PDF files and everything.
Frankly, "A New Kind Of Science" reminds me of the "Principia Mathematica". Both have good ideas, are notoriously long, invented their own notation for no good reason, and try to solve the existing problems of the foundations of math with pure hubris.
Incidently, I actually have some respect for both of these men. They just got a little carried away.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
Now shut up.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Then what will you do with all the reputable institutions that teach it, The National Politechnic Institute in Mexico, a fully official, goverment funded, high education college, is one of them.
Heck, Ernesto Zedillo, former president of the country, studied there (not homeopathic medicine though), so there are serious acadmic institutions that beg to disagree with your Cuckoometer on this one.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Thanks for the link... I haven't read it yet, but I will today, and I appreciate the information.
The only point I was trying to make was that there is still some doubt about big bang. And point out that doubt does not make a person a creationist.
I do have a question regarding galaxy collision, as you're a physicist and I'm not. If galaxies were to collide given big bang as a truth, wouldn't that happen much earlier? It would seem to me (layman) that since directly after the big bang, all objects were much closer together. As time goes by and they continue to spread apart from the source, they all get further apart from each other.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
That's actually a pretty good question - spoken like a true geographer. They create the maps of petro reserves by drilling wells until they find oil. Then, they progress outwards radially until the production becomes economically unviable.
At first, I'm sure they found oil/gas by accident, or through random drilling. As the correlations developed between geologic formations and "black gold", they were able to find clues that led to improvements in exploration efficiency.
This is a big deal, economically. If you can find a major reserve before anyone else, you can acquire mineral rights, right of way, infrastructure, and property much cheaper than your competitors. Your cost of operating is much lower if you can beat the rush. Big companies spend thousands every month to get data on where new wells are being drilled. (http://www.rigdata.com/)
* * *
When I say chemical structure, I mean the actual hydrocarbons making up the fuel. For example, methane is CH4. It is my understanding that similar types of carbon chains are found in living organisms.
For a more mainstream view, check out the American Petroleum Institute's website.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
Thought I would reply to this one, too. Gold is referring to an 80 barrel find, which is not a statistically significant amount from a commercial perspective.
80 barrels is a rounding error for most companies, and could potentially be explained through some other means. A real reserve is in the millions or billions of barrels.
FYI:
1 barrel (bbl) = 42 gallons
Many 8" pipelines have a flowrate of > 2000 barrels per hour (bph), 24 hours a day
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
>>Aside from the fact that militias are essentialy replaced by the National Guard, the large professional army we have and associated accoutrements more than adaquately guard against the threat of invasion.
Oh yeah, I tremble in fear that mexico or canada will invade us. I am so glad we have a standing army as large as all the rest of the armies in the world combined to fight off the eminent threat of invasion from these aggressors to our north and south. Or, horrors, china, england or russia could land hundreds of paratroopers inside our borders to ransack at will, if not for the millions of american solders that stand ready to attack like hunger mad wolves at a moments notice.
I really wish we would get rid of our standing army unless we are in a declared state of war. Eeeerrr, I mean actually declared by congress, not declared by the president, you know, like our constitution says.
Oh, and just so you know, I served in the US military for over 14 years, until my ankles were too broken to work anymore. My highest rank was 1LT. I do not get a pension for my ruined ankles, because I can get by just fine as a computer programmer.
My biggest problem with this argument is that your overestimation of what can be produced by "any
reasonably intelligent person."
I doubt that "any reasonably intelligent person" could produce a firearm in their lifetime given only "naturally occuring materials." The amount of infrastructure necessary to complete a true firearm is amazing, even if you define a firearm as the equivalent of a simple cannon.
Gunpowder itself might not be too bad, though it's quality would definitely be low. And there is a certain amount of danger involved in the mishandling.
Let assume a simple barrel and fuse arrangement to be a "firearm." I doubt that finding iron ore and smelting it into iron is within the ability of your average person of any period throughout history; this has always been handled by specialists. Maybe bronze? I know that it has the strength potential since it was used in early cannon before iron boring tools became strong enough. In the past, copper has has been readily available (in fact, surface veins were reasonably easy to find in many locations), it has a low melting point and also can be formed by hand. Tin generally must be mined, but I think that anyone who knows that tin and copper make bronze could probably produce it with some experimentation.
Then again, how many people actually know that? And what ratio is necessary to form a reasonable gun barrel? How many gun barrels would burst before this was found out? How many people would be injured?
You make it sound like given a "reasonably intelligent person" I could just drop them in the middle of a native wilderness and come back in a few decades to find them armed with a firearm. My guess is that they'd be spending their whole life just trying to keep shelter over their head and food on the table.
In truth, I doubt that this hypothetical "reasonably intelligent person" could create anything more complicated than a bow (or at best a crossbow) given no modern support. You have to remember that the tools at hand in an unaltered wilderness are limited to those things that occur naturally. So no forged items at all. All basic tools would have to be stone in the beginning. These might be updated to metallic tools given abundant local resources.
This leads me to recall your house argument. I think that you could produce (or at least find) shelter, but the concept of a modern house would be well beyond you for several years. I'm guessing that in the first few years you'd be limited to a hut. Even a log home would be difficult since you'd have to fit the logs using only tools of your own manufacture. I doubt that anyone in memory has chopped down a (or shaped a fallen) tree using only stone tools.
Even given the support of a small community starting at the same technology level, I doubt that firearms would ever be created. In fact, I'd guess that spears would be the best you could do initially with crude bows coming soon after.
The early universe was a like a very hot soup. The temperature was initially so hot that even nucleons (protons & neotrons) couldn't form, and it was some kind of quark plasma, which would be uniform in consistency, except for fluctutations (sound waves, essentially).
As the universe expands, the temperature reduces and evenually quarks can consense into nucleons. At this stage, you have a plasma (not unlike a flourescent tube) consisting of bound atomic nuclei, and very hot electrons which are not bound (just flying around everywhere).
The next significant moment is when the temperature gets low enough that the electrons get captured by the atomic nuclei and you get bound, neutral atoms forming.
Note that until time, the universe is opaque - fire a photon and it will simply scatter off a free electron. Once the temperature is small enough that the electrons are captured into atoms, it takes a finite energy photon (the ionization energy) to interact with an electron so the universe is largely transparent (as it is today). The 3K microwave background radiation we see comes from this event. The fluctuations in the early universe (sound waves in the plasma) can be seen in the fine structure of the 3K background.
The point is, that the early universe is mostly uniform, but with fluctuations which lead to clumping at all length scales, from planets to stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, clusters of galactic clusters, etc etc etc. Although the universe as a whole is expanding (and accelerating, in fact) the fluctuations that we see now as clumping of matter occur on arbitrarily large length scales, which in turn means that it takes arbitrarily long time for the clumping to occur.
Or more succintly, the expansion isn't fast enough to completely override gravity effects on local scales (and by the scale of the universe, galaxies count as 'local').
Hopefully some nice astrophysicist will come and rescue me now, and explain it properly ;)
It's quite simple. Recall the mental state and muscle memory used to hang up on a telemarketer (especially the pre-recorded variety).
Replace the requisite eyeroll with the swift SELECT drop-down drag to "-1: Troll". Then replace the handset slam with the furious, repeated left-click on the Moderate button at the bottom of the thread.
You showed them!
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
There's an old Libertarian saw that this reminds me of that I've always had issues with: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my face." The implicit meaning of this statement is that you should be able to do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. A good idea, but ultimately one that's just as short-sighted and limited in its scope as its catch phrase is. Your right to swing your fist doesn't just end at my face. It also ends with waving it around threateningly at me even if you never actually impact me with it. Similarly, your right to own an item ends when your ownership presents a not-insignificant risk to me.
Gun ownership is a responsibility, not just a "basic human right." Treating it as such is part of the entitlement mentality that is choking America and is inherently an obstacle to training people in proper firearm safety. Our Constitution gives us this right for one explicit purpose -- to maintain a militia. In other words, owning a firearm is part of every man's civic duty to protect his country and resist oppresion and is not an inherent right to go waving about like you automatically deserve to handle a dangerous weapon simply for breathing.
I personally believe that people should be allowed to own firearms for personal protection, but I don't see it as an inherent human right. That sort of speech should be reserved for things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now it's time for me to digress from the topic at hand.
The line is not arbitrary most of the time. It just often seems that way. Civilization requires the careful analysis of cost/benefit ratios. What is the cost of allowing extremely powerful oxidants into the hands of average citizens versus the benefit of it? I deliberately drew out the examples of tanks, cruise missles, and CBNR weapons as increasing levels of hazard and risk to the public to see if you'd draw on the fact that a line absolutely has to be drawn somewhere for civilization to hold together. Imagine how much trouble the DC sinpers could've caused if they could've gotten their hands on a cheap radiological or chemical weapon instead of a firearm. Imagine how much worse the Oklahoma City Bombing could've been with access to better bomb-making supplies than fertilizer.
The origins of the 2nd Amendment are in a time when the most terrible weapons that men had available to them were cannons and muskets. In that time, it was perfectly feasable for average citizens to own weapons technology on par with an invading foreign army or an oppressive domestic one.
Following the trends of history, one can note the effectiveness of weapons technology and its impact on a society by looking at how much damage a small team of well-funded malicious individuals can do before being taken down. The number hadn't changed that much from the era of rocks and bronze swords to the era of muskets and cannons. However, from the time of fast-reloading rifles, cannons, and gatling guns to the age of fully automatic riles, mustard gas, and napa
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I like your argument, though I'd disagree on the fundamental meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which isn't a broad affirmation of owning weapons for any sort of self-defense. It's clearly worded with the intention of equipping Americans with the tools they need to resist enemy governments, both foreign and domestic. It's a minor distinction but an important one. I wrote a reply here to later post by the person who I originally replied to, and I'd like your input on it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Gun ownership is a responsibility, not just a "basic human right."
Rights always require responsibility. Liberty requres plenty of responsibility, and yet you consider it a basic human right.
Our Constitution gives us this right
The Consistiution doesn't give rights. It merely enumerates what the founders thought were the most important inherent rights to form a long lasting stable state that offers freedom.
Note that later in the bill of rights they mention "rights retained by the people". This should be clear enough evidence that the bill of rights should not be construed to be granting rights, only to enumerate rights that already exist.
for one explicit purpose -- to maintain a militia
This is a dead horse debate over wording, but the way the 2nd is written, it's clearly not meant to be the sole purpose. If I say "Money is good, I should go get a job", that doesn't mean I want to get a job solely because "money is good", it's simply one reason that I found compelling.
In other words, owning a firearm is part of every man's civic duty to protect his country and resist oppresion and is not an inherent right to go waving about like you automatically deserve to handle a dangerous weapon simply for breathing.
I think you misunderstand the term "right". I think you've internalized the liberal definition of "human rights", which is definitely streched from what the founders intended. They made it clear that rights require a certain level of responsibility in exercising of the rights. They didn't have a problem with punishing people who abused thier rights.
The supreme court has been generally been very careful to avoid "prior restraint" in 1st amendment issues. The idea is that everyone should have the ability to exercise their rights, and they shouldn't be punished until and unless they abuse their rights.
As far as whether the line is arbitrary or not, you mention cost/benefit ratios. That's not how constitutional law has ever been interpreted. There's obviously a high cost in social stability in allowing the KKK to march, and very little social benefit. Cost/benefit has never been a factor when it comes to fundamental rights. If it ever becomes a major factor, we are in serious trouble.
In essence, the 2nd Amendment is unfortunately obsolete.
Well, the founders couldn't have possibly forseen the Internet, so the 1st amendment must be obselete too. Hell, why don't we repeal all 10 amendments in the bill of rights, they are pretty much all "obselete" under your argument.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say "as long as it's easy", or "until better weapons are invented". Your argument flies in the face of the Bill of Rights as a whole.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
World's greatest minds, stupidest measurments of greatness. Be happy trying to solve these cosmic ideas, afterall any outrageous full proof idea is too outrageous to counter. Be happy being happy, when there are millions of people suffering, because a problem like that, you just can't comprehend. Fuck off and get lost in your loop. This post is only meant to bash what we hold true today. The great ideas are not meant to be posted. So fuck off you Trolls.
"Home invasions" are known as "hot burglaries" in the US. Nationally, the rate of hot burglaries is 14% in the US, and 9% in Canada (last I checked), suggesting you're simply looking at an isolated data point. It also shows quite strongly that your assertion - that guns prevent this in the US - is simply false. (Crime stats from FBI and StatsCan)
(I was also living in Vancouver at the time I suspect you're talking about - mid-90's - and there was a lot of news coverage, but not all that many incidents. Lots of sound and fury, but didn't signify much.)
> So by the "bar chart" logic of the more sophisticated non-Americans, one must conclude that
> black people cause crime. If so, what is the public policy solution?
See the subject. Black people don't have a crime gene, but they are disproportionately likely to be poor in the US, and poor people are disproportionately more likely to commit crimes.
Help poor people - of all types - better their situation, and you'll lower crime. The extra productivity in the economy is just a side benefit.
Or, more precisely, evidence showing that Lott's analysis was either flawed or faked, and that his own research doesn't show what he claims it does.
/ we _590_01.html
/. discussion, I'd help Lott's research in pretty high regard. After having read some of the critiques of his research methods, I can't see his statements as anything other than unsupported assertions anymore.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10
You might try arguing that this is a methodological attack, but that's just trying to hide from the findings. Taking raw data - the same data Lott used - and analyzing it properly shows Lott's argument is wrong. That's as close to cold, hard data as it gets.
Coming into this
To respond a bit out of order, the most powerful weapons that men had available to them at the time of the Constitution was an armed merchant ship, which would have been quite devastating against a shoreline town (and may have been, I simply don't know of any examples offhand). I do know that the wealthier smugglers were often as well armed as the naval vessels tasked with finding them. Apparently, full equality with the navy was not something that fazed the founders, since they included no exception in the 2nd Amendment for multiple big guns mounted on a big ship.
/. instead of the usual pissing match that these things usually dissolve into...
I do agree, however, with your characterization that firearms ownership is a responsibility as much as it is a right.
As for Timothy McVeigh and 9/11 being the example as to why arms need regulating, that strikes me as a non-sequiter. I think that those are lessons that we should learn as electors: you can't go around destroying other people's lives for your own monetary gain and not expect some of those people to come after you some day. The US manufactures terrorists through some of the worst foreign policy on record. Are we really so suprised that some of our friends and neighbors got killed? How many hundreds or thousands of deaths for each 9/11 death has the US been behind when supporting the Shah?, Pinochet?, Hussein?
In your response to my posting you stated that the justification for the 2nd Amendment is not self-defense, but is clearly laid out so that the people have the power to handle an oppressive government. But what is a revolution against an oppressor, if not simply a somewhat extraordinary (in modern times) example of acting in self-defense? This may be a matter of semantics, and that's okay, but I see the right of self-defense being the support for the stated "security of a free state".
BTW, nice to have an actual discussion on
Regards,
Ross