Trust is not inherent in science as an ideal(which is one big thing that makes it different from religion), but as a social construct it is unavoidable. When scientists say they've detected a neutrino even if I were provided the equipment and methodology the results would be meaningless to me and others without understanding the subtleties in what I was detecting to prove the hypothesis. Basically specialized knowledge is required to make such observations worthwhile.
I don't know what fake "AGW fisaco" you're referring to, but here's some data that you claim the scientists don't have.
Petroleum is a finite resource; we can and are using all of it up. That is the very definition of non-sustainable. Beyond that were we able to replace our petroleum-based fertilizer with another equally cheap fertilizer the result would still not be sustainable. Both the pesticides and nitrogen runoff that comes from maintaining these vast monocultures cause massive fish kills. Check out the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Relatively, it was much more sustainable. Sure they would have to leave areas fallow, but they didn't need to use petroleum fertilizers and vast monocultures the scale of which we have today were completely unheard of..
You sound hopelessly confused. First you needlessly dispute the meaning of conservative by providing two definitions and then apply them differently to the same scenario. Then you throw in a non-sequitur reductio ad absurdum claiming "climate science" has no place estimating fresh water supply. The only way this argument is remotely coherent is if you assume that "engineering" is unrelated to science. However, that is completely ridiculous as engineering is applied science.
Dirty trick agreed, but I like how some of it is pointed towards substantial issues like Newt taking part in the revolving lobbyist door with financial firms. Most of the other stuff is distracting smear.
Never happened. You can read about ancient Greeks accusing each other of things that would unspeakable in public and libelous today. As long as there has been public political discourse there have been smear campaigns.
Except for the republican president currently in the whitehouse. Hawkish, cuts deeper into civil liberties than ever before, promotes a healthcare bill that hands money to the private sector, doesn't press "liberal" issues he has direct control cover such as Guantanamo, DADT, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war. He doesn't use the bully pulpit to advocate for a balanced budget, which is different from even recent Democratic presidents (although ALL presidents of the past 30 years have been BIG spenders).
Personally I think when corporations act as political entities they become legitimate targets of hackivism, like the case of credit card companies and Wikileaks.
You're semantically sidestepping the root of his complaint. Corporations, and similar private interest groups, should be able to make contracts as legal entities. That is not Tastecicles issue with commercial law. It is that corporations are treated as citizens despite not having the same physical and sometimes legal restrictions as citizens.
Price and wage controls, economic planning, progressive taxation, ceding individual property rights to the central government, no right to bear arms, comprehensive social welfare.
These some of the original cornerstones of fascist ideology. I fail to see how they square with the American right-wing (note that militarism, nationalism and etho-centrism, the other pillars of fascism, plague communist and socialist countries, also). In any event, early fascists called themselves both anti-marxist, anti-capitalist, and anti-clerical. That claim seems accurate; making most modern uses of "fascist" as an epithet ridiculous.
Five out of the first six have nothing to do with fascism. They are more akin to socialism than anything else, but fascism was a reactionary response against socialism. And out of your second list you're missing the lynch pin of fascism a strong police state which the current right promotes .
That's why there is an affidavit and a court case. Evidence was obtained, a warrant was granted, additional evidence was seized, they're being taken to court. Now Gibson is playing to the populist "government hippies bad" to try and save face. The best defense is a good offense and all that.
I think conservative policies are a mess but this attitude is poisonous. It's the same as claiming liberals hate America because they want to change it. You need to lower your daily intake of koolaid..
Are you referring to stalking laws in general or the origin of the wording of the terrible modification of the law. It's no surprise to me that California, home of Hollywood, has anti stalker laws. It would surprise me if they were as bad as this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Are the Locke texts you're referring to available on Project Gutenberg or is there another place to find them?
Trust is not inherent in science as an ideal(which is one big thing that makes it different from religion), but as a social construct it is unavoidable. When scientists say they've detected a neutrino even if I were provided the equipment and methodology the results would be meaningless to me and others without understanding the subtleties in what I was detecting to prove the hypothesis. Basically specialized knowledge is required to make such observations worthwhile.
I don't know what fake "AGW fisaco" you're referring to, but here's some data that you claim the scientists don't have.
One can endlessly reinterpret a symbolic act because metaphors are always imperfect.
And the entomology is interesting, I wonder how the term became so completely opposite of the base components.
That's begging the question. The protesters aren't denying that licensing exists; but that technology has diminished it's value as an idea.
Well I'm sure not all of them are arguing that, but what is protesting but a pithy slogan or action to represent broader and more nuanced goals?
Because it's /. and most of this is tongue-in-cheek anyway.
Personally, I would love to have non-processed coffee after dinner and not be up the rest of the night.
This short story, and the series that followed it, might interest you.
Maybe not though.
Well played.
I think your definition of sustainability is flawed, but I don't think you're going to change your mind so I'm going to leave it at that.
Petroleum is a finite resource; we can and are using all of it up. That is the very definition of non-sustainable. Beyond that were we able to replace our petroleum-based fertilizer with another equally cheap fertilizer the result would still not be sustainable. Both the pesticides and nitrogen runoff that comes from maintaining these vast monocultures cause massive fish kills. Check out the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Relatively, it was much more sustainable. Sure they would have to leave areas fallow, but they didn't need to use petroleum fertilizers and vast monocultures the scale of which we have today were completely unheard of..
You sound hopelessly confused. First you needlessly dispute the meaning of conservative by providing two definitions and then apply them differently to the same scenario. Then you throw in a non-sequitur reductio ad absurdum claiming "climate science" has no place estimating fresh water supply. The only way this argument is remotely coherent is if you assume that "engineering" is unrelated to science. However, that is completely ridiculous as engineering is applied science.
What a troll. This has nothing to do with the IPCC, and the scientists in this case were being the opposite of alarmist.
This is the guise fascism takes in America; outsourcing the abrogation of rights to private industries as an end run around the constitution.
Dirty trick agreed, but I like how some of it is pointed towards substantial issues like Newt taking part in the revolving lobbyist door with financial firms. Most of the other stuff is distracting smear.
Never happened. You can read about ancient Greeks accusing each other of things that would unspeakable in public and libelous today. As long as there has been public political discourse there have been smear campaigns.
Except for the republican president currently in the whitehouse. Hawkish, cuts deeper into civil liberties than ever before, promotes a healthcare bill that hands money to the private sector, doesn't press "liberal" issues he has direct control cover such as Guantanamo, DADT, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war. He doesn't use the bully pulpit to advocate for a balanced budget, which is different from even recent Democratic presidents (although ALL presidents of the past 30 years have been BIG spenders).
Personally I think when corporations act as political entities they become legitimate targets of hackivism, like the case of credit card companies and Wikileaks.
You're semantically sidestepping the root of his complaint. Corporations, and similar private interest groups, should be able to make contracts as legal entities. That is not Tastecicles issue with commercial law. It is that corporations are treated as citizens despite not having the same physical and sometimes legal restrictions as citizens.
Here ya go. http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/10/07/article/the_truths_in_gasland_are_well_documented
Price and wage controls, economic planning, progressive taxation, ceding individual property rights to the central government, no right to bear arms, comprehensive social welfare.
These some of the original cornerstones of fascist ideology. I fail to see how they square with the American right-wing (note that militarism, nationalism and etho-centrism, the other pillars of fascism, plague communist and socialist countries, also). In any event, early fascists called themselves both anti-marxist, anti-capitalist, and anti-clerical. That claim seems accurate; making most modern uses of "fascist" as an epithet ridiculous.
Five out of the first six have nothing to do with fascism. They are more akin to socialism than anything else, but fascism was a reactionary response against socialism. And out of your second list you're missing the lynch pin of fascism a strong police state which the current right promotes .
That's why there is an affidavit and a court case. Evidence was obtained, a warrant was granted, additional evidence was seized, they're being taken to court. Now Gibson is playing to the populist "government hippies bad" to try and save face. The best defense is a good offense and all that.
I think conservative policies are a mess but this attitude is poisonous. It's the same as claiming liberals hate America because they want to change it. You need to lower your daily intake of koolaid..
Are you referring to stalking laws in general or the origin of the wording of the terrible modification of the law. It's no surprise to me that California, home of Hollywood, has anti stalker laws. It would surprise me if they were as bad as this one.
What about using animals to grow human organs? That's one of the main reasons to do any of this and it would be precluded by your suggestion.
The real power of the presidency is the bully pulpit. Bush Jr. used it to great affect. It's a shame his policies were so disastrous through.