"Righties"?...hmmm. While the term "Leftists" is a shibboleth for people who consume conservative talk-show drivel, and I can appreciate turn-about, I have to put forward the proposal to amend it to "TightyRighties".
I know plenty of history. Well, there's a lot of it, and it keeps growing, but it's always good to know more. And the scientific body of knowledge (and people in general) were fucking terrible back in the 1800's. And they were worse in the 1400's. And WORSER in the 400's. But thricely I say unto thee, it's gotten better.
But yes, as far as institutions that I trust, the various science institutions on the whole are right up there. Because the institutions are run by scientists who search for the truth and enjoy being less wrong and calling bullshit on others. There's plenty of science institutions I don't trust. Like those start-up for-profit open journals. They're just scams. They don't actually peer review anything. But there are plenty of good scientific journals out there filled with people doing their job. Mostly. Reproducibility is a growing concern. Academia, for all it's faults, still does a damn good job of supporting the truth as a pillar of society. I also like the FDA and USDA having consumed food outside of the USA. And I trust the IRS will come find me and flog me if I just don't pay my taxes like I trust foxnews to spin whatever they can in favor of the GOP.
Jesus christ, if you DON'T trust any sort of institution then you might as well be a freaking anarchist/prepper and this whole "society" thing just isn't for you. Because what's the alternative? Distrusting ALL governments, organizations, religions, and companies? Only getting your worldly insight from +5 modded slashdot posts? That doesn't seem.... mentally healthy.
If you're advocating for only trusting... I dunno... "young things" because they "start out with good intentions" then you have to look at the recent rise of new political movements, tech start-ups, the brand-spanking new governments of Iraq and ISIS, those for-profit journals I mentioned, and the relatively new corporation of Facebook....ick.
But no, the REASON I trust old institutions of science is because they are, by the very roots of the scientific process, open to change when a better way presents itself. Things keep getting better for humanity. Keep up with the times or, like you said, become corrupted. Same thing with the USA. For all it's faults, it's founders went to a lot of work to give us the tools to make it better.
I didn't ignore it. Science got better. Social Darwinism isn't supported by the majority of scientists. If it ever was. It was an insult by the way, like "trickle-down economics". It only had widespread use after 1944. Now... the ideas behind the insult, oh yeah, those were crazy popular.... among the NAZIs. Emphasis on crazy. Not everyone agreed with those guys.
In fact, you're either ignorant or a fool if you think the institutions of science should be believed,
I believe in democracy and that if you get enough people together collectively they'll have a good sense of what to do and how things are. Oh man, did you miss that? "If the institutions of science, collectively, support X...." Collectively, like all together. If they disagree, they hey, it's not settled science. If the majority of scientists in a field of study all agree on something.... what are the odds that they're wrong?
and I don't think you're a fool.
Well aww shucks. Thanks man. I don't think you're a fool either. But you've got a chip on your shoulder against science the size of a crucifix.
And no, a sue-happy culture doesn't work to make it happen either because they have to wait until they get cancer from the coal plant, prove they got cancer from the coal plant, and then still pay their medical costs which doesn't magically make them NOT have cancer.
Oh it's most certainly determined, PARTLY, by genetics. I mean, have you ever chatted with someone with Downs Syndrome?
But that's the whole point. It's partly determined by genetics, and partly determined by education and stuff.
If genetics had no part in intelligence.... why aren't ants as intelligent as people? Do you think you could control and environment that could raise an ant to be as intelligent as yourself?
Also, Where did the leap come from to relate intelligence to skin color? Please don't shove things down my throat. That's rude.
Combating pollution. Doesn't make the EPA a dime. VASTLY valuable for society. If companies had to pay for these sort of externalities, then the magical libertarian utopia might work. But they don't. And no, a sue-happy culture doesn't work to make it happen either because they have to wait until they get cancer from the coal plant, prove they got cancer from the coal plant, and then still pay their medical costs which doesn't magically make them NOT have cancer.
All things are potentially profitable.
Pft, sure. And communism potentially works. Tell another one.
what does "socially valuable" have to do with science anyway?
Scientific knowledge is socially valuable. The basic sciences don't make products instantly, but they lay the groundwork for companies to do the R&D to turn it into products and services.
The author of the OP is referring to science as an institution.
What I said applies equally to both. If the scientific method, as used in whatever fashion you deem fit, supports discrimination (That is, it sees a correlation between positive outcomes and the act of discrimination), then we ought to be discriminating. Likewise, if the institutions of science, collectively, support discrimination, then we probably out to be discriminating. Presumably because they've used science-the-tool to come to that conclusion, as is their job.
IF statements. Come on. It's slashdot. If A then B. This shouldn't go over anyone's head here. Do you really see all of academia donning KKK hoods any time soon?
Heather Metcalf was quoting and supporting the idea that science supported discrimination. Hey, she's right. Scientists have gotten SO MUCH BETTER than they used to be. Because science (The tool, the community, and the current working collection of knowledge) has gotten better over time. But she's also saying it continues to support discrimination, and that DOES NOT SUPPORT HER GOALS AT ALL. Really I just pointed out that she doesn't understand the ramifications of what she said.
I guess for a lot of people in the march for science, it's kind of a religion, they even talk about belief and romance, I guess
. . . dude has one sign about not needing belief. Are you dense? Come on, that's a pretty blatant attack on religion. And the works of Sir Mixalot aren't exactly about.... romance.
. . . Yeah? It's pretty well known that... "both genes and the environment have something to do with".... say... your maximum running speed. ie, if you train to be a runner, you'll be able to run faster. That's the environment. And if you're born without legs, you probably won't be running too fast. That's your genes.
That's saying that intelligence is affected by both nature and nurture. That's... everything. Both sides of the debate. There's nature, what your born with, your genes. And there's nurture, everything that happens to you and everything you do after you're born. (also prenatal effects). There's nothing else.
The dude is just acknowledging the nature vs nurture debate....This book is about genetics right? He's hedging. Saying that the environment has an effect is saying that genes aren't the end-all determinator.
Don't wear such rose-tinted glasses when looking at science. Remember eugenetics? Spontaneous generation? Heliocentrism? Science has been used and abused by people for their own political agenda for ages and isn't likely to stop. Just like religion, spirituality, fashion, and economics. One article by a crazy lady trying to forcefully inject political bias into the sciences isn't going to kill it all off.
Science is (was) just a method of learning which things we can prove are false via experiment and repeated observation.
And making meaningful predictions from there. Don't forget that part. Science shouldn't dictate policy, as that undermines democracy, but if a shitty policy get proposed, science can (at least try to) tell you how it's going to blow up in your face.
The social sciences though... oof. Man, if you had said "social science is dead" then I might not argue against you. It's just hard to have a unbiased double-blind that involves masses of people.
Scientists, for a few centuries, were also really big on spontaneous generation. But that also turned out to be false thanks to Francesco Redi and Pasteur. It gets better with time. It's certainly not perfect now, but the alternative is literally guesswork. One of the big problems with science is how much it gets tainted by political bias exactly like Heather Metcalf is trying to do.
and doing good sociology might be the hardest of all
Truth. It's such a soft science I have a hard time accepting any sort of statements from sociologists. Is there any such this as 'firmly established' scientific theories in sociology? What I'd love to see is a double-blind of all the sociology departments and leading figures to give their interpretation or assessment of.... some social issue. Like the [Rosenhan Experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment), but for sociology rather than psychiatry. If the outcome is a crap-shoot, it's not a science.
oye, and btw, while the concept of spontaneous generation was pretty conclusively shown to be full of shit, the concept of abiogenesis, which is the same damn thing but only for the initial seed of life, is now a serious field of study. Science gets better. But some fields are further along than others.
the need for a science that addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged.
I'm hitting that point where "the privleged" is just an overused buzzword.
"many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent --
attacks on black and brown lives,
oil pipelines through indigenous lands,
sexual harassment and assault,
ADA access in our communities,
immigration policy,
lack of clean water in several cities across the country,
poverty wages,
LGBTQIA rights,
and mass shootings, are scientific issues
. . . ADA access isn't really a scientific issue. It's political. And one that has largely been won in support for the disabled. ADA compliance is pretty damn strict and if anyone finds non-compliance they can sue for thousands to millions. It's a settled issue.
Clean water is likewise pretty settled. We need it. The issues in Michigan are economic ones. The science is pretty clear: Lead fucks you up.
LGBBQWTF rights are most certainly a political issue, not a scientific one. Figuring out if furries are born with it or have been brainwashed by cartoons is a question for science. What to do about it is a matter of politics.
And that's the crux here. Science INFORMS and GUIDES policy. Science doesn't say SQUAT about what to do with immigrants. It can cut through the lies and bullshit and point out the facts and truth of the matter... but not what we ought to do about it. Now, obviously if a proposed solution or policy is argued on points that are simply shown to be false thanks to scientific research, then that's a bad policy. But if you go to sociology 101, chapter 7 isn't "how to fix race issues".
Science has historically -- and generally continues to support discrimination.
WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.
pushback, largely from white men,
Way to be sexist and racist about it.
all in the name of objectivity.
. . . YES. If science and scientists can't remain objective and allow bias to taint the results then the science is BAD. And that will cause everyone to discard your findings.
But you could still do this if you had 5% of the user base. It just wouldn't haven't as much of an effect.... My entire point was that there's a sliding scale and it's not black and white. And that MS can still attempt a EEE campaign.
I support keeping telcoms regulated as common carriers under Title II.
A lot of people confuse Network Neutrality with legislation or regulation enforcing Network Neutrality. The Internet has always been, or at least strived to be, neutral. Everyone passing along everyone else's packets without regard of content, destination, owner, religion, nation, or creed. It was more or less neutral, as anyone who wasn't would be laughed out of the industry as customers chose to buy the whole Internet rather than some censored, stumpy, Internet.
And competition assured that. When there were dozens of ISPs in cities and they were all hungry for customers, the thought of breaking the fundamental underpinning of the Internet was unthinkable.
But times have changed. The wild-west frontier markets have consolidated into a handful of companies that have drawn maps dividing up the nation into non-competing territories. Mostly. Google tried competing with them. And wherever Google fiber showed up, the telcoms competed and prices dropped. Yay! But it means Google isn't making money at it and they've stopped expanding. Telcoms have even legally fought municipal wifi multiple times. You know a situation is bad when people think government could do a better job selling a service than a company.
Without competition, there is no free market. Without some alternative choice of which ISP to go to, the company has no incentive to provide good service. And so they can get away with tearing down network neutrality just to squeeze another buck out of the system. And they've been caught doing it before. I'm still royally pissed at being forced to buy access to EPSN360.com against my wishes. This bundling of internet channels is vile. An example of how they want the Internet to be structured like cable TV with the good old Internet being renamed to exclusive platinum access Internet at 500% the cost.
Without the common carrier regulation, the only think keeping them from tearing down a fundamental principle of how the Internet functions is bad PR and political backlash. If the FCC sanctions the death of Network Neutrality, that will disappear.
There are a bunch of ways to screw up regulation. Especially with something like the Internet which a lot of people don't understand. I was hesitant of trusting such a task to the FCC, and really didn't trust a telcom lobbyist like Tom Wheeler, but he did a surprisingly good job. Classifying the Telcoms as common carriers, with the nuance and details of what that means being left to the FCC with the intent of protecting consumers and encouraging innovation and a level playing field for business, seems like the best way forward.
At least that's what I wanted to say. I didn't have any time until the weekend and thought I could push it off till then. Lesson kiddos, strike while the iron is hot. Leonard Nimoy said that. Don't forget it.
given the odds going into the election she should have won hands down.
Yes... in part, thanks to the efforts of the DNC hack. Cause and effect. "I should have been able to beat that guy in a fight" "Yes, but then he shot you" "Psha, I'm not saying the bullet wound had no effect, only that I should have won hands down!"
1. Did the Russians do this?
Yeah, maybe. It's hard to say anything conclusively when the CIA might be involved. A couple things point their way but that's also easy to fake. It's also easy to forget about.
2. Doesn't the campaign have SOME responsibility for tolerating such behavior that the E-mail exposed?
For tolerating their own behaviour? Huh? Did you mean to say "have some responsibility for the behaviour the email exposed"? The DNC opposed Bernie because he was only a democrat that year. For the language and banter? No, that's honestly to be expected. They might have run a bit afoul of deciding where some contribution money went. Up to Clinton rather than down to lower candidates, but eh, making those party battle decisions is literally their job.
I don't think it was anything that Hilary did, other than mishandling that classified information. Anyone with that long of a history isn't going to have a perfectly clean record, and while it'd be a fireable offence for you or I, I don't think it was malicious in any way. I thought the blatant lie about the state of her health after she collapsed into the car was worse.
Hilary lost by a razor thin technical margin because of a lot of things. She really was uninspiring, other than simply being a woman. She represented politics as usual. Everyone thought her win was assured. Other people certainly DIDN'T vote for her because she was a woman. Bernie supporters were turned off to her, in part thanks to the DNC hack, which was likely caused by Russia. And don't discount Russia's propaganda campaign.
They sponsored a propaganda campaign pushing fake news and likely aided or were directly involved with the DNC hack.
The propaganda efforts are... you know... milktoast level of shenanigans, but it shows their intent. The hacking is more serious, but it's hard to conclusively prove anything in that realm.
And if the NSA wants to give itself a little ribbon and give itself a price it damn well better pony up some more evidence. Otherwise they're just whining about a toy being taken away. We agree on that point.
[have] Russian staff walked out to US paper and election computer networks to physically change results before a count? [And other strawmen]
No.
If a US party wants to win an election find a good candidate
Yes.
...that can win in fly over states.
...AND in the cities. Where most of the people live. We're a democracy right? If their policies only appeal to self-sustaining preppers who don't have to deal with other people every day, then that candidate is shit.
ok. Our Intelligence agencies released a report stating they think the Russians made an organized effort to influence the 2016 US presidential elections.
You can read it here. It points out a propaganda campaign using Russian Today to spread fake news. I didn't even know there was a kremlin financed US news channel.
There was certainly a cyber attack using the Gucifer identity. The report points a finger at the Guicifer identity being multiple people and not just Marcel LazÄfr Lehel who was prosecuted as he made contradictory statements. They believe he was accompliced by Russian state actors.
Sadly, they don't include these details in their report, but you can find them elsewhere. There are fingerprints pointing to known Russian groups. Like using the same attack vectors and tools: "The spearphish message was actually sent from hi.mymail@yandex[.]com, an email address from the Moscow-based webmail provider Yandex."
The caveat is that it's pretty trivial to act like you're someone else online, especially if you want to point the blame elsewhere. And we've found out the CIA has tools to help them look like other hackers. Welcome to the cloak and dagger world of reporting on the CIA where nothing is ever conclusively proven.
But from the propoganda campaign, it's obvious that Russia pushed an effort to influence the election and there's some evidence that the hackers behind the DNC leak had ties to Russian state actors.
You don't need a monopoly. If you HAD a monopoly, you wouldn't have to worry about extinguishing anything. You just have to have SOME portion of the user-base.
Hell, let's say that the boys at Ubuntu decided the next release would use NTFS and followed Microsoft's standard and protocol. And then 2 years later decided to add a fancy dancy feature of an added bit to every bloody folder declaring the contents were free(asinbeer) or not. Let's further pretend that at least SOME people loved this extended feature. Now they're using Linus's NTFS(withFreeBit). Then Microsoft releases an update to NTFS as they do. Linus just doesn't bother updating his branch, and extinguishes it. Everyone who was locked into that branch now gets the fun fun joy of migrating away or lingering on an old broken and unloved branch.
The only difference is the number of people that would buy into Linus's branch of NTFS is hella smaller than Microsoft's branch of Bash or whatever. But any portion of user-base you fuck over with fragmented and extinguished code-base is damage to the community.
If you have a monopoly and can get EVERYONE to switch to your branch which you then run off a cliff, then you've killed the whole thing.
Fix the monopoly problem and net neutrality is irrelevant
Absolutely. And "irrelevant" as in "will be maintained like it was decades prior". We've historically have had a (mostly) neutral network. It's just the way the Internet was made to work. And everyone played nice with each other's traffic because they needed them to play nice with theirs. Anyone trying to work against that would be eaten alive by the market.
But the market consolidated and now the players are powerful enough to chip away at Net Neutrality. And they've tried to repeatedly over the years. Selectively blocking service. Selectively throttling services. And they HAVE experimented with bundling portions of the Internet into the choice of ISP. Anyone remember ESPN360? The sports website you can't choose to pay for or NOT pay for.
Breaking up the telecoms again could be a great idea.
Leave the monopolies in place and no amount of rules is going to fix the problem "net neutrality" is aimed at.
. ..Maybe. There's a bunch of ways to screw it up. But treating Telcoms like common carriers fixes a lot of the problems. Letting the FCC regulate them and give them a black eye when they step out of line has worked pretty well. Surprisingly well, considering who was put in charge last go around. But the problem with the FCC is that their overall direction is going to change every 4-8 years.
Still, splitting up an oligarchy is a pretty heavy handed approach.
"net neutrality" rules will make the problem worse because they will make it even harder to break up the monopolies.
Not likely. Sherman's hammer really don't give a fuck.
Typically these sort of regulations make it harder for new companies to enter an industry. They don't have to though. As long as the rules equate to "don't fuck with traffic and play dumb" then it's not really a barrier to entry.
I'm not sure you can accept the fact that Trump won the election asnd still argue that Sanders had no chance.
You're saying that, just like Trump, the opposition didn't take Sanders seriously and thought he would be easily defeated....In our current state, that's not an argument against Sanders.
Hey, I'd agree that Trump is indeed anti-establishment. He's pro-business, but he's not an old friend of half the politicians. Other than maybe Hilary, ironically. Trump won. It's time to accept that.
He just fired an old republican. The GOP is burning. They have no idea what to do other than say "no" like they've done for the past decade. And "their boy" in the white house is off his chain.
But yeah, everyone should be cognizant that it's fairly easy to pretend you're someone else while online. And the CIA tool leaks shows that they've specifically made tools to do so.
I could see some boss in the FCC hearing that they got a million page requests and only had 10,000 submissions and thought he had an excuse for why their servers went down. Not knowing that when the site was fucked, no one could submit. It's certainly possible.
I'd like to hear why they think it was an intentional attack.
If it IS someone blocking public comment, that's disruption of democracy and the big boys at the FBI and Secret Service ought to step in. That's serious stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
"Righties"? ...hmmm. While the term "Leftists" is a shibboleth for people who consume conservative talk-show drivel, and I can appreciate turn-about, I have to put forward the proposal to amend it to "TightyRighties".
I thought Colbert's monologue was hilariously offensive.
Democracy IS an institution. Doubly so for the US electoral college, the system of representation, and the government we elect through democracy.
If we could maintain our breakneck speed at scientific progress, I'd happily repeat it by supporting science and fighting anti-science sentiment.
I know plenty of history. Well, there's a lot of it, and it keeps growing, but it's always good to know more. And the scientific body of knowledge (and people in general) were fucking terrible back in the 1800's. And they were worse in the 1400's. And WORSER in the 400's. But thricely I say unto thee, it's gotten better.
But yes, as far as institutions that I trust, the various science institutions on the whole are right up there. Because the institutions are run by scientists who search for the truth and enjoy being less wrong and calling bullshit on others. There's plenty of science institutions I don't trust. Like those start-up for-profit open journals. They're just scams. They don't actually peer review anything. But there are plenty of good scientific journals out there filled with people doing their job. Mostly. Reproducibility is a growing concern. Academia, for all it's faults, still does a damn good job of supporting the truth as a pillar of society. I also like the FDA and USDA having consumed food outside of the USA. And I trust the IRS will come find me and flog me if I just don't pay my taxes like I trust foxnews to spin whatever they can in favor of the GOP.
Jesus christ, if you DON'T trust any sort of institution then you might as well be a freaking anarchist/prepper and this whole "society" thing just isn't for you. Because what's the alternative? Distrusting ALL governments, organizations, religions, and companies? Only getting your worldly insight from +5 modded slashdot posts? That doesn't seem.... mentally healthy.
If you're advocating for only trusting... I dunno... "young things" because they "start out with good intentions" then you have to look at the recent rise of new political movements, tech start-ups, the brand-spanking new governments of Iraq and ISIS, those for-profit journals I mentioned, and the relatively new corporation of Facebook. ...ick.
But no, the REASON I trust old institutions of science is because they are, by the very roots of the scientific process, open to change when a better way presents itself. Things keep getting better for humanity. Keep up with the times or, like you said, become corrupted. Same thing with the USA. For all it's faults, it's founders went to a lot of work to give us the tools to make it better.
I didn't ignore it. Science got better. Social Darwinism isn't supported by the majority of scientists. If it ever was. It was an insult by the way, like "trickle-down economics". It only had widespread use after 1944. Now... the ideas behind the insult, oh yeah, those were crazy popular.... among the NAZIs. Emphasis on crazy. Not everyone agreed with those guys.
In fact, you're either ignorant or a fool if you think the institutions of science should be believed,
I believe in democracy and that if you get enough people together collectively they'll have a good sense of what to do and how things are. Oh man, did you miss that? "If the institutions of science, collectively, support X...." Collectively, like all together. If they disagree, they hey, it's not settled science. If the majority of scientists in a field of study all agree on something.... what are the odds that they're wrong?
and I don't think you're a fool.
Well aww shucks. Thanks man. I don't think you're a fool either. But you've got a chip on your shoulder against science the size of a crucifix.
Siiiiiiiiigh....
And no, a sue-happy culture doesn't work to make it happen either because they have to wait until they get cancer from the coal plant, prove they got cancer from the coal plant, and then still pay their medical costs which doesn't magically make them NOT have cancer.
Oh it's most certainly determined, PARTLY, by genetics. I mean, have you ever chatted with someone with Downs Syndrome?
But that's the whole point. It's partly determined by genetics, and partly determined by education and stuff.
If genetics had no part in intelligence.... why aren't ants as intelligent as people? Do you think you could control and environment that could raise an ant to be as intelligent as yourself?
Also, Where did the leap come from to relate intelligence to skin color? Please don't shove things down my throat. That's rude.
Combating pollution. Doesn't make the EPA a dime. VASTLY valuable for society. If companies had to pay for these sort of externalities, then the magical libertarian utopia might work. But they don't. And no, a sue-happy culture doesn't work to make it happen either because they have to wait until they get cancer from the coal plant, prove they got cancer from the coal plant, and then still pay their medical costs which doesn't magically make them NOT have cancer.
All things are potentially profitable.
Pft, sure. And communism potentially works. Tell another one.
what does "socially valuable" have to do with science anyway?
Scientific knowledge is socially valuable. The basic sciences don't make products instantly, but they lay the groundwork for companies to do the R&D to turn it into products and services.
The author of the OP is referring to science as an institution.
What I said applies equally to both. If the scientific method, as used in whatever fashion you deem fit, supports discrimination (That is, it sees a correlation between positive outcomes and the act of discrimination), then we ought to be discriminating. Likewise, if the institutions of science, collectively, support discrimination, then we probably out to be discriminating. Presumably because they've used science-the-tool to come to that conclusion, as is their job.
IF statements. Come on. It's slashdot. If A then B. This shouldn't go over anyone's head here. Do you really see all of academia donning KKK hoods any time soon?
Heather Metcalf was quoting and supporting the idea that science supported discrimination. Hey, she's right. Scientists have gotten SO MUCH BETTER than they used to be. Because science (The tool, the community, and the current working collection of knowledge) has gotten better over time. But she's also saying it continues to support discrimination, and that DOES NOT SUPPORT HER GOALS AT ALL. Really I just pointed out that she doesn't understand the ramifications of what she said.
I guess for a lot of people in the march for science, it's kind of a religion, they even talk about belief and romance, I guess
. . . dude has one sign about not needing belief. Are you dense? Come on, that's a pretty blatant attack on religion. And the works of Sir Mixalot aren't exactly about.... romance.
. . . Yeah? It's pretty well known that... "both genes and the environment have something to do with".... say... your maximum running speed. ie, if you train to be a runner, you'll be able to run faster. That's the environment. And if you're born without legs, you probably won't be running too fast. That's your genes.
That's saying that intelligence is affected by both nature and nurture. That's... everything. Both sides of the debate. There's nature, what your born with, your genes. And there's nurture, everything that happens to you and everything you do after you're born. (also prenatal effects). There's nothing else.
The dude is just acknowledging the nature vs nurture debate. ...This book is about genetics right? He's hedging. Saying that the environment has an effect is saying that genes aren't the end-all determinator.
Don't wear such rose-tinted glasses when looking at science. Remember eugenetics? Spontaneous generation? Heliocentrism? Science has been used and abused by people for their own political agenda for ages and isn't likely to stop. Just like religion, spirituality, fashion, and economics. One article by a crazy lady trying to forcefully inject political bias into the sciences isn't going to kill it all off.
Science is (was) just a method of learning which things we can prove are false via experiment and repeated observation.
And making meaningful predictions from there. Don't forget that part. Science shouldn't dictate policy, as that undermines democracy, but if a shitty policy get proposed, science can (at least try to) tell you how it's going to blow up in your face.
The social sciences though... oof. Man, if you had said "social science is dead" then I might not argue against you. It's just hard to have a unbiased double-blind that involves masses of people.
Scientists, for a few centuries, were also really big on spontaneous generation. But that also turned out to be false thanks to Francesco Redi and Pasteur. It gets better with time. It's certainly not perfect now, but the alternative is literally guesswork. One of the big problems with science is how much it gets tainted by political bias exactly like Heather Metcalf is trying to do.
and doing good sociology might be the hardest of all
Truth. It's such a soft science I have a hard time accepting any sort of statements from sociologists. Is there any such this as 'firmly established' scientific theories in sociology? What I'd love to see is a double-blind of all the sociology departments and leading figures to give their interpretation or assessment of.... some social issue. Like the [Rosenhan Experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment), but for sociology rather than psychiatry. If the outcome is a crap-shoot, it's not a science.
oye, and btw, while the concept of spontaneous generation was pretty conclusively shown to be full of shit, the concept of abiogenesis, which is the same damn thing but only for the initial seed of life, is now a serious field of study. Science gets better. But some fields are further along than others.
the need for a science that addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged.
I'm hitting that point where "the privleged" is just an overused buzzword.
"many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent --
. . . ADA access isn't really a scientific issue. It's political. And one that has largely been won in support for the disabled. ADA compliance is pretty damn strict and if anyone finds non-compliance they can sue for thousands to millions. It's a settled issue.
Clean water is likewise pretty settled. We need it. The issues in Michigan are economic ones. The science is pretty clear: Lead fucks you up.
LGBBQWTF rights are most certainly a political issue, not a scientific one. Figuring out if furries are born with it or have been brainwashed by cartoons is a question for science. What to do about it is a matter of politics.
And that's the crux here. Science INFORMS and GUIDES policy. Science doesn't say SQUAT about what to do with immigrants. It can cut through the lies and bullshit and point out the facts and truth of the matter... but not what we ought to do about it. Now, obviously if a proposed solution or policy is argued on points that are simply shown to be false thanks to scientific research, then that's a bad policy. But if you go to sociology 101, chapter 7 isn't "how to fix race issues".
Science has historically -- and generally continues to support discrimination.
WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.
pushback, largely from white men,
Way to be sexist and racist about it.
all in the name of objectivity.
. . . YES. If science and scientists can't remain objective and allow bias to taint the results then the science is BAD. And that will cause everyone to discard your findings.
But you could still do this if you had 5% of the user base. It just wouldn't haven't as much of an effect. ... My entire point was that there's a sliding scale and it's not black and white. And that MS can still attempt a EEE campaign.
I support keeping telcoms regulated as common carriers under Title II.
A lot of people confuse Network Neutrality with legislation or regulation enforcing Network Neutrality. The Internet has always been, or at least strived to be, neutral. Everyone passing along everyone else's packets without regard of content, destination, owner, religion, nation, or creed. It was more or less neutral, as anyone who wasn't would be laughed out of the industry as customers chose to buy the whole Internet rather than some censored, stumpy, Internet.
And competition assured that. When there were dozens of ISPs in cities and they were all hungry for customers, the thought of breaking the fundamental underpinning of the Internet was unthinkable.
But times have changed. The wild-west frontier markets have consolidated into a handful of companies that have drawn maps dividing up the nation into non-competing territories. Mostly. Google tried competing with them. And wherever Google fiber showed up, the telcoms competed and prices dropped. Yay! But it means Google isn't making money at it and they've stopped expanding. Telcoms have even legally fought municipal wifi multiple times. You know a situation is bad when people think government could do a better job selling a service than a company.
Without competition, there is no free market. Without some alternative choice of which ISP to go to, the company has no incentive to provide good service. And so they can get away with tearing down network neutrality just to squeeze another buck out of the system. And they've been caught doing it before. I'm still royally pissed at being forced to buy access to EPSN360.com against my wishes. This bundling of internet channels is vile. An example of how they want the Internet to be structured like cable TV with the good old Internet being renamed to exclusive platinum access Internet at 500% the cost.
Without the common carrier regulation, the only think keeping them from tearing down a fundamental principle of how the Internet functions is bad PR and political backlash. If the FCC sanctions the death of Network Neutrality, that will disappear.
There are a bunch of ways to screw up regulation. Especially with something like the Internet which a lot of people don't understand. I was hesitant of trusting such a task to the FCC, and really didn't trust a telcom lobbyist like Tom Wheeler, but he did a surprisingly good job. Classifying the Telcoms as common carriers, with the nuance and details of what that means being left to the FCC with the intent of protecting consumers and encouraging innovation and a level playing field for business, seems like the best way forward.
At least that's what I wanted to say. I didn't have any time until the weekend and thought I could push it off till then. Lesson kiddos, strike while the iron is hot. Leonard Nimoy said that. Don't forget it.
given the odds going into the election she should have won hands down.
Yes... in part, thanks to the efforts of the DNC hack. Cause and effect. "I should have been able to beat that guy in a fight" "Yes, but then he shot you" "Psha, I'm not saying the bullet wound had no effect, only that I should have won hands down!"
1. Did the Russians do this?
Yeah, maybe. It's hard to say anything conclusively when the CIA might be involved. A couple things point their way but that's also easy to fake. It's also easy to forget about.
2. Doesn't the campaign have SOME responsibility for tolerating such behavior that the E-mail exposed?
For tolerating their own behaviour? Huh? Did you mean to say "have some responsibility for the behaviour the email exposed"? The DNC opposed Bernie because he was only a democrat that year. For the language and banter? No, that's honestly to be expected. They might have run a bit afoul of deciding where some contribution money went. Up to Clinton rather than down to lower candidates, but eh, making those party battle decisions is literally their job.
I don't think it was anything that Hilary did, other than mishandling that classified information. Anyone with that long of a history isn't going to have a perfectly clean record, and while it'd be a fireable offence for you or I, I don't think it was malicious in any way. I thought the blatant lie about the state of her health after she collapsed into the car was worse.
Hilary lost by a razor thin technical margin because of a lot of things. She really was uninspiring, other than simply being a woman. She represented politics as usual. Everyone thought her win was assured. Other people certainly DIDN'T vote for her because she was a woman. Bernie supporters were turned off to her, in part thanks to the DNC hack, which was likely caused by Russia. And don't discount Russia's propaganda campaign.
What did the Russians do?
They sponsored a propaganda campaign pushing fake news and likely aided or were directly involved with the DNC hack.
The propaganda efforts are... you know... milktoast level of shenanigans, but it shows their intent. The hacking is more serious, but it's hard to conclusively prove anything in that realm.
And if the NSA wants to give itself a little ribbon and give itself a price it damn well better pony up some more evidence. Otherwise they're just whining about a toy being taken away. We agree on that point.
[have] Russian staff walked out to US paper and election computer networks to physically change results before a count? [And other strawmen]
No.
If a US party wants to win an election find a good candidate
Yes.
...that can win in fly over states.
...AND in the cities. Where most of the people live. We're a democracy right? If their policies only appeal to self-sustaining preppers who don't have to deal with other people every day, then that candidate is shit.
ok. Our Intelligence agencies released a report stating they think the Russians made an organized effort to influence the 2016 US presidential elections.
You can read it here. It points out a propaganda campaign using Russian Today to spread fake news. I didn't even know there was a kremlin financed US news channel.
There was certainly a cyber attack using the Gucifer identity. The report points a finger at the Guicifer identity being multiple people and not just Marcel LazÄfr Lehel who was prosecuted as he made contradictory statements. They believe he was accompliced by Russian state actors.
Sadly, they don't include these details in their report, but you can find them elsewhere. There are fingerprints pointing to known Russian groups. Like using the same attack vectors and tools: "The spearphish message was actually sent from hi.mymail@yandex[.]com, an email address from the Moscow-based webmail provider Yandex."
The caveat is that it's pretty trivial to act like you're someone else online, especially if you want to point the blame elsewhere. And we've found out the CIA has tools to help them look like other hackers. Welcome to the cloak and dagger world of reporting on the CIA where nothing is ever conclusively proven.
But from the propoganda campaign, it's obvious that Russia pushed an effort to influence the election and there's some evidence that the hackers behind the DNC leak had ties to Russian state actors.
You don't need a monopoly. If you HAD a monopoly, you wouldn't have to worry about extinguishing anything. You just have to have SOME portion of the user-base.
Hell, let's say that the boys at Ubuntu decided the next release would use NTFS and followed Microsoft's standard and protocol. And then 2 years later decided to add a fancy dancy feature of an added bit to every bloody folder declaring the contents were free(asinbeer) or not. Let's further pretend that at least SOME people loved this extended feature. Now they're using Linus's NTFS(withFreeBit). Then Microsoft releases an update to NTFS as they do. Linus just doesn't bother updating his branch, and extinguishes it. Everyone who was locked into that branch now gets the fun fun joy of migrating away or lingering on an old broken and unloved branch.
The only difference is the number of people that would buy into Linus's branch of NTFS is hella smaller than Microsoft's branch of Bash or whatever. But any portion of user-base you fuck over with fragmented and extinguished code-base is damage to the community.
If you have a monopoly and can get EVERYONE to switch to your branch which you then run off a cliff, then you've killed the whole thing.
Peak power usage conveniently matches peak sunlight.
People run A/C to cool down. It sucks a lot of power.
Fix the monopoly problem and net neutrality is irrelevant
Absolutely. And "irrelevant" as in "will be maintained like it was decades prior". We've historically have had a (mostly) neutral network. It's just the way the Internet was made to work. And everyone played nice with each other's traffic because they needed them to play nice with theirs. Anyone trying to work against that would be eaten alive by the market.
But the market consolidated and now the players are powerful enough to chip away at Net Neutrality. And they've tried to repeatedly over the years. Selectively blocking service. Selectively throttling services. And they HAVE experimented with bundling portions of the Internet into the choice of ISP. Anyone remember ESPN360? The sports website you can't choose to pay for or NOT pay for.
Breaking up the telecoms again could be a great idea.
Leave the monopolies in place and no amount of rules is going to fix the problem "net neutrality" is aimed at.
. . .Maybe. There's a bunch of ways to screw it up. But treating Telcoms like common carriers fixes a lot of the problems. Letting the FCC regulate them and give them a black eye when they step out of line has worked pretty well. Surprisingly well, considering who was put in charge last go around. But the problem with the FCC is that their overall direction is going to change every 4-8 years.
Still, splitting up an oligarchy is a pretty heavy handed approach.
"net neutrality" rules will make the problem worse because they will make it even harder to break up the monopolies.
Not likely. Sherman's hammer really don't give a fuck.
Typically these sort of regulations make it harder for new companies to enter an industry. They don't have to though. As long as the rules equate to "don't fuck with traffic and play dumb" then it's not really a barrier to entry.
Did he want to throw the election,
That implies that he was on Clinton's side and wanted her to win.
James Comey is an old-time republican, although he was appointed by Obama in 2013.
I'm not sure you can accept the fact that Trump won the election asnd still argue that Sanders had no chance.
You're saying that, just like Trump, the opposition didn't take Sanders seriously and thought he would be easily defeated. ...In our current state, that's not an argument against Sanders.
Hey, I'd agree that Trump is indeed anti-establishment. He's pro-business, but he's not an old friend of half the politicians. Other than maybe Hilary, ironically. Trump won. It's time to accept that.
He just fired an old republican. The GOP is burning. They have no idea what to do other than say "no" like they've done for the past decade. And "their boy" in the white house is off his chain.
And the French government now as well.
But yeah, everyone should be cognizant that it's fairly easy to pretend you're someone else while online. And the CIA tool leaks shows that they've specifically made tools to do so.
I could see some boss in the FCC hearing that they got a million page requests and only had 10,000 submissions and thought he had an excuse for why their servers went down. Not knowing that when the site was fucked, no one could submit. It's certainly possible.
I'd like to hear why they think it was an intentional attack.
If it IS someone blocking public comment, that's disruption of democracy and the big boys at the FBI and Secret Service ought to step in. That's serious stuff.