"Begging the question" is a bad translation of petitio principii, which is itself a bad translation from Greek sources. Linguistically there isn't really a right answer here. The exact meaning is almost always clear from context, and the usage is very much moving away from the "scholarly" definition. Given that there's not an absolutely correct position on this issue, I think that it's best to avoid using the phrase oneself, and tolerate its use or misuse with others. And if the argument you are responding to does not directly hinge on a point of meaning, it's probably just as well to avoid raising the subject. Life is too short for needless semantic arguments.
*facepalm* Yes, and I even noticed the error before looking up the date on Tyndall's experiments. You are correct. Full paper is here for anyone who is interested. Further context.
Greenhouse effect was Tyndall 1859, CO2-mediated warming was Arrhenius 1986. It's cool you know what Newsweek was reporting in 1970 but that has nothing in particular to do with the science at the time. The writing was on the wall after Keeling. There was some hope that particulates would mask the signal, but modeling showed this not to be the case, and now we have the temperature record to confirm it.
That you are spreading ignorance is deeply immoral.
That's not what that link says. Look, we're a pretty savvy group here, all right? If the experts are all saying one thing, it's probably not a great idea to assume that you know better.
What your link specifically says is that it takes 1-10k years for the high-level waste to reach radiation levels on par with the original ore. This says nothing about safe radiation levels, and there isn't any particularly good definition for what is "safe" to begin with. There are multiple different types of radiation and different hazards depending on the exact type. Alpha emitters can typically be safely handled, but if ingested are quite dangerous. The biological models for radiation are a subject of current research, and in particular the linear no-threshold model is probably on its way out the door. Generally speaking "safe" is not well defined, certainly not as a blanket statement about all nuclear waste. And again, the more dangerous it is, the less time it will be a problem. Waste storage facilities tend to be massively over-engineered; the actual health risks of the waste decline pretty rapidly.
This is an informal fallacy called tue quoque, or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. If these people could themselves solve this problem then hypocrisy would be a valid argument. Since this is not the case it's simply a baseless personal attack.
But it's really not necessary to listen to others on the subject. The science is pretty accessible. Arrhenius 1896 lays out the basics, and it should be readable by anyone with a high school education. Equally instructive are the reasons why it was considered disproven for 50 years. Or are you somehow unaware that this issue was discovered by scientists over a hundred years ago instead of by recent celebrities?
You are intentionally viewing this topic in a biased manner after this bias has been demonstrated to you both verbally and mathematically. I believe this conversation is at an end. Good day.
Hmm...techie refuses to change with the pace of technology, wonders why they are unemployable. MVC is the hot new thing of twenty years ago, what rock have you been hiding under?
I don't know how else can one tell you that your point is not relevant to the outcome of the decision or the manner in which it was conducted. I do not believe you are being terribly objective here.
Yes. But what they're after is not the first ranked choice, but the candidate which would beat every other candidate in a heads-up race. I was attempting to sort out mathematically whether it was possible to win without anyone ranking the winning candidate as their top option but I have yet to actually run the numbers. Either way, the absolute position is not as important as the relative position.
Consider a field split in thirds with one faction having a 34% plurality of the top ranking:
A B C 34% B C A 33% C B A 33%
Under pairwise comparison voting, A would lose despite having more people rank it first. This is a design goal of the voting method.
The Obama administration's EEOC interpreted the CRA that way, but that's unlikely to hold up in court.
Hope springs eternal.
"I won't hire you because _____" is not a form of violence, it's freedom of association.
No, not "I won't hire you," actual physical violence. Like, I'm the only one I know that doesn't carry mace, and it's not because I haven't had my ass beat for being queer.
And if you're paying attention to politics, you'll see that you're being pushed into the dustbin of history
Au contraire. Do you know, I didn't think I was going to enjoy a Trump presidency? But really it's just all pretty funny. I mean, you're a flaming douchebag, but Trump is just pure entertainment at this point. Cheers:)
The tautology was, "Antirejection medication is immunosuppressant." Rejection is an immune response. And I really don't know where you picked up the idea in the first place.
The incorrect claims I do take somewhat personally, but man...if you're willing even to pretend to be kind or respectful on this issue, you're one of a sad few. And yes, my form of expression is a bit of a personal failing and something I'm trying to work on. I'm sure we can all improve on that, but to be quite honest I've been thinking about starting a new account to try to create a more positive identity here. I'm not sure if you've ever been hated for who you are, but I hope you can relate to the idea of becoming hardened and even vitriolic in the face of vitriol. About the only thing I gleaned from Nietzsche was,
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
But if I may, allow me a point of correction about my argument. I perfectly agree that the Pentagon has final say on whichever medical grounds they will or will not admit persons into the military. My objection is not that they decided either way, but that the decision was made by others and that it was political in nature. The DoD apparently did a study (or at least such was referred to elsewhere here) which said they were fine with transgender people serving. If that's true, bully for them. It's not like there are a lot of jobs open to transgender people to begin with. I certainly considered joining up many times.
The big issue I have is really not that transgender people are abused. I mean, it's true, but you get used to assault and abuse and automatic hatred from others and every authority figure being prejudiced against you, or at least that's enough to deal with without adding further concerns. The noise just joins a flow after a while, and assault is at least not an everyday occurrence even if it's an everyday concern. No, the real irritation is that both liberals and conservatives and everyone else is willing to seize on queers as a political football when neither side actually cares about our issues. Let it be a medical issue, or an individual issue, or an issue of merit, or a financial issue. But all indications are that our President acted unilaterally, for purely political reasons. Where I defecate is not a subject of national political concern, and if I want to join the Army, let them reject me. I hope that you can appreciate the idea of wishing noninterference from the government.
Who serves in the military is very much a political decision
Who serves in the military is a military decision.
To the contrary: private job discrimination is common.
Common, immoral, and frequently illegal.
I don't have a problem with a private employer not hiring me because I'm queer: I don't want to work for someone who disapproves of my lifestyle.
Your lifestyle is an irrelevant consideration to your work environment, and if you're going to argue against workplace protections for discrimination, that fight has been over for decades.
The morality of this situation clearly escapes you if you think it is acceptable to threaten people with violence for refusing to hire people they don't like. And it isn't just immoral, it also simply doesn't work.
I assume that your reading comprehension failure was my characterization of your argument, but the point continues to be that it's your side perpetrating violence and abuse. It's not necessary to threaten, your views will die with you sooner or later. That's the nice thing about being on the right side of history, if you wait long enough you get what you want. Cheers.
I feel like I often take issue with you and your views, or at least as often as not, but thanks for writing this. I think the analysis re:Qatar is probably depressingly accurate.
One more thing that the US should do - support & recognize an independent Kurdistan should the Kurds vote this year for their own separate state.
That would be only fair for having thrown them under the bus repeatedly, yes.
Yes, I'm sure you have some rationalizations for your bigotry, but I'm not sure how you confused opinion polls for the scholarly work of centuries of clerics.
You don't apparently understand the meaning of the word 'jihad'. It could very easily describe your behavior. Yes, I agree that it's fucked up. I mean, it's kind of funny, but more sad.
Terrorism globally has killed a tiny fraction of the amount of people that have been killed in civil warfare between Muslims. Your argument is like saying, "Why don't normal Americans speak out against criminal gang members?" For one, we do, for two, this is a thousand times more a problem for them than for other people. I assure you that as much as you might like to deny it, humans are pretty similar all around the world, and nobody likes having radicalized psychos hanging around them. Hopefully we may exclude you from that category.
Tautologies are tautological. Trans people != people with transplants. Not even the ones who've had SRS. Your speaking on this subject from such a great depth of ignorance is not appreciated.
Autism is also not considered a disease these days, for the same reason.
No, but it is my business and the business of every American voter who we want to serve in the US military and what treatments we want our public healthcare system to cover. That's why we have elections, like in 2016 for example.
Bizarrely wrong. No, it's the Army's business who they take, unless they're somehow violating civil rights, in which case I'm sure there would be legal recourse. This has absolutely nothing to do with any election.
You have no idea who I am or what I had to deal with growing up. And I don't care whether you dress up in women's clothes or chop off your willy; it's a free country. Just don't expect others to pay for it through their taxes and don't blame others if you hate your life. Whether you're happy or not is entirely up to you, and your attitude is that of a petulant, immature child.
You keep quiet, you queer! This is a free country, we get to screw you however we want, and you'd better like it, y'hear? Or we'll do something you really don't like!
If you don't worry about becoming a hate crime statistic on a daily basis, you might want to take a back seat there. I mean, you're willing to be all kinds of rude and insulting to people online, and do you think that you're the only one? That other people don't say far worse, and act on it? The majority of transgender people have been assaulted or sexually abused. Job discrimination is so rampant that it doesn't even make the list of discussion topics, and most people in the US will freely admit they'll never give a tranny a job. The discrimination is very real, and yes, it's quite well understood that your first defense is to deny that the problem exists in the first place, and attack the persons complaining. The morality of this situation may escape you; it does not escape others.
So you are one of those best programmers who is messing around on hackerrank. Good job being a top programmer.
I'm honestly not at all sure how you read that into my post. Was it the part where I asked for help with a problem or the part where I implied that you might be so far above my level of skill as to find all of these problems easy? I mean, I don't think that there are many people who fit that description, but I'm certainly not going to assume that a longtime slashdot contributor is not one of them. I did in point of fact assume that I was responding to someone with greater skill and experience than myself, and thought that I was being fairly explicit about saying so: "this may put me in the chaff rather than the wheat", i.e. that I find this difficult may mean that I am simply a poor programmer. Did something I say contribute to the opposite impression?
(I've been talking to recruiters lately, and every time I hear someone intimate that I might count as a "senior" developer I die a little inside. The worst thing would be if it were true.)
So sampling needs to be improved, and that's even before talking about how to measure 'top,' which is not clearly defined in itself.
Right, hence the subject line, and hence why your first statement was unsupportable. Even if you could account for all programmers' time we still don't have an objective measure.
What you're saying is literally correct, that we do not know whether their sample is representative, however, the definition of "top programmer" does not naturally exclude participation on HackerRank. It's not like we yank your Geek Card for solving a challenge there. Statistics is not my strong suit, but I suspect that there would be a substantial overlap between top programmers as measured by HR and as measured by some other method.
That said, I'm a bit confused. You seem to be in favor of timed programming competitions, are you aware that HR does that, or do you find some other flaw with how they run them?
With respect, I do not think you actually do understand. It's not "some kind of consensus," the voting system is designed for a very specific kind of consensus, which avoids the error that you're very keen on making. This is sounding very like motivated reasoning.
Yes, it would be more unfair if systemd had been chosen by a simple plurality vote, especially with a small plurality. They used a system which accounted for that: your objection is invalid.
I mean, yes, but that's not how they were actually counting the votes, so I have trouble seeing the relevancy. If they had been counting the number of people who picked it as their first option, systemd would have had an easy plurality. The entire point of this voting method in the first place is that viewing things in that way is not very fairly representative of people's opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
"Begging the question" is a bad translation of petitio principii, which is itself a bad translation from Greek sources. Linguistically there isn't really a right answer here. The exact meaning is almost always clear from context, and the usage is very much moving away from the "scholarly" definition. Given that there's not an absolutely correct position on this issue, I think that it's best to avoid using the phrase oneself, and tolerate its use or misuse with others. And if the argument you are responding to does not directly hinge on a point of meaning, it's probably just as well to avoid raising the subject. Life is too short for needless semantic arguments.
*facepalm* Yes, and I even noticed the error before looking up the date on Tyndall's experiments. You are correct. Full paper is here for anyone who is interested. Further context.
Greenhouse effect was Tyndall 1859, CO2-mediated warming was Arrhenius 1986. It's cool you know what Newsweek was reporting in 1970 but that has nothing in particular to do with the science at the time. The writing was on the wall after Keeling. There was some hope that particulates would mask the signal, but modeling showed this not to be the case, and now we have the temperature record to confirm it.
That you are spreading ignorance is deeply immoral.
That's not what that link says. Look, we're a pretty savvy group here, all right? If the experts are all saying one thing, it's probably not a great idea to assume that you know better.
What your link specifically says is that it takes 1-10k years for the high-level waste to reach radiation levels on par with the original ore. This says nothing about safe radiation levels, and there isn't any particularly good definition for what is "safe" to begin with. There are multiple different types of radiation and different hazards depending on the exact type. Alpha emitters can typically be safely handled, but if ingested are quite dangerous. The biological models for radiation are a subject of current research, and in particular the linear no-threshold model is probably on its way out the door. Generally speaking "safe" is not well defined, certainly not as a blanket statement about all nuclear waste. And again, the more dangerous it is, the less time it will be a problem. Waste storage facilities tend to be massively over-engineered; the actual health risks of the waste decline pretty rapidly.
This is an informal fallacy called tue quoque, or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. If these people could themselves solve this problem then hypocrisy would be a valid argument. Since this is not the case it's simply a baseless personal attack.
But it's really not necessary to listen to others on the subject. The science is pretty accessible. Arrhenius 1896 lays out the basics, and it should be readable by anyone with a high school education. Equally instructive are the reasons why it was considered disproven for 50 years. Or are you somehow unaware that this issue was discovered by scientists over a hundred years ago instead of by recent celebrities?
That's NOT SCIENCE nor is it even rationality or based on reason.
Someone doesn't know what empiricism means.
That actually sums up quite a lot about your post, actually.
You are intentionally viewing this topic in a biased manner after this bias has been demonstrated to you both verbally and mathematically. I believe this conversation is at an end. Good day.
Hmm...techie refuses to change with the pace of technology, wonders why they are unemployable. MVC is the hot new thing of twenty years ago, what rock have you been hiding under?
I don't know how else can one tell you that your point is not relevant to the outcome of the decision or the manner in which it was conducted. I do not believe you are being terribly objective here.
Yes. But what they're after is not the first ranked choice, but the candidate which would beat every other candidate in a heads-up race. I was attempting to sort out mathematically whether it was possible to win without anyone ranking the winning candidate as their top option but I have yet to actually run the numbers. Either way, the absolute position is not as important as the relative position.
Consider a field split in thirds with one faction having a 34% plurality of the top ranking:
A B C 34%
B C A 33%
C B A 33%
Under pairwise comparison voting, A would lose despite having more people rank it first. This is a design goal of the voting method.
No keep telling me about all this, I promise I'm not giggling at your delusions.
The Obama administration's EEOC interpreted the CRA that way, but that's unlikely to hold up in court.
Hope springs eternal.
"I won't hire you because _____" is not a form of violence, it's freedom of association.
No, not "I won't hire you," actual physical violence. Like, I'm the only one I know that doesn't carry mace, and it's not because I haven't had my ass beat for being queer.
And if you're paying attention to politics, you'll see that you're being pushed into the dustbin of history
Au contraire. Do you know, I didn't think I was going to enjoy a Trump presidency? But really it's just all pretty funny. I mean, you're a flaming douchebag, but Trump is just pure entertainment at this point. Cheers :)
Book recommendations?
The tautology was, "Antirejection medication is immunosuppressant." Rejection is an immune response. And I really don't know where you picked up the idea in the first place.
The incorrect claims I do take somewhat personally, but man...if you're willing even to pretend to be kind or respectful on this issue, you're one of a sad few. And yes, my form of expression is a bit of a personal failing and something I'm trying to work on. I'm sure we can all improve on that, but to be quite honest I've been thinking about starting a new account to try to create a more positive identity here. I'm not sure if you've ever been hated for who you are, but I hope you can relate to the idea of becoming hardened and even vitriolic in the face of vitriol. About the only thing I gleaned from Nietzsche was,
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
But if I may, allow me a point of correction about my argument. I perfectly agree that the Pentagon has final say on whichever medical grounds they will or will not admit persons into the military. My objection is not that they decided either way, but that the decision was made by others and that it was political in nature. The DoD apparently did a study (or at least such was referred to elsewhere here) which said they were fine with transgender people serving. If that's true, bully for them. It's not like there are a lot of jobs open to transgender people to begin with. I certainly considered joining up many times.
The big issue I have is really not that transgender people are abused. I mean, it's true, but you get used to assault and abuse and automatic hatred from others and every authority figure being prejudiced against you, or at least that's enough to deal with without adding further concerns. The noise just joins a flow after a while, and assault is at least not an everyday occurrence even if it's an everyday concern. No, the real irritation is that both liberals and conservatives and everyone else is willing to seize on queers as a political football when neither side actually cares about our issues. Let it be a medical issue, or an individual issue, or an issue of merit, or a financial issue. But all indications are that our President acted unilaterally, for purely political reasons. Where I defecate is not a subject of national political concern, and if I want to join the Army, let them reject me. I hope that you can appreciate the idea of wishing noninterference from the government.
Who serves in the military is very much a political decision
Who serves in the military is a military decision.
To the contrary: private job discrimination is common.
Common, immoral, and frequently illegal.
I don't have a problem with a private employer not hiring me because I'm queer: I don't want to work for someone who disapproves of my lifestyle.
Your lifestyle is an irrelevant consideration to your work environment, and if you're going to argue against workplace protections for discrimination, that fight has been over for decades.
The morality of this situation clearly escapes you if you think it is acceptable to threaten people with violence for refusing to hire people they don't like. And it isn't just immoral, it also simply doesn't work.
I assume that your reading comprehension failure was my characterization of your argument, but the point continues to be that it's your side perpetrating violence and abuse. It's not necessary to threaten, your views will die with you sooner or later. That's the nice thing about being on the right side of history, if you wait long enough you get what you want. Cheers.
I feel like I often take issue with you and your views, or at least as often as not, but thanks for writing this. I think the analysis re:Qatar is probably depressingly accurate.
One more thing that the US should do - support & recognize an independent Kurdistan should the Kurds vote this year for their own separate state.
That would be only fair for having thrown them under the bus repeatedly, yes.
Yes, I'm sure you have some rationalizations for your bigotry, but I'm not sure how you confused opinion polls for the scholarly work of centuries of clerics.
You don't apparently understand the meaning of the word 'jihad'. It could very easily describe your behavior. Yes, I agree that it's fucked up. I mean, it's kind of funny, but more sad.
Terrorism globally has killed a tiny fraction of the amount of people that have been killed in civil warfare between Muslims. Your argument is like saying, "Why don't normal Americans speak out against criminal gang members?" For one, we do, for two, this is a thousand times more a problem for them than for other people. I assure you that as much as you might like to deny it, humans are pretty similar all around the world, and nobody likes having radicalized psychos hanging around them. Hopefully we may exclude you from that category.
Tautologies are tautological. Trans people != people with transplants. Not even the ones who've had SRS. Your speaking on this subject from such a great depth of ignorance is not appreciated.
So are autism and Down syndrome.
Autism is also not considered a disease these days, for the same reason.
No, but it is my business and the business of every American voter who we want to serve in the US military and what treatments we want our public healthcare system to cover. That's why we have elections, like in 2016 for example.
Bizarrely wrong. No, it's the Army's business who they take, unless they're somehow violating civil rights, in which case I'm sure there would be legal recourse. This has absolutely nothing to do with any election.
You have no idea who I am or what I had to deal with growing up. And I don't care whether you dress up in women's clothes or chop off your willy; it's a free country. Just don't expect others to pay for it through their taxes and don't blame others if you hate your life. Whether you're happy or not is entirely up to you, and your attitude is that of a petulant, immature child.
You keep quiet, you queer! This is a free country, we get to screw you however we want, and you'd better like it, y'hear? Or we'll do something you really don't like!
If you don't worry about becoming a hate crime statistic on a daily basis, you might want to take a back seat there. I mean, you're willing to be all kinds of rude and insulting to people online, and do you think that you're the only one? That other people don't say far worse, and act on it? The majority of transgender people have been assaulted or sexually abused. Job discrimination is so rampant that it doesn't even make the list of discussion topics, and most people in the US will freely admit they'll never give a tranny a job. The discrimination is very real, and yes, it's quite well understood that your first defense is to deny that the problem exists in the first place, and attack the persons complaining. The morality of this situation may escape you; it does not escape others.
Let's not give Steve Jobs too much credit for employing Jony Ive.
So you are one of those best programmers who is messing around on hackerrank. Good job being a top programmer.
I'm honestly not at all sure how you read that into my post. Was it the part where I asked for help with a problem or the part where I implied that you might be so far above my level of skill as to find all of these problems easy? I mean, I don't think that there are many people who fit that description, but I'm certainly not going to assume that a longtime slashdot contributor is not one of them. I did in point of fact assume that I was responding to someone with greater skill and experience than myself, and thought that I was being fairly explicit about saying so: "this may put me in the chaff rather than the wheat", i.e. that I find this difficult may mean that I am simply a poor programmer. Did something I say contribute to the opposite impression?
(I've been talking to recruiters lately, and every time I hear someone intimate that I might count as a "senior" developer I die a little inside. The worst thing would be if it were true.)
So sampling needs to be improved, and that's even before talking about how to measure 'top,' which is not clearly defined in itself.
Right, hence the subject line, and hence why your first statement was unsupportable. Even if you could account for all programmers' time we still don't have an objective measure.
What you're saying is literally correct, that we do not know whether their sample is representative, however, the definition of "top programmer" does not naturally exclude participation on HackerRank. It's not like we yank your Geek Card for solving a challenge there. Statistics is not my strong suit, but I suspect that there would be a substantial overlap between top programmers as measured by HR and as measured by some other method.
That said, I'm a bit confused. You seem to be in favor of timed programming competitions, are you aware that HR does that, or do you find some other flaw with how they run them?
With respect, I do not think you actually do understand. It's not "some kind of consensus," the voting system is designed for a very specific kind of consensus, which avoids the error that you're very keen on making. This is sounding very like motivated reasoning.
Yes, it would be more unfair if systemd had been chosen by a simple plurality vote, especially with a small plurality. They used a system which accounted for that: your objection is invalid.
I mean, yes, but that's not how they were actually counting the votes, so I have trouble seeing the relevancy. If they had been counting the number of people who picked it as their first option, systemd would have had an easy plurality. The entire point of this voting method in the first place is that viewing things in that way is not very fairly representative of people's opinions.
I view this as a lack of response.