Slashdot Mirror
What Did You Change Your Mind About in 2007?
chrisd writes "The Edge 2008 question (with answers) is in. This year, the question is: 'What did you change your mind about and why?'. Answers are featured from scientists as diverse as Richard Dawkins, Simon Baron-Cohen, George Church, David Brin, J. Craig Venter and the Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees, among others. Very interesting to read. For instance, Stewart Brand writes that he now realizes that 'Good old stuff sucks' and Sam Harris has decided that 'Mother Nature is Not Our Friend.' What did Slashdot readers change their minds about in 2007?"
Nowhere in the summary did any of the links point to the bloody index!
Isn't it still generally accepted to start at the beginning when reading, or has digg finally removed all semblance of intelligence from the general public?
They are in fact cousins.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Ron Paul is a dangerous fad. He does not believe in evolution and he wants to scrap what little healthcare the poor in the US have access to (bear in mind that the US already has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than European countries that spend less per capita on healthcare). His platform is yanking away what little social protections exist in the US so that the middle classes can pay less tax, and considering that the US isn't nearly as far from mass famine as you would think a developed country would be - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7148880.stm - its a recipe for a Katrina-like failure on a far bigger scale.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
That the local developers gets 'inspired' a bit is a secondary effect. It's not like their job is in danger since we're hiring like crazy. It's mostly management who's in hot water now and needs to wise up fast. This is poetic since they were the ones who started this outsourcing business.
I might be pompous but I sure as hell can spot both immature practices (by the organization) and developers who needs to get out of the 80's. I get solid CMMI 5 stuff from the sourcing partner. Some of our own stuff looks pretty pathetic in comparison.
TCAP-Abort
If one has to add fear (by offshoring) over their heads to drive a point, something is terribly wrong.
You're more likely to get shot as well. Someone here once recommended Going Postal to me, and it covers such intentional marginalization of the working class, iirc.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
In Ron Paul's system of philosophy the federal government has no authority over education so he is no threat to the acceptance of Evolution. He also believes that abortion should be decided by the states because he rightly states that the federal government does not have the authority. He will do nothing to stop abortion, all he will do is follow the the tenth amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.").
If you believe the federal government should be involved in abortion law and education then amend the Constitution.
Also, on the separation of church and state, read the first amendment, it addresses congress. My state Constitution has provisions for separation of church and state, and a state violation should be dealt with at the state level. If I wanted the federal government to have the authority to address a state level violation of separation of church and state I would, and if you wanted you should, ask for an amendment to the Constitution to allow such.
P.S.--I'm an atheist.
"Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
Libertarians have been tossing those ideas around forever. Ron Paul brings absolutely nothing new to the table,
Ron Paul's contribution is bringing libertarianism into the mainstream, something the likes of Harry Brown never did before.
and a rather hypocritical view on states' rights (a Ron Paul administration would almost certainly result in vastly larger and more powerful state governments)
How is that hypocritical? Paul's message is not that we need less government everywhere (though that helps), but really that we need to go back to the way the country was before the Civil War, where the Federal Government had less power, and the States had more power. That's the main message. Yes, his administration would result in larger and more powerful state governments, which is exactly the way it should be. If I don't like something at the Federal level, my vote will have virtually no effect in a population of 300+ million. But if I don't like something at the State level, it's far more feasible for me to have an effect on my State politicians in my state of 5 million, where my representatives live a few miles from my home.
For a parallel, look at modern Europe. France, Germany, Italy, etc. are all separate countries with vast differences between them, but they're all in a Union where they share the same currency, have free trade, and do some things together. This is more like what America started out as, and should return to. If California wants to create a massive welfare state, that's fine: they can tax their own citizens to pay for that silliness. Meanwhile, those of us in other states shouldn't be forced into paying for their problems.
The States need to start solving their own problems, and coming up with their own solutions that are best suited for them, instead of relying on the Federal government to make inefficient one-size-fits-all solutions for everything. I'll happily pay more taxes to my State government in return for abolishing the IRS and Federal income taxes.
Another thing that bothers me about him is the support he is getting from the white nationalist community.
First point: secularism is no guarantee of liberty. Religion is no guarantee of tyranny... I remind you that this country was first settled by Puritans.
I would also like to remind people that Saddam Hussein was a secularist, as was Josef Stalin. It was only our Administration that tried to paint Hussein as being in league with the Islamists, which was obviously untrue, but it doesn't take much to make the morons who vote in America to believe in a lie.
Not that I care much for religiosity either, but let's keep our facts and history straight (after all, the Taliban were highly religious, and Afghanistan under their rule wasn't a fun place to live either).
No, income disparity is rising, not falling. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
Help I'm a rock.
Maybe you should tell that to Ron Paul, who has repeatedly sponsored bills to ban abortion on the federal level, despite his hypocritical rhetoric otherwise.
United Church of Christ (UCC) is a mainline protestant denomination, tends to be somewhat Calvinistic in it's viewpoint, which makes it a close relative to Presbyterianism.
That generally makes them socially tolerant, if not socially active.
Theologically, Calvinist churches tend to be philosophical about spirituality, and are not generally on a mission to convert you to their particular denomination; in general, such attempts are considered somewhat out of character.
If Obama grew up in this tradition, he is likely to be Christian, but very tolerant of other people's beliefs, even if at odds with his own.
The following are my personal notes on the article, written and organized as I read it:
This is a really good article, though like past years, you can know the general lean (political, philosophical and scientific) of the participants before you begin. However, there are always answers that go up against the grain, and these are the ones I find most interesting. Some of the answers are pretty fascinating, like this one from Joseph Ledoux:
What's so fascinating about this answer to me is that it is something that's been clear to me, upon reflection, for many years. I have a clear "memory" of my second birthday, even though this is a time from which most persons don't have memories. Now, it's known that that being able to form sentences early (which I was able to do) helps in the creation of memory; being able to "narrate" thought allows us to construct some sort of record of events better. However, around the age of 11 or so, I began to realize that I was not remembering the event so much as my prior recollection of it. This meant I began to be very careful about my use of memory and how much I trusted my own mind, which I know to play tricks on me at times. It's known that, even for a mentally well person, a long-held falsehood can become true for the person simply because they create a memory of the false event. Also, philosophy has been aware of the importance of this sort of trick of the mind for some time. It's interesting to see science just now approach it, and it is instructive in how scientific paradigm (e.g., that memory functions like a hard drive) can override the obvious conclusions of self-reflection.
A lot of the answers touch on classic issues in the philosophy of science, a field some scientists love (most geologists, theoretical physicists) and others hate (most biologists). Karl Sabbagh's answer about expertise is right and wrong in equally interesting measures (yes, one should not trust experts unguarded, but, no, your judgement is not as good as an expert's in an area of their expertise, per se). Piet Hut's answer about explanations is sort of trivial for anyone who knows philosophy of science, but a good example of the problem (or explanation--hah!) for the neophyte. Colin Tudge's answer about the limits of science is simillarly instructive and worth repeating (in part):
Stop anthropomorphizing Mother Nature! (I'd add "She hates that" if it weren't so obvious :)
Seriously though, there is no such thing as "Mother Nature".
Easy. It's not living, it is only a set of reactions. A complex set, but that is all.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Your point is valid, but your example is not. Plymouth was the second successful colony settled by the British--the first was Jamestown, Virginia. Jamestown was settled by migrant Englishmen looking to simply settle and conquer the New World. And if "this country" includes Florida, then the Spanish colony at St. Augustine, Florida predates both by half a century. But in a purely geographic sense, "this country" was settled by Native Americans centuries before any white man set foot upon it.
Furthermore, the Puritans were tyrannical--which is why Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and other people who fell out of favor with the Puritans settled Rhode Island. In fact, the Puritans were the perpetrators of the witch hunts.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
~900 square foot home
1 car
1 small TV
a refrigerator and a couple small appliances
No computer, no video games, no cell phones, no cable TV
If you are willing to accept all those conditions, I'm sure you can afford some more free time. If you want more material wealth than 50 years ago, then don't complain that you have to work harder than 50 years ago.
I am just stunned someone who compared the NHS with the Nazi party got modded 'Insightful'.
Now its my turn to correct your laughably misguided information. I live in the UK, and I have been both a patient and an admin worker for the NHS. I thus have in depth knowledge of one of the largest 'socialised' healthcare systems in the world.
It works fine. When it does fuck up, its normally because they've been forced to use an outside contractor for something (MRSA wasn't really a problem until some genius in Whitehall suggested we get private contractors to clean hospitals). It hasn't ruined our economy or spawned a fascist regime as your inherited republican wisdom would suggest.
May I kindly suggest that until you can educate yourself beyond the editorial section of Soldier of Fortune you quit posting on slashdot and go back to sitting on your porch, cleaning your guns and chewing tobacco.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?