Your point also completely disregards the growing philosophy of post-normal science [wikipedia.org], where scientists can "produce" evidence to support a viewpoint they consider to be politically expedient, even if the evidence does not necessarily incontrovertibly entail the conclusions.
And, as we all know, scientists do this far more often than politicians. Furthermore, scientists are known for completely lacking skepticism in reguards to their peers, wheras politicians question themselves at every step./s
You can find results that support your hypotheses, yes, but basing policy off of those new hypotheses is a bad idea even if there is no intent to distort the truth. When scientific consensus over something grows though, it is time to act. Specifically with global warming, yeah, it would have been a bit foolish to rush to dump fossil fuels back in the, what, 70s when it was first being suggested, since we weren't sure. That time has passed.
Politicians, on the other hand, it's rare that they actually have cherrypicked evidence to back up their claims, prefering instead just to pretend reality conforms to their edicts, not vice versa. I mean, governor Jan Brewer claiming that illegal immigrants were decapitating people in the Arizona desert. How many scientists are there not working for the oil industry that make up lies of that magnitude, and actually have an effect? The Jan Brewers of the political world are out there making policy based on ridiculous lies, and you're worried about -scientists- lying?
This is clearly a case of the foxes guarding the henhouse.
".. whether he did have WMDs at some point before the second war.."
He was about 5 in WWII, so that is neither reasonable or plausible.
... second IRAQ war.
Sorry, but if an authority tells me something AND it meets my expectations I am likely to believe it. If it turns out to be untrue then I should hold that authority as suspect in the future. Because I trusted the word of an authority doesn't mean I deserve to be berated and attacked at every opportunity. The "I told you so" chants wears thin pretty quickly.
You'll note I didn't bring it up here to say "I told you so." I brought it up here to say "The same propaganda machine that helped America lie to itself is still there, still working its magic." Defensive much?
Furthermore, while you at least suggest you've learned the lesson and you'll be more skeptical about justifications to invade another country, I don't think most of our countrymen have. So, in the future, if we talk about invading Syria, or Iran, or North Korea, or some other country, and I say "WMD, Iraq, told you so," know that I'm specifically NOT talking to you, I'm talking to the idiots who would listen to politicians when they say we need to attack another country.
So the best way to neutralise Darth Vader would have been a jolly good dose of antibiotics and instructions to wash his hands thoroughly before every meal?
I think that would have been a bit anticlimactic.
Luke: "Father, I've come to give you... PENICILLIN!! Uh... oh...I guess it's a suppository, you take every day for a week." Vader: "Going to force choke you right now" Luke: "That would be a lot less awkward, thanks."
I agree, I am annoyed by always showing the donation page during it's very frequent updates
Somewhat off topic, but I've been wondering for a while what all those updates are for. I'm guessing that disabling javascript is not like an on/off switch?
I think it is pretty reasonable for people to find it plausible that Saddam had WMDs.
We didn't find any though. The misperception in question was specifically that we HAD found them.
I've heard plenty of explanations as to where they went, so whether he did have WMDs at some point before the second war, or whether they got stolen or sold before we got to them is open to speculation I suppose, but it's not really disputed that as of 2003, we hadn't actually found the WMDs that we were promised Saddam had. It was quite convenient for Bush and co that a significant amount of us just assumed we had and didn't hold him responsible for it, it would have been tough to explain since that was one of the main points used to sell the war, admitting that all those soldiers had died for a mistake at best would have been a PR problem. Sickening.
Graphics were secondary to making an entertaining game, the game was developed with the concept first then the graphics followed and the graphics were what made sense. For example, the look of Mario wasn't developed to look like a specific person, but rather to compensate for the lack of advanced hardware. Today, developers take graphics first, take a storyline first, then let the game fill in the cracks.
I think you're falling into the trap of comparing the classics worth remembering to the average game released today. Sure, any of the Super Marios for the NES were more fun than "Wii shovelware game #3406," but for my money, Super mario Galaxy is much better than even Super Mario Bros 3, and that's not just because it has better graphics and an extra dimension. Contra was fun back in the day, and I know this is even more blasphemous, but I actually prefer Halo 3 to it. Again, not just graphically. I'm sorry, I know it's wrong to like MS products and I feel like I'm betraying my generation, but that's how it is.
Compare classics to classics or average shlock to average shlock and I think you'd have to agree that games have improved graphically, in terms of plot mechanics, game mechanics and features, and it's overall made better games.
That when you try to fix one problem, you almost always invent a new one?
Yes, but it would take a simpleton to conclude that it means we should never try to fix problems. If the new problems are expected to be better or more easily manageable than the old ones, then you do the fix. This is why you take medicine when you're sick, even though medicines have side effects.
In this case, one might expect that some ways of reducing the sun's light would have negative impacts which would be better than unmitigated global climate change. If we find a possible way to reduce the amount of light over deserts and oceans, would that be better or worse? I doubt anyone knows that for certain. It would be stupid to just assume that it would be better, but it would also be stupid to assume it couldn't be better. Reduced light over some deserts might convert them into arable land which might soak up carbon dioxide, increase food production, and decrease temperature rise. On the other hand, it might spread the desert somehow and make life worse while failing to make any impact on global temperatures. It needs to be studied. Research should not be banned. Knee jerk "you're only going to mess it up more" reactions are foolish.
I'm really getting tired of the FNC bashing. The other channels (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc) are no better.
Citation needed, because this one shows that as of 2003, 80% of fox news viewers fell for one of three lies the bush administration was pushing (weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, the world liked the US going into Iraq, and Iraq had been giving al-Qaeda support). CBS: 71%, ABC: 61%, NBC or CNN 55%, and NPR 23%.
Only 20% of fox news viewers recognized that they were all false compared to 45% for NBC and CNN, and 77% for NPR.
I realize of course that some of that is probably inherent differences in viewing audience, and CBS or ABC aren't -much- better. And there is, in my opinion, something messed up with every 24 hour cable news channel out there. Still, it's ridiculous to say that all are just as bad as Fox. Fox is a thinly veiled propaganda machine, fueling ignorance, hyperbolic partisan politics, and getting us into wars we shouldn't be. Some of the other guys are simply incompetent.
For God's sake, you can't honestly tell me that the channel which hosts Glen Beck is equal to a channel that doesn't. You're deluded.
As usual, I disagree with both of your posts (Really? Two?) but it sounds like we should be able to agree that 1. There can be more than one bad guy 2. Murdoch is more of a "bad guy" than a good guy 3. The democratic congress has not done that great of a job, for various reasons 4. Obama extending the patriot act was bad
Also, for the record, I didn't imply Fox news viewers shouldn't be allowed to vote. While I think it would be good if they voluntarily gave up the right to vote, that's not something that I would ever force, or even ask them to do.
I trust you see the difference, and that since you're not running for office against me you won't intentionally fail to make the distinction.
The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.
If an idiot is standing on the street corner spewing lies and no one listens to him, then you can just ignore it and it's not a problem. If a significant portion of your country and voters start believing in it, that's mainly a problem with your country, yes, but it's no longer in the realm of "just ignore it and it won't be a problem." Murdoch's lies are affecting US policy. He's having a substantial impact, increasing partisan politics, preventing Washington from doing -anything-, encouraging ignorance, pushing us towards more of a police state, and distracting people while our rights get sold to corporations.
I'll get the fuck over it when he's dead along with his whole propaganda machine, when most people who watch fox news and believe the BS voluntarily give up the right to vote, when Washington has fixed every problem they've created, and when large corporations stop trying to neuter the internet.
b) Sign this waver that says you are legally responsible if your repository of data were to contain information such as SSN/Credit Card etc.
Unless he then shoves the waiver up the manager of the IT department's nose, that waiver won't do anything, the IT department will refer him to a secretary who will refer him to some policy and the comittee for something or other who will meet once a year and won't discuss it with him. Universities are usually more bureaucratic and inflexible than your local DMV.
Which is why Cornell will try to scan every computer on campus, not just those ones which are likely to have student or employee information on them. Got an apple IIe running a very old but still functional instrument? It may be more convinient to just lie to the IT department. Some are understanding, whereas others would insist you get a new computer. If you would have to spend $10k to replace the equipment, that's not really their department.
Please wake up people this is a prison without walls! You cannot escape! You will have to leave the country to get away from a bad diagnosis or a stupid keystroke error. Remember the computers have a forever memory and no intelligence.
I was with you until this point... Are there any other medicines you're on that you're not telling us about?
You should be more worried about your idiot roommate not washing his hands and getting you sick the old fashioned way. It's unlikely that even if he tried, he could make a disease more lethal than what nature has produced before.
By the way, those people who think HIV was created in a government lab seriously underestimate how cleverly made HIV is. It's way beyond our best evil geniuses.
"and a chick population that hasn't been exposed to as many STD's as city girls (have) ???
Not sure which small city you're thinking of, but some of the ones I've lived in have suffered from the "abstinence only sex ed." I don't know if city women are generally more or less chaste than country women, but I do know that "small town values" don't really exist, they definitely don't extend to premarital sex (thank God, there's little else to do there), and urban females are more likely to know what a condom is.
If you do happen to live in a small town where the women don't have sex... I'm sorry.
This surprises you? What about the converse where people tell the whole fucking world on FB and Twatter that they are ON VACATION FOR A WEEK NOBODY IS HOME PLEASE ROB ME.
That did surprise me when I first heard it, a few years ago.
I'm checking up on, er, colleagues to make sure they're not going to scoop us..."
If you're a reporter and you're NOT using FB, Twatter, and such, to look for leads on stories, you're behind the times and need to get with the program.
Slashdot Mirror
Your point also completely disregards the growing philosophy of post-normal science [wikipedia.org], where scientists can "produce" evidence to support a viewpoint they consider to be politically expedient, even if the evidence does not necessarily incontrovertibly entail the conclusions.
And, as we all know, scientists do this far more often than politicians. Furthermore, scientists are known for completely lacking skepticism in reguards to their peers, wheras politicians question themselves at every step. /s
You can find results that support your hypotheses, yes, but basing policy off of those new hypotheses is a bad idea even if there is no intent to distort the truth. When scientific consensus over something grows though, it is time to act. Specifically with global warming, yeah, it would have been a bit foolish to rush to dump fossil fuels back in the, what, 70s when it was first being suggested, since we weren't sure. That time has passed.
Politicians, on the other hand, it's rare that they actually have cherrypicked evidence to back up their claims, prefering instead just to pretend reality conforms to their edicts, not vice versa. I mean, governor Jan Brewer claiming that illegal immigrants were decapitating people in the Arizona desert. How many scientists are there not working for the oil industry that make up lies of that magnitude, and actually have an effect? The Jan Brewers of the political world are out there making policy based on ridiculous lies, and you're worried about -scientists- lying?
This is clearly a case of the foxes guarding the henhouse.
".. whether he did have WMDs at some point before the second war .."
He was about 5 in WWII, so that is neither reasonable or plausible.
... second IRAQ war.
Sorry, but if an authority tells me something AND it meets my expectations I am likely to believe it. If it turns out to be untrue then I should hold that authority as suspect in the future. Because I trusted the word of an authority doesn't mean I deserve to be berated and attacked at every opportunity. The "I told you so" chants wears thin pretty quickly.
You'll note I didn't bring it up here to say "I told you so." I brought it up here to say "The same propaganda machine that helped America lie to itself is still there, still working its magic." Defensive much?
Furthermore, while you at least suggest you've learned the lesson and you'll be more skeptical about justifications to invade another country, I don't think most of our countrymen have. So, in the future, if we talk about invading Syria, or Iran, or North Korea, or some other country, and I say "WMD, Iraq, told you so," know that I'm specifically NOT talking to you, I'm talking to the idiots who would listen to politicians when they say we need to attack another country.
So the best way to neutralise Darth Vader would have been a jolly good dose of antibiotics and instructions to wash his hands thoroughly before every meal?
I think that would have been a bit anticlimactic.
Luke: "Father, I've come to give you... PENICILLIN!! Uh... oh...I guess it's a suppository, you take every day for a week."
Vader: "Going to force choke you right now"
Luke: "That would be a lot less awkward, thanks."
Probably shouldn't give Lucas any new ideas.
You have to install the entire 77mb package from scratch and it installs crap like the yahoo toolbar by default.
77mb!?! Well, that pretty much fills up MY entire hard drive.
I agree, I am annoyed by always showing the donation page during it's very frequent updates
Somewhat off topic, but I've been wondering for a while what all those updates are for. I'm guessing that disabling javascript is not like an on/off switch?
I think it is pretty reasonable for people to find it plausible that Saddam had WMDs.
We didn't find any though. The misperception in question was specifically that we HAD found them.
I've heard plenty of explanations as to where they went, so whether he did have WMDs at some point before the second war, or whether they got stolen or sold before we got to them is open to speculation I suppose, but it's not really disputed that as of 2003, we hadn't actually found the WMDs that we were promised Saddam had. It was quite convenient for Bush and co that a significant amount of us just assumed we had and didn't hold him responsible for it, it would have been tough to explain since that was one of the main points used to sell the war, admitting that all those soldiers had died for a mistake at best would have been a PR problem. Sickening.
Graphics were secondary to making an entertaining game, the game was developed with the concept first then the graphics followed and the graphics were what made sense. For example, the look of Mario wasn't developed to look like a specific person, but rather to compensate for the lack of advanced hardware. Today, developers take graphics first, take a storyline first, then let the game fill in the cracks.
I think you're falling into the trap of comparing the classics worth remembering to the average game released today. Sure, any of the Super Marios for the NES were more fun than "Wii shovelware game #3406," but for my money, Super mario Galaxy is much better than even Super Mario Bros 3, and that's not just because it has better graphics and an extra dimension. Contra was fun back in the day, and I know this is even more blasphemous, but I actually prefer Halo 3 to it. Again, not just graphically. I'm sorry, I know it's wrong to like MS products and I feel like I'm betraying my generation, but that's how it is.
Compare classics to classics or average shlock to average shlock and I think you'd have to agree that games have improved graphically, in terms of plot mechanics, game mechanics and features, and it's overall made better games.
On the other hand, I think it would be nice to hand someone their resume back filled with [citation needed]s.
And the difference between +5 interesting and -1 redundant is 6 virtual points you can spend towards an imaginary pony named Mr. Bubblecatcher.
Honestly? Or is it more likely one individual organization of malware authors suddenly realized that Oracle was being lazy about updating?
That when you try to fix one problem, you almost always invent a new one?
Yes, but it would take a simpleton to conclude that it means we should never try to fix problems. If the new problems are expected to be better or more easily manageable than the old ones, then you do the fix. This is why you take medicine when you're sick, even though medicines have side effects.
In this case, one might expect that some ways of reducing the sun's light would have negative impacts which would be better than unmitigated global climate change. If we find a possible way to reduce the amount of light over deserts and oceans, would that be better or worse? I doubt anyone knows that for certain. It would be stupid to just assume that it would be better, but it would also be stupid to assume it couldn't be better. Reduced light over some deserts might convert them into arable land which might soak up carbon dioxide, increase food production, and decrease temperature rise. On the other hand, it might spread the desert somehow and make life worse while failing to make any impact on global temperatures. It needs to be studied. Research should not be banned. Knee jerk "you're only going to mess it up more" reactions are foolish.
I'm really getting tired of the FNC bashing. The other channels (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc) are no better.
Citation needed, because this one shows that as of 2003, 80% of fox news viewers fell for one of three lies the bush administration was pushing (weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, the world liked the US going into Iraq, and Iraq had been giving al-Qaeda support). CBS: 71%, ABC: 61%, NBC or CNN 55%, and NPR 23%.
Only 20% of fox news viewers recognized that they were all false compared to 45% for NBC and CNN, and 77% for NPR.
I realize of course that some of that is probably inherent differences in viewing audience, and CBS or ABC aren't -much- better. And there is, in my opinion, something messed up with every 24 hour cable news channel out there. Still, it's ridiculous to say that all are just as bad as Fox. Fox is a thinly veiled propaganda machine, fueling ignorance, hyperbolic partisan politics, and getting us into wars we shouldn't be. Some of the other guys are simply incompetent.
For God's sake, you can't honestly tell me that the channel which hosts Glen Beck is equal to a channel that doesn't. You're deluded.
Dude, 1-2% of users probably think their computer is a magical sno-cone holder
To their credit, about half of them are running the highly experimental Ubuntu: sno-cone-holding salamander.
As usual, I disagree with both of your posts (Really? Two?) but it sounds like we should be able to agree that
1. There can be more than one bad guy
2. Murdoch is more of a "bad guy" than a good guy
3. The democratic congress has not done that great of a job, for various reasons
4. Obama extending the patriot act was bad
Also, for the record, I didn't imply Fox news viewers shouldn't be allowed to vote. While I think it would be good if they voluntarily gave up the right to vote, that's not something that I would ever force, or even ask them to do.
I trust you see the difference, and that since you're not running for office against me you won't intentionally fail to make the distinction.
The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.
If an idiot is standing on the street corner spewing lies and no one listens to him, then you can just ignore it and it's not a problem. If a significant portion of your country and voters start believing in it, that's mainly a problem with your country, yes, but it's no longer in the realm of "just ignore it and it won't be a problem." Murdoch's lies are affecting US policy. He's having a substantial impact, increasing partisan politics, preventing Washington from doing -anything-, encouraging ignorance, pushing us towards more of a police state, and distracting people while our rights get sold to corporations.
I'll get the fuck over it when he's dead along with his whole propaganda machine, when most people who watch fox news and believe the BS voluntarily give up the right to vote, when Washington has fixed every problem they've created, and when large corporations stop trying to neuter the internet.
b) Sign this waver that says you are legally responsible if your repository of data were to contain information such as SSN/Credit Card etc.
Unless he then shoves the waiver up the manager of the IT department's nose, that waiver won't do anything, the IT department will refer him to a secretary who will refer him to some policy and the comittee for something or other who will meet once a year and won't discuss it with him. Universities are usually more bureaucratic and inflexible than your local DMV.
Which is why Cornell will try to scan every computer on campus, not just those ones which are likely to have student or employee information on them. Got an apple IIe running a very old but still functional instrument? It may be more convinient to just lie to the IT department. Some are understanding, whereas others would insist you get a new computer. If you would have to spend $10k to replace the equipment, that's not really their department.
Please wake up people this is a prison without walls! You cannot escape! You will have to leave the country to get away from a bad diagnosis or a stupid keystroke error. Remember the computers have a forever memory and no intelligence.
I was with you until this point... Are there any other medicines you're on that you're not telling us about?
You should be more worried about your idiot roommate not washing his hands and getting you sick the old fashioned way. It's unlikely that even if he tried, he could make a disease more lethal than what nature has produced before.
By the way, those people who think HIV was created in a government lab seriously underestimate how cleverly made HIV is. It's way beyond our best evil geniuses.
Opposite experience here. Windows 7, my firefox is crashing wheras opera isn't.
Me too, because I too am a very supporter of web standards.
clean water and untainted women are NOT its strong suit.
Hey man, if you can't taste the chlorine, how do you know it's clean?!?
(For those of you who have never been to a small town, the local water treatment plant often isn't up to our city slicker standards for taste)
"and a chick population that hasn't been exposed to as many STD's as city girls (have) ???
Not sure which small city you're thinking of, but some of the ones I've lived in have suffered from the "abstinence only sex ed." I don't know if city women are generally more or less chaste than country women, but I do know that "small town values" don't really exist, they definitely don't extend to premarital sex (thank God, there's little else to do there), and urban females are more likely to know what a condom is.
If you do happen to live in a small town where the women don't have sex... I'm sorry.
That was the joke, human slashdotters mix up rodents and lagomorphs, so rabbit slashdotters mix up primates and marsupials.
I guess it wasn't the best execution, so I won't say "woosh."
This surprises you? What about the converse where people tell the whole fucking world on FB and Twatter that they are ON VACATION FOR A WEEK NOBODY IS HOME PLEASE ROB ME.
That did surprise me when I first heard it, a few years ago.
I'm checking up on, er, colleagues to make sure they're not going to scoop us..."
If you're a reporter and you're NOT using FB, Twatter, and such, to look for leads on stories, you're behind the times and need to get with the program.
Good thing I'm not a reporter.
Well what else can you expect from humans? Honestly, marsupials can be so species-centric sometimes.