What do you mean "science doesn't work that way"? Peer review is a vital part of science. You can't prove a theory 'correct', but that is not a claimed goal anyway. Scientific consensus on a theory just tells you that a given theory matches the data provided up to that time. The longer a theory stands the more data is accumulated that either supports or data com,es out that the theory needs to be revised.
In the case of TFA they revised how fast Greenlandic ice is melting, but it is still melting at non-trivial rates. The data still supports the theory for global warming.
"Deniers" are generally called that because they forgo the peer review process claiming conspiracy, and/or repeat frankly debunked claims.
Progressive or Liberal, pick one. If you think they are the same then you've been drinking too much Kool-Aid lately.
I'd agree that most of Congress and the Executive Branch is Progressive, but it's more like 99% for the past 20 years rather than 60% right now. Between the war on drugs, the FCC, banning of gay marriage, immigration control policies and much more Ron Paul is one the few that can claim to not have supported Progressive policies even when they happen to be along party lines.
I doubt you will take notice of this anyway given your last statement is classic party line double think. The war on drugs is bad and is all the liberal's fault, but we need a strong conservative gov't to control the immigrants and drugs that are coming into the country.
Yes, because Liberals are the big supporters of The War on Drugs. Oh wait no, that's religious conservatives. It may have been expanded by FDR(Who was more of a Statist than a Liberal, desperate times I suppose.), but it existed before then, and has certainly the pet project of many conservative.Presidents and policy makers since.
The AC is probably looking at "Hillary Clinton" as a shibboleth because you're putting her in a ridiculous position with no apparent relation to TFA. You could have chosen anyone, and I would think former president Carter would have made a more topical choice, but you chose her.
Maybe you didn't intend this to be trollish, but you were if odd.
Most people don't want to move the discussion beyond that. They want to believe that their set of principles is more "right" than any given policy. They like calling themselves Democrat or Republican and spouting out of context talking points. They can participate in Democracy by simplifying it down to a few axioms and anyone that disagrees is naive, jaded, or just wrong.
Interestingly enough, Massachusetts was one of the places that ruled GPS tracking requires a warrant. It's like Mass and Cali are reversing in terms of sanity.
What changes something from rhetoric to an "engineering practice"? You might claim logic, but people can use all sorts of loops and tricks to make their point seem "logical". The point I was trying to make is that the similarities between religion and FS are superficial and can be applied to any argument. Maybe I didn't make it well.
This is absurd reasoning. Congress does not empower the Executive [Branch] to distinguish
No the Judicial branch has that power. This difference between this and "opposing Reagan and Bush's lawyerly[sic] evasion of the law" is that the Court failed to reign in those executive branches, and in reality, is continuing to fail. Where the hell is the protection the fourth amendment, which is enumerated in the Bill of Rights specifically because it was so important? I'm glad that the court has taken back to exercising its power to check the Executive branch at least in some thing, but really this is probably the smallest and most limited power it could check.
The same can be said of any ideology. Do you believe it is better to have access to the source code, or do you believe that companies will fairly use the trust you have given them to create better products? You think you know the answer that is best for you and they think they know the answer that is best for them. They aren't "forcing" anything on you like most religions I know.
support higher taxes and increased government spending, regardless of the prevailing economic circumstances
That's just the classic problem of spending in a democracy and has little to do with "the left" in this country. Democrats quote new Keynesian economic policy(which I think matches reality better than Friedman's brand of Classic Liberalism) to spend during a downturn, but fail to save substantially during economic upturns. Where as Republicans follow "Reaganomics" which calls for spending more on military whenever they think they can get away with it(more during upturns) and trying to block everything else in downturns.
As I alluded to earlier that's elegant theory based on Classic Liberal principles, but because I think those principles are flawed and don't reflect the real world very well I don't find that theory very compelling.
You can see plenty of instances where individual rights are external costs to the free market so the principle "The gov't should never regulate the free market" is not one I share.
With a tyrannical government, you must continue to comply with any and all terms under penalty of theft, capture, rape, or death. You have no effective recourse for satisfaction, and no competition.
I'm an American, so I don't live under a tyrannical gov't I live under a representative gov't.
Hmm, never thought about it before, but I use route as 'root' for a noun and route as 'raut' for a verb. I think this is because I've always heard 'router' pronounced as 'rauter'.
Also, they mention that usually waste water plants try and limit NO2 and methane production by pumping air into the waste water.
The benefits of this approach:
1.) It reduces power needs substantially by removing the requirement to pump air.
2.) It removes more nitrogen from the water in the process.(Hooray for not killing our oceans!)
3.) The thruster can be as small as a basketball and handle all of the gas generated.
You really should just read TFA; it's short, informative, and to the point.
Pretty every contract I explicitly and implicitly enter into with any company includes the terms "We reserve the right to changes the terms of this agreement". I get notices from the bank, websites I have an account with, all sorts of places about how such and such has changed all of the time. That is how the world works.
In the case of the gov't, if I don't like "the terms of the contract" then I need to use the ballot box to change that.
Why get into a utilitarian argument when a principled one will do?
Because a principled argument is great in theory for someone who shares your principles. A utilitarian argument can be appeal to any ideology provided they're not too closed minded.
FWIW I wish there was less cherry picking of the constitution by Democrats and Republicans(if you're going to harp on 2nd amendment rights don't denigrate the 4th out of the other side of your mouth and vice-versa), but I do also agree it is a living document that must be a foundation of freedom(which may require things like civil rights legislation) while reflecting the will of the people.
Ah, no problem. The Tea Party gets a lot of flak, but I do want to like it. I think the fact that it is so populist is both its strength and weakness in that it sucks in all of the populist undercurrents.
Personally I would love to see the bigots move to the "Third Position" and have the Tea Party or Libertarian Party proper replace the Republican Party. That might force the Democratic Party to actually be Social Liberal and follow New Keynesian policy instead of the bastardized economic policy both parties compromise on.
Net Neutrality was the standard of the "wired" internet by convention. Comcast started throttling bittorrent traffic and broke that convention. There was a lawsuit which the FCC won, but was lost in appeals(only a couple of months ago) when the high court ruled that because ISPs are classified as "Information Services" and not "Common Carriers" like telephone, water, and electricity companies that the enforcement of Network Neutrality would be an expansion of power.
Wireless access to the internet through the cellular networks is relatively new and because it is shoehorned into the existing limited system it is absolutely not net neutral. For example all of Verizon's "approved" video content(V-Cast) is prioritized over regular data packets(ie: YouTube and other competing video services).
The FCC is discussing moving ISPs to common carriers, which IMO is the right move. I don't know if wireless providers would be affected by this. It seems Verizon(and AT&T which has come out in support of the proposal) are afraid of this which is why they agreed to support NN for "wireline" providers while maintaining the non network neutrality standard for wireless networks.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean "science doesn't work that way"? Peer review is a vital part of science. You can't prove a theory 'correct', but that is not a claimed goal anyway. Scientific consensus on a theory just tells you that a given theory matches the data provided up to that time. The longer a theory stands the more data is accumulated that either supports or data com,es out that the theory needs to be revised.
In the case of TFA they revised how fast Greenlandic ice is melting, but it is still melting at non-trivial rates. The data still supports the theory for global warming.
"Deniers" are generally called that because they forgo the peer review process claiming conspiracy, and/or repeat frankly debunked claims.
How is this a 'Troll' post. I haven't had to serve for Jury Duty yet, but this is something I want to know about before I started.
Yeah, given the context I'm guessing his reference to Darwinism is Social Darwinism which has even less credibility than Malthusianism.
Progressive or Liberal, pick one. If you think they are the same then you've been drinking too much Kool-Aid lately.
I'd agree that most of Congress and the Executive Branch is Progressive, but it's more like 99% for the past 20 years rather than 60% right now. Between the war on drugs, the FCC, banning of gay marriage, immigration control policies and much more Ron Paul is one the few that can claim to not have supported Progressive policies even when they happen to be along party lines.
I doubt you will take notice of this anyway given your last statement is classic party line double think. The war on drugs is bad and is all the liberal's fault, but we need a strong conservative gov't to control the immigrants and drugs that are coming into the country.
Yes, because Liberals are the big supporters of The War on Drugs. Oh wait no, that's religious conservatives. It may have been expanded by FDR(Who was more of a Statist than a Liberal, desperate times I suppose.), but it existed before then, and has certainly the pet project of many conservative.Presidents and policy makers since.
The AC is probably looking at "Hillary Clinton" as a shibboleth because you're putting her in a ridiculous position with no apparent relation to TFA. You could have chosen anyone, and I would think former president Carter would have made a more topical choice, but you chose her.
Maybe you didn't intend this to be trollish, but you were if odd.
Most people don't want to move the discussion beyond that. They want to believe that their set of principles is more "right" than any given policy. They like calling themselves Democrat or Republican and spouting out of context talking points. They can participate in Democracy by simplifying it down to a few axioms and anyone that disagrees is naive, jaded, or just wrong.
Here here.
Interestingly enough, Massachusetts was one of the places that ruled GPS tracking requires a warrant. It's like Mass and Cali are reversing in terms of sanity.
I find this comment both on topic and informative.
What changes something from rhetoric to an "engineering practice"? You might claim logic, but people can use all sorts of loops and tricks to make their point seem "logical". The point I was trying to make is that the similarities between religion and FS are superficial and can be applied to any argument. Maybe I didn't make it well.
This is absurd reasoning. Congress does not empower the Executive [Branch] to distinguish
No the Judicial branch has that power. This difference between this and "opposing Reagan and Bush's lawyerly[sic] evasion of the law" is that the Court failed to reign in those executive branches, and in reality, is continuing to fail. Where the hell is the protection the fourth amendment, which is enumerated in the Bill of Rights specifically because it was so important? I'm glad that the court has taken back to exercising its power to check the Executive branch at least in some thing, but really this is probably the smallest and most limited power it could check.
The same can be said of any ideology. Do you believe it is better to have access to the source code, or do you believe that companies will fairly use the trust you have given them to create better products? You think you know the answer that is best for you and they think they know the answer that is best for them. They aren't "forcing" anything on you like most religions I know.
support higher taxes and increased government spending, regardless of the prevailing economic circumstances
That's just the classic problem of spending in a democracy and has little to do with "the left" in this country. Democrats quote new Keynesian economic policy(which I think matches reality better than Friedman's brand of Classic Liberalism) to spend during a downturn, but fail to save substantially during economic upturns. Where as Republicans follow "Reaganomics" which calls for spending more on military whenever they think they can get away with it(more during upturns) and trying to block everything else in downturns.
You can see plenty of instances where individual rights are external costs to the free market so the principle "The gov't should never regulate the free market" is not one I share.
With a tyrannical government, you must continue to comply with any and all terms under penalty of theft, capture, rape, or death. You have no effective recourse for satisfaction, and no competition.
I'm an American, so I don't live under a tyrannical gov't I live under a representative gov't.
Your gugurikata is impressive, but it is no match for my google-fu.
Hmm, never thought about it before, but I use route as 'root' for a noun and route as 'raut' for a verb. I think this is because I've always heard 'router' pronounced as 'rauter'.
Also, they mention that usually waste water plants try and limit NO2 and methane production by pumping air into the waste water.
The benefits of this approach:
1.) It reduces power needs substantially by removing the requirement to pump air.
2.) It removes more nitrogen from the water in the process.(Hooray for not killing our oceans!)
3.) The thruster can be as small as a basketball and handle all of the gas generated.
You really should just read TFA; it's short, informative, and to the point.
Pretty every contract I explicitly and implicitly enter into with any company includes the terms "We reserve the right to changes the terms of this agreement". I get notices from the bank, websites I have an account with, all sorts of places about how such and such has changed all of the time. That is how the world works.
In the case of the gov't, if I don't like "the terms of the contract" then I need to use the ballot box to change that.
http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/content/cultivated-play-farmville
tl;dr: People are social animals and companies are exploiting social obligations(real and invented) to collect data.
Why get into a utilitarian argument when a principled one will do?
Because a principled argument is great in theory for someone who shares your principles. A utilitarian argument can be appeal to any ideology provided they're not too closed minded.
FWIW I wish there was less cherry picking of the constitution by Democrats and Republicans(if you're going to harp on 2nd amendment rights don't denigrate the 4th out of the other side of your mouth and vice-versa), but I do also agree it is a living document that must be a foundation of freedom(which may require things like civil rights legislation) while reflecting the will of the people.
Well said.
Ah, no problem. The Tea Party gets a lot of flak, but I do want to like it. I think the fact that it is so populist is both its strength and weakness in that it sucks in all of the populist undercurrents.
Personally I would love to see the bigots move to the "Third Position" and have the Tea Party or Libertarian Party proper replace the Republican Party. That might force the Democratic Party to actually be Social Liberal and follow New Keynesian policy instead of the bastardized economic policy both parties compromise on.
What are you talking about?
Net Neutrality was the standard of the "wired" internet by convention. Comcast started throttling bittorrent traffic and broke that convention. There was a lawsuit which the FCC won, but was lost in appeals(only a couple of months ago) when the high court ruled that because ISPs are classified as "Information Services" and not "Common Carriers" like telephone, water, and electricity companies that the enforcement of Network Neutrality would be an expansion of power.
Wireless access to the internet through the cellular networks is relatively new and because it is shoehorned into the existing limited system it is absolutely not net neutral. For example all of Verizon's "approved" video content(V-Cast) is prioritized over regular data packets(ie: YouTube and other competing video services).
The FCC is discussing moving ISPs to common carriers, which IMO is the right move. I don't know if wireless providers would be affected by this. It seems Verizon(and AT&T which has come out in support of the proposal) are afraid of this which is why they agreed to support NN for "wireline" providers while maintaining the non network neutrality standard for wireless networks.