Perhaps I am being a bit zealous in assuming that the statement is deliberately misleading, at least on the part of the original poster, but it is certainly a fabrication.
For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza...
I get so very tired of this canard. For centuries, if not millennia, before Columbus sailed to the Americas, educated people knew that the world was not round. The idea that folk in Medieval Europe believed that the world was flat is a misconception that was invented some time during the 19th century (Russell blames Washington Irving).
Not all science fiction authors are trying to entertain, and even the ones who are interested primarily in entertainment tend to have some other point, as well. Science fiction is rife with political and social commentary. This is probably because one can take a controversial point, and put it into an alien context to attenuate some of the controversy. Other posters have brought up [i]1984[/i], which was not meant as a prediction of the future. Rather, it was meant as a critic of the social and political systems in place in the UK following WWII. Ray Bradbury, Ursula LeGuin, Isaac Asimov, and many other science fiction authors used science fiction as a tool for distancing their commentary from the modern world, so that their ideas might be listened to more readily. Certainly, there are science fiction authors who are more interested in futurism but, in my experience, there work tends to be of a much poorer quality, and becomes very dated very quickly.
When one states that they "believe in evolution," they muddy the line between accepting something on the basis of the evidence presented, and believing something on faith. This, in turn, makes it easier for the creationists to push the idea that evolution is a religious belief to the lay audience (which they are doing), in an effort to have proper science exorcised from the curriculum. Thus, this is a semantic argument that is not entirely trivial.
The US Supreme Court has never protected speech that creates a clear and present danger (e.g. the archetypal example of shouting fire in a crowded room).
In the US, death threats are not protected speech. Other classes of speech, such as "fighting words" are also not protected.
I made not argument as to whether or not this particular man should have been censored. I made a more general argument that there are times when it is appropriate to prevent people from speaking in order to protect the public good. I made no comment as to the specifics of this case, as I was responding to a more general comment.
Free speech may be fundamental, but "shouting fire in a crowded room" is generally not something that most people would consider to be protected free speech. The question is whether or not calling for an evacuation on the basis of poor evidence crosses that line or not.
Thank you, I have read those. You are equivocating the meaning of faith. There is a monumental difference between "faith" that the intersubjective reality that we all experience (i.e. I am sitting in a chair -- if I asked anyone else, they, too, would say that I am sitting in a chair, and anyone that could see me would be able to give a very similar description of the chair -- while we may not be able to describe an "objective" reality, all of our perceptions are in alignment, thus there is intersubjective "truth" to our perceptions), and religious faith. You are using "faith" to mean two different things, when, in fact, the GP was making a distinction between "believing" and "believing in" (the distinction being exactly the same as that between the two meanings of "faith" that you have). If you deny the distinction, then the only viable alternative is solipsism. Not even Lakoff and Nunez argue that.
While I understand the point that you are trying to make, this
President has to swear by God at his inauguration,
is not true. Nowhere in the oath of office is any god mentioned. Nearly all presidents have added a "so help me god" to the end of the oath, but it is not in the Constitution. Most presidents have sworn the oath on a Bible, but not all. Franklin Pierce, in addition to not using a Bible, didn't swear the oath, either -- he affirmed it. If you are suggesting that the president "has" to swear to god at the inauguration in the same way that he "has" to be religious to be elected, then I am with you, but your phrasing indicates that the swearing to god is more prescribed than that.
With the caveat that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data, my own experience with my family has been as follows. Several years ago, my parents lived in a rural-ish community in northern Nevada (Elko, to be exact -- a mining and ranching community of some 30-40 thousand people). Because television reception was pretty good (they got all of the major networks over the air, and in some cases got the same network from two different cities), they didn't bother with cable. Thus, their only internet option was dial up. So, they signed up for some local dial up service that cost a few bucks a month.
About three years ago, they moved to an even smaller community in northern Arizona (Holbrook, less than 10,000 people). At this point, they decided to get cable (for about the first time in their lives), but, because they had free long distance, decided to keep paying for dial up service out of Elko. My father had high speed access at the community college where he taught, and my mother didn't think she cared. However, phone service in their part of town seems to be somewhat unreliable, so last summer, my mother finally caved, and added internet service to their cable plan. My mother was shocked at how much she liked the higher speed access. Suddenly, she could send large attachments via email, and it didn't take forever and a day to load any random webpage. Now there is no way that she would ever go back.
Thus, in at least one instance, someone didn't want broadband access, but, when given such access, found it vital. I would imagine that there is a significant portion of people who currently use dial up and claim that they don't want broadband access who really have no idea what they are missing, and, if they were to upgrade from their current service, would never want to go back.
Indeed. I renewed my license last year. I got an email telling me I was due. I logged in to the Nevada DMV's website, gave them the necessary information. A few weeks later, a sticker showed up, which I stuck to the back of my license. I didn't even have to go into the DMV to renew my license.
Context is important here, methinks. The original Star Trek came out in the 60s, when the bedrooms of sitcom couples often had separate beds, there were no fart jokes on television, a kiss might be considered risque, and a naked navel might get censored. There was as much sex in the original Star Trek as the writers and producers could get into it at the time.
The thing is, I don't think that MLK's dream has been fulfilled. Yes, a black man has been elected as our next president, and that is an incredible thing, and goes some distance towards showing how much things have changed since the 60s. On the other hand, minorities are still disproportionately poor; the criminal system still disproportionately punishes people of color; minorities still do not have a proportionate number of people in power in state and local governments or in the the upper echelons of private industry; and, oddly enough, there are a good number of people who voted for a "nigger" only because they were so tired of Bush that any alternative, even if it is someone they hate, would be better than McCain.
Additionally, MLK talked of a time when people would not be judged on the basis of skin color. Throughout the entire race, Obama's skin color has been an issue. Both campaigns tried to downplay it, but it was still an issue. Listen to the comments made by audience members at several of the McCain and Palin rallies, for instance, and the lack of admonishment from either of those politicians. We still have a long way to go.
Don't get me wrong, the election of Obama is a fantastic step in terms of civil rights, but don't think for a second that it is the fulfillment of MLK's dream.
The first reported dates from that site were in the 40-50k range. Those dates have since been discredited (the site was near coal deposits, or some such, and it was found that the items being dated were (a) not in the same context as the human remains and (b) had been contaminated with older carbon. At the moment, there is no good evidence of there being any people in the New World prior to about 12,000 years ago (with this discovery possibly pushing the date back by another 1,000 years and change).
It should be pointed out that Polynesia wasn't colonized until long after the New World was colonized. So, while there may have been some contact between the Polynesians and residents of the New World, that contact most likely has only occurred in the last thousand (or maybe two thousand, at the outside) years. These skeletons are reported to be 13.6 years old (and I assume that the dates they are reporting are radiocarbon years, which might make them closer to 14-15k years old, if I remember the calibration tables correctly), which is an order of magnitude farther in the past than Polynesian contact.
Slashdot Mirror
canard: a deliberately misleading fabrication.
Perhaps I am being a bit zealous in assuming that the statement is deliberately misleading, at least on the part of the original poster, but it is certainly a fabrication.
Galileo proposed a heliocentric universe, not that the Earth was round.
I get so very tired of this canard. For centuries, if not millennia, before Columbus sailed to the Americas, educated people knew that the world was not round. The idea that folk in Medieval Europe believed that the world was flat is a misconception that was invented some time during the 19th century (Russell blames Washington Irving).
Not all science fiction authors are trying to entertain, and even the ones who are interested primarily in entertainment tend to have some other point, as well. Science fiction is rife with political and social commentary. This is probably because one can take a controversial point, and put it into an alien context to attenuate some of the controversy. Other posters have brought up [i]1984[/i], which was not meant as a prediction of the future. Rather, it was meant as a critic of the social and political systems in place in the UK following WWII. Ray Bradbury, Ursula LeGuin, Isaac Asimov, and many other science fiction authors used science fiction as a tool for distancing their commentary from the modern world, so that their ideas might be listened to more readily. Certainly, there are science fiction authors who are more interested in futurism but, in my experience, there work tends to be of a much poorer quality, and becomes very dated very quickly.
64. Because that should be enough for anyone.
When one states that they "believe in evolution," they muddy the line between accepting something on the basis of the evidence presented, and believing something on faith. This, in turn, makes it easier for the creationists to push the idea that evolution is a religious belief to the lay audience (which they are doing), in an effort to have proper science exorcised from the curriculum. Thus, this is a semantic argument that is not entirely trivial.
Care to take a stab at what the "socio-" part of "socioecominics" might refer to?
Well, liking 'b' is still better than liking /b/.
Free speech may be fundamental, but "shouting fire in a crowded room" is generally not something that most people would consider to be protected free speech. The question is whether or not calling for an evacuation on the basis of poor evidence crosses that line or not.
This may be a naive question, but what is wrong with using an arbitrary size or mass as part of the definition?
But... but... I live in Reno!
Thank you, I have read those. You are equivocating the meaning of faith. There is a monumental difference between "faith" that the intersubjective reality that we all experience (i.e. I am sitting in a chair -- if I asked anyone else, they, too, would say that I am sitting in a chair, and anyone that could see me would be able to give a very similar description of the chair -- while we may not be able to describe an "objective" reality, all of our perceptions are in alignment, thus there is intersubjective "truth" to our perceptions), and religious faith. You are using "faith" to mean two different things, when, in fact, the GP was making a distinction between "believing" and "believing in" (the distinction being exactly the same as that between the two meanings of "faith" that you have). If you deny the distinction, then the only viable alternative is solipsism. Not even Lakoff and Nunez argue that.
is not true. Nowhere in the oath of office is any god mentioned. Nearly all presidents have added a "so help me god" to the end of the oath, but it is not in the Constitution. Most presidents have sworn the oath on a Bible, but not all. Franklin Pierce, in addition to not using a Bible, didn't swear the oath, either -- he affirmed it. If you are suggesting that the president "has" to swear to god at the inauguration in the same way that he "has" to be religious to be elected, then I am with you, but your phrasing indicates that the swearing to god is more prescribed than that.
Maybe ZZ Top is sorted as "Top, ZZ."
The lawsuit was from the late 70s. Apple Computers didn't really have a stake in the music industry at the time.
With the caveat that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data, my own experience with my family has been as follows. Several years ago, my parents lived in a rural-ish community in northern Nevada (Elko, to be exact -- a mining and ranching community of some 30-40 thousand people). Because television reception was pretty good (they got all of the major networks over the air, and in some cases got the same network from two different cities), they didn't bother with cable. Thus, their only internet option was dial up. So, they signed up for some local dial up service that cost a few bucks a month.
About three years ago, they moved to an even smaller community in northern Arizona (Holbrook, less than 10,000 people). At this point, they decided to get cable (for about the first time in their lives), but, because they had free long distance, decided to keep paying for dial up service out of Elko. My father had high speed access at the community college where he taught, and my mother didn't think she cared. However, phone service in their part of town seems to be somewhat unreliable, so last summer, my mother finally caved, and added internet service to their cable plan. My mother was shocked at how much she liked the higher speed access. Suddenly, she could send large attachments via email, and it didn't take forever and a day to load any random webpage. Now there is no way that she would ever go back.
Thus, in at least one instance, someone didn't want broadband access, but, when given such access, found it vital. I would imagine that there is a significant portion of people who currently use dial up and claim that they don't want broadband access who really have no idea what they are missing, and, if they were to upgrade from their current service, would never want to go back.
Indeed. I renewed my license last year. I got an email telling me I was due. I logged in to the Nevada DMV's website, gave them the necessary information. A few weeks later, a sticker showed up, which I stuck to the back of my license. I didn't even have to go into the DMV to renew my license.
Is there amummy involved?
Some people live in places where there is good public transit, and they are able to watch a show on their iPod while they ride the bus or train in. :P
The organization PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) already has such a holiday: Eat a Tasty Animal for PETA (the other one) Day.
Context is important here, methinks. The original Star Trek came out in the 60s, when the bedrooms of sitcom couples often had separate beds, there were no fart jokes on television, a kiss might be considered risque, and a naked navel might get censored. There was as much sex in the original Star Trek as the writers and producers could get into it at the time.
The thing is, I don't think that MLK's dream has been fulfilled. Yes, a black man has been elected as our next president, and that is an incredible thing, and goes some distance towards showing how much things have changed since the 60s. On the other hand, minorities are still disproportionately poor; the criminal system still disproportionately punishes people of color; minorities still do not have a proportionate number of people in power in state and local governments or in the the upper echelons of private industry; and, oddly enough, there are a good number of people who voted for a "nigger" only because they were so tired of Bush that any alternative, even if it is someone they hate, would be better than McCain. Additionally, MLK talked of a time when people would not be judged on the basis of skin color. Throughout the entire race, Obama's skin color has been an issue. Both campaigns tried to downplay it, but it was still an issue. Listen to the comments made by audience members at several of the McCain and Palin rallies, for instance, and the lack of admonishment from either of those politicians. We still have a long way to go. Don't get me wrong, the election of Obama is a fantastic step in terms of civil rights, but don't think for a second that it is the fulfillment of MLK's dream.
The first reported dates from that site were in the 40-50k range. Those dates have since been discredited (the site was near coal deposits, or some such, and it was found that the items being dated were (a) not in the same context as the human remains and (b) had been contaminated with older carbon. At the moment, there is no good evidence of there being any people in the New World prior to about 12,000 years ago (with this discovery possibly pushing the date back by another 1,000 years and change).
It should be pointed out that Polynesia wasn't colonized until long after the New World was colonized. So, while there may have been some contact between the Polynesians and residents of the New World, that contact most likely has only occurred in the last thousand (or maybe two thousand, at the outside) years. These skeletons are reported to be 13.6 years old (and I assume that the dates they are reporting are radiocarbon years, which might make them closer to 14-15k years old, if I remember the calibration tables correctly), which is an order of magnitude farther in the past than Polynesian contact.