What a remarkable series of insights from people who haven't even read the damn report.
Would you bother reading a report that was summarized as "Fact: you killed 30 million children last year because you didn't drink pepsi!"
There are plenty of legitimate studies I'm never going to read, a report which is obvious lies to fuel propaganda for the industry is not worth my time.
gets to use the "I was the first man on Mars" line at every club he walks into.
Man, I get to use that line whenever I walk into a club too. If you're using it, and it's not working, then you're just not talking to women who are dumb or drunk enough.
Seconded. A quick google search found this page on the National Cancer Institute funding. If I'm reading that right, that's over 4 billion we spent through the NCI in 2008. We are in fact spending a lot of money on cancer to drive the preliminary research that isn't profitable. And why not, the government wastes a lot more money on far less noble goals than "curing cancer."
I doubt it. The vast majority of basic biology research was done without patenting that knowledge and trying to sell it in some way, which is sort of what Myriad Genetics was trying to do. There are grants for basic research, the point of that is to fund research which was important but not directly profitable. If someone is saying "the only way this research will get done is if I can sell the knowledge afterwards," they are lying.
My point was "He didn't fire on other civilians at other times, suggesting he was unwilling to fire on civilians and therefore when he did it the other time it was an honest mistake" is not solid reasoning as there are other explanations.
a) some members of the group were visibly armed with small arms
I've heard this is extremely common in Iraq, and is no reason to assume someone is an insurgent.
b) they were approaching a US position on the ground.
I've also heard that this was several blocks over. The people in the video are walking along as usual, clearly not in the middle of a firefight, nor are they running toward anything as if to participate.
For extra credit, discuss the gunner's proven unwillingness to fire on targets which he could positively discern were civilians
To play devil's advocate, maybe he just knew he couldn't get away with it in that case.
Why get rid of it completely? It doesn't need to be a "every year or never again" type of thing. Why not say you'll put out one new one every other year for a few years, then one new one every 5 years for a while?
Occam's razor suggests that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. It does NOT mean "Reject a hypothesis because someone thinks it's not simple enough." Is there an obvious, simpler hypothesis that I'm not seeing?
Actually it doesn't matter. You test hypotheses, you don't just misuse occam's razor to assume one is right. We'll be sending another probe to Titan eventually and that will settle it.
GP didn't actually say "boring" or anything similar. It was accurate, though I'd say a better summary would be "The odds of life on Titan are slightly better now."
To me, whats bad about comcast is not their customer service, but their lobbying efforts. Not to say the other guys are saints, but for example I've heard of Comcast busing in people paid to just take up space in hearings on net neutrality (to crowd out consumers voicing their opinion).
Why are we always so concerned with keeping companies in business.
If an industry that is headed to oblivion provides a necessary service that will not be replaced. An informed public is a good thing, if we had one we may not have made some of our recent stupid mistakes. Not everyone is convinced that what we'll get out of online journalism will be high-quality reporting on news that matters. I'm not.
If they had enacted legislation to protect newspapers and prevent cable news from rising, we might not have had Fox news. In my mind, that would have been a very good thing. Maybe that wouldn't have happened then, maybe Rupert would have just bought all the papers.
Note that I'm not saying that blogs and online journalism would be worse than old media. In fact, it often seems to me that the only way to make journalism worse is if the government were to take it over. So I'm not convinced this idea is the way to go, but as far as your question, because there is sometimes value in an industry that the market won't support, this could be one of those times.
Can I write a legal disclaimer that simply by looking at my face you agree to allow me to record footage of you, and post this disclaimer on my T-shirt?
Yes, you could write that on your shirt. Whether that will hold up in court probably depends at least a little on how much you're willing to spend on lawyers. I mean, it seems ridiculous to me, but so does the police's stance and that appears to be working, so it's anyone's guess.
That is not true. At least from a legal standpoint. If such a thing were true, if a homeless person is starving to death, is he "perfectly entitled" to breaking into a grocery store, even if the store is closed? FUCK NO.
Legally, no, because there are alternatives which should be encouraged. To me though, that doesn't mean that he would be a bad guy to break into a grocery store if he, for instance, were living in such a selfish society that there were no food stamps or homeless shelters. I mean, I know what virtually everyone would do if they were starving outside a grocery store with no legal means of feeding themselves, and it isn't "respect the law and die."
so please cite a case in which a person was entitled to another persons goods based on need, and was given right to take those goods without the other persons consent, regardless of extenuating circumstances.
Drafts, imprisonment, and taxes.
Look at California. Look anywhere where large amounts of entitlement ran the country for years.
You're oversimplifying it to say that California's problems were caused entirely by entitlements. It was a mixture of incompetence and greed. People thought taxes were too high, got greedy, and incompetently made raising taxes all but impossible. Politicians got greedy and promised too much to greedy law enforcement unions who helped them win elections.
Also worth pointing out that California pays far more to the federal government than it gets back, in contrast to many red states, and the amount it pays into the federal system dwarfs the budget shortfall. To me, that doesn't seem like a state with an entitlement problem.
And Rachel (from Friends)... uh... actually it's been too long since I've seen that show, I don't remember any clever references to make, so I'll just say I can't believe she's on it.
It's also worth noting that punctuated equilibrium observes that few species actually change significantly over thousands of years. Evolution is driven more by extinctions and new species arising than one species evolving in one direction.
It's unlikely that, say, seagulls worldwide would face the same selective forces, they're not all going to be facing concentrated oil spills, so seagulls worldwide would probably not evolve simultaneously. Some seagulls in louisiana might happen to have traits that will help them survive better in an oil-soaked environment, and they could thrive there. If those oil seagulls were able to breed with regular seagulls, and if the oil ever gets cleaned up, and stays away, there wouldn't be any more selective forces for those genes, and you might see those genes dilluted out among the other seagull genes, to where it was just a blip in the radar.
On the other hand, if those oily seagulls were unable to successfully breed with normal seagulls, or if the oil becomes a persistent selective force, then those seagulls might become a new species, one which was uniquely resistant to oil. Seagulls would not have evolved, a new species would have evolved very rapidly.
Unfortunately, this would be accompanied by many more extinctions than new species. MANY more, there will be a tremendous loss of biodiversity there, including any species we would be eating, since we likewise will not suddenly all evolve to be able to handle whatever petroleum byproducts would be in those fish, oysters, etc. Furthermore, no one would be able to say ahead of time if any species would evolve to those conditions similar to how I just described.
(sorry if I mangled or over-dumbed down punctuated equilibrium)
Working people who need those rich people to pay them or they lose their job.
GP said "stop defending those rich people," not "Lets have a communist revolution and make everyone earn the same."
Although, between those 20 people you just mentioned keeping their jobs and seeing BP execs drawn and quartered, I know which one would feel better for most of us...
Slashdot is news for nerds. News affecting "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" qualifies. I mean, I'm guessing 90% of us have read some or all of the "trilogy." Also guessing that most of us, upon reading the title, thought "What about Ford Prefect now?"
Hmm... That's almost more interesting to me. Seems pretty odd to have a doomsday forum. If you think the world is ending soon, you're going to be online, chatting about it? Are the doomsday predictions spinning off to places other than Earth because doomsayers realized they're tired of being wrong and if they're right about predicting the earth's demise, they won't get any credit for it?
Slashdot Mirror
What a remarkable series of insights from people who haven't even read the damn report.
Would you bother reading a report that was summarized as "Fact: you killed 30 million children last year because you didn't drink pepsi!"
There are plenty of legitimate studies I'm never going to read, a report which is obvious lies to fuel propaganda for the industry is not worth my time.
gets to use the "I was the first man on Mars" line at every club he walks into.
Man, I get to use that line whenever I walk into a club too. If you're using it, and it's not working, then you're just not talking to women who are dumb or drunk enough.
Seconded. A quick google search found this page on the National Cancer Institute funding. If I'm reading that right, that's over 4 billion we spent through the NCI in 2008. We are in fact spending a lot of money on cancer to drive the preliminary research that isn't profitable. And why not, the government wastes a lot more money on far less noble goals than "curing cancer."
I doubt it. The vast majority of basic biology research was done without patenting that knowledge and trying to sell it in some way, which is sort of what Myriad Genetics was trying to do. There are grants for basic research, the point of that is to fund research which was important but not directly profitable. If someone is saying "the only way this research will get done is if I can sell the knowledge afterwards," they are lying.
Indeed, I'd call it $41.5 billion in free advertising for your games.
While I also find fault with that figure, I think the 3rd one was probably not a significant contributing factor there given the scale.
I'd argue that the vast majority was 1 with a little of 4: faulty methods for calculating the amount.
My point was "He didn't fire on other civilians at other times, suggesting he was unwilling to fire on civilians and therefore when he did it the other time it was an honest mistake" is not solid reasoning as there are other explanations.
In case there are medical complications, I sure hope they have a good lawyer on retina.
What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about what acutally happened, not what "they are made out to be."
a) some members of the group were visibly armed with small arms
I've heard this is extremely common in Iraq, and is no reason to assume someone is an insurgent.
b) they were approaching a US position on the ground.
I've also heard that this was several blocks over. The people in the video are walking along as usual, clearly not in the middle of a firefight, nor are they running toward anything as if to participate.
For extra credit, discuss the gunner's proven unwillingness to fire on targets which he could positively discern were civilians
To play devil's advocate, maybe he just knew he couldn't get away with it in that case.
Why get rid of it completely? It doesn't need to be a "every year or never again" type of thing. Why not say you'll put out one new one every other year for a few years, then one new one every 5 years for a while?
What color is the sky in your world?
Red white or blue depending on what the chemical manufacturing plant next to my house is making.
Occam's razor suggests that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. It does NOT mean "Reject a hypothesis because someone thinks it's not simple enough." Is there an obvious, simpler hypothesis that I'm not seeing?
Actually it doesn't matter. You test hypotheses, you don't just misuse occam's razor to assume one is right. We'll be sending another probe to Titan eventually and that will settle it.
GP didn't actually say "boring" or anything similar. It was accurate, though I'd say a better summary would be "The odds of life on Titan are slightly better now."
You're probably just going for the cheap methane is farts joke.
Obviously. Who ever heard of an -expensive- methane fart?
To me, whats bad about comcast is not their customer service, but their lobbying efforts. Not to say the other guys are saints, but for example I've heard of Comcast busing in people paid to just take up space in hearings on net neutrality (to crowd out consumers voicing their opinion).
Why are we always so concerned with keeping companies in business.
If an industry that is headed to oblivion provides a necessary service that will not be replaced. An informed public is a good thing, if we had one we may not have made some of our recent stupid mistakes. Not everyone is convinced that what we'll get out of online journalism will be high-quality reporting on news that matters. I'm not.
If they had enacted legislation to protect newspapers and prevent cable news from rising, we might not have had Fox news. In my mind, that would have been a very good thing. Maybe that wouldn't have happened then, maybe Rupert would have just bought all the papers.
Note that I'm not saying that blogs and online journalism would be worse than old media. In fact, it often seems to me that the only way to make journalism worse is if the government were to take it over. So I'm not convinced this idea is the way to go, but as far as your question, because there is sometimes value in an industry that the market won't support, this could be one of those times.
Can I write a legal disclaimer that simply by looking at my face you agree to allow me to record footage of you, and post this disclaimer on my T-shirt?
Yes, you could write that on your shirt. Whether that will hold up in court probably depends at least a little on how much you're willing to spend on lawyers. I mean, it seems ridiculous to me, but so does the police's stance and that appears to be working, so it's anyone's guess.
That is not true. At least from a legal standpoint. If such a thing were true, if a homeless person is starving to death, is he "perfectly entitled" to breaking into a grocery store, even if the store is closed? FUCK NO.
Legally, no, because there are alternatives which should be encouraged. To me though, that doesn't mean that he would be a bad guy to break into a grocery store if he, for instance, were living in such a selfish society that there were no food stamps or homeless shelters. I mean, I know what virtually everyone would do if they were starving outside a grocery store with no legal means of feeding themselves, and it isn't "respect the law and die."
so please cite a case in which a person was entitled to another persons goods based on need, and was given right to take those goods without the other persons consent, regardless of extenuating circumstances.
Drafts, imprisonment, and taxes.
Look at California. Look anywhere where large amounts of entitlement ran the country for years.
You're oversimplifying it to say that California's problems were caused entirely by entitlements. It was a mixture of incompetence and greed. People thought taxes were too high, got greedy, and incompetently made raising taxes all but impossible. Politicians got greedy and promised too much to greedy law enforcement unions who helped them win elections.
Also worth pointing out that California pays far more to the federal government than it gets back, in contrast to many red states, and the amount it pays into the federal system dwarfs the budget shortfall. To me, that doesn't seem like a state with an entitlement problem.
Indeed. The fact that GP is posting to me suggests that he has "villified" cyanide, bleach, carbon monoxide etc...
And Rachel (from Friends)... uh... actually it's been too long since I've seen that show, I don't remember any clever references to make, so I'll just say I can't believe she's on it.
It's also worth noting that punctuated equilibrium observes that few species actually change significantly over thousands of years. Evolution is driven more by extinctions and new species arising than one species evolving in one direction.
It's unlikely that, say, seagulls worldwide would face the same selective forces, they're not all going to be facing concentrated oil spills, so seagulls worldwide would probably not evolve simultaneously. Some seagulls in louisiana might happen to have traits that will help them survive better in an oil-soaked environment, and they could thrive there. If those oil seagulls were able to breed with regular seagulls, and if the oil ever gets cleaned up, and stays away, there wouldn't be any more selective forces for those genes, and you might see those genes dilluted out among the other seagull genes, to where it was just a blip in the radar.
On the other hand, if those oily seagulls were unable to successfully breed with normal seagulls, or if the oil becomes a persistent selective force, then those seagulls might become a new species, one which was uniquely resistant to oil. Seagulls would not have evolved, a new species would have evolved very rapidly.
Unfortunately, this would be accompanied by many more extinctions than new species. MANY more, there will be a tremendous loss of biodiversity there, including any species we would be eating, since we likewise will not suddenly all evolve to be able to handle whatever petroleum byproducts would be in those fish, oysters, etc. Furthermore, no one would be able to say ahead of time if any species would evolve to those conditions similar to how I just described.
(sorry if I mangled or over-dumbed down punctuated equilibrium)
Working people who need those rich people to pay them or they lose their job.
GP said "stop defending those rich people," not "Lets have a communist revolution and make everyone earn the same."
Although, between those 20 people you just mentioned keeping their jobs and seeing BP execs drawn and quartered, I know which one would feel better for most of us...
Slashdot is news for nerds. News affecting "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" qualifies. I mean, I'm guessing 90% of us have read some or all of the "trilogy." Also guessing that most of us, upon reading the title, thought "What about Ford Prefect now?"
Hmm... That's almost more interesting to me. Seems pretty odd to have a doomsday forum. If you think the world is ending soon, you're going to be online, chatting about it? Are the doomsday predictions spinning off to places other than Earth because doomsayers realized they're tired of being wrong and if they're right about predicting the earth's demise, they won't get any credit for it?