I don't think real fish actually try to "recruit", they just want to hang our with other like fish and so a group forms. In a school of fish, no fish is actually leading, but each fish is paying attention to what the other fishes around are doing as well as to any external threats / obstacles. So what may be happening is that as the robot fish is trying to lead the other fish, the other fish are learning that the robo-fish is not actually turning due to anything important and are putting less weight (aka importance) onto its actions, hence it gradually decreases in its ability to lead. Since real fish neither recruit or lead its hard to compare results with real fishes.
Wouldn't be hard to distinguish it in an experiment. Whereas fish might move towards what they are curious about (and soon get bored of it as well), fish would move with the pack. I.e. when you see something interesting you stop and have a look at it etc - that is curiosity, when you cross the street in a crowd you are subconsciously adjusting your path to match those around you - that is pack behaviour. (crowd behaviour is one of the few cases where humans engage in pack-like behaviour, otherwise we dont do much herding).
I would hope he has the guts to follow the rule of law even when its not popular. If the courts decide that BP has to pay out then BP will be made to pay out, otherwise there is no point in having courts in the first place.
If the courts fail to achieve justice then its an argument to reform the way courts operate rather than not following the rule of law.
Even wealthy people supported communists. Armand Hammer, president and CEO of Occidental Petroleum, was a friend of Lenin's. The wiki article say he bragged he was a friend of both Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Throughout the years of the Cold War he could go to the Soviet Union whenever he felt like it. Che Guevara who was well known for his support of the and fighting in Cuban Revolution and communism came from a relatively wealthy Argentinean family.
What does this have to do with the above?
Are you saying that lenin did not do forced nationalisation or that the boards of AIG + co are communist sympathisers? Or is there there something I am missing here?
communism and socialism excludes government investments and needs forced nationalization
I would say when you start having forced nationalisation is a sign you have moved into commie territory.
Ok so I apologise for failing to explain this properly. Its a bit confusing as "you" and "I" are used in several different ways here. I was not objecting to any rules of grammar, nor was I talking about "YOU" and "I" as falconwolf and CC respectively. I put them in capitals to distinguish the real you from the YOU in the story. To retaliate your example:
You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.
Now to avoid confusion lets give YOU and I names. Say You = john, I = frank.
john can say frank deposited it in another account, how does frank prove frank do not have another account?
etc.. you get the idea.
Now to bring this whole saga back into context; it has been about assertions and backing them up with evidence. Do negative assertions require evidence? The poster I was previously discussing with stated that they did not. I was of the opinion that they did. I gave the example of asserting that the sky is not blue. Does this assertion require any evidence as it is negative?
Now you joined this conversation late and on a somewhat tangent point. So finally the reason I was objecting in my previous point was because in your example John makes the assertion, but its up to Frank (ie. the you and I part) to prove it. This has nothing to do with the discussion as it is up to John to prove his own assertions, not Frank.
The US government owns AIG, banks, GM, ad nauseam. It is already on the road to socialism if not communism.
Come on, the government got shares in return for massive investment, and massive loans at under market interest rates, at the agreement of the companies, following relevant laws! If you think this can somehow be compared to forced nationalisation then you need your head examined.
Why would it? You either enjoy spending time with them or you dont. Explaining why you enjoy spending time with them doesn't really change that at all.
I think the article would have been more shocking if they turned the focus around. 15% of engineers use twitter. 16% of tweets actually useful news, and 7.6% actual conversations. I'm quite surprised it's that successful.
You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.
You keep using You and I, when i have already explained that its assertions that YOU make that YOU have to prove, not I (YOU and I in your story that is). If you cannot prove assertions that you make then dont make them, because they are not defensible (i.e. see this in the context of the original conversation I had with the OP).
Say YOU CLAIM you gave me $1 millions, how do I PROVE you didn't?
my emphasis. So my response was about that. In that situation its up to the YOU person to prove it.
To answer your point: You can easily prove negative assertions - in your case you show your bank statements for the time period. Think about what you would do if you really were in that situation and had to show to a judge that someone did not pay their debt to you. You would bring proof of the debt, as well as all your bank statements that show that no amount matching the debt were deposited by said person.
Also - I'm quite tired of people hating on socialism. Many of its ideas form the backbone of the western world. Minimum wage, unemployment benefits, paid holidays, weekends, sick leave, workplace safety, N-hour week, overtime, child labour laws, trade unions, healthcare and to a lesser extent pacifism and egalitarianism esp. in regard to minorities. All these ideas were and still are socialist ideas, that are now largely taken for granted, but not long ago were the scene of bloody battles.
So by all means criticise socialist ideas that you disagree with, but dont do as the above poster has done, and just use it as a label for "things I dont like". You are basically spitting on people who have died fighting for your rights.
You are misreading. Here is my original post. Note, there is no mention of anyone providing citations
You are quite right, I have confused you with another conversation. Apologies.
Here is you both congratulating me for coming into compliance for your demand of citations and then telling me to get off my arse and look up the citations for others in the same post:
The wikipedia link was not about looking up citations for others, note that I dont ask you to do so, but for informing yourself. Here it is again:
"FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation"
The gentleman who claims the sky IS blue is left with the burden of evidence.
I specifically said NOT blue to illustrate the absurdity of your previous statement.
Troll. You demand I provide citations. When I suggest others do the same you suggest I get off my tail and find their citations for them. Make up your mind
Jesus christ, is this seriously how you remember this conversation? Click on your original comment and read what you wrote - You demanded others to provide citations for you, then you justified this on the basis that your claim was "negative" and therefore did not need citations. I pointed out that if you make assertions of any kind you have to provide proof. As an added bonus I introduced you to the wonderful world of wikipedia where you can learn more about such topics. Where in this am I saying you need to find citations for other people???
So I assume my paper saying that the sky is not blue will be accepted into nature without any citations?
Its really quite simple - when you make an assertion of any kind you have to provide evidence for it.
Your search engine turns up plenty of support for that
I am glad that you have mastered its use and look forward to more citations in your posts.
Thus far, nobody has been able to cite studies backing their assertion that fluoride strengthens teeth in low dose brief exposure.
FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation
If you disagree, please cite an academic reference that shows fluoride and what the minimum daily recommended levels for intake should be for a normal adult, similar to the levels they have for other minerals and vitamins. Go ahead, I dare you to provide one single reference showing fluoride is a nutritional requirement.
there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe
Look it up on google scholar - its a free service, and most of the important and popular papers have pdf links to them that are free. This way when you make a statement of scientific inquiry you can put a little [1] next to them and link them to a paper. Neat - and it pre-empts accusations that you have no idea what you are talking about.
All US public schools must spend their entire budget each year, and cannot store money for future renovations, et al.. This is why when schools need to improve their fascilities, it ALWAYS comes as a bond issue. The reason for this "Cannot save money, MUST spend all of the yearly budget!" is presumably to curb imbezzlement of education dollars
This is the same for all government organisations and its got nothing to do with embezzlement - its simply the idea that you are given a bucket of money to spend on education and its your job as an administrator to take that money and turn it into education. Now the idea that this hinders capital projects it quite frankly retarded. How about instead of paying it up front from one year's budget they pay it over several years from current and future budgets. What you say? That is how its actually done? No shit. If this cannot be done it is because they dont have enough money to build new facilities and maintain current ones rather than budget inflexibility.
I would much rather see the primary education system of the US enable a 3 to 5 year budgeting system, whereby school administrators can plan for expansions, rennovations, etc, and would be part and parcel with a complete financial audit at the end of every budget cycle, as the means of curbing both problems.
This basically already happens.
Ending the affiliation with the UN would make it INSANELY less profitable for US corporations to outsource labor, etc, and would strongly promote the rennovation of internal infrastructures that have been in decline since the 50s.
Are you thinking of the WTO? That's not really related to the UN... Not to mention that world trade is a big boon for the US overall, and a return to isolationism would probably destroy the economy.
Social Security(TM) has become the personal piggybank of our BigGovernmentOverlords(TM) for the better part of the century now. When originally created, this was not the case. Current social security has been too heavily compromised by government hentai tentacles to ever be fixed. It DOES need to be scrapped, and re-created with proper safeguards in place. People's retirement savings are NOT the property of the US government, GOD DAMNIT.
The government borrows money from the fund and pays interest on its loan. I dont particularly think this is the best way of going about things but its better paying interest to American ppl then to pay it to someone else.
Naturally, the ADA doesnt want to admit that its massive fluoridation projects might actually be DETRACTING from public health, rather than improving it. For a VERY long time, it was taboo to even mention enough criticism to SUGGEST raw research, let alone to point out that it {fluoridation) might not be a good thing to begin with.
Not a dentist so I cannot comment on what the research says but since the ADA doesn't have any interest in maintaining the fluoridation of water other than for public heath I cannot imagine they would really give a shit if it was stopped based on research.
Slashdot Mirror
Why isn't this man in charge of everything!
I don't think real fish actually try to "recruit", they just want to hang our with other like fish and so a group forms. In a school of fish, no fish is actually leading, but each fish is paying attention to what the other fishes around are doing as well as to any external threats / obstacles. So what may be happening is that as the robot fish is trying to lead the other fish, the other fish are learning that the robo-fish is not actually turning due to anything important and are putting less weight (aka importance) onto its actions, hence it gradually decreases in its ability to lead. Since real fish neither recruit or lead its hard to compare results with real fishes.
Wouldn't be hard to distinguish it in an experiment. Whereas fish might move towards what they are curious about (and soon get bored of it as well), fish would move with the pack. I.e. when you see something interesting you stop and have a look at it etc - that is curiosity, when you cross the street in a crowd you are subconsciously adjusting your path to match those around you - that is pack behaviour. (crowd behaviour is one of the few cases where humans engage in pack-like behaviour, otherwise we dont do much herding).
I would hope he has the guts to follow the rule of law even when its not popular. If the courts decide that BP has to pay out then BP will be made to pay out, otherwise there is no point in having courts in the first place.
If the courts fail to achieve justice then its an argument to reform the way courts operate rather than not following the rule of law.
Even wealthy people supported communists. Armand Hammer, president and CEO of Occidental Petroleum, was a friend of Lenin's. The wiki article say he bragged he was a friend of both Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Throughout the years of the Cold War he could go to the Soviet Union whenever he felt like it. Che Guevara who was well known for his support of the and fighting in Cuban Revolution and communism came from a relatively wealthy Argentinean family.
What does this have to do with the above?
Are you saying that lenin did not do forced nationalisation or that the boards of AIG + co are communist sympathisers? Or is there there something I am missing here?
communism and socialism excludes government investments and needs forced nationalization
I would say when you start having forced nationalisation is a sign you have moved into commie territory.
You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.
Now to avoid confusion lets give YOU and I names. Say You = john, I = frank.
john can say frank deposited it in another account, how does frank prove frank do not have another account?
etc.. you get the idea.
Now to bring this whole saga back into context; it has been about assertions and backing them up with evidence. Do negative assertions require evidence? The poster I was previously discussing with stated that they did not. I was of the opinion that they did. I gave the example of asserting that the sky is not blue. Does this assertion require any evidence as it is negative?
Now you joined this conversation late and on a somewhat tangent point. So finally the reason I was objecting in my previous point was because in your example John makes the assertion, but its up to Frank (ie. the you and I part) to prove it. This has nothing to do with the discussion as it is up to John to prove his own assertions, not Frank.
I hope this makes things more clear.
The US government owns AIG, banks, GM, ad nauseam. It is already on the road to socialism if not communism.
Come on, the government got shares in return for massive investment, and massive loans at under market interest rates, at the agreement of the companies, following relevant laws! If you think this can somehow be compared to forced nationalisation then you need your head examined.
Why would it? You either enjoy spending time with them or you dont. Explaining why you enjoy spending time with them doesn't really change that at all.
They are the ones who interrogated the prisoners of war.
I think the article would have been more shocking if they turned the focus around. 15% of engineers use twitter. 16% of tweets actually useful news, and 7.6% actual conversations. I'm quite surprised it's that successful.
You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.
You keep using You and I, when i have already explained that its assertions that YOU make that YOU have to prove, not I (YOU and I in your story that is). If you cannot prove assertions that you make then dont make them, because they are not defensible (i.e. see this in the context of the original conversation I had with the OP).
I would note that even you (presumably right-wing/libertarian?) still said weakening rather than removing.
Say YOU CLAIM you gave me $1 millions, how do I PROVE you didn't?
my emphasis. So my response was about that. In that situation its up to the YOU person to prove it.
To answer your point: You can easily prove negative assertions - in your case you show your bank statements for the time period. Think about what you would do if you really were in that situation and had to show to a judge that someone did not pay their debt to you. You would bring proof of the debt, as well as all your bank statements that show that no amount matching the debt were deposited by said person.
social socialism! You heard it here first folks!
Also - I'm quite tired of people hating on socialism. Many of its ideas form the backbone of the western world. Minimum wage, unemployment benefits, paid holidays, weekends, sick leave, workplace safety, N-hour week, overtime, child labour laws, trade unions, healthcare and to a lesser extent pacifism and egalitarianism esp. in regard to minorities. All these ideas were and still are socialist ideas, that are now largely taken for granted, but not long ago were the scene of bloody battles.
So by all means criticise socialist ideas that you disagree with, but dont do as the above poster has done, and just use it as a label for "things I dont like". You are basically spitting on people who have died fighting for your rights.
You are misreading. Here is my original post. Note, there is no mention of anyone providing citations
You are quite right, I have confused you with another conversation. Apologies.
Here is you both congratulating me for coming into compliance for your demand of citations and then telling me to get off my arse and look up the citations for others in the same post:
The wikipedia link was not about looking up citations for others, note that I dont ask you to do so, but for informing yourself. Here it is again:
"FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation"
How can I, you, or anyone else proof a negative? Say you claim you gave me $1 millions, how do I prove you didn't?
Why would you have to prove it? If I make any kind of assertion I have to prove it not you. This is not really related at all.
The gentleman who claims the sky IS blue is left with the burden of evidence.
I specifically said NOT blue to illustrate the absurdity of your previous statement.
Troll. You demand I provide citations. When I suggest others do the same you suggest I get off my tail and find their citations for them. Make up your mind
Jesus christ, is this seriously how you remember this conversation? Click on your original comment and read what you wrote - You demanded others to provide citations for you, then you justified this on the basis that your claim was "negative" and therefore did not need citations. I pointed out that if you make assertions of any kind you have to provide proof. As an added bonus I introduced you to the wonderful world of wikipedia where you can learn more about such topics. Where in this am I saying you need to find citations for other people???
also how symmetrical their main features are and the ratios between them as per above.
Yes, which is why everyone who drank it is dead. For a less-retarded look at the safety concerns see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation#Safety
Note that even the article you linked to makes clear that current research supports the levels found in tap water.
Negatives don't require citations, positives do.
So I assume my paper saying that the sky is not blue will be accepted into nature without any citations?
Its really quite simple - when you make an assertion of any kind you have to provide evidence for it.
Your search engine turns up plenty of support for that
I am glad that you have mastered its use and look forward to more citations in your posts.
Thus far, nobody has been able to cite studies backing their assertion that fluoride strengthens teeth in low dose brief exposure.
FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation
If you disagree, please cite an academic reference that shows fluoride and what the minimum daily recommended levels for intake should be for a normal adult, similar to the levels they have for other minerals and vitamins. Go ahead, I dare you to provide one single reference showing fluoride is a nutritional requirement.
Jesus Christ, did you not even look up wikipedia? Its in the first paragraph for fuck's sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
And here is the reference for it: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf
What do I win?
there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe
Look it up on google scholar - its a free service, and most of the important and popular papers have pdf links to them that are free. This way when you make a statement of scientific inquiry you can put a little [1] next to them and link them to a paper. Neat - and it pre-empts accusations that you have no idea what you are talking about.
http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws
All US public schools must spend their entire budget each year, and cannot store money for future renovations, et al.. This is why when schools need to improve their fascilities, it ALWAYS comes as a bond issue. The reason for this "Cannot save money, MUST spend all of the yearly budget!" is presumably to curb imbezzlement of education dollars
This is the same for all government organisations and its got nothing to do with embezzlement - its simply the idea that you are given a bucket of money to spend on education and its your job as an administrator to take that money and turn it into education. Now the idea that this hinders capital projects it quite frankly retarded. How about instead of paying it up front from one year's budget they pay it over several years from current and future budgets. What you say? That is how its actually done? No shit. If this cannot be done it is because they dont have enough money to build new facilities and maintain current ones rather than budget inflexibility.
I would much rather see the primary education system of the US enable a 3 to 5 year budgeting system, whereby school administrators can plan for expansions, rennovations, etc, and would be part and parcel with a complete financial audit at the end of every budget cycle, as the means of curbing both problems.
This basically already happens.
Ending the affiliation with the UN would make it INSANELY less profitable for US corporations to outsource labor, etc, and would strongly promote the rennovation of internal infrastructures that have been in decline since the 50s.
Are you thinking of the WTO? That's not really related to the UN... Not to mention that world trade is a big boon for the US overall, and a return to isolationism would probably destroy the economy.
Social Security(TM) has become the personal piggybank of our BigGovernmentOverlords(TM) for the better part of the century now. When originally created, this was not the case. Current social security has been too heavily compromised by government hentai tentacles to ever be fixed. It DOES need to be scrapped, and re-created with proper safeguards in place. People's retirement savings are NOT the property of the US government, GOD DAMNIT.
The government borrows money from the fund and pays interest on its loan. I dont particularly think this is the best way of going about things but its better paying interest to American ppl then to pay it to someone else.
Naturally, the ADA doesnt want to admit that its massive fluoridation projects might actually be DETRACTING from public health, rather than improving it. For a VERY long time, it was taboo to even mention enough criticism to SUGGEST raw research, let alone to point out that it {fluoridation) might not be a good thing to begin with.
Not a dentist so I cannot comment on what the research says but since the ADA doesn't have any interest in maintaining the fluoridation of water other than for public heath I cannot imagine they would really give a shit if it was stopped based on research.
I doubt the beta will be any time soon - but signed up neway :D
....What?