Hang on - I wouldn't quite say they shouldn't use one - all AV programs need to have a download manager as its critical that they are updated regularly. What you are after - and what all good AV software should have is an option to update it off-line so you don't have to expose the comp to the internet.
While I really enjoy Heinlein's stories he is far from a solid thinker on politics. His views in the middle of his life where very much extreme in the libertarian direction (i.e. he views anyone who wants the government to handle anything a slave wannabe) so I don't find that quote surprising from him. It just a silly straw-man attack on the people he disagreed with.
His worst books are those where he uncritically idealises libertarianism - and his best works are where he fairly examines a political system showing both the good and the bad without explicitly passing judgement.
You shouldn't be trying. Society isn't 'run' by any individual, or group of experts. That was tried numerous times in the early to mid 20th century.
I have to wonder how society is being run then... I do seem to recall some kind of central authority issuing edicts backed by an armed force.
The ideologues in the Communist and Fascist movements of Europe made the claim that they were being modern and scientific.
and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claim to be the worker's paradise. Turns out - you can just about claim whatever you want.
The eugenicists of the 'Progressive' era in the US claimed they were being scientific as they went forward sterilizing 'undesirable' people.
So I guess we just abandon science?
No particular 'you' should have the power to 'run a modern society.' We decide that collectively, by working freely and independent of rulers telling us what to do.
If you had taken off your paranoia goggles whilst reading you would have seen what everybody else saw - namely that my point was that our government relies on expert advice to create and update policy. If we want a good, well functioning society we need to make good policies. Good science can help you do that. Bad science will not.
And that is the crux of the matter with regard to AGW. The zealots pounding that particular drum want to do more of that 'stuff' that was tried in the past. Some of them don't even really care if AGW is provable or not. They just want the power.
I hope you seriously don't believe that - thinking that people who disagree with you are not just wrong but evil - is a sign of paranoia. To use your argument - the leaders of those 20th century regimes you mentioned also though this about those who disagreed with them.
The stuff in the register article received very little attention in the traditional media (make of that what you will) so I cannot find any more respectable sources on it but having a look around its seems legit (i.e. the accusation is real). What I don't get why he didn't the guy fire him (after all he was his supervisor - and he evaluated his results!) when he saw he was making junk science? Why only come out now with these accusations - more than 20 years after the events?
As for climate-gate - its not really good science, but hardly proof of global conspiracy some folk make it out to be.
The whole climate change debate has gotten so muddy with politics we have effectively poisoned any change of good solid science being implemented in policy - what ever that may be. As a good rule of thumb - trust the results from folk who spend more time doing science then doing interviews.
This. Remember when being called elite was a good thing - something to strive towards and respected for achieving? Experts are experts because they have invested their lives in learning as much as they can about an area. This doesn't mean they cannot be wrong but it means that they are in the best position to be right, that if anyone is going to get it right it would be them. I am deeply worried by the way that first the revived evolution "debate", and now this global warming business has resulted in (or is caused by) a lack of trust and respect towards science. You cannot run a modern society, handle modern problems and improve the economy without good science, and people are shooting themselves in the foot.
Every time politics is dragged into what should be solely a scientific question - debated and handled in the scientific method - we the ordinary people will end up losing because what comes out of that process is not good science but good politics. I don't want our world to be run based on politics, I would like it to be run on good science.
BTW - DNA is the storage mechanism in life - RNA is used in a step for transcription. It is hypothesised that rna used to the primary storage method before but this is still up in the air.
As for whether its universal - that depends on how many other molecules exist that could potentially fill the role that is played by dna. All life needs a way of storing information in a durable way (with about 1 defect/offspring if you want good evolvability). If it turns out the dna is the only way of doing this properly (or the best way) then we would expect to see it everywhere there is life. For all we know there could have been a number of competitor systems but DNA won hands down due to its superior properties and/or ease of evolutionary access - in which case we can expect it to be ubiquitous as well. This is basically a variation of the contingency vs inevitability argument.
Remember that "gamers" comprise more than just the people you know - and most likely have at least a few people who are not 100% in the head. Not to mention thousands of mental 12 year olds who think doing this would be funny and not think too hard about the potential consequences.
I had heard about this before - and this is what I though was the case. But given how long the game has been going, I am becoming worried that Conroy is in fact committed to this and that the above belief will cause people not to really bother protesting and one day we will find it enacted into law. If this was a game of politics (and above could still be right) then the time to exit would have been after the trial showed it to be ineffective - then they could turn around to the independents and say: we gave it a shot but the technology is just not there. Yet Conroy is still vowing to push this through and in my view chaining himself to the legislation - so that if it fails he will be rather humiliated. Not to mention that he is jeopardising his political career and that of his party by publicly tying himself to a unpopular policy.
Conroy seems ideologically committed to this - it doesn't matter if it is effective or popular he has decided this is what Australia needs. Given that he is allowed to continue with this shit I assume that many in the cabinet they are as well. It seems we voted in some puritans into the government. Problem is the liberals are even bigger puritans so we are basically screwed.
No - its because its the best place to get books free. Not GP but tried Gutenberg and TPB has both a bigger selection and easier to download (i.e. 100 of books a time), also available in many diff formats.
And yes, a publisher pays everyone who has a different opinion to you - as part of a convoluted conspiracy to make slash-dot pro-pirate!
It's also worth noting that the higher productivity observed at union shops may be a result of never hiring less-productive workers; unions are pretty good for the guys who get union jobs, but they don't magically make people better workers - they make it unprofitable to hire any but the most productive workers.
So... if I get this right you are saying its a bad thing that they don't hire unproductive workers?
The argument for higher productivity of union labour is that people work harder when they feel their jobs are secure, they have enough money to pay for medical treatment instead of living with medical conditions, and feel that their job actually leads to somewhere. I don't know of any studies that show this is right or wrong.
Yes, yes, I have never read a book on the US, have difficulty reading, hate the US and am some kind of sandwich. Thank-you for your insightful contribution - I look forward to more eye opening diatribes.
Erm 100 years ago was 1910, not 1610 and hardly as uncivilised as you assume it was. The majority most definitely could read and write, life wasn't fundamentally that different than it is now. It was in the middle of the industrial revolution, compulsory education had been around for awhile and creature comforts were starting to flood into the home.
This really depends on what you count. I make my statement from European history which is what I am most familiar with. (I take it there would be no argument that the majority of the world population could not read). But even in Europe - most of the literacy numbers from the time exclude women - because they were not expected to have any use from it and a large number of people that could ostensibly read could only do so at what we would consider a primary school level. Some countries like the UK, France, Sweden, Switzerland were ahead, but others like Italy, Greece, Russia, Austria were far behind. Also remember that history is often written from the perspectives of the upper classes - the benefits of the industrial revolution took a long time to get to the poor while its negative effects (factory slavery etc) were felt much quicker. This was why socialism has such a strong pull at the time.
Second, food preservation has been around since the early 1600s, using glass jars to preserve fruit and veges has been in the home since the mid 1800s. In fact I have a food preservation boiler passed down to me from my great, great grandfather that was made in 1890 and he was a poor as poor convict farmer who took up a 200 acre selection in the mountains when he was pardoned in 1850.
Different kinds of food preservation has been around much longer than that - but without modern tools the quality of the preservation was not very good - why is it that I can buy food from anywhere in the world now? Could a man do this in 1910? Why is malnutrition no longer a major issue in the western world? Why can I buy out of season fruit? Could the average man do any of this (and I keep stressing the average man - because we have been the biggest winners here).
Third my family is spread across the world and most of that movement was started from about 1830. Poverty came in the depression but before that the "average person" was reasonably well off and could most certainly travel. Otherwise just who exactly populated the US, Canada and Australia? The majority were certainly not just the European aristocrats. My great great grandmother for example brought herself over from Ireland in 1847. The travel cost wasn't the problem, the six months at sea was why people didn't often do it.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here - the context of my response was about leisure travel and this is about migration - where people sell everything they have and move to another country. How many of your ancestors went for a holiday overseas every few years?
You really should read a few proper history books and not simply assume that because you think something that it's true.
In fact it's extremely chauvinistic that you just write the past off like that based on nothing but pure ignorance of your own past. So very very ignorant.
You will note I did no such thing - and you will do better in life if you don't assume people who you are talking to are idiots. I love reading about history and it fascinates me greatly - but you need to keep it in perspective. Its more that I don't like people disparaging what we have achieved rather than a disdain for a past period.
Only if there are no other drivers for progress. One advantage of (working) capitalism is that it provides a drive for progress. Likewise a great challenge (e.g. moon landing) can also do the same thing.
I have to assume you have not read a lot of history to say things like this. I cannot think of one area where we were more advanced 100 years ago. People often idealise what life was like in the past because they have trouble imagining life without all the things we take for granted today. If you went back in time 100 years you would feel so out of place as if you were from a different planet.
100 years ago, as an average person you could not possibly earn enough to go anywhere. Today you can - you just have to get a visa for some countries (not many as a US citizen) - not only that but you can travel in a day and much more cheaply around the world.
100 years ago in many couldn't the majority couldn't read, couldn't vote - and many had very little rights. Racism, moralism and sexism were rampant. Not to mention you wouldn't have time to do much as you would be working 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week. If you were poor the rule of law was mostly a joke.
Food was healthier? You have to be kidding - no freezing, no preservatives doesn't mean a hippy paradise - it means you diet was limited to what could be grown near you and even that was often half-spoilt.
While I have my own reservations about the state of education today - you cannot be seriously suggesting that the average person was smarter or more informed 100 years ago.
Well to take this into the depth of pedantry - sections 40, 80 and 116 specifically give the right to vote (at least if you can in the states), trial by jury and religious freedom. While they don't specifically have the word "right" neither do most of the ones in the US bill of rights...
Slashdot Mirror
Hang on - I wouldn't quite say they shouldn't use one - all AV programs need to have a download manager as its critical that they are updated regularly. What you are after - and what all good AV software should have is an option to update it off-line so you don't have to expose the comp to the internet.
While I really enjoy Heinlein's stories he is far from a solid thinker on politics. His views in the middle of his life where very much extreme in the libertarian direction (i.e. he views anyone who wants the government to handle anything a slave wannabe) so I don't find that quote surprising from him. It just a silly straw-man attack on the people he disagreed with.
His worst books are those where he uncritically idealises libertarianism - and his best works are where he fairly examines a political system showing both the good and the bad without explicitly passing judgement.
You shouldn't be trying. Society isn't 'run' by any individual, or group of experts. That was tried numerous times in the early to mid 20th century.
I have to wonder how society is being run then... I do seem to recall some kind of central authority issuing edicts backed by an armed force.
The ideologues in the Communist and Fascist movements of Europe made the claim that they were being modern and scientific.
and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claim to be the worker's paradise. Turns out - you can just about claim whatever you want.
The eugenicists of the 'Progressive' era in the US claimed they were being scientific as they went forward sterilizing 'undesirable' people.
So I guess we just abandon science?
No particular 'you' should have the power to 'run a modern society.' We decide that collectively, by working freely and independent of rulers telling us what to do.
If you had taken off your paranoia goggles whilst reading you would have seen what everybody else saw - namely that my point was that our government relies on expert advice to create and update policy. If we want a good, well functioning society we need to make good policies. Good science can help you do that. Bad science will not.
And that is the crux of the matter with regard to AGW. The zealots pounding that particular drum want to do more of that 'stuff' that was tried in the past. Some of them don't even really care if AGW is provable or not. They just want the power.
I hope you seriously don't believe that - thinking that people who disagree with you are not just wrong but evil - is a sign of paranoia. To use your argument - the leaders of those 20th century regimes you mentioned also though this about those who disagreed with them.
Well since parent is lazy here they are:
The register NASA article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
Climategate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_gate
The stuff in the register article received very little attention in the traditional media (make of that what you will) so I cannot find any more respectable sources on it but having a look around its seems legit (i.e. the accusation is real). What I don't get why he didn't the guy fire him (after all he was his supervisor - and he evaluated his results!) when he saw he was making junk science? Why only come out now with these accusations - more than 20 years after the events?
As for climate-gate - its not really good science, but hardly proof of global conspiracy some folk make it out to be.
The whole climate change debate has gotten so muddy with politics we have effectively poisoned any change of good solid science being implemented in policy - what ever that may be. As a good rule of thumb - trust the results from folk who spend more time doing science then doing interviews.
This. Remember when being called elite was a good thing - something to strive towards and respected for achieving? Experts are experts because they have invested their lives in learning as much as they can about an area. This doesn't mean they cannot be wrong but it means that they are in the best position to be right, that if anyone is going to get it right it would be them. I am deeply worried by the way that first the revived evolution "debate", and now this global warming business has resulted in (or is caused by) a lack of trust and respect towards science. You cannot run a modern society, handle modern problems and improve the economy without good science, and people are shooting themselves in the foot.
Every time politics is dragged into what should be solely a scientific question - debated and handled in the scientific method - we the ordinary people will end up losing because what comes out of that process is not good science but good politics. I don't want our world to be run based on politics, I would like it to be run on good science.
BTW - DNA is the storage mechanism in life - RNA is used in a step for transcription. It is hypothesised that rna used to the primary storage method before but this is still up in the air.
As for whether its universal - that depends on how many other molecules exist that could potentially fill the role that is played by dna. All life needs a way of storing information in a durable way (with about 1 defect/offspring if you want good evolvability). If it turns out the dna is the only way of doing this properly (or the best way) then we would expect to see it everywhere there is life. For all we know there could have been a number of competitor systems but DNA won hands down due to its superior properties and/or ease of evolutionary access - in which case we can expect it to be ubiquitous as well. This is basically a variation of the contingency vs inevitability argument.
The above comment brought to you by the society for replacing the scientific method with a brute force search.
Remember that "gamers" comprise more than just the people you know - and most likely have at least a few people who are not 100% in the head. Not to mention thousands of mental 12 year olds who think doing this would be funny and not think too hard about the potential consequences.
I had heard about this before - and this is what I though was the case. But given how long the game has been going, I am becoming worried that Conroy is in fact committed to this and that the above belief will cause people not to really bother protesting and one day we will find it enacted into law. If this was a game of politics (and above could still be right) then the time to exit would have been after the trial showed it to be ineffective - then they could turn around to the independents and say: we gave it a shot but the technology is just not there. Yet Conroy is still vowing to push this through and in my view chaining himself to the legislation - so that if it fails he will be rather humiliated. Not to mention that he is jeopardising his political career and that of his party by publicly tying himself to a unpopular policy.
Conroy seems ideologically committed to this - it doesn't matter if it is effective or popular he has decided this is what Australia needs. Given that he is allowed to continue with this shit I assume that many in the cabinet they are as well. It seems we voted in some puritans into the government. Problem is the liberals are even bigger puritans so we are basically screwed.
You can be taught to think - this is what good theory of knowledge classes should teach.
No - its because its the best place to get books free. Not GP but tried Gutenberg and TPB has both a bigger selection and easier to download (i.e. 100 of books a time), also available in many diff formats.
And yes, a publisher pays everyone who has a different opinion to you - as part of a convoluted conspiracy to make slash-dot pro-pirate!
It's also worth noting that the higher productivity observed at union shops may be a result of never hiring less-productive workers; unions are pretty good for the guys who get union jobs, but they don't magically make people better workers - they make it unprofitable to hire any but the most productive workers.
So... if I get this right you are saying its a bad thing that they don't hire unproductive workers?
The argument for higher productivity of union labour is that people work harder when they feel their jobs are secure, they have enough money to pay for medical treatment instead of living with medical conditions, and feel that their job actually leads to somewhere. I don't know of any studies that show this is right or wrong.
When I read shit like this I feel like eugenics might have been the way to go...
You think that is bad - my superannuation fund's security is a ID number, date of birth and a 9 digit password (digit - as in only numerals). WTF
Yes, yes, I have never read a book on the US, have difficulty reading, hate the US and am some kind of sandwich. Thank-you for your insightful contribution - I look forward to more eye opening diatribes.
Erm 100 years ago was 1910, not 1610 and hardly as uncivilised as you assume it was. The majority most definitely could read and write, life wasn't fundamentally that different than it is now. It was in the middle of the industrial revolution, compulsory education had been around for awhile and creature comforts were starting to flood into the home.
This really depends on what you count. I make my statement from European history which is what I am most familiar with. (I take it there would be no argument that the majority of the world population could not read). But even in Europe - most of the literacy numbers from the time exclude women - because they were not expected to have any use from it and a large number of people that could ostensibly read could only do so at what we would consider a primary school level. Some countries like the UK, France, Sweden, Switzerland were ahead, but others like Italy, Greece, Russia, Austria were far behind. Also remember that history is often written from the perspectives of the upper classes - the benefits of the industrial revolution took a long time to get to the poor while its negative effects (factory slavery etc) were felt much quicker. This was why socialism has such a strong pull at the time.
Second, food preservation has been around since the early 1600s, using glass jars to preserve fruit and veges has been in the home since the mid 1800s. In fact I have a food preservation boiler passed down to me from my great, great grandfather that was made in 1890 and he was a poor as poor convict farmer who took up a 200 acre selection in the mountains when he was pardoned in 1850.
Different kinds of food preservation has been around much longer than that - but without modern tools the quality of the preservation was not very good - why is it that I can buy food from anywhere in the world now? Could a man do this in 1910? Why is malnutrition no longer a major issue in the western world? Why can I buy out of season fruit? Could the average man do any of this (and I keep stressing the average man - because we have been the biggest winners here).
Third my family is spread across the world and most of that movement was started from about 1830. Poverty came in the depression but before that the "average person" was reasonably well off and could most certainly travel. Otherwise just who exactly populated the US, Canada and Australia? The majority were certainly not just the European aristocrats. My great great grandmother for example brought herself over from Ireland in 1847. The travel cost wasn't the problem, the six months at sea was why people didn't often do it.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here - the context of my response was about leisure travel and this is about migration - where people sell everything they have and move to another country. How many of your ancestors went for a holiday overseas every few years?
You really should read a few proper history books and not simply assume that because you think something that it's true. In fact it's extremely chauvinistic that you just write the past off like that based on nothing but pure ignorance of your own past. So very very ignorant.
You will note I did no such thing - and you will do better in life if you don't assume people who you are talking to are idiots. I love reading about history and it fascinates me greatly - but you need to keep it in perspective. Its more that I don't like people disparaging what we have achieved rather than a disdain for a past period.
Only if there are no other drivers for progress. One advantage of (working) capitalism is that it provides a drive for progress. Likewise a great challenge (e.g. moon landing) can also do the same thing.
Needs more cowbell.
Eh, this pessimism joke has been done to death - I propose that robot articles are now accompanied by jokes that are overly optimistic.
I have to assume you have not read a lot of history to say things like this. I cannot think of one area where we were more advanced 100 years ago. People often idealise what life was like in the past because they have trouble imagining life without all the things we take for granted today. If you went back in time 100 years you would feel so out of place as if you were from a different planet.
100 years ago, as an average person you could not possibly earn enough to go anywhere. Today you can - you just have to get a visa for some countries (not many as a US citizen) - not only that but you can travel in a day and much more cheaply around the world.
100 years ago in many couldn't the majority couldn't read, couldn't vote - and many had very little rights. Racism, moralism and sexism were rampant. Not to mention you wouldn't have time to do much as you would be working 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week. If you were poor the rule of law was mostly a joke.
Food was healthier? You have to be kidding - no freezing, no preservatives doesn't mean a hippy paradise - it means you diet was limited to what could be grown near you and even that was often half-spoilt.
While I have my own reservations about the state of education today - you cannot be seriously suggesting that the average person was smarter or more informed 100 years ago.
Well to take this into the depth of pedantry - sections 40, 80 and 116 specifically give the right to vote (at least if you can in the states), trial by jury and religious freedom. While they don't specifically have the word "right" neither do most of the ones in the US bill of rights...
Does the planet you live on accept immigrants? - it seems such a nice place.
Go back 100 years. Live for 10 days. Come back and apologise.