"Science should be determined by the evidence available and the best interpretation of it at the time, not by people's feelings or politics."
I'm not sure that you're not the troll -- I seriously don't understand the level of bellyaching on your part. Who am I going to trust more on the issue, some writer trying to peddle a pop-culture book, or 100+ scientists engaged in the actual research? It's seems like a no-brainer as to who likely has a better grasp of the evidence and interpretation. If you're so intensely bothered by people engaging in argument, then I agree you need to grow a thicker skin or GTFO of academia, if you're actually going in that direction.
Side question: What's your stance on global warming?
MS Ribbon encourages that kind of mindless position-process because you can't even talk about it without words attached. All you can do is grunt and point at the cave paintings.
None of these count as either citations, or even support your original statements. (a) A citation is a short on-topic quote with reference on where to find it -- it is not the entirety of a book, video, or article. (b) All of these sources actually say that Israelis are to blame, except that some Israeli military spokesperson makes a claim that "maybe" Hamas is to blame. I don't see anything here about your GP claim that "You mean the hospital where snipers were shooting at soldiers? Bet you also turn a blind eye to them transporting terrorists around in ambulances.", it's completely off-topic.
Congratulations, I am now even more convinced that you are a BS propagandist. Try again if you like.
False. Sample size and margin of error aren't even commensurable quantities (not even same units). The only requirements for estimating a population proportion are (a) a random sample, and (b) at least 5 "yes" and 5 "no" responses in the sample. As someone else pointed out, the margin of error here would be about 14%, at the 95% confidence level, assuming a randomized sample. (Weiss, Introductory Statistics, 9E, Section 12.1.)
Ladies and gentlemen: The parent post is what it looks like when someone tries to BS you with fancy words that they don't understand.
"A lot of this hysterical screaming about how we're destroying the planet seems a lot like hubris. On certain level, the idea that we have that much power pleases the egos of some people."
Holy god, these "argument by hubris and ego" debates are so fucking stupid. Look, they can always be flipped around the other way: "People believing they can exponentially expand in population without suffering the same limits as any other species sounds like hubris. The idea that we can do whatever we want without consequences pleases the ego of people."
See? It always cuts both ways, Such a stupid thing to hang an argument on. Scientific data or GTFO.
Guys like him fantasize about living in a sci-fi film so bad (Blade Runner, Foundation series, Martian Chronicles, whatever) that they will the poetically tragic destruction of life on Earth, so long as it better motivates us to become spacemen. The first might happen, the second won't, but they do like to imagine.
Don't worry: someday they'll have another decades-long African occupation, or nuke somebody, and then Droolin' Joe Sixpack will be making the opposite joke for the next half-century.
Probably not that predictable. The atrocity at that point might be: must be implanted in your butt to work, or automatically sniffs out and takes control of your car or flying drone, etc.
'At least, I think those bars are showing percentages."
Can you not read the label on the y-axis? It says, "APPEARANCES ON THE WATCH LIST".
And anyway, the 3rd bar (the next one higher than Tea Party groups) is for "Acorn Successors", ACORN being the group that many Republicans blame for electing Obama in the first place. So your arguments seem to be in a shambles.
"The research could be used for health-tracking apps, baby monitors, and for the military and law enforcement."
Yeah, lead with the health-tracking and baby monitors, which actually benefits the subject, such that the subject would happily allow a monitor right next to them, and thus "through the walls" monitoring will never, ever get used.
Bury the bit about using it shoot people who break a drug law, or a resister of some foreign tyranny, in a way that they never have a chance to see it coming, which is how this will actually get used.
"humans are not all good guys looking out for societies interests, but their own."
Let me flip this a bit. Most humans are empathetic and actually do look out for those in their community around them (society, if you wish to call it that). But a small number are indeed sociopaths who look out only for themselves. From a game-theory perspective, the more Utopian a society becomes (i.e., trusting of others), the more advantage and profit there is to being a scam-artist sociopath. So there is a hard-core selection for a small number of these people. In fact, it does seem likely that our institutions and governments are more often run by sociopaths than otherwise. Being willing to step on another man's neck is fairly rare but does have its rewards, unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you cite data like GP did? It's like you're going out of your way for people to disbelieve you.
"(See 'Fireball in 10x10 room')"
Edition dependent: Yes in 1-2E. No in 0E, BX, 3-4-5E.
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/07/spells-through-ages-fireball.html
Thank you for taking the time to post this.
"Science should be determined by the evidence available and the best interpretation of it at the time, not by people's feelings or politics."
I'm not sure that you're not the troll -- I seriously don't understand the level of bellyaching on your part. Who am I going to trust more on the issue, some writer trying to peddle a pop-culture book, or 100+ scientists engaged in the actual research? It's seems like a no-brainer as to who likely has a better grasp of the evidence and interpretation. If you're so intensely bothered by people engaging in argument, then I agree you need to grow a thicker skin or GTFO of academia, if you're actually going in that direction.
Side question: What's your stance on global warming?
Getting in the car and finding that Chris Christie shut down most of the lanes to gain political leverage.
MS Ribbon encourages that kind of mindless position-process because you can't even talk about it without words attached. All you can do is grunt and point at the cave paintings.
True, but that's a separate issue. The point is, the claim that a sample size of 49 is insufficient (and instead needs to be 10,000) is totally false.
None of these count as either citations, or even support your original statements. (a) A citation is a short on-topic quote with reference on where to find it -- it is not the entirety of a book, video, or article. (b) All of these sources actually say that Israelis are to blame, except that some Israeli military spokesperson makes a claim that "maybe" Hamas is to blame. I don't see anything here about your GP claim that "You mean the hospital where snipers were shooting at soldiers? Bet you also turn a blind eye to them transporting terrorists around in ambulances.", it's completely off-topic.
Congratulations, I am now even more convinced that you are a BS propagandist. Try again if you like.
"Way below the margin of error."
False. Sample size and margin of error aren't even commensurable quantities (not even same units). The only requirements for estimating a population proportion are (a) a random sample, and (b) at least 5 "yes" and 5 "no" responses in the sample. As someone else pointed out, the margin of error here would be about 14%, at the 95% confidence level, assuming a randomized sample. (Weiss, Introductory Statistics, 9E, Section 12.1.)
Ladies and gentlemen: The parent post is what it looks like when someone tries to BS you with fancy words that they don't understand.
"A lot of this hysterical screaming about how we're destroying the planet seems a lot like hubris. On certain level, the idea that we have that much power pleases the egos of some people."
Holy god, these "argument by hubris and ego" debates are so fucking stupid. Look, they can always be flipped around the other way: "People believing they can exponentially expand in population without suffering the same limits as any other species sounds like hubris. The idea that we can do whatever we want without consequences pleases the ego of people."
See? It always cuts both ways, Such a stupid thing to hang an argument on. Scientific data or GTFO.
Guys like him fantasize about living in a sci-fi film so bad (Blade Runner, Foundation series, Martian Chronicles, whatever) that they will the poetically tragic destruction of life on Earth, so long as it better motivates us to become spacemen. The first might happen, the second won't, but they do like to imagine.
It's totally the Great Filter.
See: Machiavelli's The Prince.
Don't worry: someday they'll have another decades-long African occupation, or nuke somebody, and then Droolin' Joe Sixpack will be making the opposite joke for the next half-century.
Translation: "I am butthurt that I've been whipped in the productivity game. By a municipality. In France."
Oh, to live in a libertarian paradise where everything on earth is explainable within the first week of Econ 101.
"Vacation time is not something that government can force an employer to add on top of your salary"
Demonstrably false.
Citation? Will presume this is BS propaganda until then.
"Where do you work, I wonder, that you believe people who have flaws, like we all do, should be treated like used tissues?"
Probably a place where police/SWAT don't show up with machine guns if he whines "Timmy's being mean to me".
Probably not that predictable. The atrocity at that point might be: must be implanted in your butt to work, or automatically sniffs out and takes control of your car or flying drone, etc.
"effecience was improved"
I'm sure it was.
'At least, I think those bars are showing percentages."
Can you not read the label on the y-axis? It says, "APPEARANCES ON THE WATCH LIST".
And anyway, the 3rd bar (the next one higher than Tea Party groups) is for "Acorn Successors", ACORN being the group that many Republicans blame for electing Obama in the first place. So your arguments seem to be in a shambles.
"The research could be used for health-tracking apps, baby monitors, and for the military and law enforcement."
Yeah, lead with the health-tracking and baby monitors, which actually benefits the subject, such that the subject would happily allow a monitor right next to them, and thus "through the walls" monitoring will never, ever get used.
Bury the bit about using it shoot people who break a drug law, or a resister of some foreign tyranny, in a way that they never have a chance to see it coming, which is how this will actually get used.
Ugh.
[Citation needed.]
"humans are not all good guys looking out for societies interests, but their own."
Let me flip this a bit. Most humans are empathetic and actually do look out for those in their community around them (society, if you wish to call it that). But a small number are indeed sociopaths who look out only for themselves. From a game-theory perspective, the more Utopian a society becomes (i.e., trusting of others), the more advantage and profit there is to being a scam-artist sociopath. So there is a hard-core selection for a small number of these people. In fact, it does seem likely that our institutions and governments are more often run by sociopaths than otherwise. Being willing to step on another man's neck is fairly rare but does have its rewards, unfortunately.