Your anecdote is not proof at all and very difficult to believe. I would also offer that arguing your point with vague anecdotes and statements qualified with "some people claim" undermines your argument against tackling this issue with faith rather than facts. You offer no facts and expect me to have faith in your assertions about the statements and actions of unnamed others. I suspect I am being trolled.
This sounds reasonable, but I am not clear on what you specifically mean when you say "Global Warming dogma" and "narrowing their search patterns". You make it sound as if scientists are all of one narrow mind which is clearly not the case. It seems to me that this possible catastrophic future is indeed a short term issue, if by that you means something that requires immediate action to prevent. The amount of human contribution to greenhouse gases may be arguably relatively small or debatable by some but that does not minimize in any way the danger they represent as a relatively novel perturbation on the dynamic equilibrium of the climate. Also I think that it is a completely false analogy to say that greenhouse gases work like compound interest on a savings account, or to say that the total of such gases can only increase over time. A better financial analogy would be to compare world's climate to the world's economy. Economies are complex dynamical systems as well and our recent woes are an illustrative model for how suddenly equilibrium in such systems can explode into catastrophe.
You make a good point. The climate is a chaotic complex dynamical system and one of the defining features of such systems is sensitive dependence on initial conditions, AKA The Butterfly Effect. It really is quite impossible to make accurate predictions about the future state of such systems; however, it is possible to generalize about characteristic behavior of these systems. An example is the aforementioned unpredictability. Chaotic dynamical systems can settle into a dynamic equilibrium, which is the case we have with the climate. This equilibrium can suddenly cease at any time due to sensitive dependence on conditions or if the system is perturbed in some way and the system can exhibit wildly chaotic behavior. In time the system can return to an equilibrium point but this equilibrium could be very different from the previous one. One could make a valid argument that perhaps the changes we are seeing in the climate right now are just natural variations in the dynamic equilibrium of the climate. It has been well established that the climate can and has varied widely over time. I don't think that you can use the complexity and inherent unpredictability of the climate to argue away concerns about the future though. It is this very property that should be of the greatest concern to us. Due to sensitive dependence in initial conditions it is impossible to predict at what point the state of the dynamical system of the climate might suddenly lose equilibrium, and how little or how much perturbation of conditions might trigger such a change or what change would result.
Thanks...close to what I was seeking, but your link concerns background checks on appointed officials. The parent comment referred to CIA background checks on elected officials, specifically Presidential candidates. The commenter asserted that these checks were done prior to the election and were a matter of fact. If this is done, I doubt the CIA would make it public knowledge. It intrigues me because if such checks were really done then what is done with the results during the election if there is something for concern? What would that concern be? Would we know if they found something? Can the CIA take secret action against a candidate during an election? Has it? The idea of secret CIA vetting of candidates during the election process has implications for the democratic process that are fascinating and disconcerting.
This IS very interesting and certainly stands to reason, but AFAI Google I can't seem to find any confirmation of this, only speculation. If anyone has a link to factual information on the existence of these checks I would be very curious to see it.
What Obama is seeking is similar to the consolidation of material advantage when you trade pieces away on a chess board when you are already up in material. If major nuclear powers were to unite in disarming small nuclear powers first and controlling proliferation it would consolidate their strategic control of the world through these weapons. This could be done under the guise of world nuclear disarmament but of course it would take a "little" longer to disarm the major powers that would drive the effort. I think that this is less about dreaming of a day without nuclear weapons than it is about dreaming of a day when it is possible to control the rest of the world through possession of these weapons again. Admittedly the chess material analogy is a little strained: a nuke isn't a pawn advantage, hell it's not even like being a queen and 2 rooks up. It is more like being a Wookie opponent at the chess table.
If his story is to be believed he has 50-100 current or retired "good" cops secretly providing him tips and information about the "bad" cops. If true I suspect that the raid is less about shutting him down than it is shutting the informants down by discovering their identities. Cops hate cops that rat on cops.
I see your point. I think it is an indication of just how mechanical instinctual behavior can be. I think that the quantification of the stimuli only has meaning to scientists and interested parties like us. It is the focus on the quantification and the incremental nature of the stimuli that is distracting here. We perceive the result as amazingly mathematically accurate but natural selection has simply hard wired the chick to be very accurately focused on exactly where mommy is most likely to be.
Response to accumulating stimuli may be part of the way that humans count; however, to say that counting involves response to accumulating stimuli does not mean that response to accumulating stimuli involves the ability to count. If this were the case any creature that responds to accumulating stimuli could be considered to have the ability to count.
I am loathe to reply to my own comment, but I believe that my conclusion that the experiment indicates that chicks have an innate sense object permanence rests on false assumptions as well. I would just like to retract that for the sake of consistency.
Associating a certain screen with more incidents of objects recently disappearing behind them doesn't necessarily indicate the ability to add or subtract. The idea that moving the objects back and forth is confusing to the chicks and thus requires math to sort out the answer might be a false assumption. If the chick is responding to the stimulus of objects disappearing behind a screen, and the effect of the stimulus is cumulative as more objects disappear behind the screen and the effect of this stimulus is strongest for the most recent stimuli and decreases over time I think that the result would be what is observed in the experiment. I think what is more interesting about this experiment is that the chicks have an innate sense of object permanence which is an ability human beings are not born with.
I agree with you that fear is what is motivating people here, but I think that your argument is logically fallacious. I believe that the Occam's Razor explanation for why some people in the UK are behaving this way lies in an effective and ongoing advertising campaign by law enforcement there encouraging citizens to mistrust, suspect and report people who are using cameras for the reason that they might be collecting information to use in a crime or terrorist attack. There may be politics behind the policies but similar overreactions occurred in the US after 911 under George Bush(R) while he was cutting taxes. I hope that we can both agree that regardless of political spectrum, those who would control us are quick to use fear as an effective tool on the populace.
No, that is not what I said at all. My comment was simply a literal statement of observation. The Orwell reference in this context concerned surveillance. It wasn't a political statement. I suppose that you could argue that the state in 1984 was built on Ingsoc, i.e. socialism; however, the true form of the totalitarian government in Oceania was oligarchical collectivism which according to Goldstein rejected every tenet of socialism. So I guess that it is really you that is saying that they are far-left wing then? If so, I don't agree with you. Off-topic: I am weary of people labeling one another "far left-wing" and "far right-wing" or as extremists. It is the rhetoric of "us" versus "them" and as such it aims to marginalize opposing views without any thoughtful debate of ideas or discussion of compromise. It also serves to make less reflective people hate and fear one another and thus is corrosive to society, no matter who is labeling who. I see this loathsome rhetoric as tantamount to calling others "Goldsteins" and akin to the Two Minutes Hate. If you are a thoughtful person you might want to consider dispensing with it.
That was a bit of a shame. Despite everything that happened, NCC-1017 was a fine ship and Captain Matt Decker was a good man. Ultimately the sacrifice of the Captain, crew and ship saved countless systems and billions of lives from the planet killer.
Indeed it doesn't seem odd at all. It is as if they are naming it exactly what they decided to name it prior to this false exercise in allowing people to vote on the name.
"Colbert" doesn't seem much more ridiculous than "Serenity" to me. They named the first space shuttle after the U.S.S. Enterpise NCC-1701! My guess is the only reason why "Serenity" was even in the race was Joss Whedon fans. I agree with you about the write-ins. My vote was for "Junk Dodger", FWIW. It was the only name officially offered by NASA that really appealed to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Same simple axiomatic algorithm: We = screwed. Bush = bad was just a corollary of that.
Your anecdote is not proof at all and very difficult to believe. I would also offer that arguing your point with vague anecdotes and statements qualified with "some people claim" undermines your argument against tackling this issue with faith rather than facts. You offer no facts and expect me to have faith in your assertions about the statements and actions of unnamed others. I suspect I am being trolled.
This sounds reasonable, but I am not clear on what you specifically mean when you say "Global Warming dogma" and "narrowing their search patterns". You make it sound as if scientists are all of one narrow mind which is clearly not the case. It seems to me that this possible catastrophic future is indeed a short term issue, if by that you means something that requires immediate action to prevent. The amount of human contribution to greenhouse gases may be arguably relatively small or debatable by some but that does not minimize in any way the danger they represent as a relatively novel perturbation on the dynamic equilibrium of the climate. Also I think that it is a completely false analogy to say that greenhouse gases work like compound interest on a savings account, or to say that the total of such gases can only increase over time. A better financial analogy would be to compare world's climate to the world's economy. Economies are complex dynamical systems as well and our recent woes are an illustrative model for how suddenly equilibrium in such systems can explode into catastrophe.
That's all.
You make a good point. The climate is a chaotic complex dynamical system and one of the defining features of such systems is sensitive dependence on initial conditions, AKA The Butterfly Effect. It really is quite impossible to make accurate predictions about the future state of such systems; however, it is possible to generalize about characteristic behavior of these systems. An example is the aforementioned unpredictability. Chaotic dynamical systems can settle into a dynamic equilibrium, which is the case we have with the climate. This equilibrium can suddenly cease at any time due to sensitive dependence on conditions or if the system is perturbed in some way and the system can exhibit wildly chaotic behavior. In time the system can return to an equilibrium point but this equilibrium could be very different from the previous one. One could make a valid argument that perhaps the changes we are seeing in the climate right now are just natural variations in the dynamic equilibrium of the climate. It has been well established that the climate can and has varied widely over time. I don't think that you can use the complexity and inherent unpredictability of the climate to argue away concerns about the future though. It is this very property that should be of the greatest concern to us. Due to sensitive dependence in initial conditions it is impossible to predict at what point the state of the dynamical system of the climate might suddenly lose equilibrium, and how little or how much perturbation of conditions might trigger such a change or what change would result.
Thanks...close to what I was seeking, but your link concerns background checks on appointed officials. The parent comment referred to CIA background checks on elected officials, specifically Presidential candidates. The commenter asserted that these checks were done prior to the election and were a matter of fact. If this is done, I doubt the CIA would make it public knowledge. It intrigues me because if such checks were really done then what is done with the results during the election if there is something for concern? What would that concern be? Would we know if they found something? Can the CIA take secret action against a candidate during an election? Has it? The idea of secret CIA vetting of candidates during the election process has implications for the democratic process that are fascinating and disconcerting.
This IS very interesting and certainly stands to reason, but AFAI Google I can't seem to find any confirmation of this, only speculation. If anyone has a link to factual information on the existence of these checks I would be very curious to see it.
Just be careful not to cross the streams. That would be very bad.
It doesn't feel the same and it ruins the mood of the conversation.
What Obama is seeking is similar to the consolidation of material advantage when you trade pieces away on a chess board when you are already up in material. If major nuclear powers were to unite in disarming small nuclear powers first and controlling proliferation it would consolidate their strategic control of the world through these weapons. This could be done under the guise of world nuclear disarmament but of course it would take a "little" longer to disarm the major powers that would drive the effort. I think that this is less about dreaming of a day without nuclear weapons than it is about dreaming of a day when it is possible to control the rest of the world through possession of these weapons again. Admittedly the chess material analogy is a little strained: a nuke isn't a pawn advantage, hell it's not even like being a queen and 2 rooks up. It is more like being a Wookie opponent at the chess table.
The CEO of J:Com makes exactly this point in the article if you read it all the way to the end. Maybe you missed it?
If his story is to be believed he has 50-100 current or retired "good" cops secretly providing him tips and information about the "bad" cops. If true I suspect that the raid is less about shutting him down than it is shutting the informants down by discovering their identities. Cops hate cops that rat on cops.
You might discover that the answer is as simple as a handsome public domain patent cleverly constructed out of old paperback books.
Google robotic beer pong.
I see your point. I think it is an indication of just how mechanical instinctual behavior can be. I think that the quantification of the stimuli only has meaning to scientists and interested parties like us. It is the focus on the quantification and the incremental nature of the stimuli that is distracting here. We perceive the result as amazingly mathematically accurate but natural selection has simply hard wired the chick to be very accurately focused on exactly where mommy is most likely to be.
Response to accumulating stimuli may be part of the way that humans count; however, to say that counting involves response to accumulating stimuli does not mean that response to accumulating stimuli involves the ability to count. If this were the case any creature that responds to accumulating stimuli could be considered to have the ability to count.
I am loathe to reply to my own comment, but I believe that my conclusion that the experiment indicates that chicks have an innate sense object permanence rests on false assumptions as well. I would just like to retract that for the sake of consistency.
Associating a certain screen with more incidents of objects recently disappearing behind them doesn't necessarily indicate the ability to add or subtract. The idea that moving the objects back and forth is confusing to the chicks and thus requires math to sort out the answer might be a false assumption. If the chick is responding to the stimulus of objects disappearing behind a screen, and the effect of the stimulus is cumulative as more objects disappear behind the screen and the effect of this stimulus is strongest for the most recent stimuli and decreases over time I think that the result would be what is observed in the experiment. I think what is more interesting about this experiment is that the chicks have an innate sense of object permanence which is an ability human beings are not born with.
I agree with you that fear is what is motivating people here, but I think that your argument is logically fallacious. I believe that the Occam's Razor explanation for why some people in the UK are behaving this way lies in an effective and ongoing advertising campaign by law enforcement there encouraging citizens to mistrust, suspect and report people who are using cameras for the reason that they might be collecting information to use in a crime or terrorist attack. There may be politics behind the policies but similar overreactions occurred in the US after 911 under George Bush(R) while he was cutting taxes. I hope that we can both agree that regardless of political spectrum, those who would control us are quick to use fear as an effective tool on the populace.
No, that is not what I said at all. My comment was simply a literal statement of observation. The Orwell reference in this context concerned surveillance. It wasn't a political statement. I suppose that you could argue that the state in 1984 was built on Ingsoc, i.e. socialism; however, the true form of the totalitarian government in Oceania was oligarchical collectivism which according to Goldstein rejected every tenet of socialism. So I guess that it is really you that is saying that they are far-left wing then? If so, I don't agree with you. Off-topic: I am weary of people labeling one another "far left-wing" and "far right-wing" or as extremists. It is the rhetoric of "us" versus "them" and as such it aims to marginalize opposing views without any thoughtful debate of ideas or discussion of compromise. It also serves to make less reflective people hate and fear one another and thus is corrosive to society, no matter who is labeling who. I see this loathsome rhetoric as tantamount to calling others "Goldsteins" and akin to the Two Minutes Hate. If you are a thoughtful person you might want to consider dispensing with it.
Folks across the pond seem to trust only the state with cameras these days.
Dog with head split in half.
That was a bit of a shame. Despite everything that happened, NCC-1017 was a fine ship and Captain Matt Decker was a good man. Ultimately the sacrifice of the Captain, crew and ship saved countless systems and billions of lives from the planet killer.
Indeed it doesn't seem odd at all. It is as if they are naming it exactly what they decided to name it prior to this false exercise in allowing people to vote on the name.
"Colbert" doesn't seem much more ridiculous than "Serenity" to me. They named the first space shuttle after the U.S.S. Enterpise NCC-1701! My guess is the only reason why "Serenity" was even in the race was Joss Whedon fans. I agree with you about the write-ins. My vote was for "Junk Dodger", FWIW. It was the only name officially offered by NASA that really appealed to me.