Try to focus on arguments of fact, not arguments of person or source. Then you will weed out most deception.
You are correct to an extent. The challenge is that, in many instances, we cannot all be experts on every topic. Even Bill Nye must rely on the summaries and conclusions of experts. In those instances, we are forced to make judgments--and argue--about sources.
I wish I could propose "reason" as an alternative, but in my own experience and observation, there are some very well reasoned propositions that reach absurd conclusions.
That leaves the Bucky Fuller solution: we have to test our propositions and see how well they hold up. Easier said then done, eh?
Your comment is only true if there is an accessible supermarket. See "food deserts." They do exist, and mostly in really poor areas, where many folks are dependent on their feet or public transit to get around.
Same is true in many rural areas, too, where a trip to town can be very costly.
You know, if there was any reasonable evidence to suggest that NSA, CIA, or DHS practices had prevented any attacks, you might have a good point. What evidence there is seems to suggest, however, that "Intelligence" actions have made the world less pleasant for most people, including most people in the US.
The quotes around "intelligence" allude to the fact there are many actions taken by our government's intelligence arms that have little to do with gathering or understanding information. Instead, many of the actions are about maintaining secrecy while doing their best to shape the world.
As a US citizen, I do want the world shaped to my advantage. But according to my morals and observations, my best advantage is served when neighbors respect and appreciate me, not when they fear me.
I have insufficient information to conclude whether the lightning connector is 'technically' superior, but I have loads of experience that leads me to conclude it is vastly ergonomically superior, especially for aging eyes and arthritic fingers.
Government owned lands are not public in the sense you suggest. They are a public "trust," which means the government holds the lands in trust for the benefit of the public (theoretically). This is to distinguish us from England, where the lands are owned by the crown, and has no legal incentive to provide any benefit from the lands to the public.
Just like other trust funds, the trustee controls and decides what produces the highest benefit, and is largely free to do just about anything, even screw it up, so long us the trust is managed in good faith.
I make no statement on the usefulness or fairness of this legal construction, I am merely pointing out how it works.
The 4th gives a right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. It does not guarantee any privacy. In fact, privacy is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
The Fourth Amendment is kind of like Santa Clause. It's a great idea that we all wish was true, but in reality is just a story we celebrate with children.
I am thinking hard about this inevitable question. Part of the answer is philosophical: it does me good to take positive action, regardless of the results of my action.
I am not so cynical or conspiratorial to think that the gubmint has become completely insensitive to the wishes of its polity. Largely insensitive perhaps, but completely, no. See their willingness to (at least claim to) convert the images from the naked scanners to a less explicit version. I think many times an issue that a few feel strongly about, when the few are truly in the right, can be transformed into a change garnering public discussion, when the few vocalize their thoughts. It takes time and sustained action, however. And there's no guarantee of success.
There is, however, a guarantee of failure if we do not take whatever positive actions are available to us.
In fact, MS still massively dominates the business sphere at all levels. A few tech companies use linux, some big enterprises use back end linux, a few "hip" shops use Macs, and everyone else uses Windows.
And Windows 7 doesn't suck. It's not pretty enough to make me switch from Mac OS, but I don't mind using it when I have to.
Note too, that there is another way than class action to gain status: multiple party "joinder." Many parties can band together as plaintiffs and sue jointly, without it being a class action. They can even share attorney expenses.
The problem with letting science decide is that science cannot make normative decisions. That is, science cannot tell us whether one outcome is better than another.
Consider water pollution. Science can tell us that if we put *x* mcg of Hg into a stream, *y* number of trout will get contaminated and *z* number of people will get sick, and it will cost the plant *a* number of dollars, which will lead to *b* number of layoffs, and *c* number of people going on food stamps, etc.
What science can't tell us is what value of *x* is the right one.
First, the lawyers are not in charge, and were perhaps significantly influential only at certain times, such as at the founding of the US, and in the 60's and 70's. It appears that the people with money are in charge.
Second, lawyers are taught to practice zealous advocacy within an adversarial system, presenting opposing sides to fact-finder. How well this system works depends on the fact finder. In the US political system, the fact finder is the voting public. This fact is why the founding fathers, especially Jefferson, were so keen on public education. An irrational, non-discerning, non-analytical voter pool will be susceptible to unreasonable arguments.
But even when everything works perfectly, there can still be thoughtful, significant differences of opinion. There are often no objectively quantifiable success criteria, compared to most problems in engineering. But even in engineering, there are still non-engineering considerations that set priorities for engineering projects. Performance v. Battery life, for example.
It's why the US system is often cited as the worst way to come up with an equitable governance ever, except for all the others.
I approve of this message. I was going to say, "although perhaps religion wasn't the best analogy," until I realized that it was. Science today, as opposed to say 30 years ago, appears to suffer from religiosity, or more precisely, orthodoxy. Orthodoxy excludes what does not fit within the prescribed framework, thus limiting itself and limiting progress. That process is useful in some contexts, but science is not among them.
I think there are enlightened "elite" folks, although I don't know how few or many. Identifying them, however, and getting them in power and preventing their corruption once there are fraught with perhaps insurmountable difficulties.
You are getting to the crux of the problem, and the limitation of economic calculus to fashion an answer. How do you properly discount an indeterminate probability of future catastrophe? It's a difficult question to answer from any angle. Really smart people are trying, with no satisfying solution yet that I know about. My common sense cuts both ways.
While it's true there is limited public infrastructure in less densely populated areas, it has not always been the case. Consider the interurban in central IL. It was an electric passenger train that linked all the little towns. I know people whose grandparents rode it to college, went home on weekends to work on the farm. No reason it could not be re-implemented, only takes political will.
I know we're moving off-topic, but another way to get people to believe it is by being awesome and beautiful. Many fundamentalists are beautiful and successful and kind, and when individuals whose life is not those things can believe that by joining, their lives will improve, they will believe the whole bit.
It's kind of like one of those South Park Mormon episodes.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems most questions were asked last Tue or Wed, and there's only, about three ESR responses I can find. Am I missing something?
Try to focus on arguments of fact, not arguments of person or source. Then you will weed out most deception.
You are correct to an extent. The challenge is that, in many instances, we cannot all be experts on every topic. Even Bill Nye must rely on the summaries and conclusions of experts. In those instances, we are forced to make judgments--and argue--about sources.
I wish I could propose "reason" as an alternative, but in my own experience and observation, there are some very well reasoned propositions that reach absurd conclusions.
That leaves the Bucky Fuller solution: we have to test our propositions and see how well they hold up. Easier said then done, eh?
Isn't that how a pluralistic democracy is *supposed* to work?
Your comment is only true if there is an accessible supermarket. See "food deserts." They do exist, and mostly in really poor areas, where many folks are dependent on their feet or public transit to get around.
Same is true in many rural areas, too, where a trip to town can be very costly.
You know, if there was any reasonable evidence to suggest that NSA, CIA, or DHS practices had prevented any attacks, you might have a good point. What evidence there is seems to suggest, however, that "Intelligence" actions have made the world less pleasant for most people, including most people in the US.
The quotes around "intelligence" allude to the fact there are many actions taken by our government's intelligence arms that have little to do with gathering or understanding information. Instead, many of the actions are about maintaining secrecy while doing their best to shape the world.
As a US citizen, I do want the world shaped to my advantage. But according to my morals and observations, my best advantage is served when neighbors respect and appreciate me, not when they fear me.
I have insufficient information to conclude whether the lightning connector is 'technically' superior, but I have loads of experience that leads me to conclude it is vastly ergonomically superior, especially for aging eyes and arthritic fingers.
Government owned lands are not public in the sense you suggest. They are a public "trust," which means the government holds the lands in trust for the benefit of the public (theoretically). This is to distinguish us from England, where the lands are owned by the crown, and has no legal incentive to provide any benefit from the lands to the public.
Just like other trust funds, the trustee controls and decides what produces the highest benefit, and is largely free to do just about anything, even screw it up, so long us the trust is managed in good faith.
I make no statement on the usefulness or fairness of this legal construction, I am merely pointing out how it works.
Yes, taxes are important. But gas tax, like all sales tax, is regressive. It hits poor people harder
This is BLATANTLY unconstitutional.
Is it?
The 4th gives a right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. It does not guarantee any privacy. In fact, privacy is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
The Fourth Amendment is kind of like Santa Clause. It's a great idea that we all wish was true, but in reality is just a story we celebrate with children.
I am thinking hard about this inevitable question. Part of the answer is philosophical: it does me good to take positive action, regardless of the results of my action.
I am not so cynical or conspiratorial to think that the gubmint has become completely insensitive to the wishes of its polity. Largely insensitive perhaps, but completely, no. See their willingness to (at least claim to) convert the images from the naked scanners to a less explicit version. I think many times an issue that a few feel strongly about, when the few are truly in the right, can be transformed into a change garnering public discussion, when the few vocalize their thoughts. It takes time and sustained action, however. And there's no guarantee of success.
There is, however, a guarantee of failure if we do not take whatever positive actions are available to us.
My thought is that Silicon Valley, populated with folks like us here on /., affords probably the best pool of jurors available for a trial like this.
Most lawyers litigating in a big trial like this are from a firm. In-house lawyers guide the company's transactions, typically.
Yes, this.
In fact, MS still massively dominates the business sphere at all levels. A few tech companies use linux, some big enterprises use back end linux, a few "hip" shops use Macs, and everyone else uses Windows.
And Windows 7 doesn't suck. It's not pretty enough to make me switch from Mac OS, but I don't mind using it when I have to.
a factory in Germany, Canada and Finland
That's some factory--Nokia must have invented some kind of trans-dimensional technology. Surely that's worth a few bucks to someone?
Indeed. They couldn't even put out a 13" pro with same res as the 13" Air?!
Note too, that there is another way than class action to gain status: multiple party "joinder." Many parties can band together as plaintiffs and sue jointly, without it being a class action. They can even share attorney expenses.
The problem with letting science decide is that science cannot make normative decisions. That is, science cannot tell us whether one outcome is better than another.
Consider water pollution. Science can tell us that if we put *x* mcg of Hg into a stream, *y* number of trout will get contaminated and *z* number of people will get sick, and it will cost the plant *a* number of dollars, which will lead to *b* number of layoffs, and *c* number of people going on food stamps, etc.
What science can't tell us is what value of *x* is the right one.
First, the lawyers are not in charge, and were perhaps significantly influential only at certain times, such as at the founding of the US, and in the 60's and 70's. It appears that the people with money are in charge.
Second, lawyers are taught to practice zealous advocacy within an adversarial system, presenting opposing sides to fact-finder. How well this system works depends on the fact finder. In the US political system, the fact finder is the voting public. This fact is why the founding fathers, especially Jefferson, were so keen on public education. An irrational, non-discerning, non-analytical voter pool will be susceptible to unreasonable arguments.
But even when everything works perfectly, there can still be thoughtful, significant differences of opinion. There are often no objectively quantifiable success criteria, compared to most problems in engineering. But even in engineering, there are still non-engineering considerations that set priorities for engineering projects. Performance v. Battery life, for example.
It's why the US system is often cited as the worst way to come up with an equitable governance ever, except for all the others.
I approve of this message. I was going to say, "although perhaps religion wasn't the best analogy," until I realized that it was. Science today, as opposed to say 30 years ago, appears to suffer from religiosity, or more precisely, orthodoxy. Orthodoxy excludes what does not fit within the prescribed framework, thus limiting itself and limiting progress. That process is useful in some contexts, but science is not among them.
I think there are enlightened "elite" folks, although I don't know how few or many. Identifying them, however, and getting them in power and preventing their corruption once there are fraught with perhaps insurmountable difficulties.
You are getting to the crux of the problem, and the limitation of economic calculus to fashion an answer. How do you properly discount an indeterminate probability of future catastrophe? It's a difficult question to answer from any angle. Really smart people are trying, with no satisfying solution yet that I know about. My common sense cuts both ways.
Yvan Eht Nioj . . .
While it's true there is limited public infrastructure in less densely populated areas, it has not always been the case. Consider the interurban in central IL. It was an electric passenger train that linked all the little towns. I know people whose grandparents rode it to college, went home on weekends to work on the farm. No reason it could not be re-implemented, only takes political will.
I know we're moving off-topic, but another way to get people to believe it is by being awesome and beautiful. Many fundamentalists are beautiful and successful and kind, and when individuals whose life is not those things can believe that by joining, their lives will improve, they will believe the whole bit.
It's kind of like one of those South Park Mormon episodes.
Not a novel/story per se. But excellent perusing.