Since BoB and MC have effectively won EVE, they would crush the SL newcomers.
But I admit that it would be interesting to attend a Second Life dance party in Jita. I wonder how Caldari dance?
I just read Feynman's speech on Cargo Cult Science. It's excellent. He's not talking about just pseudo-science, but the everyday practice of mainstream science.
Here's a quote.
All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on -- with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using -- not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.
I looked up the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running the rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic example of cargo cult science.
Great post. However, note many of the replies to your post seem to think you are only referencing so-called pseudo-science advocates. I think your ideas apply to plenty of people in mainstream science.
What do you think?
Perhaps conservatives dislike "ambiguity" because they desire logical rigor. Maybe conservative brains are wired to prefer consistency, while liberal brains "tolerate" contradictions and absurdities.
Maybe.
I liked Vendetta Online. I thoroughly disliked EVE Online.
EVE is an MMO which has been won by BoB and MC. I don't know if they had benefit of cheating devs or not. If they did, shame on them. If they didn't, congratulations to them for achieving total dominance.
But either way, the game is won. If you are in BoB or MC, then you win. If you aren't, you lose. Period.
Find another game in which the outcome is up for grabs. Porting the game doesn't change anything.
String Theory ST) has been tested as thoroughly as the Standard Model (SM). It's an alternative model, and physics presents mathematical models of the world. The models aren't the world. Insofar as String Theory predicts the same things as the Standard Model, it is just as tested as the Standard Model.
All this talk of "untested String Theory" misses the point. It is very difficult to create tests that distinguish ST from the SM. But the observations predicted by each have been throughly tested because their predictions are very nearly the same. Scientists are failing to distinguish between observations that validate the models and observations the distinguish the models. It may turn out that there are no distinguishing observations, in which case ST and SM would be equivalent models.
Why does that prospect make physicists act like Creationists, calling ST "untested"? Some physicists balk at branes, but accept the existence of forces which have never been observed either! It's another example of slouching fundamentalism in science, caused by a lack of understanding (or an outright rejection) of model theory among physicists.
Note to physicists: your math is a model, it 'aint the real world.
Oh no, some years back I had did a thoroughgoing analysis of several EOs related to classification and declassification. This was one of them. I'm afraid you've erred by misconstruing the logical relations in Sec. 3.1 (c). I'm very sure that particular point has been made.
Likewise, I'm sure that the original point has been made, too.
On the other hand, I admit that I have not fully justified my claims about libertarianism.
At this point, I'm happy to give you the last word.
Since you fail to grasp that Sec 3.1 (c) is a logical 'or' not a logical 'and', and since you want to engage in ad hominem --- I'll assume you are in a state of hopeless ignorance.
There is no memo, but you did miss Executive Order 12958 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html) You may find Sec. 3.1 (c) informative.
Libertarianism is abusive of liberty because it is equivalent to anarchy, and anarchy is abusive of liberty.
I think Bush is more incompetent than dishonest. Insofar as he delegates his powers, the acts of his Secretaries, Under Secretaries, and advisers, are his acts. I did not claim the President is a liar, nor do I think he is in fact a liar, but I do think he is a boob. While most here on/. will agree that Bush is a boob, my reasons are probably in clear opposition to most/. posters --- I think that libertarianism is idiotic and destructive of liberty. Libs and neo-conservatives are both boobs. Interesting.
If the President does it, it's not a leak. The President, in his exercise of Executive authority, can classify or declassify information at will --- even, and most especially, to gain a political advantage in time of war.
Secrecy in government is essential. War strategy requires secrecy. Intelligence gathering requires secrecy. Treaty negotiations require secrecy. Law enforcement requires secrecy. The Founders knew this, and they created the Executive specifically to allow for secrecy. See Federalist #64 and #70. Many of the posts here seem wholly ignorant of this basic fact of governance.
All executive offices have ways to report wrongdoing, without compromising national security. For example, any member of the intelligence agencies can petition the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Office of the Inspector General who has a special office for oversight of the NSA.
Our intelligence agencies cannot keep secrets. This is a fatal problem for a nation-state.
The leaker revealed war secrets during armed conflicts. He ought to be imprisoned for life.
This reminds me of two of my main thematic gripes against the series. (1) Rowling presents knowledge as nothing more or less than knowing your destiny. (2) Rowling presents a world where you are not what you do, but what you were born to do.
Balderdash.
Slashdot Mirror
Another google puff piece disguised as an article. Another score for Google PR.
They both suck ass, IMHO.
EVE has been won by BOB/MC. A new client won't fix that. Play another game in which the outcome is still in play.
Since BoB and MC have effectively won EVE, they would crush the SL newcomers. But I admit that it would be interesting to attend a Second Life dance party in Jita. I wonder how Caldari dance?
Here's a quote.
Great post. However, note many of the replies to your post seem to think you are only referencing so-called pseudo-science advocates. I think your ideas apply to plenty of people in mainstream science. What do you think?
Yep.
Terrestrial heat is simply being redistributed from the north pole to the south pole. Of course, that fact won't bolster the case for socialist-style central planning schemes, so count on the IPCC and the media to avoid it. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent
This is a brilliant post!
Is the slashdot crew on the CCP payroll?
Perhaps conservatives dislike "ambiguity" because they desire logical rigor. Maybe conservative brains are wired to prefer consistency, while liberal brains "tolerate" contradictions and absurdities. Maybe.
Here I read much hystrical commentary about "losing our rights." What rights are violated by surveilling foreign terrorists or reading pen registries?
I liked Vendetta Online. I thoroughly disliked EVE Online.
EVE is an MMO which has been won by BoB and MC. I don't know if they had benefit of cheating devs or not. If they did, shame on them. If they didn't, congratulations to them for achieving total dominance.
But either way, the game is won. If you are in BoB or MC, then you win. If you aren't, you lose. Period.
Find another game in which the outcome is up for grabs. Porting the game doesn't change anything.
String Theory ST) has been tested as thoroughly as the Standard Model (SM). It's an alternative model, and physics presents mathematical models of the world. The models aren't the world. Insofar as String Theory predicts the same things as the Standard Model, it is just as tested as the Standard Model. All this talk of "untested String Theory" misses the point. It is very difficult to create tests that distinguish ST from the SM. But the observations predicted by each have been throughly tested because their predictions are very nearly the same. Scientists are failing to distinguish between observations that validate the models and observations the distinguish the models. It may turn out that there are no distinguishing observations, in which case ST and SM would be equivalent models. Why does that prospect make physicists act like Creationists, calling ST "untested"? Some physicists balk at branes, but accept the existence of forces which have never been observed either! It's another example of slouching fundamentalism in science, caused by a lack of understanding (or an outright rejection) of model theory among physicists. Note to physicists: your math is a model, it 'aint the real world.
Oh no, some years back I had did a thoroughgoing analysis of several EOs related to classification and declassification. This was one of them. I'm afraid you've erred by misconstruing the logical relations in Sec. 3.1 (c). I'm very sure that particular point has been made. Likewise, I'm sure that the original point has been made, too. On the other hand, I admit that I have not fully justified my claims about libertarianism. At this point, I'm happy to give you the last word.
Since you fail to grasp that Sec 3.1 (c) is a logical 'or' not a logical 'and', and since you want to engage in ad hominem --- I'll assume you are in a state of hopeless ignorance.
Not really. What should I look for?
There is no memo, but you did miss Executive Order 12958 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html) You may find Sec. 3.1 (c) informative. Libertarianism is abusive of liberty because it is equivalent to anarchy, and anarchy is abusive of liberty.
I think Bush is more incompetent than dishonest. Insofar as he delegates his powers, the acts of his Secretaries, Under Secretaries, and advisers, are his acts. I did not claim the President is a liar, nor do I think he is in fact a liar, but I do think he is a boob. While most here on /. will agree that Bush is a boob, my reasons are probably in clear opposition to most /. posters --- I think that libertarianism is idiotic and destructive of liberty. Libs and neo-conservatives are both boobs. Interesting.
If the President does it, it's not a leak. The President, in his exercise of Executive authority, can classify or declassify information at will --- even, and most especially, to gain a political advantage in time of war.
That's a self-refuting statement. In police states, criticism of the government is not allowed, even on an Internet forum.
Here, here! You are perfectly correct. Imprison the leaker for life.
Yes. The President is the Executive Branch. Classification of state secrets is solely his prerogative.
Secrecy in government is essential. War strategy requires secrecy. Intelligence gathering requires secrecy. Treaty negotiations require secrecy. Law enforcement requires secrecy. The Founders knew this, and they created the Executive specifically to allow for secrecy. See Federalist #64 and #70. Many of the posts here seem wholly ignorant of this basic fact of governance. All executive offices have ways to report wrongdoing, without compromising national security. For example, any member of the intelligence agencies can petition the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Office of the Inspector General who has a special office for oversight of the NSA. Our intelligence agencies cannot keep secrets. This is a fatal problem for a nation-state. The leaker revealed war secrets during armed conflicts. He ought to be imprisoned for life.
This reminds me of two of my main thematic gripes against the series. (1) Rowling presents knowledge as nothing more or less than knowing your destiny. (2) Rowling presents a world where you are not what you do, but what you were born to do. Balderdash.