It's a statement that either you don't understand Citizens United, or you simply reject parts of the First Amendment. Still not sure which, but Citizens United in no way said "all corporations are people with the same rights as people". Instead it said "yup, people peaceably assembled may participate in politics, says so right there".
for example by clarifying that corporations are NOT human beings, but only legal fictions that must sometimes have limited treatment as juridical persons
You do realize that the current legal state of things, right? It's also true that a tightly held corporation (not publicly traded, few owners) gets treated like a partnership, and thus covered under the same first amendment protections that any small group of people has.
That's what cases like Citizens United (a corporation that existed only to pay for a film critical of Hillary - which is the only reason she's against it) and Hobby Lobby centered on.
Strong emotion is a strong indicator of the absence of coherent thought. Not exactly a credibility builder.
Who appointed you the language police? Is that some special privilege of 5-digit user IDs?
Nope, the low 6 figures are as well. (Many regular/. readers didn't bother to get accounts until karma was added, at which point the UIDs shot up into the mid-100s quite fast).
You just couldn't take 2 seconds to google "noaa satellite" before running your mouth, could you? NASA involvement is an expensive way to launch satellites these days anyway. "Because satellites" is no reason for them to be involved.
The fraud is (mostly) not coming from scientists. But politicians are politicians, and lie about everything all the time. Anything you've heard about climate change from a political group (any UN body, for example) is automatically a lie. Wait, I take that back - someone who lies 100% of the time is a reliable indicator of truth. Anything you've heard about climate change from a political group is no better than random guessing. And it's all about the money (because, again, politics).
It's no about "there can be no truth". It's about why the government can't be trusted to censor political news in the name of "fact checking". But, hey, if private companies want to do that, great, I'll stick with the ones that please me (much like today, really).
You seem to be missing my point. I consider evolution to be a fact. But if the person doing the fact checking considered it to be a lie spread by Satan? I remember when such people were in power - this isn't far-fetched at all. Someone gets to be the censor - for all you say "these are not things that are open to interpretation or political bias" some guy gets to make that call. Some guy appointed by Trump. Gets to decide.
Are you old enough to remember when the religious right was the self-appointed gatekeepers of American morality, and had the power to restrict speech they disagreed with?
Your words and attitude remind me strongly of them. Free speech is important, but Howard Stern needs to lose his job, that sort of degeneracy will destroy America, and then no one will have free speech.
Oh, your catalog of sins is different, of course, as if that mattered. 30 years ago it was "too racy, too sexy". These days it's "too racist, too sexist". Censorious moral busybodies, the lot of you.
You are saying it's impossible to build a system where work is verified
I'm saying there's no political (or religious) system where work is verified.
I'm guessing you see that right away for religious "facts". And even scientific facts that run afoul of religious doctrine? The same thing goes for scientific facts that run afoul of political doctrine. In Soviet Russia, facts check you.
Who does the verifying? That person is a censor by job description. Imagine a Christian fundamentalist who is very sure that the Bible is the one source of truth in the role. One person's "verifiably fake" is another's "obviously true".
Oh, sure, you're may be thinking thinking of some special cases, but why would the censor limit themselves to those? Humans don't act that way. Give them power, and they look for reasons to use it.
Can an airplane on a treadmill lift off? Epic flame wars have been fought over this, as each side thought it was obviously right, and anyone who disagreed must just be stupid. But the question just isn't well defined.
Does 0.99 recurring equal 1? Epic flame wars have been fought over this, as each side thought it was obviously right, and anyone who disagreed must just be stupid. Here the question actually is well defined to mathematicians, but the definition seems arbitrary to laymen, so it sounds like one side is just saying "it's true because we say so - by definition". (This flaming hides a really interesting question about whether it really makes sense to include both computable and non-computable reals in the same field.)
A well-reasoned and constructive comment - Slashdot is the better for it.
P out = velocity*force
An ordinary chemical rocket produces the same thrust regardless of the (Newtonian) frame of the observer. Does a rocket accelerating at 1g do more work, produce more power if it passes me at 100 km/s than it does if it passes me at 1 km/s? The force is the same in both cases, but the velocity is 100 times as high in the former case. So it must have 100x the power!
Dude, seriously, smoke less of whatever you're smoking.
If the government had the power to label some political speech as "lies" that's just another way to censor political speech. Not a good plan. If the government had the power to tell Facebook that it must censor certain political speech - that's just the same, just as bad.
Just as a newspaper can legally print whatever political lies it wants too, much as happen in the election we just had, Facebook can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't step on a protected class. People are perfectly capable of going somewhere else for news (and, really, only one generation cares about Facebook news to begin with).
Sure, skepticism is rising. The worst out there, the ones with no merit, are failing. It's a great sign for the future of internet journalism. But there's still a long way to go, still a preference for attention-grabbing headlines over editorial fact-checking.
I bought a lottery scratch-off ticket, and won more than it costs, so from a financial standpoint is was a good bet?
I guess you could argue that the government is so corrupt that financials will keep their gains, but have their losses shielded by the taxpayer, and so they're a good bet on that basis - but only for too big to fail banks, and only if they don't decide to screw the stockholders along with the taxpayers next time.
It's not about the relationship between power and energy, which everyone understands. It's about the relationship between power and momentum, which no one would really understand if momentum is not conserved (or if there's more to momentum than we think, then there's more to power than momentum-as-understood times acceleration).
Consider your same argument if a working photon drive were experimentally measured before it was understood that photons have momentum. The device would seem to be violating conservation of momentum, but still clearly not violating conservation of energy.
What's conserved in GR is not what we normally call "energy", and even that is only conserved in flat spacetime, which we're not sure we're living in.
You might be able to make a sound argument from relativity that without conservation of momentum we don't have conservation of energy, unlike your faulty approach via power.
If you don't understand "airplane on a treadmill" or "0.9999 = 1?" then you don't spend much time on math or science forums. They're both classic trolls that maybe started as legitimate questions. They both rely on confusion/ambiguity in the problem statement.
The same sort of confusion is what's wrong with your power-based argument. If momentum is not conserved, then of course power is wonky, but you can't reason from that to anything else because the starting point becomes "we don't understand how power and momentum are actually related".
Yes, yes, we all get that it starts with good intentions. But give it time. That's why people are skeptical - because we're worried about the inevitable results, not the initial intentions.
Power is not energy. You can express power in terms of momentum (times acceleration), or in terms of energy. If momentum is not conserved, then, sure power is not as expected, but that doesn't mean that energy is not conserved.
It's sort of like those "proofs" that 1=2 that sneak in dividing both sides of the equation by 2-1. Once you break the basic rules, inference must go carefully or it's all nonsense. If the kinetic energy the device imparts is less than the electrical power input (which is true by many orders of magnitude), there's no reason to think energy is not conserved.
Deciding what political statements are true and not cannot help but introduce political bias. That's why the government can't be allowed to play a role. If Facebook wants to, well, it's their site, but I'm betting any such effort leads to a stronger echo chamber, rather than "more truth".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a statement that either you don't understand Citizens United, or you simply reject parts of the First Amendment. Still not sure which, but Citizens United in no way said "all corporations are people with the same rights as people". Instead it said "yup, people peaceably assembled may participate in politics, says so right there".
for example by clarifying that corporations are NOT human beings, but only legal fictions that must sometimes have limited treatment as juridical persons
You do realize that the current legal state of things, right? It's also true that a tightly held corporation (not publicly traded, few owners) gets treated like a partnership, and thus covered under the same first amendment protections that any small group of people has.
That's what cases like Citizens United (a corporation that existed only to pay for a film critical of Hillary - which is the only reason she's against it) and Hobby Lobby centered on.
Strong language shows strong emotion.
Strong emotion is a strong indicator of the absence of coherent thought. Not exactly a credibility builder.
Who appointed you the language police? Is that some special privilege of 5-digit user IDs?
Nope, the low 6 figures are as well. (Many regular /. readers didn't bother to get accounts until karma was added, at which point the UIDs shot up into the mid-100s quite fast).
You just couldn't take 2 seconds to google "noaa satellite" before running your mouth, could you? NASA involvement is an expensive way to launch satellites these days anyway. "Because satellites" is no reason for them to be involved.
The fraud is (mostly) not coming from scientists. But politicians are politicians, and lie about everything all the time. Anything you've heard about climate change from a political group (any UN body, for example) is automatically a lie. Wait, I take that back - someone who lies 100% of the time is a reliable indicator of truth. Anything you've heard about climate change from a political group is no better than random guessing. And it's all about the money (because, again, politics).
You may not care about any of this stuff, but quality and sustainability are relevant to stupid people. Thus, Apple could sell it.
It's no about "there can be no truth". It's about why the government can't be trusted to censor political news in the name of "fact checking". But, hey, if private companies want to do that, great, I'll stick with the ones that please me (much like today, really).
But no matter how much power it generates in some frame of reference it still conserves energy. Sheesh, it's the simplest concept.
You asked about airplanes on a treadmill. I explained the reference.
If the EM drive continues to prove itself in experiments, it doesn't matter how plausible it is.
You seem to be missing my point. I consider evolution to be a fact. But if the person doing the fact checking considered it to be a lie spread by Satan? I remember when such people were in power - this isn't far-fetched at all. Someone gets to be the censor - for all you say "these are not things that are open to interpretation or political bias" some guy gets to make that call. Some guy appointed by Trump. Gets to decide.
Are you old enough to remember when the religious right was the self-appointed gatekeepers of American morality, and had the power to restrict speech they disagreed with?
Your words and attitude remind me strongly of them. Free speech is important, but Howard Stern needs to lose his job, that sort of degeneracy will destroy America, and then no one will have free speech.
Oh, your catalog of sins is different, of course, as if that mattered. 30 years ago it was "too racy, too sexy". These days it's "too racist, too sexist". Censorious moral busybodies, the lot of you.
You are saying it's impossible to build a system where work is verified
I'm saying there's no political (or religious) system where work is verified.
I'm guessing you see that right away for religious "facts". And even scientific facts that run afoul of religious doctrine? The same thing goes for scientific facts that run afoul of political doctrine. In Soviet Russia, facts check you.
Who does the verifying? That person is a censor by job description. Imagine a Christian fundamentalist who is very sure that the Bible is the one source of truth in the role. One person's "verifiably fake" is another's "obviously true".
Oh, sure, you're may be thinking thinking of some special cases, but why would the censor limit themselves to those? Humans don't act that way. Give them power, and they look for reasons to use it.
In the last "Facebook sucks" story someone asked whether we could stop having all these "Facebook sucks" stories. Whipslash replied simply "no".
Can an airplane on a treadmill lift off? Epic flame wars have been fought over this, as each side thought it was obviously right, and anyone who disagreed must just be stupid. But the question just isn't well defined.
Does 0.99 recurring equal 1? Epic flame wars have been fought over this, as each side thought it was obviously right, and anyone who disagreed must just be stupid. Here the question actually is well defined to mathematicians, but the definition seems arbitrary to laymen, so it sounds like one side is just saying "it's true because we say so - by definition". (This flaming hides a really interesting question about whether it really makes sense to include both computable and non-computable reals in the same field.)
A well-reasoned and constructive comment - Slashdot is the better for it.
P out = velocity*force
An ordinary chemical rocket produces the same thrust regardless of the (Newtonian) frame of the observer. Does a rocket accelerating at 1g do more work, produce more power if it passes me at 100 km/s than it does if it passes me at 1 km/s? The force is the same in both cases, but the velocity is 100 times as high in the former case. So it must have 100x the power!
Dude, seriously, smoke less of whatever you're smoking.
If the government had the power to label some political speech as "lies" that's just another way to censor political speech. Not a good plan. If the government had the power to tell Facebook that it must censor certain political speech - that's just the same, just as bad.
Just as a newspaper can legally print whatever political lies it wants too, much as happen in the election we just had, Facebook can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't step on a protected class. People are perfectly capable of going somewhere else for news (and, really, only one generation cares about Facebook news to begin with).
Sure, skepticism is rising. The worst out there, the ones with no merit, are failing. It's a great sign for the future of internet journalism. But there's still a long way to go, still a preference for attention-grabbing headlines over editorial fact-checking.
I bought a lottery scratch-off ticket, and won more than it costs, so from a financial standpoint is was a good bet?
I guess you could argue that the government is so corrupt that financials will keep their gains, but have their losses shielded by the taxpayer, and so they're a good bet on that basis - but only for too big to fail banks, and only if they don't decide to screw the stockholders along with the taxpayers next time.
It's not about the relationship between power and energy, which everyone understands. It's about the relationship between power and momentum, which no one would really understand if momentum is not conserved (or if there's more to momentum than we think, then there's more to power than momentum-as-understood times acceleration).
Consider your same argument if a working photon drive were experimentally measured before it was understood that photons have momentum. The device would seem to be violating conservation of momentum, but still clearly not violating conservation of energy.
What's conserved in GR is not what we normally call "energy", and even that is only conserved in flat spacetime, which we're not sure we're living in.
You might be able to make a sound argument from relativity that without conservation of momentum we don't have conservation of energy, unlike your faulty approach via power.
If you don't understand "airplane on a treadmill" or "0.9999 = 1?" then you don't spend much time on math or science forums. They're both classic trolls that maybe started as legitimate questions. They both rely on confusion/ambiguity in the problem statement.
The same sort of confusion is what's wrong with your power-based argument. If momentum is not conserved, then of course power is wonky, but you can't reason from that to anything else because the starting point becomes "we don't understand how power and momentum are actually related".
Yes, yes, we all get that it starts with good intentions. But give it time. That's why people are skeptical - because we're worried about the inevitable results, not the initial intentions.
Power is not energy. You can express power in terms of momentum (times acceleration), or in terms of energy. If momentum is not conserved, then, sure power is not as expected, but that doesn't mean that energy is not conserved.
It's sort of like those "proofs" that 1=2 that sneak in dividing both sides of the equation by 2-1. Once you break the basic rules, inference must go carefully or it's all nonsense. If the kinetic energy the device imparts is less than the electrical power input (which is true by many orders of magnitude), there's no reason to think energy is not conserved.
Deciding what political statements are true and not cannot help but introduce political bias. That's why the government can't be allowed to play a role. If Facebook wants to, well, it's their site, but I'm betting any such effort leads to a stronger echo chamber, rather than "more truth".