But, but... propulison... partial vacuum... cost... bounday layer... turbulence... lateral accellerations...
Oh never mind, if Gene Roddenberry said so, it must work.
How on earth can he possibly keep on insisting that all this will be cheaper than a high-speed rail? It just flies in the face of common sense. Oh right, an all-nighter sometimes does that to you. Hope he regains his senses soon.
Climatology gives us no more answers about future weather than molecular dynamics does about any cellular system.
Well duh, climate science is about climate, not weather. Weather models are to climate science as molecular dynamics is to biochemical network simulations. Or to correct your statement: "Weather models give us no more answers about future climate than molecular dynamics does about any cellular system".
Since you wrote "important analysis steps", I thought I'd mention for the record that the specific type of analysis that was missing is one that is getting more and more redundant in present-day organic synthesis; one can get a pretty clear picture from all the other analyses that are commonly included in synthetic papers. Of course, fabricating data (it that's really what they meant by "make up") is unconditionally wrong, but I doubt they could lead the reader to a wrong conclusion by faking an Elemental Analysis if there's also NMR, Mass Spectroscopy,... supporting the correct conclusion.
as in astrophysics, and yet it is highly predictive since it is based on physics
Molecular dynamics simulations are based on physics, but not very predictive.
That's only because more than half of the scientists running MD don't have a firm grasp on what they're doing. It looks deceptively simple from a distance, but if you really want predictive results, it becomes harder than Quantum Chemistry.
Is this a ploy to make people hate the real Ethanol-fueled? If so, cut it out - the guy is perfectly capable of making inane comments that ruin his reputation without your help.
Thank you for illustrating my point so well. I lived in a western European country when the Iraq war started, and nobody I knew believed that WMD stuff. Neither did the leaders of my country and its neighboring countries (with access to their respective intelligence services) - they all voted against an UN mission. You've been punked by the post-9/11 patriotic media. This is not revisionism - this is the truth your media failed to tell you.
and then turning around and demanding we do something about their stinking shit like Syria.
You know, the international community as a whole typically doesn't ask the US to interfere - it's only the US media and the hawkish right that would have you believe so. Sure, in every conflict, there will always be someone asking the US for help - often both sides in fact. If you're in a fight, it just seems logical to kindly ask the trigger-happy 100-pound gorilla to help you. If the US wants to fight at any side in any conflict, it can pick freely whose call for help to answer. But the international community, represented by the UN of which you have such a low opinion? In a large percentage of the last 30 years' conflicts, they've been trying to stop the US from going in with guns a blazin' because that would ruin diplomatic efforts. A particularly striking example was when it didn't buy the false WMD evidence against Saddam. That's when the public opinion in the US turned against UN (and France, to distract from the fact that a majority of the western European countries were opposed). So ironically, you're hating the UN for trying to stop the US from fighting other people's wars. You'd better direct your hate at those Americans who have been misleading you into thinking everyone is constantly asking the US to fight their wars, while people in the rest of the world were scratching their heads and asking "why do these yanks insist on being involved in every spark of conflict that arises?"
It's the organizers who get punished, not the participants. And organizers of Ponzi schemes usually go out of their way to not let the participants know what's going on; they're selling their scheme as a legitimate (if often a bit fishy) investment. If you feel such behavior should go unpunished, then you're not a libertarian but an anarchist. Note that Ponzi scheme != pyramid scheme.
You call me troll? I'm not the one copy-pasting the same stuff in multiple posts, trying to divert the discussion offtopic, or using foul language. So get lost kid, adults people are having a serious discussion here.
I didn't say a word about guns in GP. I also didn't say a word about Trayvon. I just think the stand-your-ground laws are inane regardless of that isolated case. They're blatantly incompatible with the "reasonable person" concept. A reasonable person would not stand their ground when facing the threat of serious bodily harm, period. Plus, they leave the door wide open for provocation, arbitrary enforcement, and unnecessary violence in general. Trouble with them had been predicted by, among others, Miami police chief John F. Timoney.
Since you bring up the Trayvon Martin case, I'd also like to point out the Judge's instructions to the jury included the statement that he had no duty to retreat as per Florida's stand-your-ground law. The stand-your-ground law was definitely a factor, or are you just assuming Eric Holder doesn't know what he's talking about? Get your facts straight before starting the name-calling!
Also, if you wouldn't be so lazy as to read just one page of my posting history, then you'd have seen that the gun stuff is just an ongoing discussion in the "NRA loves lead" story, and that my posts are usually about science, compilers and such. As for stand-your-ground, this is my third post containing that term in my years-long posting history... I'm just using it, and will continue use it (together with Citizens United) as a blatant showcase of the US lawmaking system being fatally undermined by special interest both at the state and the federal level.
It's not a fallacy even if the slope is imagined, but the progression from one part of the slope to another part is realistic.
The problem is that it isn't. Sure, you can put on your tin-foil hat and declare that some secret society has a step-by-step plan towards abolishing guns and the means to push it through, and that the first step of the seecrit plan it to bribe some scientists into declaring lead is toxic so that bullets have to be made out of more expensive materials. That fails to pass Occam's razor, by a landslide. Lead is a well-established neurotoxin and has been regulated in paint, electronics and gasoline, so it's much more realistic to see this as a logical extension of existing efforts to keep this toxin out of the environment.
Fallacy comes into slippery slope when something like "If you give a mouse a cookie, aliens will abduct you for probing" is expressed.
Nope, that would be a non sequitur. I think you don't understand the slippery slope fallacy. You're committing it if you're saying that a measure that has consequences in a certain direction implies future further steps in the same direction. Like this. The same fallacy is sometimes also called unwarranted extrapolation, which is a more descriptive name in my opinion.
The USA is still one of the most lenient places in the developed world regarding firearms despite 70 years of "slippery sloping" so this argument actually works in my favor. It's quite a leap of logic to suggest that this implies that regulating lead is a first step towards total gun abolishment. You're acting like this.
Hell, it's not even about the guns - lead has been regulated in paint, electronics and gasoline under foul cries of the respective industries, but now that it's bullets, it's suddenly an attack on our civil liberties. Hyperbole much?
And here I was thinking the Bitcoin fanbois would be falling over themselves declaring how it is a milestone that Bitcoin is officially recognized as a legitimate currency. Instead, they seem to be falling over themselves expressing how scandalous it is that the government dares meddle with their freedom or whatever. Some people seem to be impossible to please. To those people: you cannot have it both ways, guys. Either your currency is an illegitimate shadow currency, and assuming it will keep on gaining in popularity, it will only be a matter of time before it gets outlawed, or your currency is legitimate which means that transactions made with it are subject to the law.
Regardless, I would say that seeing this as a sign of legitimacy would be over-interpreting the verdict. For the purpose of cracking down on ponzi schemes, it doesn't matter whether the currency is USD or beanie babies, as long as harm is done to someone's posessions by deliberately misleading them. Or does "freedom" mean that you're free to blatantly rip off your fellow citizens? If so, how about just giving people the freedom to shoot each other? Oh wait, stand-your-ground.
Oh, wouldn't it be a funny twist if BC mining suddenly turns out to be illegal. Not that I'd expect any federal/state justice system to be that retarded. Then again, after Citizens United (or, at the state level, the stand-your-ground laws), pretty much anything is possible.
One could say: "doesn't matter, most BC have been mined already", but I'm not sure how long the statute of limitations on "counterfeiting" is...
By the way, I clicked through the "a liability" track of that site in your sig, and it's full of fallacies, strawman arguments and comparisons that are outright ludicrous, at some point even godwinning itself. I don't mind you linking to a pro-gun site, but at least try to pick one that builds up a rational discourse, lest you insult the intelligence of the/. readership. The "Proud Heritage of Gun Control" page is particularly disgraceful. I feel yucky and more anti-gun than before I clicked on your link.
He says the ratio between the actual numbers is 4 in order to show that Ben Swann didn't even get the raw numbers straight. However, if you scroll further down, he explains why this 4X ratio is utterly meaningless, showing that the comparison is fundamentally flawed even when using the correct numbers.
(...)Roughly speaking - poor ghettos tend to be crime ridden, and in the USA due to history poor ghettos tend to be disproportionally black.
Agreed with everything else. As to why time hasn't rectified this historical situation, I blame this for a large part on income inequality and lack of social mobility.
2) If you're going to claim higher crime rates are related to lead poisoning, (...) There is no association here, this is a strawman argument.
This here says otherwise. But hey, you're a random NRA fan on/. , so you probably know better than the scientists cited in my link. After all, they're all payed by the... umm... bismuth lobby.
1) There is no metal suitable for bullets other than lead - unless we want to shoot some other heavy metal. Pick.
I pick Bismuth. Because not all heavy metals are highly toxic like lead.
you should also consider that lower crime rates are related to high per capita firearm ownership (and in turn, shooting). There is no association here,
There's no association here either. If you compare areas with the same standard of living, there's not even a correlation (or at least not in the direction you think). Pot, Kettle.
Slashdot Mirror
But, but... propulison... partial vacuum... cost... bounday layer... turbulence... lateral accellerations...
Oh never mind, if Gene Roddenberry said so, it must work.
How on earth can he possibly keep on insisting that all this will be cheaper than a high-speed rail? It just flies in the face of common sense.
Oh right, an all-nighter sometimes does that to you. Hope he regains his senses soon.
Climatology gives us no more answers about future weather than molecular dynamics does about any cellular system.
Well duh, climate science is about climate, not weather. Weather models are to climate science as molecular dynamics is to biochemical network simulations. Or to correct your statement: "Weather models give us no more answers about future climate than molecular dynamics does about any cellular system".
That's true for hard sciences, but not for the US political debate on climate science. Emotion and rhetoric play a huge part in that.
FTFY.
BTW, nice attempt at flamebaiting the discussion off-topic.
Since you wrote "important analysis steps", I thought I'd mention for the record that the specific type of analysis that was missing is one that is getting more and more redundant in present-day organic synthesis; one can get a pretty clear picture from all the other analyses that are commonly included in synthetic papers. Of course, fabricating data (it that's really what they meant by "make up") is unconditionally wrong, but I doubt they could lead the reader to a wrong conclusion by faking an Elemental Analysis if there's also NMR, Mass Spectroscopy,... supporting the correct conclusion.
as in astrophysics, and yet it is highly predictive since it is based on physics
Molecular dynamics simulations are based on physics, but not very predictive.
That's only because more than half of the scientists running MD don't have a firm grasp on what they're doing. It looks deceptively simple from a distance, but if you really want predictive results, it becomes harder than Quantum Chemistry.
Is this a ploy to make people hate the real Ethanol-fueled? If so, cut it out - the guy is perfectly capable of making inane comments that ruin his reputation without your help.
Thank you for illustrating my point so well. I lived in a western European country when the Iraq war started, and nobody I knew believed that WMD stuff. Neither did the leaders of my country and its neighboring countries (with access to their respective intelligence services) - they all voted against an UN mission. You've been punked by the post-9/11 patriotic media. This is not revisionism - this is the truth your media failed to tell you.
and then turning around and demanding we do something about their stinking shit like Syria.
You know, the international community as a whole typically doesn't ask the US to interfere - it's only the US media and the hawkish right that would have you believe so. Sure, in every conflict, there will always be someone asking the US for help - often both sides in fact. If you're in a fight, it just seems logical to kindly ask the trigger-happy 100-pound gorilla to help you. If the US wants to fight at any side in any conflict, it can pick freely whose call for help to answer. But the international community, represented by the UN of which you have such a low opinion? In a large percentage of the last 30 years' conflicts, they've been trying to stop the US from going in with guns a blazin' because that would ruin diplomatic efforts. A particularly striking example was when it didn't buy the false WMD evidence against Saddam. That's when the public opinion in the US turned against UN (and France, to distract from the fact that a majority of the western European countries were opposed). So ironically, you're hating the UN for trying to stop the US from fighting other people's wars. You'd better direct your hate at those Americans who have been misleading you into thinking everyone is constantly asking the US to fight their wars, while people in the rest of the world were scratching their heads and asking "why do these yanks insist on being involved in every spark of conflict that arises?"
did you even read TFA and my post?
It's the organizers who get punished, not the participants. And organizers of Ponzi schemes usually go out of their way to not let the participants know what's going on; they're selling their scheme as a legitimate (if often a bit fishy) investment. If you feel such behavior should go unpunished, then you're not a libertarian but an anarchist. Note that Ponzi scheme != pyramid scheme.
I got the stereotyping from reading all the comments in this discussion. I was surprised by it as much as you are.
You call me troll? I'm not the one copy-pasting the same stuff in multiple posts, trying to divert the discussion offtopic, or using foul language. So get lost kid, adults people are having a serious discussion here.
I didn't say a word about guns in GP. I also didn't say a word about Trayvon. I just think the stand-your-ground laws are inane regardless of that isolated case. They're blatantly incompatible with the "reasonable person" concept. A reasonable person would not stand their ground when facing the threat of serious bodily harm, period. Plus, they leave the door wide open for provocation, arbitrary enforcement, and unnecessary violence in general. Trouble with them had been predicted by, among others, Miami police chief John F. Timoney.
Since you bring up the Trayvon Martin case, I'd also like to point out the Judge's instructions to the jury included the statement that he had no duty to retreat as per Florida's stand-your-ground law. The stand-your-ground law was definitely a factor, or are you just assuming Eric Holder doesn't know what he's talking about? Get your facts straight before starting the name-calling!
Also, if you wouldn't be so lazy as to read just one page of my posting history, then you'd have seen that the gun stuff is just an ongoing discussion in the "NRA loves lead" story, and that my posts are usually about science, compilers and such. As for stand-your-ground, this is my third post containing that term in my years-long posting history... I'm just using it, and will continue use it (together with Citizens United) as a blatant showcase of the US lawmaking system being fatally undermined by special interest both at the state and the federal level.
Now who's the troll here, Mr. AC?
It's not a fallacy even if the slope is imagined, but the progression from one part of the slope to another part is realistic.
The problem is that it isn't. Sure, you can put on your tin-foil hat and declare that some secret society has a step-by-step plan towards abolishing guns and the means to push it through, and that the first step of the seecrit plan it to bribe some scientists into declaring lead is toxic so that bullets have to be made out of more expensive materials. That fails to pass Occam's razor, by a landslide. Lead is a well-established neurotoxin and has been regulated in paint, electronics and gasoline, so it's much more realistic to see this as a logical extension of existing efforts to keep this toxin out of the environment.
Fallacy comes into slippery slope when something like "If you give a mouse a cookie, aliens will abduct you for probing" is expressed.
Nope, that would be a non sequitur. I think you don't understand the slippery slope fallacy. You're committing it if you're saying that a measure that has consequences in a certain direction implies future further steps in the same direction. Like this. The same fallacy is sometimes also called unwarranted extrapolation, which is a more descriptive name in my opinion.
The USA is still one of the most lenient places in the developed world regarding firearms despite 70 years of "slippery sloping" so this argument actually works in my favor. It's quite a leap of logic to suggest that this implies that regulating lead is a first step towards total gun abolishment. You're acting like this.
Hell, it's not even about the guns - lead has been regulated in paint, electronics and gasoline under foul cries of the respective industries, but now that it's bullets, it's suddenly an attack on our civil liberties. Hyperbole much?
And here I was thinking the Bitcoin fanbois would be falling over themselves declaring how it is a milestone that Bitcoin is officially recognized as a legitimate currency. Instead, they seem to be falling over themselves expressing how scandalous it is that the government dares meddle with their freedom or whatever. Some people seem to be impossible to please. To those people: you cannot have it both ways, guys. Either your currency is an illegitimate shadow currency, and assuming it will keep on gaining in popularity, it will only be a matter of time before it gets outlawed, or your currency is legitimate which means that transactions made with it are subject to the law.
Regardless, I would say that seeing this as a sign of legitimacy would be over-interpreting the verdict. For the purpose of cracking down on ponzi schemes, it doesn't matter whether the currency is USD or beanie babies, as long as harm is done to someone's posessions by deliberately misleading them. Or does "freedom" mean that you're free to blatantly rip off your fellow citizens? If so, how about just giving people the freedom to shoot each other? Oh wait, stand-your-ground.
Oh, wouldn't it be a funny twist if BC mining suddenly turns out to be illegal. Not that I'd expect any federal/state justice system to be that retarded. Then again, after Citizens United (or, at the state level, the stand-your-ground laws), pretty much anything is possible.
One could say: "doesn't matter, most BC have been mined already", but I'm not sure how long the statute of limitations on "counterfeiting" is...
By the way, I clicked through the "a liability" track of that site in your sig, and it's full of fallacies, strawman arguments and comparisons that are outright ludicrous, at some point even godwinning itself. I don't mind you linking to a pro-gun site, but at least try to pick one that builds up a rational discourse, lest you insult the intelligence of the /. readership. The "Proud Heritage of Gun Control" page is particularly disgraceful. I feel yucky and more anti-gun than before I clicked on your link.
Humor me.
heck, in the article the dude says 4X.
He says the ratio between the actual numbers is 4 in order to show that Ben Swann didn't even get the raw numbers straight. However, if you scroll further down, he explains why this 4X ratio is utterly meaningless, showing that the comparison is fundamentally flawed even when using the correct numbers.
(...)Roughly speaking - poor ghettos tend to be crime ridden, and in the USA due to history poor ghettos tend to be disproportionally black.
Agreed with everything else. As to why time hasn't rectified this historical situation, I blame this for a large part on income inequality and lack of social mobility.
Bullshit. Most of the NRA's arguments are based on the slipperly slope fallacy.
2) If you're going to claim higher crime rates are related to lead poisoning, (...) There is no association here, this is a strawman argument.
This here says otherwise. But hey, you're a random NRA fan on /. , so you probably know better than the scientists cited in my link. After all, they're all payed by the... umm... bismuth lobby.
Violent crime rates cannot be compared because all countries use different definitions. Murder rates can, and there the US is doing pretty abysmal.
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
Yes I know the above is a comparison between the UK and the US but it still supports my point.
1) There is no metal suitable for bullets other than lead - unless we want to shoot some other heavy metal. Pick.
I pick Bismuth. Because not all heavy metals are highly toxic like lead.
you should also consider that lower crime rates are related to high per capita firearm ownership (and in turn, shooting). There is no association here,
There's no association here either. If you compare areas with the same standard of living, there's not even a correlation (or at least not in the direction you think). Pot, Kettle.