Why not just smoke a peace pipe with them? Those bulldozers cause a lot of damage. Scientists need to mellow out, get high more, look at the heavens from a more spiritual point of view. Fuck the observatory. Just go camping, get back in balance with nature.
Keep it as public ground. Let the scientists fuck off to someplace else. Those observatories ruin mountaintops, destroy the natural lines that are so beautiful. Fuck those scientists. They're a bunch of poindexters way too full of themselves. Fuck them.
How do you know you're not projecting? Homosexuals existed in the Founding Fathers' times, in their circles of friends. The writers of the constitution understood that times change and that compromises such as the sanctioning of slavery would eventually be corrected. That they didn't mention homosexual rights as protected does not mean they didn't expect future generations to include homosexuality as a protected right.
No, they should expand constitutional rights, like the right to drugs. Reagan was wrong. Drugs are a civil rights issue. The government used to think drugs was a constitutional amendment issue. The court should bring them back to that position. How did they slip out of that one again?
I don't believe your story. You keep saying Medicare, I think you mean Medicaid. If you have that basic fact wrong how many mistakes did you make in the rest of your account?
It's clear that no one who wrote the bill wanted the subsidies only applied to state exchanges. It's clear from the context of the bill that the State in the passage in question refers to the State and the Federal Government. The authors of the bill have made this clear.
Republicans want to use some silly grammar-school enforcement of consistent usage as an excuse to gut a bill they don't like but couldn't vote down.
Language allows for the reader to correct obvious mistakes, unlike a compiler with a computer language. Natural language is more flexible, less brittle. SCOTUS simply acted as a reader, automatically correcting the obvious mistakes in the text.
If Congress makes another obvious mistake and refuses to fix it, then the EPA would be justified in the original interpretation. If not, SCOTUS would rule against them.
He ignores the greater context of the act though. He assumes once a word is used in one place, it has to mean the same everywhere. He forgets that natural language is fault-tolerant, and permits errors to be corrected by the reader. He wants to be a nit-picking schoolteacher or grammar nazi who knows exactly what you mean, but wants to fail you because of a spelling mistake or accidental misuse.
So you did what the guy who wrote "the State" instead of "the State or Secretary" did? Why shouldn't we hold you to your mistake, instead of the correction? It's pretty obvious what you meant, but what if slashdot editors banned you before you had a chance to correct yourself, should we stand on a strict, literal interpretation of your comment? Or can we all agree that you made a simple mistake, and interpret your words as you obviously meant them?
This is why we need a basic income. Not as if the world will fall apart because ppl prefer to work on their own projects rather than some new improved popunder technology - now with more intrusive sound!
Those poor rats. Why don't we put humans in cages and restrict their calories, and have a control group of humans with no exercise wheel for them? Because it would be unethical. Why is it ethical to treat fellow mortals such as rats in a way that's unethical to treat humans?
Let us cease testing animals, unless we can get their informed consent. Instead, let us research and develop things like organs on a chip. Then inform the rats of the findings too, so they can live happier, healthier, freer lives along with us.
We should be collaborating with animals to expand knowledge, not killing them in unreproducible experiments.
Why should we use price signals to determine knowledge and technology advancement? That kind of thinking led the government to stop investing in alternative fuel research when the price of oil dropped to $10/barrel in the 1990s. That is precisely the time government should have been funding more research into alternative fuels, as a hedge against market groupthink.
The government is not a business and should create money for the General Welfare (as the private sector creates money on the order of tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars a year, for personal profit).
Scarcity thinking applied to money throttles progress.
"This isn't about principles. It is about throttling the message."
Funny because that's what corporations do best, shut people up. Non-competes, non-disparagement clauses, DMCA takedowns, threatened lawsuits, outright censorship. No CEO swears to uphold the Constitution. Money spent on politics is designed to drown out any other speech.
The answer though is more public money. Dilute the influence of money on politics by giving money to everyone so we can drown out those who want to drown us out. Remove money from relevancy by increasing the money supply and transferring it directly to individuals.
Inflation is negated through indexation such that purchasing power does not decrease, no matter how much the money supply increases.
Yeah but those "sound scientific principles" include a lot of wiggle room. Engineers use safety factors which can cover up a lot of behavior that doesn't fit the model. The model is faith-based, ultimately. Any faith can guess right.
I don't hate science. I pursue computer science. I also think there are religions such as Jainism which allow for modification to their philosophies. Mahavir added the Brahmacharya vow, for example. He changed the religion. That is part of the Jain philosophy, that the religion can evolve.
The Dalai Lama has also said that if science conclusively proves some aspect of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.
I think scientists like Krauss are basically ignorant about the full scope of religion. I think they have personal issues with Christianity and assume all religions are like that, with a creator god. But Jainism has no creator god.
Thus I think both science and religion are blundering towards the truth. I wish science would stop rejecting theories based on priors that basically become one though, which means no evidence will disprove them. So I wish scientists would be more humble and not automatically place themselves in opposition to religion.
But this is not exclusive to science, nor absent from religion. Karma in Indian religions is the law of cause and effect. Hinduism abandoned the sacrifice because of karma, because the predicted results of sacrifice didn't materialize.
In science, prediction often applies within a narrow range of physical phenomena. But scientists faithfully extend that range. Conservation laws are one common example. We don't know that energy is conserved in every detail, but we assume it does because of the law of conservation. Thus, the law is circular.
The evidence itself most often is based on what an authority told us. Authorities exclude evidence, throwing out data they don't like. Then the "evidence" comes to us, pre-packaged and prepped for us to come to the exact same conclusions as the authorities who doctored it (unconsciously, most often).
Authorities rely on the same tricks as preachers when presenting their evidence. They use emotion to underscore their points. They hand-wave a lot in their equations, setting variables arbitrarily, changing terminology, redefining terms, idiosyncratically using accepted symbols. In conclusion no, I don't trust authorities in science. I think science holds on to inherently flawed models way longer than it should, using the excuse about "rational thought" that you made in your post. I think science authorities should be more humble and admit that their model is flawed and not immediately dismiss other theories.
I think scientists have huge priors, in Bayesian terms, and the more entrenched a theory becomes socially the closer those priors get to 1. Then no amount of conflicting data will change their minds. So geologists attacked Wegener's continental drift theory for decades, using all sorts of disingenuous arguments to discount his reasoning. Was that rational? You define it as such. I see it as emotional gossip.
I think the evidence used to support current models is shaky. So in engineering you use a safety factor of 2 or more, which can cover up a lot of contrary evidence, for example.
Yeah but the cool thing is, we can build simulations of both and make a personal, individual choice which we'd rather live in. So the two (and other) theories can be implemented by computer science, making them true even if they weren't before. And they can all be true at the same time, in parallel.
Slashdot Mirror
People make the best Soylent Green.
Why not just smoke a peace pipe with them? Those bulldozers cause a lot of damage. Scientists need to mellow out, get high more, look at the heavens from a more spiritual point of view. Fuck the observatory. Just go camping, get back in balance with nature.
Let's turn every fern into a no trespassing sign. Privatize photosynthesis!
So who gave the observatory the land? Your christian God?
So it's guns that give you property rights?
Keep it as public ground. Let the scientists fuck off to someplace else. Those observatories ruin mountaintops, destroy the natural lines that are so beautiful. Fuck those scientists. They're a bunch of poindexters way too full of themselves. Fuck them.
Drugs are a civil rights issue, an unalienable self-evident right. The court should rule that Congress cannot take away my freedom to do drugs.
It'll be corrected. I want to marry my bag of drugs!
I've been to jail a few times for possession. How are mandatory minimums for drugs still constitutional?
How do you know you're not projecting? Homosexuals existed in the Founding Fathers' times, in their circles of friends. The writers of the constitution understood that times change and that compromises such as the sanctioning of slavery would eventually be corrected. That they didn't mention homosexual rights as protected does not mean they didn't expect future generations to include homosexuality as a protected right.
No, they should expand constitutional rights, like the right to drugs. Reagan was wrong. Drugs are a civil rights issue. The government used to think drugs was a constitutional amendment issue. The court should bring them back to that position. How did they slip out of that one again?
I don't believe your story. You keep saying Medicare, I think you mean Medicaid. If you have that basic fact wrong how many mistakes did you make in the rest of your account?
It's clear that no one who wrote the bill wanted the subsidies only applied to state exchanges. It's clear from the context of the bill that the State in the passage in question refers to the State and the Federal Government. The authors of the bill have made this clear.
Republicans want to use some silly grammar-school enforcement of consistent usage as an excuse to gut a bill they don't like but couldn't vote down.
Language allows for the reader to correct obvious mistakes, unlike a compiler with a computer language. Natural language is more flexible, less brittle. SCOTUS simply acted as a reader, automatically correcting the obvious mistakes in the text.
If Congress makes another obvious mistake and refuses to fix it, then the EPA would be justified in the original interpretation. If not, SCOTUS would rule against them.
Your slippery-slope paranoia is unwarranted. FUD.
He ignores the greater context of the act though. He assumes once a word is used in one place, it has to mean the same everywhere. He forgets that natural language is fault-tolerant, and permits errors to be corrected by the reader. He wants to be a nit-picking schoolteacher or grammar nazi who knows exactly what you mean, but wants to fail you because of a spelling mistake or accidental misuse.
So you did what the guy who wrote "the State" instead of "the State or Secretary" did? Why shouldn't we hold you to your mistake, instead of the correction? It's pretty obvious what you meant, but what if slashdot editors banned you before you had a chance to correct yourself, should we stand on a strict, literal interpretation of your comment? Or can we all agree that you made a simple mistake, and interpret your words as you obviously meant them?
This is why we need a basic income. Not as if the world will fall apart because ppl prefer to work on their own projects rather than some new improved popunder technology - now with more intrusive sound!
Those poor rats. Why don't we put humans in cages and restrict their calories, and have a control group of humans with no exercise wheel for them? Because it would be unethical. Why is it ethical to treat fellow mortals such as rats in a way that's unethical to treat humans?
Let us cease testing animals, unless we can get their informed consent. Instead, let us research and develop things like organs on a chip. Then inform the rats of the findings too, so they can live happier, healthier, freer lives along with us.
We should be collaborating with animals to expand knowledge, not killing them in unreproducible experiments.
Why should we use price signals to determine knowledge and technology advancement? That kind of thinking led the government to stop investing in alternative fuel research when the price of oil dropped to $10/barrel in the 1990s. That is precisely the time government should have been funding more research into alternative fuels, as a hedge against market groupthink.
The government is not a business and should create money for the General Welfare (as the private sector creates money on the order of tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars a year, for personal profit).
Scarcity thinking applied to money throttles progress.
"This isn't about principles. It is about throttling the message."
Funny because that's what corporations do best, shut people up. Non-competes, non-disparagement clauses, DMCA takedowns, threatened lawsuits, outright censorship. No CEO swears to uphold the Constitution. Money spent on politics is designed to drown out any other speech.
The answer though is more public money. Dilute the influence of money on politics by giving money to everyone so we can drown out those who want to drown us out. Remove money from relevancy by increasing the money supply and transferring it directly to individuals.
Inflation is negated through indexation such that purchasing power does not decrease, no matter how much the money supply increases.
Yeah but those "sound scientific principles" include a lot of wiggle room. Engineers use safety factors which can cover up a lot of behavior that doesn't fit the model. The model is faith-based, ultimately. Any faith can guess right.
Scientific skepticism is an assumption, a conclusion without proof, which is faith.
I don't hate science. I pursue computer science. I also think there are religions such as Jainism which allow for modification to their philosophies. Mahavir added the Brahmacharya vow, for example. He changed the religion. That is part of the Jain philosophy, that the religion can evolve.
The Dalai Lama has also said that if science conclusively proves some aspect of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.
I think scientists like Krauss are basically ignorant about the full scope of religion. I think they have personal issues with Christianity and assume all religions are like that, with a creator god. But Jainism has no creator god.
Thus I think both science and religion are blundering towards the truth. I wish science would stop rejecting theories based on priors that basically become one though, which means no evidence will disprove them. So I wish scientists would be more humble and not automatically place themselves in opposition to religion.
But this is not exclusive to science, nor absent from religion. Karma in Indian religions is the law of cause and effect. Hinduism abandoned the sacrifice because of karma, because the predicted results of sacrifice didn't materialize.
In science, prediction often applies within a narrow range of physical phenomena. But scientists faithfully extend that range. Conservation laws are one common example. We don't know that energy is conserved in every detail, but we assume it does because of the law of conservation. Thus, the law is circular.
And the commitment to a model's axioms is always implied by scientists as a precondition to whatever explanation they are offering.
The evidence itself most often is based on what an authority told us. Authorities exclude evidence, throwing out data they don't like. Then the "evidence" comes to us, pre-packaged and prepped for us to come to the exact same conclusions as the authorities who doctored it (unconsciously, most often).
Authorities rely on the same tricks as preachers when presenting their evidence. They use emotion to underscore their points. They hand-wave a lot in their equations, setting variables arbitrarily, changing terminology, redefining terms, idiosyncratically using accepted symbols. In conclusion no, I don't trust authorities in science. I think science holds on to inherently flawed models way longer than it should, using the excuse about "rational thought" that you made in your post. I think science authorities should be more humble and admit that their model is flawed and not immediately dismiss other theories.
I think scientists have huge priors, in Bayesian terms, and the more entrenched a theory becomes socially the closer those priors get to 1. Then no amount of conflicting data will change their minds. So geologists attacked Wegener's continental drift theory for decades, using all sorts of disingenuous arguments to discount his reasoning. Was that rational? You define it as such. I see it as emotional gossip.
I think the evidence used to support current models is shaky. So in engineering you use a safety factor of 2 or more, which can cover up a lot of contrary evidence, for example.
Yeah but the cool thing is, we can build simulations of both and make a personal, individual choice which we'd rather live in. So the two (and other) theories can be implemented by computer science, making them true even if they weren't before. And they can all be true at the same time, in parallel.