Unless you have soul searched every cop in service today, including those who joined yesterday, this comment of yours cannot be possibly honest by you. So it lacks truthiness.
That is fine, truthiness is not a holy grail. But is it even helpful? I don't see any solution by you. One might go a bit far, and deduce that the solution you propose is to get rid of the police force. But firstly I don't think you mean to imply this, and secondly it raises more problems than it solves. You might have an opinion on the solution of the problems it creates, but unless you voice them together with this abuse of police force, your comment remains singularly unhelpful.
Is it demoralizing for (benefit of doubt) the few good cops, even hypothetical ? You bet. Your comment is , in its own small way, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Someone asks whether it will taste as good as current alcoholic beverages, and you say "no", without knowing its taste. You should participate in Olympics for jumping to conclusions.
And in the case it turns out to be tasteless, you are basically saying no non-alcoholic beverage can ever taste better than any alcoholic beverage, except maybe the worst. That's just stupid.
Then you point out "substitutes", that don't taste as good as the originals. That helps you conclude that this won't taste as good too. Except that this is NOT supposed to be a substitute in taste.
You drink wine for the taste? Great. Wine will not stop existing even if his research fructifies.
Yes the bar is high. People aim for difficult things. You have yourself set a high bar for jumping to conclusions.
And what's wrong with creating another recreational drug? Why would that deserve an Ig Nobel?
I guess your argument boils down to that you insist on misinterpreting the purpose of his research, so he deserves an Ig Nobel.
Can you give examples of examples I gave that you deem "emotionally charged"?
Some brand examples you give are not available in market I frequent, so can't say much about them. Rest seem to be focussed on convenience / shelf life. Nutt is talking about neither of these, so you'd have to explain why these examples are relevant. If lack of harmful effects is being considered a form of "convenience", it is very very different type of convenience from that of your examples. Almost opposite, as your example "substitutes" are generally accepted to have more harmful health effects , or at least less good effects, than the original. Being not "fresh", or "natural" etc.
I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point
Sure. Make a different point than what we are discussing.
Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques
On the other hand, this new substance Dr Nutt is talking about is very easy to tell from presently available alcoholic drinks using laboratory techniques. Look ma - no alcohol. So you might want to change your examples?
So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute
This is not necessarily an imitation in taste. This is an imitation in intoxication. So if it turns out to be undetectable by taste/texture/finish etc., you could add it to a non-alcoholic drink/food that is known to be extremely tasty, and get the effect of taste (of the other food/drink) and intoxication (from this new substance) - 2 in 1. Consumeristic society just laps up 2 in 1, right?
Why do you presume it must taste like wine to be tasty? If you think wine (alcoholic beverage, in general) is the only tasty substance ever invented, you have a lot to explore in the taste buds department despite your claims to the contrary. And if not, objecting to an unknown (yet) substance with an unknown (obviously) taste is highly premature.
Yes, if you drink a non-alcoholic substance with an expectation of taste/flavour/finish of an alcoholic substance - you are going to be disappointed. But it is the expectation that is wrong, not the substance.
I can only hope that Prof. Nut's reserach gets nominated for a Ig Nobel. He desrves it.
Misinterpretation of the purpose of activities of most Nobel prize winners could lead to an Ig Nobel.
Though I am far from advocating a Nobel for Nutt - there is a long way from seeking investment to achieving Nobel-worthy practical application from a scientific achievement.
- the pain from the current "market alternative" -- beer, wine, liquors -- is insignificant compared to the attachment to it (social, psychological, taste-wise, some might even enjoy alcohol in part because of its dark side)
Not sure what you mean by "alternative". It is the alcoholic drink market you are still talking about?
- the current alcoholic beverage technology and market is extremely well established, probably the most established of all times, which makes it nearly impossible to displace
No one is talking about displacing it. Unless your argument is that inclusion of whiskey in a predominantly rum and wine drinking market is "displacing" any market. This new drink would just be one more of the options. And, since it can possibly be tasteless, be added to any food/drink, which are otherwise extremely tasty - rendering any objections to taste irrelevant. In case it is not tasteless, since its taste is unknown (obviously), objections to taste is extremely premature.
-- the habits of buying and consuming, the places, the industry, all of it is incredibly engrained in the society. Eg. lots of people are attached to their tablets/phones but the habit is new and something else can replace it; with alcohol, most of us has have had it and often enjoyed it pretty much all of our adult lives at the least.
This is the argument against EVERY invention, ever. Enjoy your horse carriage rides. No, walking dozens of miles everyday in search for prey.
But unlike cars, which didn't fit well in stables, this new invention fits reasonably well within existing bars / liqour companies / department stores etc. Laws would need modification, like with any other psycho-active substance including lots of prescription medicine.
Now if he invented a *pill* that can be taken before drinking that would eliminate the bad side effects, that would be a different story.
TFA doesn't mention this can't be a pill. Actually, a mainstream media article about this science piece I read recently has "pill" in the headline!
You fail to give any evidence for why it cannot justify the investment, except what appears to be a "gut feeling" argument.
It's an accepted fact that humans "invented" beer in Africa and wine in Eurasia, long long ago. Before there was a "civilization", so to speak. Yet wine is enjoyed in Africa and beer in Europe and Asia. 300 years ago, beer was as much a stranger in Europe as the hypothetical drink from TFA is a stranger to the world today. If beer has found acceptance in Europe in spite of not being " exposed " and " conditioned " to beer before that, this drink can "succeed" too.
" And there are rare exceptions due to mental make up where positive/negative associations find very difficult to create a taste - same in food. Some people just can't cultivate a taste for some kind of food."
Possibly they understand the reason behind the "taste". Lots of food items could taste horrible by themselves. Put another way, good and bad taste are just our interpretation of the taste.
It is the positive association with satiation that makes us think it tastes "good". With alcoholic drinks, it is the pleasant mild intoxication while having the drink also contributes. Some drinks have both satiation and intoxication - beer for example has carbohydrates.
Read about "cultivated" taste some time. It works on the same principle. And there are rare exceptions due to mental make up where positive/negative associations find very difficult to create a taste - same in food. Some people just can't cultivate a taste for some kind of food. Much of "party" food/drink is typically consumed when otherwise having a good time - which again adds to an illusion of "good taste" - which is nothing but positive association.
So yes, the $$$ drinks (see conspicuous consumption), and "taste" (positive association) all are part of your pretentiousness.
Quite possibly it is not fuel efficiency directly that increases the resale price - but the fact that it is a good indication of how well the vehicle has been maintained. Especially of the hard to inspect part - insides of the engine, transmission and differentials.
Of course, I agree it is also that, the target market for used cars is more sensitive to fuel costs, and hence picks cars with higher fuel efficiency.
But does increased fuel efficiency have its role to play in incomes rising? Could be. At least the wikipedia article on Jevon's Paradox mentions this as one of the factors. Tough to say for sure.
So while one cannot prove it is the same phenomenon, it is enormously difficult to refute either. You want to have a go?
I don't understand. Keep discovering neat projects. Let friends and possibly family too keep discovering neat projects. Associate with them you did before facebook was created. Why do you want to bug friends and family on kickstarter too?
People who want to bug each other (and get bugged) by "friends" and "family" all around the internet, use facebook. People who don't want to, don't use facebook. Why would they?
Ok, so it is "not capitalism" if rivers are used the way they are everywhere in the world. It is coercion, as is my breathing without taking permission from you.
How do you think rivers should be used (or should they at all be used) under "capitalism"?
You have skirted such questions multiple times in this and related threads. If you have no answers about practical ways to use resources in the real world kindly let adults discuss the real world.
And by my "word", you must be referring to _YOUR_ introduction of Theology as a topic right?
Limits of bullshit. Show me my using the word "Theology" before you in this thread.
You don't like that "life" is undefined
You yourself posted a "definition" of life from a dictionary. My liking or not doesn't matter, but life is surely "defined", according to some definitions of "defined". It is not scientifically defined, which I have been trying to impress upon you, but your skull seems impermeable.
If you can't amaze us all with a perfect definition of life why would you sit and complain about the definitions given?
No, I am just amused at your level of confusion. You just said life is undefined. Now you claim to discuss other definitions given. All unscientific, arbitrary. None amenable to logical analysis. But do proceed, it is fun to watch.
Also, to point out your bullshit, I never claimed to have a "perfect definition of life". Accepting fire as life does go towards it, but then it contradicts unscientific usage history of the word.
You used that word where it wasn't relevant or warranted on my suggestion that you are using "etc." to be able to change goalposts later. Sure enough, your "etc." came in handy as you have to change the properties if a thing your teacher told you is not "life" but it has all the properties you mention. And all the while, Theology was completely irrelevant in any sense of the word.
How then can "fire" have global properties
I never said "fire" has global properties. I was aware from the beginning that your "etc." is meant to hide your ignorance, and you were going to change goalposts later. And sure enough, you post later about "no global properties" so that you can pick and choose.
The definition in the dictionary is rather ambiguous
Which is what I have been saying - it is not a word deserving of scientific analysis. It has been used for "life as we know (knew) it". It doesn't stand up to intellectual scrutiny a 7th grader can subject it to. But if you insist on an ignorant "scientific" analysis on a decidedly unscientific word, it would definitely appear to be rambling to all smart people. Your taking offence at this being pointed out won't help much.
If you notice, the dictionary definition is already disagrees with established science. Protists and fungi are frequently classified as "life" but neither plant nor animal - whereas dictionary definition ties itself to animals and plants. And the rest of the properties from the dictionary definition are satisfied by fire, at least as much as other accepted forms of life.
So there are only 2 logical options - accept fire as "life"; or accept that "life" is not a word deserving of scientific analysis.
But you choose a third, illogical option - analyze "life" as if it meant something unambiguous, yet not accept fire. No wonder you come across as a moron.
It's a help for sure. Previously, most phones needed a Windows client to be able to sync, copy data, manage, upgrade firmware etc. Possibly because Android is close to linux, it has become possible to completely manage most Android phones from a GNU/Linux desktop/laptop machine. Even rooting works using a linux computer for most phones.
In other words you have no clue, but want to pretend as if you do. So point to "availability" of interpreters even if it is irrelevant. You keep saying about the functionality the increased power consumption enables but have no information on which programs use those 8 interpreters, to provide which functionality. And "late" posting by me surely increases power consumption of windows devices the world over, that's why you are so worried about it.
Ahhh, so you've not reached high school yet. That explains it.
Fire satisfies all the conditions you mentioned. Yes, there are no global properties for life as per your "definition", which is why you need to hand wave so much. And use etc. , so that you can switch goalposts later. Like I said earlier, etc. is used to pretend more knowledge than one possesses, but on which you started another rambling about theology.
No the fact that you chose to speak about availability if interpreters rather than the functionality programs using them are providing, speaks volumes more than anything you can say. Words like pingeon-hole don't help in raising my hopes. Deliberately changing the topic from battery life to power use, even if one so clearly leads to another, crashes the hopes completely.
Incoherence like "you're late" followed by nothing better seals the end of discussion.
Fire satisfies all the conditions, but your third grade mind cannot comprehend as dear teacher didn't tell it as an example of living thing. Grow up to 7th grade and we'll talk.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a good shill. I am sure you are aware of this. Google does actively report to law enforcement.
When will beta have an option to go to a parent post ?
Unless you have soul searched every cop in service today, including those who joined yesterday, this comment of yours cannot be possibly honest by you. So it lacks truthiness.
That is fine, truthiness is not a holy grail. But is it even helpful? I don't see any solution by you. One might go a bit far, and deduce that the solution you propose is to get rid of the police force. But firstly I don't think you mean to imply this, and secondly it raises more problems than it solves. You might have an opinion on the solution of the problems it creates, but unless you voice them together with this abuse of police force, your comment remains singularly unhelpful.
Is it demoralizing for (benefit of doubt) the few good cops, even hypothetical ? You bet. Your comment is , in its own small way, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Someone asks whether it will taste as good as current alcoholic beverages, and you say "no", without knowing its taste. You should participate in Olympics for jumping to conclusions.
And in the case it turns out to be tasteless, you are basically saying no non-alcoholic beverage can ever taste better than any alcoholic beverage, except maybe the worst. That's just stupid.
Then you point out "substitutes", that don't taste as good as the originals. That helps you conclude that this won't taste as good too. Except that this is NOT supposed to be a substitute in taste.
You drink wine for the taste? Great. Wine will not stop existing even if his research fructifies.
Yes the bar is high. People aim for difficult things. You have yourself set a high bar for jumping to conclusions.
And what's wrong with creating another recreational drug? Why would that deserve an Ig Nobel?
I guess your argument boils down to that you insist on misinterpreting the purpose of his research, so he deserves an Ig Nobel.
Have you any idea how much is the annual budget of the security theatre? No one has, which is the point.
How can you trust a microwave oven to not have cameras, microphones, GPS and a satellite internet access?
How about some less emotionally charged examples?
Can you give examples of examples I gave that you deem "emotionally charged"?
Some brand examples you give are not available in market I frequent, so can't say much about them. Rest seem to be focussed on convenience / shelf life. Nutt is talking about neither of these, so you'd have to explain why these examples are relevant. If lack of harmful effects is being considered a form of "convenience", it is very very different type of convenience from that of your examples. Almost opposite, as your example "substitutes" are generally accepted to have more harmful health effects , or at least less good effects, than the original. Being not "fresh", or "natural" etc.
I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point
Sure. Make a different point than what we are discussing.
Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques
On the other hand, this new substance Dr Nutt is talking about is very easy to tell from presently available alcoholic drinks using laboratory techniques. Look ma - no alcohol. So you might want to change your examples?
So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute
This is not necessarily an imitation in taste. This is an imitation in intoxication. So if it turns out to be undetectable by taste/texture/finish etc., you could add it to a non-alcoholic drink/food that is known to be extremely tasty, and get the effect of taste (of the other food/drink) and intoxication (from this new substance) - 2 in 1. Consumeristic society just laps up 2 in 1, right?
Why do you presume it must taste like wine to be tasty? If you think wine (alcoholic beverage, in general) is the only tasty substance ever invented, you have a lot to explore in the taste buds department despite your claims to the contrary. And if not, objecting to an unknown (yet) substance with an unknown (obviously) taste is highly premature.
Yes, if you drink a non-alcoholic substance with an expectation of taste/flavour/finish of an alcoholic substance - you are going to be disappointed. But it is the expectation that is wrong, not the substance.
I can only hope that Prof. Nut's reserach gets nominated for a Ig Nobel. He desrves it.
Misinterpretation of the purpose of activities of most Nobel prize winners could lead to an Ig Nobel.
Though I am far from advocating a Nobel for Nutt - there is a long way from seeking investment to achieving Nobel-worthy practical application from a scientific achievement.
- the pain from the current "market alternative" -- beer, wine, liquors -- is insignificant compared to the attachment to it (social, psychological, taste-wise, some might even enjoy alcohol in part because of its dark side)
Not sure what you mean by "alternative". It is the alcoholic drink market you are still talking about?
- the current alcoholic beverage technology and market is extremely well established, probably the most established of all times, which makes it nearly impossible to displace
No one is talking about displacing it. Unless your argument is that inclusion of whiskey in a predominantly rum and wine drinking market is "displacing" any market. This new drink would just be one more of the options. And, since it can possibly be tasteless, be added to any food/drink, which are otherwise extremely tasty - rendering any objections to taste irrelevant. In case it is not tasteless, since its taste is unknown (obviously), objections to taste is extremely premature.
-- the habits of buying and consuming, the places, the industry, all of it is incredibly engrained in the society. Eg. lots of people are attached to their tablets/phones but the habit is new and something else can replace it; with alcohol, most of us has have had it and often enjoyed it pretty much all of our adult lives at the least.
This is the argument against EVERY invention, ever. Enjoy your horse carriage rides. No, walking dozens of miles everyday in search for prey.
But unlike cars, which didn't fit well in stables, this new invention fits reasonably well within existing bars / liqour companies / department stores etc. Laws would need modification, like with any other psycho-active substance including lots of prescription medicine.
Now if he invented a *pill* that can be taken before drinking that would eliminate the bad side effects, that would be a different story.
TFA doesn't mention this can't be a pill. Actually, a mainstream media article about this science piece I read recently has "pill" in the headline!
You fail to give any evidence for why it cannot justify the investment, except what appears to be a "gut feeling" argument.
It's an accepted fact that humans "invented" beer in Africa and wine in Eurasia, long long ago. Before there was a "civilization", so to speak. Yet wine is enjoyed in Africa and beer in Europe and Asia. 300 years ago, beer was as much a stranger in Europe as the hypothetical drink from TFA is a stranger to the world today. If beer has found acceptance in Europe in spite of not being " exposed " and " conditioned " to beer before that, this drink can "succeed" too.
" And there are rare exceptions due to mental make up where positive/negative associations find very difficult to create a taste - same in food. Some people just can't cultivate a taste for some kind of food."
Possibly they understand the reason behind the "taste". Lots of food items could taste horrible by themselves. Put another way, good and bad taste are just our interpretation of the taste.
It is the positive association with satiation that makes us think it tastes "good". With alcoholic drinks, it is the pleasant mild intoxication while having the drink also contributes. Some drinks have both satiation and intoxication - beer for example has carbohydrates.
Read about "cultivated" taste some time. It works on the same principle. And there are rare exceptions due to mental make up where positive/negative associations find very difficult to create a taste - same in food. Some people just can't cultivate a taste for some kind of food. Much of "party" food/drink is typically consumed when otherwise having a good time - which again adds to an illusion of "good taste" - which is nothing but positive association.
So yes, the $$$ drinks (see conspicuous consumption), and "taste" (positive association) all are part of your pretentiousness.
Well, in that case they would be called murder doors. At least "culpable homicide" doors.
My apologies for not being clear. Of course stating anything is easy. It is proof / refutation that are tough.
Quite possibly it is not fuel efficiency directly that increases the resale price - but the fact that it is a good indication of how well the vehicle has been maintained. Especially of the hard to inspect part - insides of the engine, transmission and differentials.
Of course, I agree it is also that, the target market for used cars is more sensitive to fuel costs, and hence picks cars with higher fuel efficiency.
But does increased fuel efficiency have its role to play in incomes rising? Could be. At least the wikipedia article on Jevon's Paradox mentions this as one of the factors. Tough to say for sure.
So while one cannot prove it is the same phenomenon, it is enormously difficult to refute either. You want to have a go?
I don't understand. Keep discovering neat projects. Let friends and possibly family too keep discovering neat projects. Associate with them you did before facebook was created. Why do you want to bug friends and family on kickstarter too?
People who want to bug each other (and get bugged) by "friends" and "family" all around the internet, use facebook. People who don't want to, don't use facebook. Why would they?
Ok, so it is "not capitalism" if rivers are used the way they are everywhere in the world. It is coercion, as is my breathing without taking permission from you.
How do you think rivers should be used (or should they at all be used) under "capitalism"?
You have skirted such questions multiple times in this and related threads. If you have no answers about practical ways to use resources in the real world kindly let adults discuss the real world.
And by my "word", you must be referring to _YOUR_ introduction of Theology as a topic right?
Limits of bullshit. Show me my using the word "Theology" before you in this thread.
You don't like that "life" is undefined
You yourself posted a "definition" of life from a dictionary. My liking or not doesn't matter, but life is surely "defined", according to some definitions of "defined". It is not scientifically defined, which I have been trying to impress upon you, but your skull seems impermeable.
If you can't amaze us all with a perfect definition of life why would you sit and complain about the definitions given?
No, I am just amused at your level of confusion. You just said life is undefined. Now you claim to discuss other definitions given. All unscientific, arbitrary. None amenable to logical analysis. But do proceed, it is fun to watch.
Also, to point out your bullshit, I never claimed to have a "perfect definition of life". Accepting fire as life does go towards it, but then it contradicts unscientific usage history of the word.
HTTPS saves the poster's username from being visible to network owner (or anyone capable of sniffing). Could be office IT, ISP whatever.
In fact I never even hinted at theology
I ... suggested that you were confusing Theology
You used that word where it wasn't relevant or warranted on my suggestion that you are using "etc." to be able to change goalposts later. Sure enough, your "etc." came in handy as you have to change the properties if a thing your teacher told you is not "life" but it has all the properties you mention. And all the while, Theology was completely irrelevant in any sense of the word.
How then can "fire" have global properties
I never said "fire" has global properties. I was aware from the beginning that your "etc." is meant to hide your ignorance, and you were going to change goalposts later. And sure enough, you post later about "no global properties" so that you can pick and choose.
The definition in the dictionary is rather ambiguous
Which is what I have been saying - it is not a word deserving of scientific analysis. It has been used for "life as we know (knew) it". It doesn't stand up to intellectual scrutiny a 7th grader can subject it to. But if you insist on an ignorant "scientific" analysis on a decidedly unscientific word, it would definitely appear to be rambling to all smart people. Your taking offence at this being pointed out won't help much.
If you notice, the dictionary definition is already disagrees with established science. Protists and fungi are frequently classified as "life" but neither plant nor animal - whereas dictionary definition ties itself to animals and plants. And the rest of the properties from the dictionary definition are satisfied by fire, at least as much as other accepted forms of life.
So there are only 2 logical options - accept fire as "life"; or accept that "life" is not a word deserving of scientific analysis.
But you choose a third, illogical option - analyze "life" as if it meant something unambiguous, yet not accept fire. No wonder you come across as a moron.
It's a help for sure. Previously, most phones needed a Windows client to be able to sync, copy data, manage, upgrade firmware etc. Possibly because Android is close to linux, it has become possible to completely manage most Android phones from a GNU/Linux desktop/laptop machine. Even rooting works using a linux computer for most phones.
And the debian / ubuntu chroot on Android rocks!
In other words you have no clue, but want to pretend as if you do. So point to "availability" of interpreters even if it is irrelevant. You keep saying about the functionality the increased power consumption enables but have no information on which programs use those 8 interpreters, to provide which functionality. And "late" posting by me surely increases power consumption of windows devices the world over, that's why you are so worried about it.
Ahhh, so you've not reached high school yet. That explains it.
Fire satisfies all the conditions you mentioned. Yes, there are no global properties for life as per your "definition", which is why you need to hand wave so much. And use etc. , so that you can switch goalposts later. Like I said earlier, etc. is used to pretend more knowledge than one possesses, but on which you started another rambling about theology.
No the fact that you chose to speak about availability if interpreters rather than the functionality programs using them are providing, speaks volumes more than anything you can say. Words like pingeon-hole don't help in raising my hopes. Deliberately changing the topic from battery life to power use, even if one so clearly leads to another, crashes the hopes completely.
Incoherence like "you're late" followed by nothing better seals the end of discussion.
Fire satisfies all the conditions, but your third grade mind cannot comprehend as dear teacher didn't tell it as an example of living thing. Grow up to 7th grade and we'll talk.