Artist: Britney Spears Song: Hit Me Baby Rating: Shit but for some reason I can't get it or her video out of my CPU Conclusion: Humans are weak and stupid, but I'm going to obsessively check the tabloid sites for news of her and blog about it.
I think I remember hearing that this same reasoning in the first gulf war led some commanders to order their troops to turn the intensity of their laser blinders down so that they worked only as laser sights to then kill the target.
I think it's probably just an excuse. While that sounds bad and hypocritical, I can empathize. If you're suddenly face to face with an enemy combatant, and he has a gun, you want to be sure he's not going to fire back. If you put a giant hole in his head and chest, he's not going to. If you shine a laser in his eyes, that's not quite as sure a thing, he might fire back blindly and hit you or another member of your squad.
Of course, it would be nice to have bloodless wars, but I myself would not want to be testing those nonlethal weapons when I'm up against lethal weapons.
One realistic solution might be to say we're no longer going to supply our "allies" with conventional guns, only with non-lethal devices like this, especially seeing as how about half the time we end up fighting our former allies and they use the guns we gave them against us.
After that ridiculous incident, I stopped relying on Wikipedia for anything substantive. Its accuracy can not be assured due to the bureaucratic toolboxes that moderate the site.
We really do need that perfectly moderated and unbiased information website which provides you with the complete truth and is never wrong. I hear the Chinese government is working on one, but in the meantime there's this news channel called Fox which is fair and balanced. I mean, that's their catchphrase, so you know it's true!
If you can't figure that out, you shouldn't be on the admissions comittee to any school.
The internet being public doesn't make all information on it relevant.
Also, judge much? "you shouldn't be getting into good schools?" What the hell? Is the best admission criterion really having an understanding of internet privacy? I would say not even close. You can be really smart about important things and not realize that. You can also be really smart and not realize someone snapped a picture of you and uploaded it in an unfortunate situation.
"Failing to read any of the extensive literature... is not an excuse for skepticism though." What you are saying is that everyone should either take your word for it, or study it themselves. The latter is reasonable, but not everyone can do it, and you're saying the only other valid response is to just take your word for it, and that is pure, unadulterated, bullshit.
If you're not capable of understanding a scientific theory, you work on understanding it. You don't say it's not true because you can't understand it.
If you want to prove or disprove evolution to yourself, do the experiments yourself. If you don't have the time or the resources, you could accept the results but question the logic if it's flawed.
What is unreasonable to me is to say "I can't do these experiments myself so I don't believe them." It sounds like you're saying that. It's unreasonable because what exactly are we supposed to do? Not come to any conclusions that you can't verify in your garage?
I also have to say, if scientists seem to demand that people "just take their word for it" it might be because they're used to dealing with creationists and assume any resistance to believing them is theologically-driven (and impossible to reason with.)
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you a little here. After all, I am an anti-intellecutual intelectual, advocating closed-mindedness and also mindlessness for the masses, and am full of bullshit. By the way, have you considered decaf?
I am a libertarian, and I tend to think that this is more common sense.
The more extended article goes on to say that libertarianism is strongly correlated with being startled when informed that some taxpayer-funded programs work.
I kid, I kid. Well, time to get back to my taxpayer-supported job...
if you, a scientist, cannot explain it easily enough for a non-scientist to understand, then how can you expect that non-scientists should just take your word for it?
By reading one of the many high-school level textbooks which explain it specifically for non-scientists.
We don't "believing that people should accept what they say JUST BECAUSE they say it." We spend more of our time explaining our findings, methods, rationale, and results than we do actually doing experiments. Failing to read any of the extensive literature (again, much of which is comprehensible to the completely uninitiated) is not an excuse for skepticism though. Books are out there that answer all of your questions on the subject.
If you can't be bothered to gain a high-school level understanding of evolution, that's no failing on our part, and yes, we do expect you to listen to people who have.
I am a Republican, though that's irrelevant to what I am saying.
It is relevant to the discussion. You seem to be trying to draw me into a line-by-line argument. For example you were critiquing the use of the word "basic" and how something that is basic could or could not be proven using simple methods. The only reason people get into line-by-line arguments is if they fundamentally disagree with someone and want to disprove anything they've said to try to win or something like that. I've found myself guilty of that a few times.
If you hadn't reacted strongly to something I said, you would have been arguing about "basic" only if you just liked to argue about anything. I'm not concerned with things like semantics, so that would be pointless.
If you were a creationist, then you might have been trying to defeat evolution on all fronts, and I'd be wasting my time defending what stands as the only scientific theory against an irrational point of view.
You're a republican, so it seems to me that your motivation here is to defend your canidate by picking me apart on minutiae. I'm not interested in doing that dance.
If you don't understand evolution and are skeptical about it, many people smarter than me have written about it much more concisely and clearly than I could here, you should be reading them, not challenging me to defend whether or not microevolution proves macroevolution. Your domino theory has also likely been written extensively about better than I could.
If you're just on a crusade to stamp out unreasonableness, well, you're not going to get anywhere in convincing someone online they're being unreasonable. I wasn't explaining myself well, partially because I'm at work and don't have time to write a well-thought-out essay on my political views.
Prediction: Apple, in what is becoming a war of "Who can make the most annoying ad" hires carrottop to do their next series.
Microsoft responds with bill gates simply walking on camera, then making "the most annoying sound in the world" for 2 minutes straight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cVlTeIATBs)
Okay, this has gotten ridiculous at some point. Are you by any chance a creationist or republican? I'm not trying to insult you or creationists or republicans, you just seem to have an agenda here.
Yar, that be not so insightful, ye landlubbing mods. Everybody loves chicken nuggets (even if they be not admitin' it) and the orange juice does keep them scurvy bones away. Best of all be ye old happymeal toy.
I can investigate claims and prove it to myself by the evidence of other people. Indeed, I've done precisely that. Evolution, you can't do that without a true scientific background, because it's too complex. You can only take someone's word for it.
You can observe microevolution and artificial selection. To prove to yourself that humans came from lower animals, pretty much the only thing you have to do after that is 1. have an open mind and 2. look at non-human primates.
It's really the open mind part that is the limiting factor, and you don't have to understand punctuated equalibrium to understand the basics of evolution.
Not understanding it and "logically" being skeptical of it aren't easily excusable. You likely don't understand the chemical mechanisms of the drugs your doctor perscribes you, but if you're not willing to understand the reasoning behind it you at least acknowledge that he knows more about it (or at least the pharmecutical company that made it does) and you should take his word for it that it works rather than believe it doesn't.
Not to mention Rocky 4 is in many ways the best Rocky. He beat the commies. Rocky 5 sucked, but it made Stallone make Rocky Balboa, which really was a great movie.
Here's hoping Halo 4 involves MC killing communist Covenant forces.
So you think all candidates for President should have an in-depth understanding of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, or neurology.
Funny, I thought we were electing a political leader, not a Scientist in Chief.
No, as I said, BASICS.
"What on earth gives you the idea that basic in science means something you could prove to yourself using simple investigative methods?" Because you said you want the President to understand it, and the President is usually not a scientist.
A basic principle of chemistry is that all things are made out of atoms. You can't prove that yourself. The president should know that. Its the same thing with the basics of biology. As you said I'm not even talking about advanced evolutionary theory here. But denying the very fundamentals of biology is not a good sign, and is not someone you want holding the purse strings for biology research.
Um, it's only "basic" if a non-scientist could prove it to themselves using simple investigative methods. No, it is not "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologist who was part of what could be considered the second revolution in evolutionary theory (the synthesis of genetics with natural selection, second to Darwin's original formulation) wrote an essay, the title of which speaks for itself: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Take an in-depth look at any aspect of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, neurology, etc and the only reasonable explanation is evolution. I used basic as in "It's the basis of any rational understanding of biology."
What on earth gives you the idea that basic in science means something you could prove to yourself using simple investigative methods?
Democratic candidates are not going to move further left, the Republicans are not going to move any further right, no matter if you vote for a Pat Buchanan or a Ralph Nader.
Correction: they're not going to move right or left WITHOUT the voting population moving right or left.
Liberals and leftists seem to think that just voting for someone very left every 4 years in the general election is enough to get what they want. Republicans and the right wingers realize it's actually about the time in between elections that matters. They spend the intervening time preaching that evolution is a lie, that abortion is murder, that God wants us to rule the world, living in a country with homosexuals is a sin, and that trickle down economics made everyone millionaires but then democrats spent all our money on eskimo poetry. They push the voters right and slander the left while the left is waiting for the next election, then during the elections they come together to vote for the republican, even if he's not their poster child. They realize that come elections, you have to get your guy elected even if he's not your perfect canidate.
Liberals on the other hand seem to think that putting a sarcastic bumper sticker on your car when things get really bad is all you need to do besides vote to get your ideal government.
When it comes time to vote, some of them wait until the primaries are over, then start paying attention. That the democratic nominee doesn't advocate pot legalization or whatever they believe in makes them say there's no difference between the two canidates, they vote for a 3rd party canidate, and then are upset that their least preferred canidate won.
To some degree that happens to both parties, but party unity is much higher with the right, and the naderites quantifyably handed the election to Bush.
Most americans are actually more liberal than washington, the electoral college scam doesn't help, but it would be a non-issue if the left would realize you can't ignore the issues during the off season and then make up for it with a wasted vote.
That wasn't a quote! That was a question! You can't change the subject of a quote and put in more details and still say it's a quote! You asked a question thinking it was rhetorical, and are trying to cover it up, admit it!
I'll be honest, I haven't ever seen the life of brian. I was too busy watching commie bastards get blown out of the sky. Plus, did monty python ever have sweaty, muscly men playing volleyball? Wait... uh... what?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's be more specific here: the content delivery is defective. It's not the game itself.
Well, er, uh, what's an oliver twist quote without some bitter irony?
Fixed that for you
"DRM punishes legitimate users."
"There's no real difference between the canidates."
Bumper sticker sentiments like that get repeated as their own justification, so it's good to mark them redundant.
The oliver twist quote was definitely not redundant though.
I think I remember hearing that this same reasoning in the first gulf war led some commanders to order their troops to turn the intensity of their laser blinders down so that they worked only as laser sights to then kill the target.
I think it's probably just an excuse. While that sounds bad and hypocritical, I can empathize. If you're suddenly face to face with an enemy combatant, and he has a gun, you want to be sure he's not going to fire back. If you put a giant hole in his head and chest, he's not going to. If you shine a laser in his eyes, that's not quite as sure a thing, he might fire back blindly and hit you or another member of your squad.
Of course, it would be nice to have bloodless wars, but I myself would not want to be testing those nonlethal weapons when I'm up against lethal weapons.
One realistic solution might be to say we're no longer going to supply our "allies" with conventional guns, only with non-lethal devices like this, especially seeing as how about half the time we end up fighting our former allies and they use the guns we gave them against us.
After that ridiculous incident, I stopped relying on Wikipedia for anything substantive. Its accuracy can not be assured due to the bureaucratic toolboxes that moderate the site.
We really do need that perfectly moderated and unbiased information website which provides you with the complete truth and is never wrong. I hear the Chinese government is working on one, but in the meantime there's this news channel called Fox which is fair and balanced. I mean, that's their catchphrase, so you know it's true!
If you can't figure that out, you shouldn't be on the admissions comittee to any school.
The internet being public doesn't make all information on it relevant.
Also, judge much? "you shouldn't be getting into good schools?" What the hell? Is the best admission criterion really having an understanding of internet privacy? I would say not even close. You can be really smart about important things and not realize that. You can also be really smart and not realize someone snapped a picture of you and uploaded it in an unfortunate situation.
Because clearly the PS3 "community" has enough quality people capable of using 4 letter words.
"Failing to read any of the extensive literature ... is not an excuse for skepticism though." What you are saying is that everyone should either take your word for it, or study it themselves. The latter is reasonable, but not everyone can do it, and you're saying the only other valid response is to just take your word for it, and that is pure, unadulterated, bullshit.
If you're not capable of understanding a scientific theory, you work on understanding it. You don't say it's not true because you can't understand it.
If you want to prove or disprove evolution to yourself, do the experiments yourself. If you don't have the time or the resources, you could accept the results but question the logic if it's flawed.
What is unreasonable to me is to say "I can't do these experiments myself so I don't believe them." It sounds like you're saying that. It's unreasonable because what exactly are we supposed to do? Not come to any conclusions that you can't verify in your garage?
I also have to say, if scientists seem to demand that people "just take their word for it" it might be because they're used to dealing with creationists and assume any resistance to believing them is theologically-driven (and impossible to reason with.)
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you a little here. After all, I am an anti-intellecutual intelectual, advocating closed-mindedness and also mindlessness for the masses, and am full of bullshit. By the way, have you considered decaf?
I am a libertarian, and I tend to think that this is more common sense.
The more extended article goes on to say that libertarianism is strongly correlated with being startled when informed that some taxpayer-funded programs work.
I kid, I kid. Well, time to get back to my taxpayer-supported job...
Homosexuality occurs in nature, and tends to happen during overpopulation.
I'm not a biologist, but one did say that to me once.
No, not over drinks.
In a crowded elevator? In china? In a crowded elevator IN china?
if you, a scientist, cannot explain it easily enough for a non-scientist to understand, then how can you expect that non-scientists should just take your word for it?
By reading one of the many high-school level textbooks which explain it specifically for non-scientists.
We don't "believing that people should accept what they say JUST BECAUSE they say it." We spend more of our time explaining our findings, methods, rationale, and results than we do actually doing experiments. Failing to read any of the extensive literature (again, much of which is comprehensible to the completely uninitiated) is not an excuse for skepticism though. Books are out there that answer all of your questions on the subject.
If you can't be bothered to gain a high-school level understanding of evolution, that's no failing on our part, and yes, we do expect you to listen to people who have.
I am a Republican, though that's irrelevant to what I am saying.
It is relevant to the discussion. You seem to be trying to draw me into a line-by-line argument. For example you were critiquing the use of the word "basic" and how something that is basic could or could not be proven using simple methods. The only reason people get into line-by-line arguments is if they fundamentally disagree with someone and want to disprove anything they've said to try to win or something like that. I've found myself guilty of that a few times.
If you hadn't reacted strongly to something I said, you would have been arguing about "basic" only if you just liked to argue about anything. I'm not concerned with things like semantics, so that would be pointless.
If you were a creationist, then you might have been trying to defeat evolution on all fronts, and I'd be wasting my time defending what stands as the only scientific theory against an irrational point of view.
You're a republican, so it seems to me that your motivation here is to defend your canidate by picking me apart on minutiae. I'm not interested in doing that dance.
If you don't understand evolution and are skeptical about it, many people smarter than me have written about it much more concisely and clearly than I could here, you should be reading them, not challenging me to defend whether or not microevolution proves macroevolution. Your domino theory has also likely been written extensively about better than I could.
If you're just on a crusade to stamp out unreasonableness, well, you're not going to get anywhere in convincing someone online they're being unreasonable. I wasn't explaining myself well, partially because I'm at work and don't have time to write a well-thought-out essay on my political views.
Unless you already have two peg-legs, you'll never protect your bones by going there.
Yar, thar be discrimination against we disabled bucaneer americans.
Prediction: Apple, in what is becoming a war of "Who can make the most annoying ad" hires carrottop to do their next series.
Microsoft responds with bill gates simply walking on camera, then making "the most annoying sound in the world" for 2 minutes straight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cVlTeIATBs)
Okay, this has gotten ridiculous at some point. Are you by any chance a creationist or republican? I'm not trying to insult you or creationists or republicans, you just seem to have an agenda here.
Yar, that be not so insightful, ye landlubbing mods. Everybody loves chicken nuggets (even if they be not admitin' it) and the orange juice does keep them scurvy bones away. Best of all be ye old happymeal toy.
I can investigate claims and prove it to myself by the evidence of other people. Indeed, I've done precisely that. Evolution, you can't do that without a true scientific background, because it's too complex. You can only take someone's word for it.
You can observe microevolution and artificial selection. To prove to yourself that humans came from lower animals, pretty much the only thing you have to do after that is 1. have an open mind and 2. look at non-human primates.
It's really the open mind part that is the limiting factor, and you don't have to understand punctuated equalibrium to understand the basics of evolution.
Not understanding it and "logically" being skeptical of it aren't easily excusable. You likely don't understand the chemical mechanisms of the drugs your doctor perscribes you, but if you're not willing to understand the reasoning behind it you at least acknowledge that he knows more about it (or at least the pharmecutical company that made it does) and you should take his word for it that it works rather than believe it doesn't.
Not to mention Rocky 4 is in many ways the best Rocky. He beat the commies. Rocky 5 sucked, but it made Stallone make Rocky Balboa, which really was a great movie.
Here's hoping Halo 4 involves MC killing communist Covenant forces.
Someone on slashdot doesn't like microsoft product! Weather and sports up next!
It was the autobots trying to save us from the destruction of the earth! The decepticon is the LCH, which is really the Colliditron.
So you think all candidates for President should have an in-depth understanding of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, or neurology.
Funny, I thought we were electing a political leader, not a Scientist in Chief.
No, as I said, BASICS.
"What on earth gives you the idea that basic in science means something you could prove to yourself using simple investigative methods?" Because you said you want the President to understand it, and the President is usually not a scientist.
A basic principle of chemistry is that all things are made out of atoms. You can't prove that yourself. The president should know that. Its the same thing with the basics of biology. As you said I'm not even talking about advanced evolutionary theory here. But denying the very fundamentals of biology is not a good sign, and is not someone you want holding the purse strings for biology research.
Um, it's only "basic" if a non-scientist could prove it to themselves using simple investigative methods. No, it is not "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologist who was part of what could be considered the second revolution in evolutionary theory (the synthesis of genetics with natural selection, second to Darwin's original formulation) wrote an essay, the title of which speaks for itself: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Take an in-depth look at any aspect of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, neurology, etc and the only reasonable explanation is evolution. I used basic as in "It's the basis of any rational understanding of biology."
What on earth gives you the idea that basic in science means something you could prove to yourself using simple investigative methods?
Democratic candidates are not going to move further left, the Republicans are not going to move any further right, no matter if you vote for a Pat Buchanan or a Ralph Nader.
Correction: they're not going to move right or left WITHOUT the voting population moving right or left.
Liberals and leftists seem to think that just voting for someone very left every 4 years in the general election is enough to get what they want. Republicans and the right wingers realize it's actually about the time in between elections that matters. They spend the intervening time preaching that evolution is a lie, that abortion is murder, that God wants us to rule the world, living in a country with homosexuals is a sin, and that trickle down economics made everyone millionaires but then democrats spent all our money on eskimo poetry. They push the voters right and slander the left while the left is waiting for the next election, then during the elections they come together to vote for the republican, even if he's not their poster child. They realize that come elections, you have to get your guy elected even if he's not your perfect canidate.
Liberals on the other hand seem to think that putting a sarcastic bumper sticker on your car when things get really bad is all you need to do besides vote to get your ideal government.
When it comes time to vote, some of them wait until the primaries are over, then start paying attention. That the democratic nominee doesn't advocate pot legalization or whatever they believe in makes them say there's no difference between the two canidates, they vote for a 3rd party canidate, and then are upset that their least preferred canidate won.
To some degree that happens to both parties, but party unity is much higher with the right, and the naderites quantifyably handed the election to Bush.
Most americans are actually more liberal than washington, the electoral college scam doesn't help, but it would be a non-issue if the left would realize you can't ignore the issues during the off season and then make up for it with a wasted vote.
That wasn't a quote! That was a question! You can't change the subject of a quote and put in more details and still say it's a quote! You asked a question thinking it was rhetorical, and are trying to cover it up, admit it!
I'll be honest, I haven't ever seen the life of brian. I was too busy watching commie bastards get blown out of the sky. Plus, did monty python ever have sweaty, muscly men playing volleyball? Wait... uh... what?