I agree with most of the replies that no, we shouldn't be arresting people for one comment on ESPN. You can't tell what someone's intent is from a single line of text. His family and co-workers should get him help if they see warning signs that he might commit violence.
I'd like to add that in today's society it's bizarre how there's this "lottery" where your life could be ruined for any minor copyright infringement or off-color statement you say online if you are "lucky" enough to have your comment viewed by a detective / police or your IP address tracked.
I don't think he should go to jail for an off-handed comment like that. He could have just meant that they're annoying kids. I think that his co-workers, family, and friends should be the ones that pay attention if he might be headed towards a shooting spree...if we arrest everyone for writing a comment that "sounds" bad we're making a mockery of free speech. And you'll get so many false positives it's ridiculous.
Has anyone else noticed that every single crime is now being labeled a "terrorist act"? It seems like every crime I read about in the news is labeled as being "terrorist" related. Even when the crime has absolutely nothing to do with bombs or anything traditionally considered to be terrorism.
OK, so if we institute a law to not allow people with dark skin to be police, it's okay, because this filter is being applied to everyone?
Last I checked, this is how we form subsets.
Define A = {p | p is a person and p has an IQ 170}
Define B = {p | p is a person and p has white skin}
These are completely analogous, therefore only allowing police officers from set B should be an OK law.
I think we should institute a new law:
Person x can only write laws if x is in the set {p | p is a person and p understands basic set theory}.
QED
HAHAHA, I'm in love, you bastards! I'm going on another date with the most wonderful girl I could possibly imagine tomorrow, and I want to tell the whole world!!!!!!!! I've never felt so happy in my whole bloody life!!! HAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you use a mouse properly, it should require only small movements of the forearm. Positioned properly, your wrist should be in a neutral position. Moreover, a good mouse requires only slight finger pressure to press the buttons. A trackball, on the other hand, requires fast movement of one's thumb, which will quickly tire one's thumb (from my experience). One's thumb simply isn't designed to move in all 4 directions with equal ease. Rolling the trackball to the left is highly awkward, from my experience.
More to the point, let's play HL2 Deathmatch 1 on 1! Maybe you will then realize why every pro gamer in the history of, err, pro gaming, has used a mouse! PWNT!
Okay, so "useless" is a strong term. The spirit of my comment is that human intelligence and the interaction between one's abilities and the world are far more complicated than an IQ test suggests. Moreover, I have taken several, and the standard deviation between my personal trials is greater than a few points, so I doubt that the few points "make the difference between a B+ and an A" as the article suggests.
An IQ test gives a general appraisal of one's mental abilities, but is a limited test. An integer between 0 and 200 cannot describe the human brain. Moreover, as far as grades are concerned, one's effort and training plays a much greater role than 2 points of IQ. I would also like to point out that Richard Feynman's sister had a higher IQ than Feynman, yet no one knows HER name!
I never claimed correlation implied causality. However, for all the historic data, the CO2 levels change with the temperature. And we have a mechanism by which CO2 causes an increase in temperature. Thus, the best scientific theory proposed so far indicates that more CO2 does result in higher temperatures. If you oppose this, you need to propose a BETTER MODEL. It is rather unscientific to merely say "it could be both" or "we don't know." We don't know ANYTHING for certain, but Newton's Laws certainly seem to hold up for everyday life! This is all besides my original point, however, and maybe I never should have introduced an actual example. I don't know what you mean by higher temperature resulting in higher CO2 being easily proven in high school chemistry. If no chemical reactions take place, the amount of CO2 will be conserved...it's due to CO2 released from glaciers, and possibly some biological effects (such as organisms in the ocean).
First of all, my point about CO2 was an example. Second of all, there is a correlation, despite the fact that the CO2 levels lag behind the increase in temperature. A good scientific explanation at this point for the lag is that there is a feedback mechanism between CO2 and temperature. In other words, something starts the end of an ice age, such as increased radiation from the sun. The melting of icebergs or some other effect then increases CO2 levels. This in turn causes the temperature to rise yet more, due to the greenhouse effect or another mechanism, and so on. The point was not in my example, so much as that the validity of global warming should be determined by physical evidence, not opinions or politics. Our course of action is a matter of opinion, however.
Moreover, the greenhouse effect is a matter of basic physics. It is extremely well established that CO2 levels have risen and that glaciers are melting. These both happened as temperatures rose in the past, so in my opinion (not a matter of science though an educated opinion) it would be foolish to ignore global warming.
This Claus fellow doesn't seem to understand that science is objective. Scientific theories aren't to be argued subjectively. They are supported or refuted on the basis of physical evidence. No theory is the absolute truth, so much as the most accurate description we currently have available. "Scientific consensus" merely refers to the fact that any logical human being who has studied the evidence for global warming will agree that historically there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that the CO2 levels have been rising (for example). There is a very good recent article in New Scientist that clears up a lot of confusion on global warming. I agree with spun that it isn't fruitful to "argue" about global warming to ensure that "both sides of the argument" are equally represented. Those who don't "believe" in global warming must present a theory supported by evidence.
A funny example of the press feeling it has to present both sides of a scientific theory (as if there are simply 2 sides): A Time magazine said "Was Darwin Wrong?" on the front cover. The first page of the article said "NO!" in huge letters. LOL!
This Claus fellow doesn't seem to understand that science is objective. Sure, nothing is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, scientific theories aren't to be argued subjectively. They are supported or refuted on the basis of physical evidence. "Scientific consensus" merely refers to the fact that any logical human being who has studied the evidence for global warming will agree that historically there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that the CO2 levels have been rising (for example). There is a very good recent article in New Scientist that clears up a lot of confusion. I agree with spun that it isn't fruitful to "argue" about global warming to ensure that "both sides of the argument" are equally represented. Those who don't "believe" in global warming must present a theory supported by evidence.
A funny example of the press feeling it has to present both sides of a scientific theory (as if there are simply 2 sides): A Time magazine said "Was Darwin Wrong?" on the front cover. The first page of the article said "NO!" in huge letters. LOL!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of the replies that no, we shouldn't be arresting people for one comment on ESPN. You can't tell what someone's intent is from a single line of text. His family and co-workers should get him help if they see warning signs that he might commit violence. I'd like to add that in today's society it's bizarre how there's this "lottery" where your life could be ruined for any minor copyright infringement or off-color statement you say online if you are "lucky" enough to have your comment viewed by a detective / police or your IP address tracked.
I don't think he should go to jail for an off-handed comment like that. He could have just meant that they're annoying kids. I think that his co-workers, family, and friends should be the ones that pay attention if he might be headed towards a shooting spree...if we arrest everyone for writing a comment that "sounds" bad we're making a mockery of free speech. And you'll get so many false positives it's ridiculous. Has anyone else noticed that every single crime is now being labeled a "terrorist act"? It seems like every crime I read about in the news is labeled as being "terrorist" related. Even when the crime has absolutely nothing to do with bombs or anything traditionally considered to be terrorism.
What's a calculator? Do you mean a pocket-sized symbolic integration device?
OK, so if we institute a law to not allow people with dark skin to be police, it's okay, because this filter is being applied to everyone? Last I checked, this is how we form subsets. Define A = {p | p is a person and p has an IQ 170} Define B = {p | p is a person and p has white skin} These are completely analogous, therefore only allowing police officers from set B should be an OK law. I think we should institute a new law: Person x can only write laws if x is in the set {p | p is a person and p understands basic set theory}. QED
HAHAHA, I'm in love, you bastards! I'm going on another date with the most wonderful girl I could possibly imagine tomorrow, and I want to tell the whole world!!!!!!!! I've never felt so happy in my whole bloody life!!! HAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you use a mouse properly, it should require only small movements of the forearm. Positioned properly, your wrist should be in a neutral position. Moreover, a good mouse requires only slight finger pressure to press the buttons. A trackball, on the other hand, requires fast movement of one's thumb, which will quickly tire one's thumb (from my experience). One's thumb simply isn't designed to move in all 4 directions with equal ease. Rolling the trackball to the left is highly awkward, from my experience. More to the point, let's play HL2 Deathmatch 1 on 1! Maybe you will then realize why every pro gamer in the history of, err, pro gaming, has used a mouse! PWNT!
Okay, so "useless" is a strong term. The spirit of my comment is that human intelligence and the interaction between one's abilities and the world are far more complicated than an IQ test suggests. Moreover, I have taken several, and the standard deviation between my personal trials is greater than a few points, so I doubt that the few points "make the difference between a B+ and an A" as the article suggests.
An IQ test gives a general appraisal of one's mental abilities, but is a limited test. An integer between 0 and 200 cannot describe the human brain. Moreover, as far as grades are concerned, one's effort and training plays a much greater role than 2 points of IQ. I would also like to point out that Richard Feynman's sister had a higher IQ than Feynman, yet no one knows HER name!
I never claimed correlation implied causality. However, for all the historic data, the CO2 levels change with the temperature. And we have a mechanism by which CO2 causes an increase in temperature. Thus, the best scientific theory proposed so far indicates that more CO2 does result in higher temperatures. If you oppose this, you need to propose a BETTER MODEL. It is rather unscientific to merely say "it could be both" or "we don't know." We don't know ANYTHING for certain, but Newton's Laws certainly seem to hold up for everyday life! This is all besides my original point, however, and maybe I never should have introduced an actual example. I don't know what you mean by higher temperature resulting in higher CO2 being easily proven in high school chemistry. If no chemical reactions take place, the amount of CO2 will be conserved...it's due to CO2 released from glaciers, and possibly some biological effects (such as organisms in the ocean).
First of all, my point about CO2 was an example. Second of all, there is a correlation, despite the fact that the CO2 levels lag behind the increase in temperature. A good scientific explanation at this point for the lag is that there is a feedback mechanism between CO2 and temperature. In other words, something starts the end of an ice age, such as increased radiation from the sun. The melting of icebergs or some other effect then increases CO2 levels. This in turn causes the temperature to rise yet more, due to the greenhouse effect or another mechanism, and so on. The point was not in my example, so much as that the validity of global warming should be determined by physical evidence, not opinions or politics. Our course of action is a matter of opinion, however.
Moreover, the greenhouse effect is a matter of basic physics. It is extremely well established that CO2 levels have risen and that glaciers are melting. These both happened as temperatures rose in the past, so in my opinion (not a matter of science though an educated opinion) it would be foolish to ignore global warming.
This Claus fellow doesn't seem to understand that science is objective. Scientific theories aren't to be argued subjectively. They are supported or refuted on the basis of physical evidence. No theory is the absolute truth, so much as the most accurate description we currently have available. "Scientific consensus" merely refers to the fact that any logical human being who has studied the evidence for global warming will agree that historically there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that the CO2 levels have been rising (for example). There is a very good recent article in New Scientist that clears up a lot of confusion on global warming. I agree with spun that it isn't fruitful to "argue" about global warming to ensure that "both sides of the argument" are equally represented. Those who don't "believe" in global warming must present a theory supported by evidence. A funny example of the press feeling it has to present both sides of a scientific theory (as if there are simply 2 sides): A Time magazine said "Was Darwin Wrong?" on the front cover. The first page of the article said "NO!" in huge letters. LOL!
This Claus fellow doesn't seem to understand that science is objective. Sure, nothing is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, scientific theories aren't to be argued subjectively. They are supported or refuted on the basis of physical evidence. "Scientific consensus" merely refers to the fact that any logical human being who has studied the evidence for global warming will agree that historically there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that the CO2 levels have been rising (for example). There is a very good recent article in New Scientist that clears up a lot of confusion. I agree with spun that it isn't fruitful to "argue" about global warming to ensure that "both sides of the argument" are equally represented. Those who don't "believe" in global warming must present a theory supported by evidence. A funny example of the press feeling it has to present both sides of a scientific theory (as if there are simply 2 sides): A Time magazine said "Was Darwin Wrong?" on the front cover. The first page of the article said "NO!" in huge letters. LOL!