...most creationists on this planet are Muslim or Hindu, and in case you haven't noticed, in Muslim areas, the mosque has enormous influence over not only the state, but places hard restrictions on academia in what conclusions they can and cannot reach.
Many high school teachers still teach that a scientific theory "becomes a law" after testing, when in fact theories and laws are entirely separate things. Much is wrong with our science education in this country, I'm afraid, and bronze age fairy tales are only part of the problem.:(
"Scientists" who believe in a young universe are only able to maintain their position through lies and bad logic. Most creationists have been deceived, so we can't call them liars, but YEC "scientists" are in a position to actually know better, and so it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are lying.
When we have two competing theories, we meticulously go through all of the evidence and see how each theory explains the evidence. In every case, the Talking Snake Theory of Creation either offers no explanation, or offers an explanation that is the opposite of what we find in the evidence. The Talking Snake Theory of Creation is falsifiable and in fact has already been falsified. It is only taken seriously by the deceivers and the deceived.
Most creationists on this planet are Hindu or Muslim, which if you've noticed are mostly in places other than North America. Furthermore, South Korea has quite a few evangelicals (even if they are outnumbered by "none of the above" and Buddhists at the moment). Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Anything that does not have an extreme right wing bias is identified as having a left-wing bias by the "fair and balanced" crowd. You want fair and balanced, stick to Conservapedia. That's what it's there for.
Those take-downs are all initiated by someone filing a complaint with YouTube. Asking YouTube to pre-screen everything that gets posted is an entirely different animal.
If you choose larger-sized text, you still have the same typeface, but a different font. Sorry for the derail, but the constant misuse of "font" really bugs me.
Just to reiterate, Helvetica is a typeface. Twelve point Helvetica bold is a font.
I haven't owned an Apple product since the Mac OS 9.x days and have vowed never to set foot in their walled garden again, that is not to say their products are without value, even at their inflated prices. Their code runs on a very limited range of hardware, and so they are able to optimize their software to an extent that would be unthinkable on Windows or Android, and it shows.
It's not the right choice for everyone, and it is not the right choice for me, but that doesn't mean it's fair to imply that it is the wrong choice for everybody.
Medical research was a little late the science party, and they still have serious issues to work out. Some of these problems can't be helped (low sample sizes lead to higher p values, but higher sample sizes place more human beings at risk), others can (not being skeptical enough of research conducted by organizations with a financial stake in the outcomes).
Most of these problems are peculiar to medical research and should not be conflated with all of science. While we should hold the medical research community's feet to the fire over this, the reason we are hearing so much about this is that they themselves are talking about it and they themselves are conducting the meta-research that is producing all of these articles. Other branches of science have looked down on medical research for a long time, but at least they are now getting serious about addressing the problems.
The tests done on those Chertoff Porno Scanners were deeply flawed. They might be as safe as the TSA and Chertoff claim, but until we have better tests there is no way to know for certain.
...but in this instance, they're making the right decision.
Long ago, Microsoft would drive entire markets out of business with a particular tactic. Every time some innovative software developer produced something new and useful enough to create a whole new market (or sub-market or whatever you want to call it), Microsoft would barge in, create a similar product, and offer it for free with their operating system.
Countless innovative software companies were driven out of business this way. Whole markets dried up and blew away. I and many others lambasted Microsoft for stifling innovation in the software market by doing this, and I still think those complaints against Microsoft were valid. So now people are whining at Microsoft for doing precisely the opposite? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
So you'll have to take the extra step of installing a free piece of software to perform the same function, a function that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in this new world of digital streaming. You'll survive.
I find it highly ironic that you are whining about not getting something for free given the rightist drivel in your sig.
What is it about conservative/authoritarian political movements that causes them to do this? The Nazis were convinced they were being persecuted by Jews even as they stuffed them into ovens en masse. Apartheid South Africans were convinced they were being persecuted by dark-skinned Africans. And of course American conservolibertarians are convinced that the rich are being persecuted by the poor, men are being persecuted by women, Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals, whites are being persecuted by minorities, etc.
It's not just that they are convinced they are victims. They are convinced they are victims when precisely the opposite is happening. I cannot fathom the level of delusion necessary to make people think this way, but it seems that every major conservative political movement does this.
Yes, we need to get rid of lobbyists, but the phenomenon you speak of is a different animal. If lobbying were illegal, then she would have received some other cushy job at NBC Universal. This whole "screw over the voters/taxpayers for Acme Corp, then get a cushy job with Acme Corp" routine happens in just about every part of the government, even the military.
What we need to do is make it illegal for any high-ranking government employee to get a job with any corporation that is regulated by or a contractor for that employee's position. Generals can't get jobs with military contractors, FTC execs can't get jobs with Wall Street firms, FAA execs can't get jobs with airlines, etc., etc.
I know what I am proposing sounds draconian, but this tactic has an incredibly corrupting influence over government, and this is the only thing I can think of to put an absolute stop to it. If anyone has any other ideas, I'm more than willing to listen.
The very places that are ideal to place wind farms tend to be places that birds like to use for traveling long distances. As long as the major bird "traffic lanes" are mapped out before choosing sites to place wind farms, the number of birds killed can be reduced. Put them in the wrong place, though, and you could end up killing an awful lot of them.
...I'm afraid it's a valid concern. Not because of anything you said, but because Microsoft really does pay shills to post at places like this and pose as a regular person. It's not just Microsoft either, as this is a very common marketing tactic nowadays. We have no choice but to be skeptical of anyone who says anything positive about a product from a large corporation. That's not to say that all positive comments about products from large corporations are automatically the output of paid shills, but as a community we should be immediately skeptical of such things.
In a perfect world, corporations would not use this tactic, and thus we could immediately dismiss the "yer a shill" accusations whenever they come up, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in this world. Any such positive statements must be treated with skepticism.
The difference is in the validity of the arguments, and in this case, I happen to agree with yours.
You seem skeptical of the fact that climate change is happening at all, much less that it is caused by human actions. 90% of the scientists from the relevant field (as well as 90% of all scientists, but that's not as relevant) agree that the climate is changing and that human activities are contributing to it. This is settled science. It is not up for debate. The best "science" the Fair And Balanced set can come up with is a guy who literally doesn't know degrees from radians.
Accurately predicting the final result of anthropogenic climate change is another matter entirely. That part of the discussion is very much up for debate, but declaring that anthropogenic climate change itself is a matter of opinion only shows that you cannot be persuaded by evidence.
Ask a physicist about what was there before the Big Bang, and you're almost certain to get a personal slant in his or her answer. Ask a medical researcher about the Germ Theory of Disease, and you can pretty much take what he or she says to the bank. The difference between the two is a little thing called a "scientific consensus". If the consensus is strong (say, 90% from the relevant field), then the likelihood of personal bias/agenda/conspiracy/whatever is driving the answer is vanishingly small (although still a nonzero number).
The paid experts people are mentioning in this thread are often expressing opinions that have little to do with scientific consensus (e.g. handwriting experts expressing an opinion on a particular piece of handwriting).
...when you have a scientist discussing something for which there is overwhelming consensus in one of the hard sciences, agendas and prejudices may be present, but to a far lesser degree than one might find with, say, a handwriting expert who declares "Yep. That's so-and-so's handwriting."
Businesses make predictions like that all the time. We were once told that if the government forbade corporations from making ketchup out of rotten tomatoes and red paint that the ketchup business would collapse and there would be no one left making ketchup. These chicken little claims from neofeudalists come out so frequently that one wonders why anyone takes them seriously anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Experts say Macs will be targeted more and more in upcoming years. Low market share is no longer protecting the platform, it seems.
If so, they're not doing a very good job. Texas is one of the most polluted states in the country.
...most creationists on this planet are Muslim or Hindu, and in case you haven't noticed, in Muslim areas, the mosque has enormous influence over not only the state, but places hard restrictions on academia in what conclusions they can and cannot reach.
Many high school teachers still teach that a scientific theory "becomes a law" after testing, when in fact theories and laws are entirely separate things. Much is wrong with our science education in this country, I'm afraid, and bronze age fairy tales are only part of the problem. :(
"Scientists" who believe in a young universe are only able to maintain their position through lies and bad logic. Most creationists have been deceived, so we can't call them liars, but YEC "scientists" are in a position to actually know better, and so it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are lying.
When we have two competing theories, we meticulously go through all of the evidence and see how each theory explains the evidence. In every case, the Talking Snake Theory of Creation either offers no explanation, or offers an explanation that is the opposite of what we find in the evidence. The Talking Snake Theory of Creation is falsifiable and in fact has already been falsified. It is only taken seriously by the deceivers and the deceived.
Most creationists on this planet are Hindu or Muslim, which if you've noticed are mostly in places other than North America. Furthermore, South Korea has quite a few evangelicals (even if they are outnumbered by "none of the above" and Buddhists at the moment). Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
This has to be a parody. No Christian could possibly be that stupid despite the stereotype many people have about Christians.
Anything that does not have an extreme right wing bias is identified as having a left-wing bias by the "fair and balanced" crowd. You want fair and balanced, stick to Conservapedia. That's what it's there for.
Those take-downs are all initiated by someone filing a complaint with YouTube. Asking YouTube to pre-screen everything that gets posted is an entirely different animal.
If you choose larger-sized text, you still have the same typeface, but a different font. Sorry for the derail, but the constant misuse of "font" really bugs me.
Just to reiterate, Helvetica is a typeface. Twelve point Helvetica bold is a font.
I haven't owned an Apple product since the Mac OS 9.x days and have vowed never to set foot in their walled garden again, that is not to say their products are without value, even at their inflated prices. Their code runs on a very limited range of hardware, and so they are able to optimize their software to an extent that would be unthinkable on Windows or Android, and it shows.
It's not the right choice for everyone, and it is not the right choice for me, but that doesn't mean it's fair to imply that it is the wrong choice for everybody.
Let's all try to be careful, here.
Medical research was a little late the science party, and they still have serious issues to work out. Some of these problems can't be helped (low sample sizes lead to higher p values, but higher sample sizes place more human beings at risk), others can (not being skeptical enough of research conducted by organizations with a financial stake in the outcomes).
Most of these problems are peculiar to medical research and should not be conflated with all of science. While we should hold the medical research community's feet to the fire over this, the reason we are hearing so much about this is that they themselves are talking about it and they themselves are conducting the meta-research that is producing all of these articles. Other branches of science have looked down on medical research for a long time, but at least they are now getting serious about addressing the problems.
The tests done on those Chertoff Porno Scanners were deeply flawed. They might be as safe as the TSA and Chertoff claim, but until we have better tests there is no way to know for certain.
People tend to forget that evolution happens at the population level, not at the individual level. Otherwise, social species would never have evolved.
...but in this instance, they're making the right decision.
Long ago, Microsoft would drive entire markets out of business with a particular tactic. Every time some innovative software developer produced something new and useful enough to create a whole new market (or sub-market or whatever you want to call it), Microsoft would barge in, create a similar product, and offer it for free with their operating system.
Countless innovative software companies were driven out of business this way. Whole markets dried up and blew away. I and many others lambasted Microsoft for stifling innovation in the software market by doing this, and I still think those complaints against Microsoft were valid. So now people are whining at Microsoft for doing precisely the opposite? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
So you'll have to take the extra step of installing a free piece of software to perform the same function, a function that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in this new world of digital streaming. You'll survive.
I find it highly ironic that you are whining about not getting something for free given the rightist drivel in your sig.
What is it about conservative/authoritarian political movements that causes them to do this? The Nazis were convinced they were being persecuted by Jews even as they stuffed them into ovens en masse. Apartheid South Africans were convinced they were being persecuted by dark-skinned Africans. And of course American conservolibertarians are convinced that the rich are being persecuted by the poor, men are being persecuted by women, Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals, whites are being persecuted by minorities, etc.
It's not just that they are convinced they are victims. They are convinced they are victims when precisely the opposite is happening. I cannot fathom the level of delusion necessary to make people think this way, but it seems that every major conservative political movement does this.
Yes, we need to get rid of lobbyists, but the phenomenon you speak of is a different animal. If lobbying were illegal, then she would have received some other cushy job at NBC Universal. This whole "screw over the voters/taxpayers for Acme Corp, then get a cushy job with Acme Corp" routine happens in just about every part of the government, even the military.
What we need to do is make it illegal for any high-ranking government employee to get a job with any corporation that is regulated by or a contractor for that employee's position. Generals can't get jobs with military contractors, FTC execs can't get jobs with Wall Street firms, FAA execs can't get jobs with airlines, etc., etc.
I know what I am proposing sounds draconian, but this tactic has an incredibly corrupting influence over government, and this is the only thing I can think of to put an absolute stop to it. If anyone has any other ideas, I'm more than willing to listen.
Honestly, when I read it, my first thought was "Ah, this is a creationist trying to be clever."
The very places that are ideal to place wind farms tend to be places that birds like to use for traveling long distances. As long as the major bird "traffic lanes" are mapped out before choosing sites to place wind farms, the number of birds killed can be reduced. Put them in the wrong place, though, and you could end up killing an awful lot of them.
...I'm afraid it's a valid concern. Not because of anything you said, but because Microsoft really does pay shills to post at places like this and pose as a regular person. It's not just Microsoft either, as this is a very common marketing tactic nowadays. We have no choice but to be skeptical of anyone who says anything positive about a product from a large corporation. That's not to say that all positive comments about products from large corporations are automatically the output of paid shills, but as a community we should be immediately skeptical of such things.
In a perfect world, corporations would not use this tactic, and thus we could immediately dismiss the "yer a shill" accusations whenever they come up, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in this world. Any such positive statements must be treated with skepticism.
The difference is in the validity of the arguments, and in this case, I happen to agree with yours.
Sorry for going off topic like that. Couldn't resist.
You seem skeptical of the fact that climate change is happening at all, much less that it is caused by human actions. 90% of the scientists from the relevant field (as well as 90% of all scientists, but that's not as relevant) agree that the climate is changing and that human activities are contributing to it. This is settled science. It is not up for debate. The best "science" the Fair And Balanced set can come up with is a guy who literally doesn't know degrees from radians.
Accurately predicting the final result of anthropogenic climate change is another matter entirely. That part of the discussion is very much up for debate, but declaring that anthropogenic climate change itself is a matter of opinion only shows that you cannot be persuaded by evidence.
Ask a physicist about what was there before the Big Bang, and you're almost certain to get a personal slant in his or her answer. Ask a medical researcher about the Germ Theory of Disease, and you can pretty much take what he or she says to the bank. The difference between the two is a little thing called a "scientific consensus". If the consensus is strong (say, 90% from the relevant field), then the likelihood of personal bias/agenda/conspiracy/whatever is driving the answer is vanishingly small (although still a nonzero number).
The paid experts people are mentioning in this thread are often expressing opinions that have little to do with scientific consensus (e.g. handwriting experts expressing an opinion on a particular piece of handwriting).
...when you have a scientist discussing something for which there is overwhelming consensus in one of the hard sciences, agendas and prejudices may be present, but to a far lesser degree than one might find with, say, a handwriting expert who declares "Yep. That's so-and-so's handwriting."
Businesses make predictions like that all the time. We were once told that if the government forbade corporations from making ketchup out of rotten tomatoes and red paint that the ketchup business would collapse and there would be no one left making ketchup. These chicken little claims from neofeudalists come out so frequently that one wonders why anyone takes them seriously anymore.