Ummm, I'm pretty sure we haven't found a single planet that we know is habitable outside of our own. That certainly doesn't mean they aren't out there...but we are hardly at the point to justify hyperbole like "continues to find amazing proof that there are tons of habitable planets in space". There is no proof of a single other planet, let alone "tons". It sounds like things look promising for a few planets but it's far from proof of another habitable planet.
You are confusing "Humans have had an undeniable impact on the global environment" with "global temperature averages [are] on the increase...[and] it's all our fault". It's like saying we know that people are killing plants by walking on them so we can safely assume that massive deforestation is due to people walking on plants. It completely ignores magnitude and uses a general concept of "we have an effect on the environment" to infer a claim "we cause all/most current global warming".
Do you really enjoy being a political hack as much as you seem to? Do you really think Democrats don't have talking points? Do you really think Democrats don't try the same broken solutions to solve the same problems? Do you really think that the Democrats don't fight and filibuster when they are in the minority? Do you really think that controlling congress by a (quickly diminishing) majority means you are entitled to make 100% of all decisions without even listening to the minority? Your post makes me kind of want to vomit. I'm not just picking on Democratic supporters btw, Republican hacks say the same idiotic things.
Wow, he actually TAUGHT constitutional law? o.O I feel sorrow for those poor kids because he clearly either doesn't understand the Constitution or completely disregards it. Admittedly, it is probably the latter...but still.
And no, I don't think this is an argument against your point, just a side comment/jab.
Or MSNBC is better at covering their tracks.
Regardless of specific examples, if you sit down and watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and so on you will notice that every reporter, anchor, and pundant is a a liberal/Democrat. They report stories that harm Republican/conservative image more frequently than stories that harm Democrats/liberals. Their tones, word choice, and emphasis on stories all lean liberal/Democrat.
I'm sure they are not all equally, blow for blow biased in the same ways and to the same levels but it is close enough. You are obviously a liberal so you don't see them as biased to the same degree because you agree with them.
The problem is both stupid people and a lack of good feedback. The stupid people are the ones that buy crap they don't want or need because they saw a flashy, wizz bang commercial that caught their attention. Loud commercials tend to catch peoples attentions so loud commercials will do well in a market full of idiots.
The lack of feedback is basically because the annoyance of the loud commercials doesn't overcome the annoyance of having to go on your computer, find an e-mail address to send a complaint to, type it up, and send it.
So yes, it was solved by regulation and not by the market...but we are talking about commercial volume levels...which means that regulation can solve inconsequential problems that are merely annoyances and don't warrant the dedication of anyones time. I'll give you that one.
P.S. Yes, I am still glad they passed this...loud commercials are annoying:P
I think you miss inferred. The article doesn't imply that a more social individual == a more intelligent individual, it says a more social SPECIES == a more intelligent SPECIES. It states that a more social species requires more "brain power" to understand complex social interactions and more "brain power" == smarter. Dogs are more social as a species so they should be smarter as a species based on that argument.
Someone who is considered a genius and understand social interactions but chooses not to participate because he thinks other people are dumb, silly, or whatever is still extremely smart even though they choose not to be social. I would, however, argue that a person who is not capable of understanding social interactions, aka autism, is less intelligent in that way than a socially capable jock, even if the autistic person is good at math.
I guess you aren't aware the Obama is currently the President and he has oversight over the TSA, it being under Homeland Security.
Or maybe you didn't know that Obama was a Democrat.
Wasn't this excuse used in Men in Black?
"The fog happens when particles moving near the speed of light interact with light and interstellar gas in the Milky Way."
They should be treated like any other employee in any company. I can guarantee you most companies (if any) don't pay people to do nothing for 3 years while the company tries to decide whether not to fire the employee.
How about people who can use Kindles use kindles and those who can't use Kindles use something else? I know it is a stupid idea for people to use things that suite their needs but it might be worth a try.
I do agree that competition usually results in consumers getting better products (duh) but do you really want to develop a game for 10% of the market share or alternatively, develop the same game for 10 different platforms? It makes a lot of sense from a consumer standpoint about quality, but it doesn't make as much sense from a developers standpoint. Yes, more competition will also breed better APIs, more efficient libraries, etc. but I think I would rather code with a semi-crappy API then code with 10 beautiful APIs.
I agree when they are INCAPABLE of reasonably acquiring it themselves for whatever reason. If they are lazy bastards that sit on their asses and expect to benefit from other peoples efforts, then they can starve. I am not entirely sure why allowing people to unnecessarily leech off of you is being "civil"...
You are correct in that a free market cannot exist in the presence of monopolies but that does not mean they need to be regulated. It means they need to be broken up.
About competition, you really don't think AT&T and Verizon are competing right now or that AT&T + iPhone didn't drive Verizon to partner with other companies to produce Droid? o.O One of us does not know what the word competition means.
Very clever, using a strawman fallacy to disprove something by wrongly claiming the other argument is a strawman. He made the obvious point that China ignores other countries IP but now seems to care about its own. That would be comparable to the US having horrible fiscal responsibility and then caring about other countries fiscal responsibility. They are the same in that they are both hypocritical, get it?
What if it took beating 500,000 people to death to treat one person for acne? I would have a moral objection to that but according to you that should not stop the beating to death of 500,000 people because it is always important to treat someone medically no matter the cost and no matter what anyone thinks. What you meant to say was "other people's moral objections that I disagree with should never prevent someone else getting medical treatment." You may believe/not believe stem cell research is ethical or productive but your point is invalid either way.
I mostly agree but one problem is that the government PREVENTS us from being competitive. How you ask? With environmental and labor regulations that other countries do not have to abide by. I'm not saying the companies have no influence on how competitive they are but it is pretty much impossible to compete with a company that can hire 14 year olds to work in sweat shops for practically nothing. I'm also not saying those regulations are bad, just saying you can't have free trade and an imbalance in environmental and labor regulations and expect there to be fair competition.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. If two people can learn the same thing, but one takes half as long to learn it, the one that takes half the time is better at it. I hope you are a mathematician and not a teacher (if that is possible) because you do not grasp some simple concepts of learning.
I am assuming the fallacy you are making is that the one that took longer to learn it may have a more thorough understanding. The problem with that thought is that it implies different amount of learning so the two students did not, in fact, learn the same thing. If they didn't learn the same thing then comparing the time it took to learn them is way more complicated.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, I'm pretty sure we haven't found a single planet that we know is habitable outside of our own. That certainly doesn't mean they aren't out there...but we are hardly at the point to justify hyperbole like "continues to find amazing proof that there are tons of habitable planets in space". There is no proof of a single other planet, let alone "tons". It sounds like things look promising for a few planets but it's far from proof of another habitable planet.
You are confusing "Humans have had an undeniable impact on the global environment" with "global temperature averages [are] on the increase...[and] it's all our fault". It's like saying we know that people are killing plants by walking on them so we can safely assume that massive deforestation is due to people walking on plants. It completely ignores magnitude and uses a general concept of "we have an effect on the environment" to infer a claim "we cause all/most current global warming".
Do you really enjoy being a political hack as much as you seem to? Do you really think Democrats don't have talking points? Do you really think Democrats don't try the same broken solutions to solve the same problems? Do you really think that the Democrats don't fight and filibuster when they are in the minority? Do you really think that controlling congress by a (quickly diminishing) majority means you are entitled to make 100% of all decisions without even listening to the minority? Your post makes me kind of want to vomit. I'm not just picking on Democratic supporters btw, Republican hacks say the same idiotic things.
Wow, he actually TAUGHT constitutional law? o.O I feel sorrow for those poor kids because he clearly either doesn't understand the Constitution or completely disregards it. Admittedly, it is probably the latter...but still. And no, I don't think this is an argument against your point, just a side comment/jab.
Or MSNBC is better at covering their tracks. Regardless of specific examples, if you sit down and watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and so on you will notice that every reporter, anchor, and pundant is a a liberal/Democrat. They report stories that harm Republican/conservative image more frequently than stories that harm Democrats/liberals. Their tones, word choice, and emphasis on stories all lean liberal/Democrat. I'm sure they are not all equally, blow for blow biased in the same ways and to the same levels but it is close enough. You are obviously a liberal so you don't see them as biased to the same degree because you agree with them.
The problem is both stupid people and a lack of good feedback. The stupid people are the ones that buy crap they don't want or need because they saw a flashy, wizz bang commercial that caught their attention. Loud commercials tend to catch peoples attentions so loud commercials will do well in a market full of idiots. The lack of feedback is basically because the annoyance of the loud commercials doesn't overcome the annoyance of having to go on your computer, find an e-mail address to send a complaint to, type it up, and send it. So yes, it was solved by regulation and not by the market...but we are talking about commercial volume levels...which means that regulation can solve inconsequential problems that are merely annoyances and don't warrant the dedication of anyones time. I'll give you that one. P.S. Yes, I am still glad they passed this...loud commercials are annoying :P
I think you miss inferred. The article doesn't imply that a more social individual == a more intelligent individual, it says a more social SPECIES == a more intelligent SPECIES. It states that a more social species requires more "brain power" to understand complex social interactions and more "brain power" == smarter. Dogs are more social as a species so they should be smarter as a species based on that argument. Someone who is considered a genius and understand social interactions but chooses not to participate because he thinks other people are dumb, silly, or whatever is still extremely smart even though they choose not to be social. I would, however, argue that a person who is not capable of understanding social interactions, aka autism, is less intelligent in that way than a socially capable jock, even if the autistic person is good at math.
I guess you aren't aware the Obama is currently the President and he has oversight over the TSA, it being under Homeland Security. Or maybe you didn't know that Obama was a Democrat.
Wasn't this excuse used in Men in Black? "The fog happens when particles moving near the speed of light interact with light and interstellar gas in the Milky Way."
They should be treated like any other employee in any company. I can guarantee you most companies (if any) don't pay people to do nothing for 3 years while the company tries to decide whether not to fire the employee.
How about people who can use Kindles use kindles and those who can't use Kindles use something else? I know it is a stupid idea for people to use things that suite their needs but it might be worth a try.
I do agree that competition usually results in consumers getting better products (duh) but do you really want to develop a game for 10% of the market share or alternatively, develop the same game for 10 different platforms? It makes a lot of sense from a consumer standpoint about quality, but it doesn't make as much sense from a developers standpoint. Yes, more competition will also breed better APIs, more efficient libraries, etc. but I think I would rather code with a semi-crappy API then code with 10 beautiful APIs.
I agree when they are INCAPABLE of reasonably acquiring it themselves for whatever reason. If they are lazy bastards that sit on their asses and expect to benefit from other peoples efforts, then they can starve. I am not entirely sure why allowing people to unnecessarily leech off of you is being "civil"...
You are correct in that a free market cannot exist in the presence of monopolies but that does not mean they need to be regulated. It means they need to be broken up. About competition, you really don't think AT&T and Verizon are competing right now or that AT&T + iPhone didn't drive Verizon to partner with other companies to produce Droid? o.O One of us does not know what the word competition means.
Very clever, using a strawman fallacy to disprove something by wrongly claiming the other argument is a strawman. He made the obvious point that China ignores other countries IP but now seems to care about its own. That would be comparable to the US having horrible fiscal responsibility and then caring about other countries fiscal responsibility. They are the same in that they are both hypocritical, get it?
What if it took beating 500,000 people to death to treat one person for acne? I would have a moral objection to that but according to you that should not stop the beating to death of 500,000 people because it is always important to treat someone medically no matter the cost and no matter what anyone thinks. What you meant to say was "other people's moral objections that I disagree with should never prevent someone else getting medical treatment." You may believe/not believe stem cell research is ethical or productive but your point is invalid either way.
I mostly agree but one problem is that the government PREVENTS us from being competitive. How you ask? With environmental and labor regulations that other countries do not have to abide by. I'm not saying the companies have no influence on how competitive they are but it is pretty much impossible to compete with a company that can hire 14 year olds to work in sweat shops for practically nothing. I'm also not saying those regulations are bad, just saying you can't have free trade and an imbalance in environmental and labor regulations and expect there to be fair competition.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. If two people can learn the same thing, but one takes half as long to learn it, the one that takes half the time is better at it. I hope you are a mathematician and not a teacher (if that is possible) because you do not grasp some simple concepts of learning. I am assuming the fallacy you are making is that the one that took longer to learn it may have a more thorough understanding. The problem with that thought is that it implies different amount of learning so the two students did not, in fact, learn the same thing. If they didn't learn the same thing then comparing the time it took to learn them is way more complicated.