No, each soul has potential far beyond your meagre (sub-mediocre, to make it crystal clear in your lexicon) ability to imagine. Perhaps in a future life you will progress; or you might do it even in this life but it likely requires more voluntary austerity than your present life can tolerate.
"to claim that all humans are above average is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of awareness of both math"
Simpson's Paradox means that everyone can bat lower than one guy for years, but still have a higher average than that one guy. So math allows situations where you can be above average while consistently scoring below average.
Okay, but then dispute the science and use the data, instead of impugning motives. When conservatives say that scientists are supporting global warming just because they get grants to do so, we should call out that reasoning.
We should say that science should not be motivated by profit, and a way to ensure that is to fund citizen scientists (via a Basic Income, say). Then interested individuals can have the time to examine data and try to replicate findings and look for mistakes in the calculations, spreadsheets, etc.
The key point is that market solutions are deeply flawed when conducting science. If you are a conservative and see the market as the solution to everything, of course you are going to try to fund scientists to find what you want them to find, and you will assume the other side is doing the same. Because the market is the only tool you imagine.
Instead, acknowledge that science advances fastest when market forces are not involved in selecting winners and losers. Science progresses best when information is shared openly, not hoarded and monetized as the market encourages.
Is your point that the salt science was influenced by grant money? Was there a big, rich anti-salt lobby that wanted to destroy salt companies?
My point is that when conservatives attack the motivations of climate change scientists as being motivated by a desire to get grants, they are using an ad hominem argument against the scientists as persons, not against the science itself. I think the reason conservatives make the argument so readily, that climate change science is merely a ploy to get funding, because they are so used to thinking about money in their own lives. Money is their prime motivator, so it must be everyone's. If a scientist says something you don't like, it must be because someone paid them to say it.
That's why the GOP funds astroturfers. It knows its arguments don't stand on their own, it has to pay people to make them popular.
So when the GOP sees climate change scientists making arguments they don't agree with, they immediately want to pay others to say what they want. And then they attack the scientists they haven't bought, as having been bought by the other side.
The solution is to fund all science. Science is fundamentally opposed to profit-motivation. That's very hard for conservatives to contemplate, that anything can or should be separated from profit motivation. So when a scientist says something they don't like, they attack his profit motivation.
NOTE: I had a much more succint post that made my point in a couple lines, but slashdot crashed Chrome and I could only come up with this long rambling recreation.
With all that private sector money piling up? Scientists who argue for climate change must be saints to resist the money jungle. Look how money has bought Congress; why haven't scientists all been bribed too?
The first thing conservatives usually say to discredit climate scientists is, they are in thrall to their funders. Now we know why; they're projecting.
Landauer's principle rests on the Second Law, which itself rests on Kelvin's ego. The same ego that proclaimed heavier than air machine flight to be impossible. In other words, the second law is a conclusion without proof.
The use of "perfectly" indicates how strong your faith is. Epicycles "perfectly" predicted planetary motion, thus math underlies everything, and orbits are circular because circles are perfect! Oh wait...
No, the Fed created money to buy toxic assets at above market value. Expansive monetary policy is a free lunch. Private sector money creation is a free lunch: when they charge interest on a loan, they book it immediately in the Net Worth balance sheet item, so it is available to bank investors to spend, thereby adding just enough liquidity for the borrower, if everything goes right, to pay back the bank. With the money the bank created. See how the bank benefits from the money creation? It gets to hire the borrower to do something. The bank investor gains status, he's now a job creator.
But why should the system work like that? Why can't the Fed create money and transfer it directly to individuals?
"devoting a single cent of taxpayer money toward preparing for it"
Money creation is a tool, a technology. We can fund the government without taxes. We should not argue about 'my tax dollars' but about the ideas themselves.
The private sector knows well that debt financing is the same as pay-as-you-go: see the Modigliani-Miller theorem of finance. Govt can and should be funded at zero cost through the Fed.
Online classes have interactions in the forums. In the Jazz improv MOOC, Gary Burton noted that in physical classes he teaches, students rarely talk to each other outside of class. In online classes, the interaction between students is greater. Probably because of the convenience, and lesser importance of visual cues such as clothing, smells, attractiveness, accents, loudness, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
No, each soul has potential far beyond your meagre (sub-mediocre, to make it crystal clear in your lexicon) ability to imagine. Perhaps in a future life you will progress; or you might do it even in this life but it likely requires more voluntary austerity than your present life can tolerate.
What if the genius is trapped into thinking he's a common man by silly movies that emphasize his social commonness?
"to claim that all humans are above average is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of awareness of both math"
Simpson's Paradox means that everyone can bat lower than one guy for years, but still have a higher average than that one guy. So math allows situations where you can be above average while consistently scoring below average.
Okay, but then dispute the science and use the data, instead of impugning motives. When conservatives say that scientists are supporting global warming just because they get grants to do so, we should call out that reasoning.
We should say that science should not be motivated by profit, and a way to ensure that is to fund citizen scientists (via a Basic Income, say). Then interested individuals can have the time to examine data and try to replicate findings and look for mistakes in the calculations, spreadsheets, etc.
The key point is that market solutions are deeply flawed when conducting science. If you are a conservative and see the market as the solution to everything, of course you are going to try to fund scientists to find what you want them to find, and you will assume the other side is doing the same. Because the market is the only tool you imagine.
Instead, acknowledge that science advances fastest when market forces are not involved in selecting winners and losers. Science progresses best when information is shared openly, not hoarded and monetized as the market encourages.
Wouldn't it be awesome if big game companies switched all the big game hunters to play their game instead of killing fellow mortals.
Is your point that the salt science was influenced by grant money? Was there a big, rich anti-salt lobby that wanted to destroy salt companies?
My point is that when conservatives attack the motivations of climate change scientists as being motivated by a desire to get grants, they are using an ad hominem argument against the scientists as persons, not against the science itself. I think the reason conservatives make the argument so readily, that climate change science is merely a ploy to get funding, because they are so used to thinking about money in their own lives. Money is their prime motivator, so it must be everyone's. If a scientist says something you don't like, it must be because someone paid them to say it.
That's why the GOP funds astroturfers. It knows its arguments don't stand on their own, it has to pay people to make them popular.
So when the GOP sees climate change scientists making arguments they don't agree with, they immediately want to pay others to say what they want. And then they attack the scientists they haven't bought, as having been bought by the other side.
The solution is to fund all science. Science is fundamentally opposed to profit-motivation. That's very hard for conservatives to contemplate, that anything can or should be separated from profit motivation. So when a scientist says something they don't like, they attack his profit motivation.
NOTE: I had a much more succint post that made my point in a couple lines, but slashdot crashed Chrome and I could only come up with this long rambling recreation.
With all that private sector money piling up? Scientists who argue for climate change must be saints to resist the money jungle. Look how money has bought Congress; why haven't scientists all been bribed too?
The first thing conservatives usually say to discredit climate scientists is, they are in thrall to their funders. Now we know why; they're projecting.
The reality is that human ingenuity created improvements in crop yields wildly beyond Malthus's dismal imagination.
Except creativity keeps creating more possible states, therefore more information. New words are created from thought alone.
Landauer's principle rests on the Second Law, which itself rests on Kelvin's ego. The same ego that proclaimed heavier than air machine flight to be impossible. In other words, the second law is a conclusion without proof.
The use of "perfectly" indicates how strong your faith is. Epicycles "perfectly" predicted planetary motion, thus math underlies everything, and orbits are circular because circles are perfect! Oh wait...
No, the Fed created money to buy toxic assets at above market value. Expansive monetary policy is a free lunch. Private sector money creation is a free lunch: when they charge interest on a loan, they book it immediately in the Net Worth balance sheet item, so it is available to bank investors to spend, thereby adding just enough liquidity for the borrower, if everything goes right, to pay back the bank. With the money the bank created. See how the bank benefits from the money creation? It gets to hire the borrower to do something. The bank investor gains status, he's now a job creator.
But why should the system work like that? Why can't the Fed create money and transfer it directly to individuals?
Malthus's predictions of famine didn't materialize.
What if you use solar power to extract, and then use the oil for more immediate short-term energy needs?
Who approved the grantor's grant?
"devoting a single cent of taxpayer money toward preparing for it"
Money creation is a tool, a technology. We can fund the government without taxes. We should not argue about 'my tax dollars' but about the ideas themselves.
The private sector knows well that debt financing is the same as pay-as-you-go: see the Modigliani-Miller theorem of finance. Govt can and should be funded at zero cost through the Fed.
The only real scarcity is our knowledge.
Ask Pussy Riot about Putin.
Why not have internet agoras where Socrateses teach for free?
I've taken probably dozens of online classes without spending anything. It's great not mixing knowledge up with financial risk. It empowers students.
What if they could run around in the games and burn off the junk food?
Online classes have interactions in the forums. In the Jazz improv MOOC, Gary Burton noted that in physical classes he teaches, students rarely talk to each other outside of class. In online classes, the interaction between students is greater. Probably because of the convenience, and lesser importance of visual cues such as clothing, smells, attractiveness, accents, loudness, etc.
Oh, right, children are owned, so you get to force them to do what you want.
But why not guide them to guide themselves. Let each kid learn in his idiosyncratic way, with a wide variety of tools to choose from?
Nah, I gave up trying to impress ppl long ago, friend. My grand project is a chatbot to replace you all.