So it's your conviction that mitigating the effects of brain disease is not possible until we have "mind reading equipment" and optical nerve sniffer ports?
And that medical treatments involving electrical impulses are scientifically baseless and barbarian?
"this looks to me more like a bunch of corrupt scientists sexing up their research (and possibly just making stuff up) in order to justify a transfer of wealth large enough to make the oil industry envious."
As you evaluate the various competing claims before you, consider that perhaps laymen swayed by appearances and compelled to impute motives on strangers might not have the intellectual high ground over people who have studied and debated the topic for decades and live by the scientific method.
Why on earth should the price of oil rise while there is no shortage?
I think OP didn't say there would be no shortage, he was saying we'd never extract the final drop from the earth. That doesn't mean supply won't decrease.
Correlation suggests only Correlation. It doesn't suggest causation, but as you noted, it does suggest areas for further investigation. The relationship may or may not turn out to be directly causal.
That's excellent info, thanks. I think what you're telling me is that this isn't something that would piss off any authorities.
But what's my "straw man"? As I understand the fallacy, it takes an opponent's words, exaggerates or mischaracterizes their position, then attacks the exaggeration.
I didn't attempt to attack anyone's position, I was just asking a question.
As a lawyer, have you ever seen a case where law enforcement didn't like someone's activities, were unable to prosecute him for those activities, but found another violation to prosecute? Like charging Capone with tax evasion?
It's my impression that there are so many laws that unless we are bedridden we're probably all doing (or neglecting) something a zealous prosecutor could nail us for.
Which basically could make pissing off the authorities a criminal offense.
TFA is not about ads in general, it's about advertisers colluding to track individual users.
Sites can still advertise products relevant to their content. There's little reason to believe that honoring do-not-track requests would result in the dystopian future you fear.
If there's something I'm interested in, I'll buy it without the advertising. If there's something I didn't know I was interested in, I'll learn about it from a good recommendation, not an ad.
Intrusive ads are just an annoying reality to me, like a slow car plugging up the fast lane. I wouldn't buy a car because it interrupted my tv show any more than I'd buy it because it made me hit the brakes.
Marketeers can show me whatever they want, but I've been inoculated. They're far more likely to piss me off than get me to buy.
Sidewalks are infrastructure too, doesn't mean everybody has to carry billboards or dress like a NASCAR driver.
Not everything on the web has to be advertising and user tracking. Take them away, and perhaps many sites and businesses will be disrupted, and perhaps the web will change.
The US government has granted them the power to conjure dollars from thin air, by issuing interest-bearing loans to whoever they want at any amount they want.
The fed has little need for mundane purchasing power. They have the absolute power to conjure and distribute any loan to whoever they see fit, with no obligation to report their activity to anybody.
It is in their interest to maintain public relations, disclosing much of their activity and staying engaged with officials, financiers, and the public.
But at it's core, it's independent in every way. If you'd like to see what they've done, ask your congress people. You'll find that they don't know. So encourage them to Audit the Fed.
'Trade secrets lead to a closed, uncooperative system"
I think we can trace the roots of non-cooperation back to a competitive marketplace. Competition leads to trade secrets..
The question is whether innovation would flourish more with patent protections, or without.
With them, competition is forbidden until they expire, then they're public domain.
Without them, competition is allowed immediately, everything is public domain for the reverse-engineering of it, and competitors are free to invent their own, possibly similar, designs.
What evidence is there that patents have brought products to market that otherwise would never have been made? What evidence is there that patents shortened time to market?
You say "our military" as if it were on our side. It kind of nominally is, but not really.
Not since Germany declared war on us has it been used to defend our territory. Not since WWII has it been used in a constitutionally compliant, congressionally declared war. Not since WWII has it been used to protect any "American interests" our founders would recognize.
Instead of being on our side, it is sucking us dry - running up deficits, causing inflation, pissing away goodwill others used to have for us, killing off our bravest citizens, and giving delusions of grandeur to the very people it exploits.
That "$1-1.5 trillion a year on defense related shit" isn't coming from money we have on deposit, it's an unauthorized loan from Generation Y. You know, the first generation of college grads that can't find jobs.
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
- General Smedley Butler
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
For use as a bizarre story plot in a tv crime drama.
But this is reality, where simpler explanations are more likely explanations. Where people are generally decent and compliant with social norms, and those rare few who aren't try not to broadcast it to everyone they know.
But if I were to comment on this story, I think my comment would be that I can't make heads or tails of this sentence:
In a twist that will certainly raise some eyebrows, the program's results of the ironically named program - The Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety (RAPS) - will remain unavailable to the public, which considering how involved the actual public may be with these drones is shall we say, unfortunate.
I think Samzenpus has been mixing his Ritalin with tequila.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's your conviction that mitigating the effects of brain disease is not possible until we have "mind reading equipment" and optical nerve sniffer ports?
And that medical treatments involving electrical impulses are scientifically baseless and barbarian?
"this looks to me more like a bunch of corrupt scientists sexing up their research (and possibly just making stuff up) in order to justify a transfer of wealth large enough to make the oil industry envious."
As you evaluate the various competing claims before you, consider that perhaps laymen swayed by appearances and compelled to impute motives on strangers might not have the intellectual high ground over people who have studied and debated the topic for decades and live by the scientific method.
I'd go with tidal energy. If the moon's gravity can drive tides here, imagine what it can do there!
Why on earth should the price of oil rise while there is no shortage?
I think OP didn't say there would be no shortage, he was saying we'd never extract the final drop from the earth. That doesn't mean supply won't decrease.
The price of petroleum today is waaaay higher than its actual cost.
Please support your assertion. Show your math.
Why should the petroleum price rise against the falling price of the alternatives?
I'm going out on a limb here, but - maybe supply and demand ?
Maybe society is better off with him in office than his previous job - an M.D. who believes evolution is a myth frightens me.
"But it isn't anybody's business what you do or don't do with your own body"
Well, that statement is so obviously true that it depresses me to tell you that, only in America, it's false.
When employers pay for employees' medical care, it is very much the employer's business.
You're units are incompatible. I think the units you wanted were football field lengths per fortnight per furlong.
Correlation suggests only Correlation. It doesn't suggest causation, but as you noted, it does suggest areas for further investigation. The relationship may or may not turn out to be directly causal.
Who says the correlations are false? Relationships besides A->B do exist.
> In what sense, exactly does science grow more powerful?
Space Stations. Tsunami warning systems. Earthquake warning systems. Cochlear implants. Big Dog. Spirit & Opportunity. Curiosity. Exoplanets. Higgs Boson.
That's excellent info, thanks. I think what you're telling me is that this isn't something that would piss off any authorities.
But what's my "straw man"? As I understand the fallacy, it takes an opponent's words, exaggerates or mischaracterizes their position, then attacks the exaggeration.
I didn't attempt to attack anyone's position, I was just asking a question.
As a lawyer, have you ever seen a case where law enforcement didn't like someone's activities, were unable to prosecute him for those activities, but found another violation to prosecute? Like charging Capone with tax evasion?
It's my impression that there are so many laws that unless we are bedridden we're probably all doing (or neglecting) something a zealous prosecutor could nail us for.
Which basically could make pissing off the authorities a criminal offense.
I hope I'm mistaken. Please show me I am.
TFA is not about ads in general, it's about advertisers colluding to track individual users.
Sites can still advertise products relevant to their content. There's little reason to believe that honoring do-not-track requests would result in the dystopian future you fear.
If there's something I'm interested in, I'll buy it without the advertising. If there's something I didn't know I was interested in, I'll learn about it from a good recommendation, not an ad.
Intrusive ads are just an annoying reality to me, like a slow car plugging up the fast lane. I wouldn't buy a car because it interrupted my tv show any more than I'd buy it because it made me hit the brakes.
Marketeers can show me whatever they want, but I've been inoculated. They're far more likely to piss me off than get me to buy.
Sidewalks are infrastructure too, doesn't mean everybody has to carry billboards or dress like a NASCAR driver.
Not everything on the web has to be advertising and user tracking. Take them away, and perhaps many sites and businesses will be disrupted, and perhaps the web will change.
But things change, get used to it.
They don't have "money", they have a magic wand.
The US government has granted them the power to conjure dollars from thin air, by issuing interest-bearing loans to whoever they want at any amount they want.
The fed has little need for mundane purchasing power. They have the absolute power to conjure and distribute any loan to whoever they see fit, with no obligation to report their activity to anybody.
It is in their interest to maintain public relations, disclosing much of their activity and staying engaged with officials, financiers, and the public.
But at it's core, it's independent in every way. If you'd like to see what they've done, ask your congress people. You'll find that they don't know. So encourage them to Audit the Fed.
I didn't see evidence there that such a design never would have made it to market without patents. Do you have a more direct link?
'Trade secrets lead to a closed, uncooperative system"
I think we can trace the roots of non-cooperation back to a competitive marketplace. Competition leads to trade secrets..
The question is whether innovation would flourish more with patent protections, or without.
With them, competition is forbidden until they expire, then they're public domain.
Without them, competition is allowed immediately, everything is public domain for the reverse-engineering of it, and competitors are free to invent their own, possibly similar, designs.
How about a duration of 0?
What evidence is there that patents have brought products to market that otherwise would never have been made? What evidence is there that patents shortened time to market?
If this were really a war, the Fed would win. They own the government and the economy. Literally - they can show you the paper.
But I imagine this is just an academic exercise by a couple guys, and the Fed as a whole doesn't really give a damn.
You say "our military" as if it were on our side. It kind of nominally is, but not really.
Not since Germany declared war on us has it been used to defend our territory. Not since WWII has it been used in a constitutionally compliant, congressionally declared war. Not since WWII has it been used to protect any "American interests" our founders would recognize.
Instead of being on our side, it is sucking us dry - running up deficits, causing inflation, pissing away goodwill others used to have for us, killing off our bravest citizens, and giving delusions of grandeur to the very people it exploits.
That "$1-1.5 trillion a year on defense related shit" isn't coming from money we have on deposit, it's an unauthorized loan from Generation Y. You know, the first generation of college grads that can't find jobs.
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
- General Smedley Butler
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
-General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Your plausible deniability story sounds possible.
For use as a bizarre story plot in a tv crime drama.
But this is reality, where simpler explanations are more likely explanations. Where people are generally decent and compliant with social norms, and those rare few who aren't try not to broadcast it to everyone they know.
I think the gist is that jerks can be found in management, too.
But brilliant jerks seem to be in or from R&D (even if they took the reins like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs)
Dude, I don't even comment my work.
But if I were to comment on this story, I think my comment would be that I can't make heads or tails of this sentence:
In a twist that will certainly raise some eyebrows, the program's results of the ironically named program - The Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety (RAPS) - will remain unavailable to the public, which considering how involved the actual public may be with these drones is shall we say, unfortunate.
I think Samzenpus has been mixing his Ritalin with tequila.