You've got to name it something. I prefer Greek or Roman mythology over placenames (Redstone), conceptual names (Endeavour, Opportunity, Discovery), or quasi-patriotic names (like Colombia). The Western world has a special attachment to the Greeks and Romans for our view of the cosmos. It is only appropriate that we pay tribute in some form or another. I should also note that I wouldn't be opposed to using some of the ancient Egyptian or Babylonian mythology either.
Ok, and now for some completely unsupported conjecturing: perhaps Trekkies like the conceptual names (Enterprise, Defiant), Star Wars fans like the quasi-patriotic names (Millenium Falcon, Executioner, Death Star), and BSG fans like the quasi-mythological names (Pegasus, Olympic Carrier).
So what is the belief system that suits moral atheist agenda?
Simple, as atheist's selfish agenda is to hate God and deny his revealed truth, no atheist can be moral. Nobody "doesn't belive in god" they know he is real, they just deny him, which is evil and therefore immoral.
You cannot be moral without God, therefore you cannot be a moral atheist nor a moral atheist agenda Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, etc., don't require you to worship some supernatural entity in order to make moral judgments. Some people like to pretend than morality only exists with obeying some made up deity, but that only shows how shallow their imaginations are that they need to read what actions are explicitly allowed or disallowed from some book to know whether they are acting good or bad. Two moral judgments that illustrate this point are the treatment of homosexuals and the issue of stem cell research. No non-deistic moral system would condone averse treatment of homosexuals or the banning stem cell research. Only those who don't have a moral 'system' but instead some arbitrary list of dos and don'ts would. Another example is prevention of cruelty to animals. The religious folks adjusted their dogma only after the lead of the 'immoral' atheists who pointed out that it was not a moral action to stage cockfights, stage dogfights, place livestock in cruel conditions, or torture animals.
I think I'll be just fine with my atheistic moral system. It forces me to think why an action is moral instead of searching for some verse in a holy book that I can interpret to my whims.
Accidentally posted anonymously, sorry. Another thing that I should note about the recommendations of the WHO is that they also supported circumcision of young children, which is ethically troubling and as you have pointed out it has not been shown to be effective. Perhaps with the report you cited they will change their recommendations on that point, but they will probably still consider adult circumcision to be a useful preventative measure.
Not entirely true. It has been shown to dramatically reduce the HIV transmission rate so it is being used in sub-Saharan Africa to combat AIDS. I should note that this treatment is done with adult males who can choose for themselves, not babies who are disfigured so as to not anger some invisible man in the sky.
You're right. That is a major tweaking and one I can't understand, exactly. But, how is evil elemental? Aren't the elemental planes morally neutral? After the fight between Vecna and the Lady of Pain in the final 2nd edition adventure, the planes were broken in several ways. This was done so that the 3rd edition rule changes could be integrated without people complaining that there was no reason for it.
I still use the Planescape cosmology when I run 3rd edition games. If any of the PCs or NPCs in the prime material plane think that this is wrong, well it is only because they are Clueless. And if any PCs keep complaining then they are going to have a trip to Carceri.
It sounds stupid because this is an urban myth. Perhaps the next time you think something 'sounds stupid' you will instead google it before you spout off.
The fundamental problem is that IDers and creationists are trying to argue their points a priori while evolutionists are trying to argue a posteriori. The IDers and creationists assume their hypothesis is true (that God created the universe as dictated by the Scriptures) and then carry that to its logical conclusion (usually). The evolutionists respond with an inductive argument by saying that scientific evidence indicates that there is a very high probability that the theory of evolution is correct.
In effect, they are both talking past each others heads. The only way to attack the IDers and creationists is to question their central axiom. Of course, that is unquestionable. They in return can hammer at the scientific evidence and pick at gaps and make misinterpretations as long as they want. As far as a creationist is concerned they are solving a math problem when they already have the answer book--the method that they use to get to the conclusion isn't really that important.
But, say that you do fill in all the gaps and correct their misinterpretations--will you convince them?
Of course not. They will then turn to David Hume's classic argument that there is no reason whatsoever that anybody should trust the results of inductive reasoning (i.e. they will say that evolution can never really be proved).
At this time, both parties will leave exasperated that the other doesn't understand their argument.
Homeland security should be doing research about how to prevent bureaucratic incompetance.
I like this sentence. It sends me into a trance every time I read it. I think it is because I imagine the DHS trying to perform this research and ironically getting nowhere. Then they try to research why their previous research got nowhere. When that gets nowhere they decide to research why the research of why their previous research got nowhere got nowhere and so on.
This is a really great precedent for them to set for the future.
Precedent? Hardly. Voyager 2 was originally only planned to flyby only Jupiter and Saturn. The engineers worked without permission from NASA management to build the spacecraft to be able to do a successful flyby of Uranus and Neptune (the probes had an official specification of their lifetimes of something on the order of 3 years or so). Eventually they were able to convince the management that if Voyager 1 was operating safely in space and was looking like it was going to be able to get a good look at Titan then Voyager 2 could reprogram its trajectory so that it could do the flybys of Uranus and Neptune. It was not possible for the Voyager probes to do the specified flyby of Titan and also visit Uranus and Neptune. If Voyager 1 would have blown up or had a problem in space then Voyager 2 would have done the flyby of Titan.
Though to be honest, I'm not even sure if this mission set the original precedent of mission extensions to check out other stuff.
The other problem with the concept of innate rights is that anyone is free to interpret rights however they wish. There is no external, universally verifiable, authoritative source to tell you what your so-called "natural rights" are or even from which set of fundamental principles they spring. Enlightened self interest is a far more pragmatic rock on which to build a moral foundation.
This is why the Bill of Rights was written. Many of the Framers argued against the Bill of Rights saying that there is no need to delineate the natural rights since the Constitution explicitly listed the powers of the three branches and implied that assumption of other powers not listed was prohibited. They argued that if the Bill of Rights was written then it would imply that those rights listed were the only rights that people had. Others argued that it would be possible that somebody might misinterpret their intentions of limited government and thus certain critical rights must be listed that could not be infringed under any interpretation. As a compromise, the 9th and 10th amendments were added.
How exactly is star wars somehow less scifi then firefly?
I'd wager that there is more theoretical technology and theoretical futuristic social structure in star wars then serenity and probably most of firefly. So what do you define as science fiction? I mean, it's fiction, about science. Firefly barely had enough science to make it not qualify as a current fiction w/ spaceships. Science fiction has more to do with a possible world that could potentially exist with advances in science and the stories involved due to the interaction of these new technologies with man. Many consider Star Wars to be fantasy instead of science fiction because while Star Wars has space ships and technology that perhaps might exist, very little of the story cared about how humans interact with this new technology. Contrast this with something like the Matrix, Blade Runner, or 2001 where the authors are obviously preoccupied with fleshing out the problems of some new technology (even if it wasn't made by humans). Star Wars was more about the battles of wizards in space.
To me it is obvious that sci-fi is not exactly the same as a futuristic fantasy. But this may not be clear to many with the apparent integration of the topics of sci-fi and fantasy in bookstores and other places most people come into contact with them. I think futuristic fantasy is a subcategory of fantasy and sci-fi is a subcategory of futuristic fantasy. Heinlein writes science fiction and Lucas writes futuristic fantasy.
our chances of surviving here would still be exponentially better than our chances on Mars. So one could infer that if we could survive on Mars, then it would probably make it a lot less likely that we would be annihilated while on the Earth. And if we could survive on Mars, then it is certainly probable that we wouldn't be far from developing the technology to live anywhere in our Solar System. And that technology would be used to eventually escape our system. Once we escape our system and start reproducing, our survival is almost guaranteed. With this in mind, I think it is certainly a good idea that we are thinking of ways to survive on Mars.
Humm... It is a little discouraging that someone with responsibility for nuclear safety considers venting or spills unimportant. You would. People who haven't worked in nuclear power plants or studied nuclear power in detail don't understand the difference in the orders of magnitudes of problems. You can say you have had a radioactive spill if you release 10^-6 curies just as easily as you could for 10 curies. Spilling 500 gallons of radioactive water sounds bad until you learn that it had trivial activity. People who don't understand these issues think that the 500 gallon spill is somewhat comparable to melting a fuel assembly. It is not, and it does not even come close. Including trivial items like spills and gas discharges as major nuclear accidents is misleading to say the least.
I would say that your list of studies does not really pass the smell test for a system that has any chance of ever being considered reliable on the safety front. Sounds like system complexity is a bit too high.....
What we learned today is that the list of nuclear accidents is incomplete owing to a cover up of a nuclear accident. We do not know how incomplete it is. Perhaps you can help out here. And yet again you try to prove a negative. US plants are unsafe because we don't know! We haven't had the accidents, but we don't know if someone is covering up an accident. Or if someone is covering up for someone covering up an accident. Will someone please think of the children!
Have you personally covered up any of those little spills that you feel are so unimportant? And this statement shows that you are an asshole. My answer is no, I have never covered up anything. But I would like to know who you are that allows you to sit on such a high horse. It is interesting that your response failed to answer any of the significant questions I asked, but I still responded to yours. Why don't you answer a couple of those questions now.
The one in 2006 in Sweden suggests that modern plants can't be operated safely but that the risk of a very large accident is one in forty years at the present level of reliance on nuclear power. If the list is very incomplete, as this cover up might urge us to consider, then the risk of large accidents could be much higher than one in forty years at the present level of reliance on nuclear power. In that case, increasing our reliance on nuclear power seems foolhardy and decommisioning existing plants on an accelerated schedule would be a good policy to adopt. You do not have a clue about nuclear safety. As someone who was personally responsible for the safety of a nuclear reactor I can tell you are just fear-mongering. You have cited some abstract fear (that accidents aren't reported) that you somehow use to rubberstamp fear about every design of nuclear reactor, including in a latter post the pebble bed reactor. Do you have justification that the US industry is not safe and not reporting its issues? You damn well better because you are claiming that the US nuclear industry, along with that of France, Canada, the UK, etc., are operating unsafely because of failures in Japan and Sweden. Oh and before you decide to cite your little list, you had better be damn sure that your 'accidents' affect reactor safety, not just vent a little radioactive gas into the atmosphere or spill a little radioactive water (which compromises >90%) of your list.
But before we continue, the only question that I really need you to answer is what is your history of analyzing the safety of *any* industrial system? Or do you assume that any Joe off the street can analyze industrial systems (and in particular, nuclear systems) without detailed knowledge of their theory of operation, design requirements, QA system, formal procedures, operator training, monitoring systems (what you might call a meta-operator system), or regulatory requirements? Have you performed any operational risk analysis studies? Reactor protection analysis studies? Do you even know what 'QA' stands for? Can you tell me why switching off the cooling pumps during the TMI accident increased the severity of the casualty? Or what type of experiment were the operators at Chernobyl performing? What I'm asking is for a little credibility before you damn the entire world nuclear industry. You are asking the nuclear industry to prove a negative result so I am curious to how you have analyzed the problem that will affect things from jobs to global warming to the number of people who die due to pollution from coal plants.
won't survive court if by some unholy miracle it get passed at all
I agree that it wouldn't survive in court, but it is useful to remember that the original Communications Decency Act (a much stricter form of censorship) was passed by 84-16 in the Senate and the recent Family Entertainment Protection Act was introduced by Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson and Evan Bayh. If you think that there will be any road bumps by Democratic or Republican Senators (or Representatives) you are being very naïve. The only protection citizens currently have from government censorship is our courts as neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branches seem to think that it is an important issue. Apparently our legislators think that an alternative reading to "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is that Congress can make *any* law on the same.
What do you think will happen to the price of foods made with corn when increasingly larger amounts are diverted for ethanol production? Something like this where Mexican tortilla prices have skyrocketed due to Mexican farmers selling their corn to the US for ethanol production.
Oh, and I don't mean that "the ends justifies the means" can never justify actions. krotkruton's example above of the priest selecting prisoners to be executed to save the rest certainly would be justified by "the ends justifies the means." I only mean that you can only use it to justify actions in which you can clearly predict the future without ambiguity. In krotkruton's example there certainly was little doubt about what the outcome would have been had the priest not made a selection. The Nazi guards might not have executed any prisoners, but that would be very unlikely.
"The ends justifies the means" loses its power of justification when you have less ability to predict the future unambiguously. I would argue that Bush's prediction on Iraq and Google's prediction on Chinese censorship were not items that could predicted clearly and unambiguously.
Since they would not be allowed to conduct business if they didn't allow this, I can't really see how what they did can be considered morally wrong.
The "Do no evil" policy doesn't just mean to do no evil when no profits are at stake (like randomly killing puppies). It means to do no evil even if profits are at stake.
Censoring people is morally wrong. When we start playing the game of "the ends justify the means" we start getting into flawed logic like that which started our recent Iraq War (i.e. it is OK to kill hundreds of thousands of people as long as you free their country--the ends justify the means).
Logically you are going to ask what would have happened if Google refused to do business in China. Another American company like Microsoft or even some other foreign company would have undoubtedly taken the place of Google. Their censorship may have been more or less strict. And from this you might think that Google is doing good because other companies could have been more evil. But then tell me why so many people think Haliburton is an evil company. They bring required services to Iraq and would certainly outperform many other companies. You might object and say that war profiteering is not the same as profiting from censorship, but I would disagree. Fundamentally, both companies are profiting from morally wrong actions.
Whether Google is doing less evil than other companies is unknown. But Google is undoubtedly doing evil. And this is not something I think people should start admiring. While the phrase "the ends justify the means" certainly sounds reasonable at first, it has a hidden assumption that has bitten most people who have used that phrase to justify their actions. That assumption is that you can predict the future. Saddam Hussein might have continued a brutal reign and continued policies of genocide and aggravating neighbors for another 30 years in which the international community could do nothing to stop. But then again he might not have. This is why so many people consider the Iraq War unjust. And this is why I consider Google's actions evil.
Sorry, but I just arrived from a 15 minute walk between buildings and my brain is frozen. (Which, I believe, is also Canada's fault.) Actually, it is the opposite--which shows how diabolical Canada's plans really are. They call it the Warm Canada Campaign. They will use either Plan A or Plan B:
Plan A: Pirate movies so that they can bankrupt movie companies and eventually bankrupt California. Then buy California and move Canada south to a warmer climate. Plan B: Global Warming!
Of course they hadn't figured that the US would counter their global warming and movie piracy with nuclear winter!
Actually it should be the opposite. Anyone who convinces the stupid to sterilize themselves or remove themselves from the gene pool through other means certainly deserves our hearty congratulations. In fact, they should be allowed to sue the stupid bastards they convinced to kill themselves.
I can see it now, billboards with signs saying: "a microwave is a great way to get a tan," "a blowtorch is a great way to thaw frozen pipes," and of course "it is cool to operate power tools--in the nude! Buy Budweiser!"
Truly, we need the stupid to start killing themselves again. With the advent of birth control, human evolution is starting to go backwards. In 100 years they will talk about the benevolent reign of George Bush the Wise.
I think you've missed my point. While you can work in CS having a mechanical engineering degree, that doesn't mean that you are an expert in CS research. It is possible to have a basic understanding of climate science without have an advanced degree in something like atmospheric sciences, but you are certainly not going to be an expert. The same applies for Gore (with a BA in government) and Crichton (with a MD).
Anyone who is not an expert in the field has no place advising the public on climate change. The proper people to do this job are the scientists. If Al Gore or Michael Crichton have some extensive research experience and have undergone extensive informal training that brings their knowledge up to the level of an experienced researcher or a tenured professor then I will certainly change my mind. But there is no evidence that this is the case.
Now now. Al Gore has been a vocal advocate on the environement for almost 30 years now. He's led government investigations and authored legislation. And oh yeah. He wrote two fucking highly regarded (by the relevant SCIENCE community no less) and researched books on the subject.
An advocate for the environment doesn't mean that he has knowledge of how it works. If Gore or Crichton can't solve a PDE they can't prove to me how a thermometer works, much less how the planetary climate operates. I really don't care that Gore advocates for the environment and for informing people about global warming. That is certainly his business. What bothers me is that the media will cite him (or Crichton) more than they will hundreds of scientists who have Ph.D.s in the relevant fields and who have researched the climate for their entire careers. Why should we have to listen to a man who spent his life writing laws talk about climate change instead of getting it from the scientists (the horse's mouth so to speak).
Perhaps my critique is more of society in general than about Gore or Crichton. We are certainly doomed as a society if we consider our best methods to be informed about climate change to be done by former politicians and MDs. It seems to me that people form their opinions by listening to talking heads on news stations instead of reading the relevant literature and understanding the science. I don't care about the scientists getting 'credit,' I only care that the public doesn't think that there are liberal or conservative sides to global warming (like they do today). It sickens me to see these things (such as the Big Bang and evolution) labeled politically and used to badger the other side (and they are used by both sides to encourage groupthink). If you think the Big Bang is a well supported theory you shouldn't also have to be a liberal or a conservative--only convinced by the evidence given by scientists. The same should apply to climate change.
For this reason I would prefer the primary supporters of the theory of human induced climate change to be the scientists who researched it, not the politicians. Once politicians get involved it just becomes politics as usual (with the usual "I'm right and you're wrong" mindset).
Are we comparing the qualifications in climate science of Michael Crichton with Al Gore?
This should be hilarious. The total sum of Al Gore's formal education consists in getting a Bachelor of Arts degree in government from Harvard (and not completing a law degree at Vanderbilt). Al Gore is even less qualified to talk about climate science than Michael Crichton (who at least has had formal training in experimental analysis while getting a medical degree at Harvard).
Neither of them has a degree in the physical sciences and nothing they say should be taken as knowledge interpreted by a scientist. I don't care how far you want to twist it, a MD and a BA in government do not make you even remotely qualified to discuss climate change. Why the world has focused on these unqualified 'spokesmen' to be cheerleaders for their differing sides of the global warming debate is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got to name it something. I prefer Greek or Roman mythology over placenames (Redstone), conceptual names (Endeavour, Opportunity, Discovery), or quasi-patriotic names (like Colombia). The Western world has a special attachment to the Greeks and Romans for our view of the cosmos. It is only appropriate that we pay tribute in some form or another. I should also note that I wouldn't be opposed to using some of the ancient Egyptian or Babylonian mythology either.
Ok, and now for some completely unsupported conjecturing: perhaps Trekkies like the conceptual names (Enterprise, Defiant), Star Wars fans like the quasi-patriotic names (Millenium Falcon, Executioner, Death Star), and BSG fans like the quasi-mythological names (Pegasus, Olympic Carrier).
I doubt it. RTGs don't normally need devices to clean the dust off of them.
Simple, as atheist's selfish agenda is to hate God and deny his revealed truth, no atheist can be moral. Nobody "doesn't belive in god" they know he is real, they just deny him, which is evil and therefore immoral.
You cannot be moral without God, therefore you cannot be a moral atheist nor a moral atheist agenda Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, etc., don't require you to worship some supernatural entity in order to make moral judgments. Some people like to pretend than morality only exists with obeying some made up deity, but that only shows how shallow their imaginations are that they need to read what actions are explicitly allowed or disallowed from some book to know whether they are acting good or bad. Two moral judgments that illustrate this point are the treatment of homosexuals and the issue of stem cell research. No non-deistic moral system would condone averse treatment of homosexuals or the banning stem cell research. Only those who don't have a moral 'system' but instead some arbitrary list of dos and don'ts would. Another example is prevention of cruelty to animals. The religious folks adjusted their dogma only after the lead of the 'immoral' atheists who pointed out that it was not a moral action to stage cockfights, stage dogfights, place livestock in cruel conditions, or torture animals.
I think I'll be just fine with my atheistic moral system. It forces me to think why an action is moral instead of searching for some verse in a holy book that I can interpret to my whims.
Accidentally posted anonymously, sorry. Another thing that I should note about the recommendations of the WHO is that they also supported circumcision of young children, which is ethically troubling and as you have pointed out it has not been shown to be effective. Perhaps with the report you cited they will change their recommendations on that point, but they will probably still consider adult circumcision to be a useful preventative measure.
Not entirely true. It has been shown to dramatically reduce the HIV transmission rate so it is being used in sub-Saharan Africa to combat AIDS. I should note that this treatment is done with adult males who can choose for themselves, not babies who are disfigured so as to not anger some invisible man in the sky.
I still use the Planescape cosmology when I run 3rd edition games. If any of the PCs or NPCs in the prime material plane think that this is wrong, well it is only because they are Clueless. And if any PCs keep complaining then they are going to have a trip to Carceri.
It sounds stupid because this is an urban myth. Perhaps the next time you think something 'sounds stupid' you will instead google it before you spout off.
The fundamental problem is that IDers and creationists are trying to argue their points a priori while evolutionists are trying to argue a posteriori. The IDers and creationists assume their hypothesis is true (that God created the universe as dictated by the Scriptures) and then carry that to its logical conclusion (usually). The evolutionists respond with an inductive argument by saying that scientific evidence indicates that there is a very high probability that the theory of evolution is correct.
In effect, they are both talking past each others heads. The only way to attack the IDers and creationists is to question their central axiom. Of course, that is unquestionable. They in return can hammer at the scientific evidence and pick at gaps and make misinterpretations as long as they want. As far as a creationist is concerned they are solving a math problem when they already have the answer book--the method that they use to get to the conclusion isn't really that important.
But, say that you do fill in all the gaps and correct their misinterpretations--will you convince them?
Of course not. They will then turn to David Hume's classic argument that there is no reason whatsoever that anybody should trust the results of inductive reasoning (i.e. they will say that evolution can never really be proved).
At this time, both parties will leave exasperated that the other doesn't understand their argument.
Probably not many of you have used a scanning tunneling microscope (STM), the essential tool of nanoscience
You might be surprised.
Homeland security should be doing research about how to prevent bureaucratic incompetance.
I like this sentence. It sends me into a trance every time I read it. I think it is because I imagine the DHS trying to perform this research and ironically getting nowhere. Then they try to research why their previous research got nowhere. When that gets nowhere they decide to research why the research of why their previous research got nowhere got nowhere and so on.
This is a really great precedent for them to set for the future.
Precedent? Hardly. Voyager 2 was originally only planned to flyby only Jupiter and Saturn. The engineers worked without permission from NASA management to build the spacecraft to be able to do a successful flyby of Uranus and Neptune (the probes had an official specification of their lifetimes of something on the order of 3 years or so). Eventually they were able to convince the management that if Voyager 1 was operating safely in space and was looking like it was going to be able to get a good look at Titan then Voyager 2 could reprogram its trajectory so that it could do the flybys of Uranus and Neptune. It was not possible for the Voyager probes to do the specified flyby of Titan and also visit Uranus and Neptune. If Voyager 1 would have blown up or had a problem in space then Voyager 2 would have done the flyby of Titan.
Though to be honest, I'm not even sure if this mission set the original precedent of mission extensions to check out other stuff.
The other problem with the concept of innate rights is that anyone is free to interpret rights however they wish. There is no external, universally verifiable, authoritative source to tell you what your so-called "natural rights" are or even from which set of fundamental principles they spring. Enlightened self interest is a far more pragmatic rock on which to build a moral foundation.
This is why the Bill of Rights was written. Many of the Framers argued against the Bill of Rights saying that there is no need to delineate the natural rights since the Constitution explicitly listed the powers of the three branches and implied that assumption of other powers not listed was prohibited. They argued that if the Bill of Rights was written then it would imply that those rights listed were the only rights that people had. Others argued that it would be possible that somebody might misinterpret their intentions of limited government and thus certain critical rights must be listed that could not be infringed under any interpretation. As a compromise, the 9th and 10th amendments were added.
I'd wager that there is more theoretical technology and theoretical futuristic social structure in star wars then serenity and probably most of firefly.
So what do you define as science fiction?
I mean, it's fiction, about science.
Firefly barely had enough science to make it not qualify as a current fiction w/ spaceships. Science fiction has more to do with a possible world that could potentially exist with advances in science and the stories involved due to the interaction of these new technologies with man. Many consider Star Wars to be fantasy instead of science fiction because while Star Wars has space ships and technology that perhaps might exist, very little of the story cared about how humans interact with this new technology. Contrast this with something like the Matrix, Blade Runner, or 2001 where the authors are obviously preoccupied with fleshing out the problems of some new technology (even if it wasn't made by humans). Star Wars was more about the battles of wizards in space.
To me it is obvious that sci-fi is not exactly the same as a futuristic fantasy. But this may not be clear to many with the apparent integration of the topics of sci-fi and fantasy in bookstores and other places most people come into contact with them. I think futuristic fantasy is a subcategory of fantasy and sci-fi is a subcategory of futuristic fantasy. Heinlein writes science fiction and Lucas writes futuristic fantasy.
What we learned today is that the list of nuclear accidents is incomplete owing to a cover up of a nuclear accident. We do not know how incomplete it is. Perhaps you can help out here. And yet again you try to prove a negative. US plants are unsafe because we don't know! We haven't had the accidents, but we don't know if someone is covering up an accident. Or if someone is covering up for someone covering up an accident. Will someone please think of the children! Have you personally covered up any of those little spills that you feel are so unimportant? And this statement shows that you are an asshole. My answer is no, I have never covered up anything. But I would like to know who you are that allows you to sit on such a high horse. It is interesting that your response failed to answer any of the significant questions I asked, but I still responded to yours. Why don't you answer a couple of those questions now.
But before we continue, the only question that I really need you to answer is what is your history of analyzing the safety of *any* industrial system? Or do you assume that any Joe off the street can analyze industrial systems (and in particular, nuclear systems) without detailed knowledge of their theory of operation, design requirements, QA system, formal procedures, operator training, monitoring systems (what you might call a meta-operator system), or regulatory requirements? Have you performed any operational risk analysis studies? Reactor protection analysis studies? Do you even know what 'QA' stands for? Can you tell me why switching off the cooling pumps during the TMI accident increased the severity of the casualty? Or what type of experiment were the operators at Chernobyl performing? What I'm asking is for a little credibility before you damn the entire world nuclear industry. You are asking the nuclear industry to prove a negative result so I am curious to how you have analyzed the problem that will affect things from jobs to global warming to the number of people who die due to pollution from coal plants.
won't survive court if by some unholy miracle it get passed at all
I agree that it wouldn't survive in court, but it is useful to remember that the original Communications Decency Act (a much stricter form of censorship) was passed by 84-16 in the Senate and the recent Family Entertainment Protection Act was introduced by Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson and Evan Bayh. If you think that there will be any road bumps by Democratic or Republican Senators (or Representatives) you are being very naïve. The only protection citizens currently have from government censorship is our courts as neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branches seem to think that it is an important issue. Apparently our legislators think that an alternative reading to "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is that Congress can make *any* law on the same.
Oh, and I don't mean that "the ends justifies the means" can never justify actions. krotkruton's example above of the priest selecting prisoners to be executed to save the rest certainly would be justified by "the ends justifies the means." I only mean that you can only use it to justify actions in which you can clearly predict the future without ambiguity. In krotkruton's example there certainly was little doubt about what the outcome would have been had the priest not made a selection. The Nazi guards might not have executed any prisoners, but that would be very unlikely.
"The ends justifies the means" loses its power of justification when you have less ability to predict the future unambiguously. I would argue that Bush's prediction on Iraq and Google's prediction on Chinese censorship were not items that could predicted clearly and unambiguously.
Since they would not be allowed to conduct business if they didn't allow this, I can't really see how what they did can be considered morally wrong.
The "Do no evil" policy doesn't just mean to do no evil when no profits are at stake (like randomly killing puppies). It means to do no evil even if profits are at stake.
Censoring people is morally wrong. When we start playing the game of "the ends justify the means" we start getting into flawed logic like that which started our recent Iraq War (i.e. it is OK to kill hundreds of thousands of people as long as you free their country--the ends justify the means).
Logically you are going to ask what would have happened if Google refused to do business in China. Another American company like Microsoft or even some other foreign company would have undoubtedly taken the place of Google. Their censorship may have been more or less strict. And from this you might think that Google is doing good because other companies could have been more evil. But then tell me why so many people think Haliburton is an evil company. They bring required services to Iraq and would certainly outperform many other companies. You might object and say that war profiteering is not the same as profiting from censorship, but I would disagree. Fundamentally, both companies are profiting from morally wrong actions.
Whether Google is doing less evil than other companies is unknown. But Google is undoubtedly doing evil. And this is not something I think people should start admiring. While the phrase "the ends justify the means" certainly sounds reasonable at first, it has a hidden assumption that has bitten most people who have used that phrase to justify their actions. That assumption is that you can predict the future. Saddam Hussein might have continued a brutal reign and continued policies of genocide and aggravating neighbors for another 30 years in which the international community could do nothing to stop. But then again he might not have. This is why so many people consider the Iraq War unjust. And this is why I consider Google's actions evil.
Plan A: Pirate movies so that they can bankrupt movie companies and eventually bankrupt California. Then buy California and move Canada south to a warmer climate.
Plan B: Global Warming!
Of course they hadn't figured that the US would counter their global warming and movie piracy with nuclear winter!
Incoming lawsuits in: 3..2..1..
Actually it should be the opposite. Anyone who convinces the stupid to sterilize themselves or remove themselves from the gene pool through other means certainly deserves our hearty congratulations. In fact, they should be allowed to sue the stupid bastards they convinced to kill themselves.
I can see it now, billboards with signs saying: "a microwave is a great way to get a tan," "a blowtorch is a great way to thaw frozen pipes," and of course "it is cool to operate power tools--in the nude! Buy Budweiser!"
Truly, we need the stupid to start killing themselves again. With the advent of birth control, human evolution is starting to go backwards. In 100 years they will talk about the benevolent reign of George Bush the Wise.
I think you've missed my point. While you can work in CS having a mechanical engineering degree, that doesn't mean that you are an expert in CS research. It is possible to have a basic understanding of climate science without have an advanced degree in something like atmospheric sciences, but you are certainly not going to be an expert. The same applies for Gore (with a BA in government) and Crichton (with a MD).
Anyone who is not an expert in the field has no place advising the public on climate change. The proper people to do this job are the scientists. If Al Gore or Michael Crichton have some extensive research experience and have undergone extensive informal training that brings their knowledge up to the level of an experienced researcher or a tenured professor then I will certainly change my mind. But there is no evidence that this is the case.
Now now. Al Gore has been a vocal advocate on the environement for almost 30 years now. He's led government investigations and authored legislation. And oh yeah. He wrote two fucking highly regarded (by the relevant SCIENCE community no less) and researched books on the subject.
An advocate for the environment doesn't mean that he has knowledge of how it works. If Gore or Crichton can't solve a PDE they can't prove to me how a thermometer works, much less how the planetary climate operates. I really don't care that Gore advocates for the environment and for informing people about global warming. That is certainly his business. What bothers me is that the media will cite him (or Crichton) more than they will hundreds of scientists who have Ph.D.s in the relevant fields and who have researched the climate for their entire careers. Why should we have to listen to a man who spent his life writing laws talk about climate change instead of getting it from the scientists (the horse's mouth so to speak).
Perhaps my critique is more of society in general than about Gore or Crichton. We are certainly doomed as a society if we consider our best methods to be informed about climate change to be done by former politicians and MDs. It seems to me that people form their opinions by listening to talking heads on news stations instead of reading the relevant literature and understanding the science. I don't care about the scientists getting 'credit,' I only care that the public doesn't think that there are liberal or conservative sides to global warming (like they do today). It sickens me to see these things (such as the Big Bang and evolution) labeled politically and used to badger the other side (and they are used by both sides to encourage groupthink). If you think the Big Bang is a well supported theory you shouldn't also have to be a liberal or a conservative--only convinced by the evidence given by scientists. The same should apply to climate change.
For this reason I would prefer the primary supporters of the theory of human induced climate change to be the scientists who researched it, not the politicians. Once politicians get involved it just becomes politics as usual (with the usual "I'm right and you're wrong" mindset).
Are we comparing the qualifications in climate science of Michael Crichton with Al Gore?
This should be hilarious. The total sum of Al Gore's formal education consists in getting a Bachelor of Arts degree in government from Harvard (and not completing a law degree at Vanderbilt). Al Gore is even less qualified to talk about climate science than Michael Crichton (who at least has had formal training in experimental analysis while getting a medical degree at Harvard).
Neither of them has a degree in the physical sciences and nothing they say should be taken as knowledge interpreted by a scientist. I don't care how far you want to twist it, a MD and a BA in government do not make you even remotely qualified to discuss climate change. Why the world has focused on these unqualified 'spokesmen' to be cheerleaders for their differing sides of the global warming debate is beyond me.