In case my point wasn't clear, it is precisely the same as the last sentence you quoted: "... it has been referenced and alluded to many times... in popular culture."
Exactly. My point was (if we are talking about ONLY the words that were being argued about, not the earlier, more complete quote you gave) that it has been used "in popular culture" a lot, and it is arguable that most people who say it are not necessarily -- or intentionally, anyway -- referencing the bible.
"Crickey, you are obtuse.... Firstly, the book in question (The Gospel according to Mark, 5:9) was written 2050 years ago, a bit longer than your 1000 years."
*I* am being obtuse? Hahahaha. Look up the word "legion", dumbass. It isn't known to have existed until approximately the year 1000 A.D.!!!! And I'm being generous, giving it a good 100 years or more leeway.
"... he was using an allusion that his audience knew."
And your point is? He substituted a Roman allusion for the Greek. I can accept that. But you missed the point: WHAT was the Greek word for which he substituted it? Do you know what the original was? MY point about that was only that the word "legion" was not in the original bible, nor is it important. It was simply a word used to mean "many". Period. Other words could have been as easily used.
"the fact that we're talking about a phrase that was translated into English 500+ years ago hardly makes it likely that they came up with weirdly similar phraseology de novo."
I never stated that they did. Where did I assert any such thing? You have gotten sidetracked, and completely missed the point I was making, which was the fact that someone TODAY saying "we are legion" hardly implies that they are attempting to associate themselves with demons... which is exactly what GP was obviously implying.
"Finally, the phrase "We are Legion" pairs a plural subject and a singular noun. It hardly makes sense - try using "We are Battalion" or "We are Patrol" - except as an allusion to the Biblical phrase."
In this you are simply wrong. Look up the word. It is not JUST used as a noun (although when it is, it is often used as a plural, not singular, noun), but in modern times it is ALSO used as an adjective. So that's not a valid argument.
As somebody else pointed out, at other times Anonymous has stated "We are legion, for we are many." Now, THAT is obviously a biblical reference. But without that foreknowledge, I deny that simply saying "we are legion", today, is an intentional reference to the Bible, much less a reference to demons. It has been used too often, in too many other contexts.
I think you got too caught up in the last couple of exchanges and didn't bother to go back and find out what my original point was.
"During Their YouTube video they state "If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many."
Given that whole statement, I would have to agree that it is a biblical reference. However, I do not agree that simply saying "we are legion," which is what was said in this case, necessarily amounts to that. Given that they have said that before, if what you say is true, then it seems that it is a biblical reference. But this discussion was based only on the statement "we are legion", and nothing else.
Even given that, though, there is still nothing indicating that it's a reference to demons, because again "we are legion" ONLY means "we are many"... which, besides being supported by the history of the word "legion", is also stated in so many words, just as you have pointed out.
People quote Romeo and Juliet without any intention of committing suicide. Simply quoting "we are many" does not mean they associate themselves with demons.
"So you are in favor of censorship, as you would define it, as long as it's not you that is being "censored.;" or back to the point - can an institution reasonably restrict access to protect a resource for use by others as well?"
What? Where the hell did you get that, out of what I wrote? It sure as hell isn't anything I stated.
Further, you aren't getting "back to the point" at all... you're getting back to the straw-man argument you were trying to make, which had nothing to do with my point, at all. Which I already explained. Duh. Are you actually reading what I wrote?
"So you agree that unfettered access in not a civil liberty issue and simply something you would want."
No, I don't necessarily agree with that at all. I was simply explaining that it is not anything I had stated earlier. Again... you are reading things into my words that don't actually exist.
"As a side note, the logical flow of your argument in response to my statements suggest you think the ACLU should act in such cases."
Yes, I did suggest that. But for reasons different from those you have tried to put in my mouth.
"You claimed it was censorship that restricted academic freedom - so if it's not a 1st amendment issue what possibly could it be?"
This illustrates the fuzziness of your logic throughout this exchange. I neither stated that the 1st Amendment was involved in THIS case, or that academic freedom equated to a 1st Amendment issue, again in this case. YOU are the only one who suggested as much.
"So, if destruction of currency is important, then why is the cost of living lower in Zimbabwe (when it underwent rampant, massive money printing) compared to the USA which devalues its currency at a somewhat lower rate?"
You are improperly comparing two completely different economies as though they were the same. But they're not.
As someone else mentioned, buying goods with Zimbabwe dollars was next to impossible. But you could buy quite a lot of tangible goods with U.S. dollars.
The problem was indeed complete runaway inflation of the Zimbabwe dollar. The government printed and spent, causing the currency to decrease in value almost to nothing.
The fact that things are not as bad in the U.S. right now is no sign that there's nothing wrong with inflation; it just hasn't been as bad here. But if our government keeps up its BS monetary policies, it soon will be.
(Note to those who advocate Keynesian or "mainstream" economics: you can argue until you are blue in the face that inflation is necessary for a healthy economy. History proves you wrong. Healthy, growing markets promote deflation, as they tended to do before government Keynesian-style interventionist policies, and as the really healthy markets [such as computers] still do today. Inflation only benefits Wall Street, banks, and government. It hurts everyone else.)
"- you are mistaken. Gov't intervention destroys viability of some companies to promote unviable businesses of their friends. Kodak was a company that was attacked by gov't in the nineties. [nytimes.com]"
Nonsense. You are wrong in two respects: (1) That wasn't an "attack", that was a clear case of antitrust violation. Even Adam Smith recognized the need for a robust body of antitrust law. (2) Kodak was NOT a viable company. They were a classic case of a company that did not properly adjust to advances in technology.
I do agree that our government today suffers from cronyism. But that's a separate matter. You aren't discussing the way the government is supposed to work, but rather perceived corruption in government. Two different things.
"And people are WONDERING why there is no manufacturing business in USA? What are you all, blind?"
This bothers me, too. There are times when it seems that most of my fellow citizens have been blind to what's happening around them. Take those Occupy Wall Street protesters who were blaming our economic woes on "capitalism". They were fundamentally wrong. For one thing, Wall Street does not represent "capitalism", at all. Rather, it is a reflection of flawed (and thoroughly discredited) Keynesian economics. It is really nothing more than a government-endorsed casino. And sadly, due to corruption, it operates like all casinos do: the house always gets its cut.
Then they blame greedy corporations, again as a flaw of capitalism. But again, greed and government cronyism aren't part of "capitalism". On the contrary: capitalism is founded on the idea of fully voluntary trade. When monopolies are encouraged and large corporations given unfair advantages (which allows them to charge more than a fair market price might be if there were free competition), that's just not "capitalism". At all.
Blame the government and the lobbyists. That's where the real problem is. Put real capitalism and free markets back in place, the way they should be, and these problems largely go away.
"There is also another reason why more people are not in the S&E field - the pay sucks!"
It's not "another" reason... it is the main reason. This is the basic economics of supply-and-demand: if there is a shortage (assuming of course that it's possible to supply the demand), that means people aren't paying enough for it. Plain and simple.
But international outsourcing complicates matters somewhat. By now people should understand that this kind of outsourcing is damaging to our country's economy. It amounts to short-term profits versus long-term viability.
The government needs to get wise and start taxing corporations that outsource internationally. Not taxing the goods, you understand, but taxing the profits of the corporations. There is a very big difference.
The use of the word "legion" to mean "many" is approximately 1000 years old, and it originally referred to a "legion" of Roman soldiers. It did not come from the Bible at all. Remember that the Bible is a translated work.
"And the actual quote is "My name is Legion: for we are many." So "we" and "legion" is part of the real quote."
Now that's a REAL stretch. I suppose if I were playing basketball and said "my score was four", I must be quoting the Gettysburg Address?
Interesting you should say that, since I was directly addressing the issue of restricted access, which was what OP was about. But if you want real straw-man, we have this:
"Do you consider restricting access to certain volumes censorship? Should I have unfettered access to a rare book that is the only known copy?"
I did ask about censorship of books, but that's not a straw-man argument. Books and internet are both sources of valuable academic information. So there *IS* a direct comparison to be had.
But nobody (except you) said ANYTHING about "rare books". In fact if it's on the internet, I don't think the term "rare" even applies. So who's making the straw-man argument here? Hint: I don't think it was me.
"As for the ACLU, they have sued non-university systems over filtering that blocked certain material, I can not recall or find a case where they sued a university because a student was not allowed unfettered access."
Out of context. I said ACLU has helped students with censored nets. Elsewhere, I stated that I would want unfettered access. But I did not put the two together and say ACLU would sue over unfettered access.
"As a side note, given the SCOTUS has allowed schools to control distribution of materials they may find that unfettered access is not a 1st amendment issue."
I did not claim that "academic freedom" was a 1st Amendment issue. It certainly can be in some instances, but I don't think I claimed that this was one of them.
"Oh, and the fact that it's a verbatim quote from the Gospels. Pure coincidence."
Yep. Take just about ANY three words that make sense together, and they have been used millions of times over the years. And because the phrases "we are legion" and even "I am legion" have been used in many places and many contexts that are NOT even remotely related to the bible, I would say that indeed, it is much more likely than not that they had no intention of referring to scriptures when they made it part of their motto. It isn't even a direct quote. They did not say "I am Legion", they say "we are legion".
If that passage had said instead, "I am Many" (which is all it means) or "I am Multitude" would you call out anybody who says "we are many" too? Ridiculous.
Repeat: "legion" is not a name, even as used in the bible. It is simply a noun ("a legion of soldiers") meaning "many", or an adjective ("the rocks on the hillside were legion"), again meaning "many".
You sound to me like the kind of person who sees images of Jesus on burnt toast.
"Legion" is not a name out of the bible; it is simply a word meaning "many" that happened to be used in the bible. It could just have well been "multitude" or "horde", the meaning would have been the same.
"Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our/. fill"
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
Apparently, you are the sort of person who thinks University libraries should also be censored? How about U.S. mail going into and out of campus grounds? Should that be censored, too? The newspapers maybe?
"Yea, thatâ(TM)s a great choice - pick a fight over an issue that isn't really the point - no one is restricting your academic freedom."
Complete BS as far as I am concerned. If you are paying or an Internet connection (and yes, if you're in college you're paying for it), and it is censored, then your academic freedom IS being restricted.
"I'd imagine the EFF / ACLU / etc. laughing about your argument "
Considering that they have already helped stop internet censorship at other universities in the United States, via the courts, I rather doubt they are laughing.
Universities do not exist to restrict information. Anybody who thinks they do, is not doing their job.
I agree that it is likely and administrator, rather than the IT department, who is responsible, but don't count on it. That's just worthless guesswork. You can find out.
Whoever is responsible, don't listen to all these wimps who just tell you to cave and pay for ANOTHER internet source when you're already paying for this one. Get hold of EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, and anybody else you can, and tell them your academic freedom is being repressed. Because it is true. But get some help. There are organizations out there who can not only help you find who is responsible, but put pressure on them to change the status quo.
Don't cave and just buy an expensive cell phone data connection (especially with prices going up). Fight the BS. Because that's what it is: BS.
I should also say -- and I meant this entirely as a helpful suggestion -- that if you are going to get into arguments of this sort, you really need to pay more attention to what the other person is saying. Because I gave you some solid facts to back up my arguments and you clearly demonstrated that either (1) you didn't bother to check them, or (2) that you did not understand them.
I honestly do not know which one is more correct, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you simply hadn't read them.
If you want to argue with me about it, you will have to demonstrate that you have at least followed the previous messages and their references. But you have not.
"Unsupported assertion." (1)
It's not "unsupported" at all. It is supported by the criticism by Peiser, to which I linked. Go read it before you say the assertion is "unsupported".
"Unsupported assertion" (2)
Again, incorrect. This assertion was also made by Peiser in the critique to which I linked. And a great many others have said it since, I might add.
"Unsupported assertion" (3)
Absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. It made the difference between over 12,000 papers in the results and 928 (claimed by Oreskes; actually 905) in the results. I daresay that more than order of magnitude (demonstrated beyond doubt) is "support" for the assertion.
"Moving the goalposts"
Now here is where we almost agree. I do indeed agree that the goalposts were moved, some distance from my original assertion. However, I am not the one who did the moving. Which I can show, if you really want to argue about it and be shown to be wrong.
Haha. In my other reply, I mistakenly thought I was replying to someone else. Mea culpa. But since I did make the mistake, I might as well reply to this as well.
"I am a cognitive scientist by training, with backgrounds in psychology, religion and artificial intelligence. "
That's nice.
"I have studied the ego defense mechanisms very precisely over many years. I am fascinated by how the ego protects what buddhists call "ignorance" -- something that is vividly alive in the paranoid and political mind. In itself it is really amazingly stupendously crazy and wonderful and bizarre. So, I look into 9/11 conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies, alien stuff, people against vacciness, GMOs, the biological basis of behaviour or sexual identity or gender identity. And of course, the denial of AGW. It is all amazingly similar."
I understand.
"I have studied the ego defense mechanisms very precisely over many years. I am fascinated by how the ego protects what buddhists call "ignorance" -- something that is vividly alive in the paranoid and political mind. In itself it is really amazingly stupendously crazy and wonderful and bizarre. So, I look into 9/11 conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies, alien stuff, people against vacciness, GMOs, the biological basis of behaviour or sexual identity or gender identity. And of course, the denial of AGW. It is all amazingly similar."
So what? See, this is exactly like the pseudo-therapist who says that denial of alcoholism is a symptom of alcoholism. It actually may be... but you can't work backwards from that assertion, because so many people who are not alcoholics -- a majority, in fact -- will also claim that they are not alcoholics. And they would be correct. So you cannot therefore use denial (we're talking about alcoholism here, just an analogy) as a diagnostic indicator. Because if you did, you would be wrong far more often than you would be right.
In the same way, you need to understand that false deniers and people who have actual evidence will in many cases behave in the same way, in arguments of this type. You can't tell them apart by their behavior, because those who falsely believe they are right, and who are semi-intelligent, will behave the same way as those who actually have the facts on their side. So the observation that people who "deny" global warming (as a group), behave a certain way, has absolutely no bearing on whether some of them might just fucking well be right.
So once again, you can't use simple 'denial' as a diagnostic tool, to indicate that they are wrong. Because you might just end up in the same boat, and be wrong more often than you are right. And even if you are right most of the time, you will still be wrong a significant number of times.
I have done my research on this Global Warming thing. BECAUSE I want to know the truth. I have been researching it and reading the scientific papers and checking the "facts" I get from the news about it, for many years now. No, I am not, myself, a theoretical scientist. I do, however, have a college degree and work as a software engineer. I might also point out that my university background includes a lot of math and science that do not directly apply to my degree. And you would not believe me if I told you my IQ, so I won't.
If you want to argue with me about Global Warming, I can say 2 things in general:
(1) Unless you have been studying it for years, as I have, and have a similar science-oriented education, then there is a very damned good chance that I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
(2) Lots of what "everybody knows" about it is wrong.
I could go on, but I won't. On the particular point we were discussing, you are just plain wrong. And I suspect that you are wrong because you have been listening to much of the propaganda that comes from the pro-warming advocates. It's not all BS, and I never claimed that it was. But a good portion of it is.
I will reply to you. At least for now. I'm not replying to him anymore.
"Note that 34 does/not/ change the fact that there is a consensus (so Naomi is correct). That is less then 3%."
Sure it does. Because even though it's only 3%, if you read Peiser's paper, then you know that is still more than three times as many papers as explicitly endorsed it.
3 to 1 against AGW does not equal a consensus for AGW. Period.
I know I said I would not answer, but it's so hard to resist... this is just too easy.
"And I quite clearly stated that it is a mathematical absurdity."
I know what you stated, but you STILL don't get it. You were wrong. You can state it as often as you like, but that won't make it any more true.
If you don't understand the difference between taking a random sample (which is what you were describing) and taking a sample that is not only not random but uses improperly biased selection criteria, then I'm not going to spend the hours necessary to educate you. Pick up a book.
"For Oreskes study not to be credible, you have to show that 3% of non-AGW-supporters (which include neautrals) publish a vastly larger proportional number of studies in the period, all aligned, and using "climate change" in the abstract, but for some reason not using "global climate change""
I have to do nothing of the sort. I simply have to show that Oreskes' selection criteria resulted in numbers that were significantly different from the numbers for all papers about climate. I don't have to show a "vast" difference of any kind. And I already explained why "global" resulted in different numbers. Again: your failure to understand is not my responsibility.
Those numbers are given in the Peiser critique, which I gave you a direct link to. From the way you keep going on it is apparent that either you haven't bothered to read it, or didn't understand it. Either way, that is also not my responsibility.
However, it is ALSO sufficient to show that Oreskes simply did not count her results properly. This is shown quite clearly in Peiser's second letter, which I believe I also linked you to. Naomi Oreskes claimed of the 928 abstracts she claimed were in her result set (there were actually no more than 905), "none of these papers argued [that climate change is natural]." However, as Peiser showed: "there are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it... Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly improbable that all 34 are ambiguous."
"I also pointed out that it is an empirical question, and some denier tried to show this but back-peddled when their study re-affirmed Oreskes' study. (Look it up, it is a total double standard.)"
I did look it up, and his name is PEISER you dumbass, the very guy who wrote the letter I linked you to earlier! But you are incorrect about him "back-pedaling". See, I got you. I even EXPLAINED TO YOU that some sites had said that he "retracted his criticism", but that actually he had not; he only retracted a part of his criticism that had to do with a couple of specific numbers.
So even after I explained the exact situation to you, and linked you to the original material, you continued to take the inaccurate word of some warmist website that echoed these lies.
Then you blame ME for being a "denier"!! Hahahahahahaha!!!
"I heard ya, and answered ya. Naomi was right. We checked the references, and you were wrong."
Hahahaha! You did nothing of the sort. You checked only warmist websites, which gave you inaccurate information, but you DID NOT even bother to look at the original material, which I had already given you FOR FREE!!!
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
"But instead of talking about the veracity of Naomi's work, you want to talk about how consensus suddenly doesn't matter."
NO... I was, and am, talking about the veracity of Oreskes study. The fact is: there is none. YOU were the one who tried to move the goalposts. But none of that changes the fact that consensus still does not matter.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
The more you pound your keyboard, the stupider you keep looking. Are you really sure you want to do that again?
Doesn't matter. Once and for all, I am really and truly done here. If you can't recognize when your own ass is kicked, you can keep wasting your time. I don't care.
"First you say that Naomi failed to show a consensus."
You're just being stupid, where everybody else can see it.
I'm answering you this one last time, just to try to get it through your head. The fact is that Oreskes did not show that there was a consensus. But WHY was I saying that? Because my original comment was that citing Oreskes was not exactly a credible thing to do. Go ahead, go back and read. That's what I wrote. And I continued to discuss Oreskes' study... not whether there was actually a consensus or not, but whether she showed that there was.
It's just plain dumb to argue now that I have been arguing about consensus itself, when *I* was the one who wrote -- as anybody reading this thread can plainly see -- that consensus DOES NOT MATTER. And I even linked you to an article that says the very same thing.
Stop blaming me for your own failure to understand.
Feel free to continue to post all the BS you want. I will not answer you again.
"The rest of the post is about whether there is consensus about AGW"
"The rest of the post is about whether there is consensus", because somebody (gee, I wonder who it could be) decided that was the subject of the argument. But that person was not me.
"you're trying to change the scope of the discussion onto something else. This always happens when people feel the ground beneath them starting to slip."
Okay, since you have decided to be such an asshole, listen up: go read what my original post said. I was just as I stated: that Oreskes is not a reliable source regarding whether there is consensus or not.
THEN, somebody decided to argue about it, and tried to move the goalposts over to WHETHER there was consensus or not. But that is not my argument, and never has been, as my original post shows quite clearly.
Like I said, I am done here. You have done nothing but misunderstand, then claim that means you "win". You're an idiot.
Given that most knowledgeable people seem to think it's a bad idea... I have to wonder why government keeps coming up with schemes that essentially require monitoring by the ISP.
I mean, when you consider that as a practical matter, an ISP is (or at least should be) just a common carrier, like a telephone company. In fact the FCC originally -- and even very recently -- wanted to classify ISPs as common carriers. Which would preclude any monitoring. So what's up with all these monitoring ideas?
Are they maybe just trying to get some kind of monitoring in place, so that they can expand it later?
Slashdot Mirror
In case my point wasn't clear, it is precisely the same as the last sentence you quoted: "... it has been referenced and alluded to many times... in popular culture."
Exactly. My point was (if we are talking about ONLY the words that were being argued about, not the earlier, more complete quote you gave) that it has been used "in popular culture" a lot, and it is arguable that most people who say it are not necessarily -- or intentionally, anyway -- referencing the bible.
The whole quote, though? Yeah, probably.
"Crickey, you are obtuse. ... Firstly, the book in question (The Gospel according to Mark, 5:9) was written 2050 years ago, a bit longer than your 1000 years."
* I * am being obtuse? Hahahaha. Look up the word "legion", dumbass. It isn't known to have existed until approximately the year 1000 A.D.!!!! And I'm being generous, giving it a good 100 years or more leeway.
"... he was using an allusion that his audience knew."
And your point is? He substituted a Roman allusion for the Greek. I can accept that. But you missed the point: WHAT was the Greek word for which he substituted it? Do you know what the original was? MY point about that was only that the word "legion" was not in the original bible, nor is it important. It was simply a word used to mean "many". Period. Other words could have been as easily used.
"the fact that we're talking about a phrase that was translated into English 500+ years ago hardly makes it likely that they came up with weirdly similar phraseology de novo."
I never stated that they did. Where did I assert any such thing? You have gotten sidetracked, and completely missed the point I was making, which was the fact that someone TODAY saying "we are legion" hardly implies that they are attempting to associate themselves with demons... which is exactly what GP was obviously implying.
"Finally, the phrase "We are Legion" pairs a plural subject and a singular noun. It hardly makes sense - try using "We are Battalion" or "We are Patrol" - except as an allusion to the Biblical phrase."
In this you are simply wrong. Look up the word. It is not JUST used as a noun (although when it is, it is often used as a plural, not singular, noun), but in modern times it is ALSO used as an adjective. So that's not a valid argument.
As somebody else pointed out, at other times Anonymous has stated "We are legion, for we are many." Now, THAT is obviously a biblical reference. But without that foreknowledge, I deny that simply saying "we are legion", today, is an intentional reference to the Bible, much less a reference to demons. It has been used too often, in too many other contexts.
I think you got too caught up in the last couple of exchanges and didn't bother to go back and find out what my original point was.
"During Their YouTube video they state "If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many."
Given that whole statement, I would have to agree that it is a biblical reference. However, I do not agree that simply saying "we are legion," which is what was said in this case, necessarily amounts to that. Given that they have said that before, if what you say is true, then it seems that it is a biblical reference. But this discussion was based only on the statement "we are legion", and nothing else.
Even given that, though, there is still nothing indicating that it's a reference to demons, because again "we are legion" ONLY means "we are many"... which, besides being supported by the history of the word "legion", is also stated in so many words, just as you have pointed out.
People quote Romeo and Juliet without any intention of committing suicide. Simply quoting "we are many" does not mean they associate themselves with demons.
"So you are in favor of censorship, as you would define it, as long as it's not you that is being "censored.;" or back to the point - can an institution reasonably restrict access to protect a resource for use by others as well?"
What? Where the hell did you get that, out of what I wrote? It sure as hell isn't anything I stated.
Further, you aren't getting "back to the point" at all... you're getting back to the straw-man argument you were trying to make, which had nothing to do with my point, at all. Which I already explained. Duh. Are you actually reading what I wrote?
"So you agree that unfettered access in not a civil liberty issue and simply something you would want."
No, I don't necessarily agree with that at all. I was simply explaining that it is not anything I had stated earlier. Again... you are reading things into my words that don't actually exist.
"As a side note, the logical flow of your argument in response to my statements suggest you think the ACLU should act in such cases."
Yes, I did suggest that. But for reasons different from those you have tried to put in my mouth.
"You claimed it was censorship that restricted academic freedom - so if it's not a 1st amendment issue what possibly could it be?"
This illustrates the fuzziness of your logic throughout this exchange. I neither stated that the 1st Amendment was involved in THIS case, or that academic freedom equated to a 1st Amendment issue, again in this case. YOU are the only one who suggested as much.
"So, if destruction of currency is important, then why is the cost of living lower in Zimbabwe (when it underwent rampant, massive money printing) compared to the USA which devalues its currency at a somewhat lower rate?"
You are improperly comparing two completely different economies as though they were the same. But they're not.
As someone else mentioned, buying goods with Zimbabwe dollars was next to impossible. But you could buy quite a lot of tangible goods with U.S. dollars.
The problem was indeed complete runaway inflation of the Zimbabwe dollar. The government printed and spent, causing the currency to decrease in value almost to nothing.
The fact that things are not as bad in the U.S. right now is no sign that there's nothing wrong with inflation; it just hasn't been as bad here. But if our government keeps up its BS monetary policies, it soon will be.
(Note to those who advocate Keynesian or "mainstream" economics: you can argue until you are blue in the face that inflation is necessary for a healthy economy. History proves you wrong. Healthy, growing markets promote deflation, as they tended to do before government Keynesian-style interventionist policies, and as the really healthy markets [such as computers] still do today. Inflation only benefits Wall Street, banks, and government. It hurts everyone else.)
"- you are mistaken. Gov't intervention destroys viability of some companies to promote unviable businesses of their friends. Kodak was a company that was attacked by gov't in the nineties. [nytimes.com]"
Nonsense. You are wrong in two respects: (1) That wasn't an "attack", that was a clear case of antitrust violation. Even Adam Smith recognized the need for a robust body of antitrust law. (2) Kodak was NOT a viable company. They were a classic case of a company that did not properly adjust to advances in technology.
I do agree that our government today suffers from cronyism. But that's a separate matter. You aren't discussing the way the government is supposed to work, but rather perceived corruption in government. Two different things.
"And people are WONDERING why there is no manufacturing business in USA? What are you all, blind?"
This bothers me, too. There are times when it seems that most of my fellow citizens have been blind to what's happening around them. Take those Occupy Wall Street protesters who were blaming our economic woes on "capitalism". They were fundamentally wrong. For one thing, Wall Street does not represent "capitalism", at all. Rather, it is a reflection of flawed (and thoroughly discredited) Keynesian economics. It is really nothing more than a government-endorsed casino. And sadly, due to corruption, it operates like all casinos do: the house always gets its cut.
Then they blame greedy corporations, again as a flaw of capitalism. But again, greed and government cronyism aren't part of "capitalism". On the contrary: capitalism is founded on the idea of fully voluntary trade. When monopolies are encouraged and large corporations given unfair advantages (which allows them to charge more than a fair market price might be if there were free competition), that's just not "capitalism". At all.
Blame the government and the lobbyists. That's where the real problem is. Put real capitalism and free markets back in place, the way they should be, and these problems largely go away.
"There is also another reason why more people are not in the S&E field - the pay sucks!"
It's not "another" reason... it is the main reason. This is the basic economics of supply-and-demand: if there is a shortage (assuming of course that it's possible to supply the demand), that means people aren't paying enough for it. Plain and simple.
But international outsourcing complicates matters somewhat. By now people should understand that this kind of outsourcing is damaging to our country's economy. It amounts to short-term profits versus long-term viability.
The government needs to get wise and start taxing corporations that outsource internationally. Not taxing the goods, you understand, but taxing the profits of the corporations. There is a very big difference.
"And the actual quote is "My name is Legion: for we are many." So "we" and "legion" is part of the real quote."
Now that's a REAL stretch. I suppose if I were playing basketball and said "my score was four", I must be quoting the Gettysburg Address?
"Nice straw men and ad-hominem as a bonus."
Interesting you should say that, since I was directly addressing the issue of restricted access, which was what OP was about. But if you want real straw-man, we have this:
"Do you consider restricting access to certain volumes censorship? Should I have unfettered access to a rare book that is the only known copy?"
I did ask about censorship of books, but that's not a straw-man argument. Books and internet are both sources of valuable academic information. So there *IS* a direct comparison to be had.
But nobody (except you) said ANYTHING about "rare books". In fact if it's on the internet, I don't think the term "rare" even applies. So who's making the straw-man argument here? Hint: I don't think it was me.
"As for the ACLU, they have sued non-university systems over filtering that blocked certain material, I can not recall or find a case where they sued a university because a student was not allowed unfettered access."
Out of context. I said ACLU has helped students with censored nets. Elsewhere, I stated that I would want unfettered access. But I did not put the two together and say ACLU would sue over unfettered access.
"As a side note, given the SCOTUS has allowed schools to control distribution of materials they may find that unfettered access is not a 1st amendment issue."
I did not claim that "academic freedom" was a 1st Amendment issue. It certainly can be in some instances, but I don't think I claimed that this was one of them.
"Oh, and the fact that it's a verbatim quote from the Gospels. Pure coincidence."
Yep. Take just about ANY three words that make sense together, and they have been used millions of times over the years. And because the phrases "we are legion" and even "I am legion" have been used in many places and many contexts that are NOT even remotely related to the bible, I would say that indeed, it is much more likely than not that they had no intention of referring to scriptures when they made it part of their motto. It isn't even a direct quote. They did not say "I am Legion", they say "we are legion".
If that passage had said instead, "I am Many" (which is all it means) or "I am Multitude" would you call out anybody who says "we are many" too? Ridiculous.
Repeat: "legion" is not a name, even as used in the bible. It is simply a noun ("a legion of soldiers") meaning "many", or an adjective ("the rocks on the hillside were legion"), again meaning "many".
You sound to me like the kind of person who sees images of Jesus on burnt toast.
To be clearer: "We are legion" is NOT a biblical reference. It is simply a sentence meaning "we are many". It does not refer to demons.
"Legion" is not a name out of the bible; it is simply a word meaning "many" that happened to be used in the bible. It could just have well been "multitude" or "horde", the meaning would have been the same.
"Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our /. fill"
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
Apparently, you are the sort of person who thinks University libraries should also be censored? How about U.S. mail going into and out of campus grounds? Should that be censored, too? The newspapers maybe?
"Yea, thatâ(TM)s a great choice - pick a fight over an issue that isn't really the point - no one is restricting your academic freedom."
Complete BS as far as I am concerned. If you are paying or an Internet connection (and yes, if you're in college you're paying for it), and it is censored, then your academic freedom IS being restricted.
"I'd imagine the EFF / ACLU / etc. laughing about your argument "
Considering that they have already helped stop internet censorship at other universities in the United States, via the courts, I rather doubt they are laughing.
Universities do not exist to restrict information. Anybody who thinks they do, is not doing their job.
I agree that it is likely and administrator, rather than the IT department, who is responsible, but don't count on it. That's just worthless guesswork. You can find out.
Whoever is responsible, don't listen to all these wimps who just tell you to cave and pay for ANOTHER internet source when you're already paying for this one. Get hold of EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, and anybody else you can, and tell them your academic freedom is being repressed. Because it is true. But get some help. There are organizations out there who can not only help you find who is responsible, but put pressure on them to change the status quo.
Don't cave and just buy an expensive cell phone data connection (especially with prices going up). Fight the BS. Because that's what it is: BS.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will also say this:
No, I don't actually think you are stupid, either. But I do think you need to do a better job of checking your facts.
But to my point: I would not have made that comment at all, if you had not first strongly implied that you thought I was being stupid.
I should also say -- and I meant this entirely as a helpful suggestion -- that if you are going to get into arguments of this sort, you really need to pay more attention to what the other person is saying. Because I gave you some solid facts to back up my arguments and you clearly demonstrated that either (1) you didn't bother to check them, or (2) that you did not understand them.
I honestly do not know which one is more correct, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you simply hadn't read them.
"Unsupported assertion." (1)
It's not "unsupported" at all. It is supported by the criticism by Peiser, to which I linked. Go read it before you say the assertion is "unsupported".
"Unsupported assertion" (2)
Again, incorrect. This assertion was also made by Peiser in the critique to which I linked. And a great many others have said it since, I might add.
"Unsupported assertion" (3)
Absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. It made the difference between over 12,000 papers in the results and 928 (claimed by Oreskes; actually 905) in the results. I daresay that more than order of magnitude (demonstrated beyond doubt) is "support" for the assertion.
"Moving the goalposts"
Now here is where we almost agree. I do indeed agree that the goalposts were moved, some distance from my original assertion. However, I am not the one who did the moving. Which I can show, if you really want to argue about it and be shown to be wrong.
"I am a cognitive scientist by training, with backgrounds in psychology, religion and artificial intelligence. "
That's nice.
"I have studied the ego defense mechanisms very precisely over many years. I am fascinated by how the ego protects what buddhists call "ignorance" -- something that is vividly alive in the paranoid and political mind. In itself it is really amazingly stupendously crazy and wonderful and bizarre. So, I look into 9/11 conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies, alien stuff, people against vacciness, GMOs, the biological basis of behaviour or sexual identity or gender identity. And of course, the denial of AGW. It is all amazingly similar."
I understand.
"I have studied the ego defense mechanisms very precisely over many years. I am fascinated by how the ego protects what buddhists call "ignorance" -- something that is vividly alive in the paranoid and political mind. In itself it is really amazingly stupendously crazy and wonderful and bizarre. So, I look into 9/11 conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies, alien stuff, people against vacciness, GMOs, the biological basis of behaviour or sexual identity or gender identity. And of course, the denial of AGW. It is all amazingly similar."
So what? See, this is exactly like the pseudo-therapist who says that denial of alcoholism is a symptom of alcoholism. It actually may be... but you can't work backwards from that assertion, because so many people who are not alcoholics -- a majority, in fact -- will also claim that they are not alcoholics. And they would be correct. So you cannot therefore use denial (we're talking about alcoholism here, just an analogy) as a diagnostic indicator. Because if you did, you would be wrong far more often than you would be right.
In the same way, you need to understand that false deniers and people who have actual evidence will in many cases behave in the same way, in arguments of this type. You can't tell them apart by their behavior, because those who falsely believe they are right, and who are semi-intelligent, will behave the same way as those who actually have the facts on their side. So the observation that people who "deny" global warming (as a group), behave a certain way, has absolutely no bearing on whether some of them might just fucking well be right.
So once again, you can't use simple 'denial' as a diagnostic tool, to indicate that they are wrong. Because you might just end up in the same boat, and be wrong more often than you are right. And even if you are right most of the time, you will still be wrong a significant number of times.
I have done my research on this Global Warming thing. BECAUSE I want to know the truth. I have been researching it and reading the scientific papers and checking the "facts" I get from the news about it, for many years now. No, I am not, myself, a theoretical scientist. I do, however, have a college degree and work as a software engineer. I might also point out that my university background includes a lot of math and science that do not directly apply to my degree. And you would not believe me if I told you my IQ, so I won't.
If you want to argue with me about Global Warming, I can say 2 things in general:
(1) Unless you have been studying it for years, as I have, and have a similar science-oriented education, then there is a very damned good chance that I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
(2) Lots of what "everybody knows" about it is wrong.
I could go on, but I won't. On the particular point we were discussing, you are just plain wrong. And I suspect that you are wrong because you have been listening to much of the propaganda that comes from the pro-warming advocates. It's not all BS, and I never claimed that it was. But a good portion of it is.
"Note that 34 does /not/ change the fact that there is a consensus (so Naomi is correct). That is less then 3%."
Sure it does. Because even though it's only 3%, if you read Peiser's paper, then you know that is still more than three times as many papers as explicitly endorsed it.
3 to 1 against AGW does not equal a consensus for AGW. Period.
"And I quite clearly stated that it is a mathematical absurdity."
I know what you stated, but you STILL don't get it. You were wrong. You can state it as often as you like, but that won't make it any more true.
If you don't understand the difference between taking a random sample (which is what you were describing) and taking a sample that is not only not random but uses improperly biased selection criteria, then I'm not going to spend the hours necessary to educate you. Pick up a book.
"For Oreskes study not to be credible, you have to show that 3% of non-AGW-supporters (which include neautrals) publish a vastly larger proportional number of studies in the period, all aligned, and using "climate change" in the abstract, but for some reason not using "global climate change""
I have to do nothing of the sort. I simply have to show that Oreskes' selection criteria resulted in numbers that were significantly different from the numbers for all papers about climate. I don't have to show a "vast" difference of any kind. And I already explained why "global" resulted in different numbers. Again: your failure to understand is not my responsibility.
... Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly improbable that all 34 are ambiguous."
Those numbers are given in the Peiser critique, which I gave you a direct link to. From the way you keep going on it is apparent that either you haven't bothered to read it, or didn't understand it. Either way, that is also not my responsibility.
However, it is ALSO sufficient to show that Oreskes simply did not count her results properly. This is shown quite clearly in Peiser's second letter, which I believe I also linked you to. Naomi Oreskes claimed of the 928 abstracts she claimed were in her result set (there were actually no more than 905), "none of these papers argued [that climate change is natural]." However, as Peiser showed: "there are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it
"I also pointed out that it is an empirical question, and some denier tried to show this but back-peddled when their study re-affirmed Oreskes' study. (Look it up, it is a total double standard.)"
I did look it up, and his name is PEISER you dumbass, the very guy who wrote the letter I linked you to earlier! But you are incorrect about him "back-pedaling". See, I got you. I even EXPLAINED TO YOU that some sites had said that he "retracted his criticism", but that actually he had not; he only retracted a part of his criticism that had to do with a couple of specific numbers.
So even after I explained the exact situation to you, and linked you to the original material, you continued to take the inaccurate word of some warmist website that echoed these lies.
Then you blame ME for being a "denier"!! Hahahahahahaha!!!
"I heard ya, and answered ya. Naomi was right. We checked the references, and you were wrong."
Hahahaha! You did nothing of the sort. You checked only warmist websites, which gave you inaccurate information, but you DID NOT even bother to look at the original material, which I had already given you FOR FREE!!!
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
"But instead of talking about the veracity of Naomi's work, you want to talk about how consensus suddenly doesn't matter."
NO... I was, and am, talking about the veracity of Oreskes study. The fact is: there is none. YOU were the one who tried to move the goalposts. But none of that changes the fact that consensus still does not matter.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
The more you pound your keyboard, the stupider you keep looking. Are you really sure you want to do that again?
Doesn't matter. Once and for all, I am really and truly done here. If you can't recognize when your own ass is kicked, you can keep wasting your time. I don't care.
"First you say that Naomi failed to show a consensus."
You're just being stupid, where everybody else can see it.
I'm answering you this one last time, just to try to get it through your head. The fact is that Oreskes did not show that there was a consensus. But WHY was I saying that? Because my original comment was that citing Oreskes was not exactly a credible thing to do. Go ahead, go back and read. That's what I wrote. And I continued to discuss Oreskes' study... not whether there was actually a consensus or not, but whether she showed that there was.
It's just plain dumb to argue now that I have been arguing about consensus itself, when *I* was the one who wrote -- as anybody reading this thread can plainly see -- that consensus DOES NOT MATTER. And I even linked you to an article that says the very same thing.
Stop blaming me for your own failure to understand.
Feel free to continue to post all the BS you want. I will not answer you again.
I think you would have to go all the way back to common law; several hundred years at least.
"The rest of the post is about whether there is consensus about AGW"
"The rest of the post is about whether there is consensus", because somebody (gee, I wonder who it could be) decided that was the subject of the argument. But that person was not me.
"you're trying to change the scope of the discussion onto something else. This always happens when people feel the ground beneath them starting to slip."
Okay, since you have decided to be such an asshole, listen up: go read what my original post said. I was just as I stated: that Oreskes is not a reliable source regarding whether there is consensus or not.
THEN, somebody decided to argue about it, and tried to move the goalposts over to WHETHER there was consensus or not. But that is not my argument, and never has been, as my original post shows quite clearly.
Like I said, I am done here. You have done nothing but misunderstand, then claim that means you "win". You're an idiot.
Given that most knowledgeable people seem to think it's a bad idea... I have to wonder why government keeps coming up with schemes that essentially require monitoring by the ISP.
I mean, when you consider that as a practical matter, an ISP is (or at least should be) just a common carrier, like a telephone company. In fact the FCC originally -- and even very recently -- wanted to classify ISPs as common carriers. Which would preclude any monitoring. So what's up with all these monitoring ideas?
Are they maybe just trying to get some kind of monitoring in place, so that they can expand it later?