I am just going to say this every time climate change is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the biosphere and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
Seriously, that's what you think those words mean? I suggest you readmore. The AC you replied to is wrong too of course, so you at least have a point. Globalism and socialism are not opposites, although for some usages of the word globalism they can be opposed.
These journalists rush into war zones dressed like militants. And they carry cameras that are tripod mounted or have telephoto lenses that look like weapons from far away. When you're in a helicopter and you've just seen a man firing a weapon from the sky, then another man runs next to him with a two foot long metal object, are you going to risk that being an RPG if it is one, instead of a camera?
Dressed like militants? They were wearing civilian clothing. The Reuters guys (I am assuming the ones carrying things are them) appear to be wearing shirts and black pants. This means I am also dressed like a militant as I type this (shirt and jeans). As to weapons, a bazooka is much longer than two feet long. Also armed combatants don't just walk around in the middle of the street like that.
All of this is beside the point however. It is senseless for us to argue whether or not the actions of a few soldiers on the battlefield are right or wrong, things like this are guaranteed to happen in war. The point should be that the war was waged unilaterally and under false pretenses. Civilians were killed. The world is not asking for soldiers to be punished they are asking for leaders to be held accountable.
If we are talking about whether the US government supports democracy in foreign countries I have a few more citations: ChileNicaragua. Yes I know Nicaragua was not a democratically elected government but it was a popular revolution, and was certainly more on the side of the people than the terrorists that the US funded and supported.
Hmm a Conservative who has read Mill. Would you like to have a left v right debate some time? I have been looking for a good opponent. Please no more animal farm though.
This headline is the most hateful and prejudiced comment about Americans I have heard all day!
Wow, you must live a very sheltered existence. I would be flattered if someone said that about me. I don't want to represent the average.
Just to make your day even more interesting: I have noticed at least 3 posts from people living in the US who took offence at this article. This means that some >0 percentage of the US population who can both read and write, either don't know what "make bad study subjects" means, or they aspire for their nation to be totally average in every way.
There, what I just wrote is now the most hateful and prejudiced comment about 'Americans' you have heard all day.
Free is free - there are no "interpretations" to free.
Somalians have no freedom, except the "freedom" to oppress their countrymen
You are just plain wrong, there are infinite interpretations to free. Dictionary.com has 5 definitions, google define lists two, the wikipedia page for freedom is a disambiguation page and is very long, including among other things 14 separate articles on different types of philosiophical ideas about types of freedom, each of which leads to a long and complex article and many of which have further sub-ideas on separate pages corresponding to different schools of thought and ideas about subtle nuances of the different concepts.
If you can sum up the entire meaning of freedom in a few words for us here and it truly encompasses everything that people mean by the word freedom and enables us to truly tackle all the related problems with your one single framework I will personally tell all the world's philosopher that they have it wrong and spread your definition around the world. You will be famous and regarded as on of the world's greatest philosophers.
I am just going to say this every time climate change is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
Austrian, Keynsian, Marixist, doesn't it seem strange to anyone that all our current economic theories are 100 years old? We have world wide lightspeed communication now, and jet airliners, and robotics. These radically change the economic landscape. I think it is time for a new model.
This post is clearly a schill for the Allied Athiest Alliance to propagate their false science among all the true believers of the real science practised by the United Athiest Alliance. Don't fall for it children.
So you respond to the above by denying the definition in every dictionary, and coming up with a new one not listed there (the definition 'outside of nature' is usually listed under supernatural).
If we are to go with your definition, and assuming that nature in this context still holds it's normal definition ie. 'all that exists', then you are defining paranormal as 'that which is outside of the set of all things that exist.' Paraphrasing that, paranormal is defined as that which does not exist.
Your new definition is therefore not diminishing the previous poster's point at all, if anything you are strengthening it by saying that Randi's challenge is a challenge to prove that that which does not exist, exists. Given that this is a logical impossibility the challenge itself is a fraud as anything that was proven to exist during the challenge would therefore not be paranormal and would not qualify for the prize. So basically you are saying Randi is a fraud and will never pay out.
Do you accept the following definition of the word 'paranormal' from wikipedia?:
paranormal
Adjective
Paranormal is a general term that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" or that indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure
It can be argued that no act is completely selfless. Yes people enjoy the feeling they get when they help others. It is equally fallacious however to argue that any act is completely selfish. Even some of the most despicable acts in history had partly altruistic motives, perhaps misguided ones, but nevertheless. In cases like this people often justify it to themselves by saying that they are stealing from a corrupt system to benefit their family, especially their children. Terrorists believe they are fighting for the freedom of everyone against corrupt and evil power, nazi's believed they were protecting the purity of a chosen race against evil outsiders, the US military believes that the poor villagers they blow up are evil doers intent on destroying their way of life.
All human action can be seen as either selfish or selfless, but in reality it is far more complex than that. To say that greed is the only motivation of human beings is a hugely jaded and pessimistic view of human nature, and no more justified than it's opposite. It is however wonderfully self fulfilling as you can find evidence to support either position everywhere you look as long as you filter out the evidence to the contrary.
I am just going to say this every time global warming is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
This is only superficially about compensation. The ruling means that as a crucial service the copyright police can't cut off your internet as a punishment for downloading mp3s.
Another example of analysis starting with a false premise. Games that are computable by a rational brain are a tiny minority, and are the exception, not some kind of base case. Most people find such games trivial and uninteresting. The human brain does not work in terms of rationally min-maxing potential game trees so the idea of players being "less rational" because they are not working in this highly inefficient mechanical mode is simply wrong. Human brains work using a form of massively parallel pattern matching. This means a chess master can look at a chess board for a few moments and almost instantly come up with a very strong move to make. With games more complex than chess the difference is even more pronounced. You don't iterate through each move like a dumb machine. This whole idea of this analysis is like concluding that people can't eat chicken because a chicken has a larger diameter than a persons mouth. We have ways.
When you change systems you dont find a way for people to handle the transition, there isn't one. Systems change all the time, people get a bit confused, then they learn. A little metric confusion over the whole country for a decade is actually not that much more serious than the current 'different from everyone else' confusion that is a constant problem.
The worst thing about this is that it is totally uneccesary. There was a study in the '60s that showed that targeted therapy in combination with psychedelic drugs can cure addiction with a very high success rate (compared to other methods) and almost no side effects. After lsd was made illegal research stopped but recently people have continued the program with ibogaine. The research is still far too preliminary for conclusive results but the fact that a potential treatment exists makes brain surgery even more inadvisable.
This is also not an isolated incident. The US has done hundreds of secret and sinister plans to subvert and weaken political movements in foreign countries, not to mention the ones that aren't secret at all. From drugs to mines and drones, to funding and equipping terrorist groups, if you live in a third world country the belief that the US is not your friend is not a paranoid conspiracy theory, it is a sensible precaution based on experience. The US admits as much themselves.
Using the words hillbilly and conspiracy theory to describe this situation may be accurate in this particular interest, but to generalise that to all poor countries where the population is suspicious of the US is just arrogant and offensive.
There are however serious complaints and actions. The Mana party are a bit more serious about it. Not that the NZPP aren't seriously against this agreement, their satire seems to have at least achieved coverage here, The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement has many of the hallmarks of the various copyright agreements slashdot has been fervently against in the past, such as being negotiated in secret and without consultation or representation. The treaty is much more far reaching in it's consequences than the ACTA treaty and it's brethren however. We are not even sure whether or not there are copyright and internet clauses in the TPPA, but I would be surprised if there aren't. What it basically amounts to is selling the country off.
I think we should at least be doing an auction to ensure we get the right price, so anyone here that is interested: For sale, one country, nearly new. Docile population. Good Climate. Near the beach. Item sold 'as is', may have pockets of democracy, ownership disputed. Bidding starts at one handful of peanuts.
Actually I am a gamer, and I have been wanting to move to linux for ages because it is simply better than windows. Yes I just want a toy, but linux can be a toy, linux can be whatever you want it to be and that is the great thing about it.
Still, I always thought it was a pretty serious gap in Unity's coverage that you couldn't compile games for Linux, being able to develop on linux would be nice but one step at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
I am just going to say this every time climate change is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the biosphere and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
The summary forgot to mention Richard Pearse as well.
Seriously, that's what you think those words mean? I suggest you read more. The AC you replied to is wrong too of course, so you at least have a point. Globalism and socialism are not opposites, although for some usages of the word globalism they can be opposed.
These journalists rush into war zones dressed like militants. And they carry cameras that are tripod mounted or have telephoto lenses that look like weapons from far away. When you're in a helicopter and you've just seen a man firing a weapon from the sky, then another man runs next to him with a two foot long metal object, are you going to risk that being an RPG if it is one, instead of a camera?
Dressed like militants? They were wearing civilian clothing. The Reuters guys (I am assuming the ones carrying things are them) appear to be wearing shirts and black pants. This means I am also dressed like a militant as I type this (shirt and jeans). As to weapons, a bazooka is much longer than two feet long. Also armed combatants don't just walk around in the middle of the street like that.
All of this is beside the point however. It is senseless for us to argue whether or not the actions of a few soldiers on the battlefield are right or wrong, things like this are guaranteed to happen in war. The point should be that the war was waged unilaterally and under false pretenses. Civilians were killed. The world is not asking for soldiers to be punished they are asking for leaders to be held accountable.
If we are talking about whether the US government supports democracy in foreign countries I have a few more citations: Chile Nicaragua. Yes I know Nicaragua was not a democratically elected government but it was a popular revolution, and was certainly more on the side of the people than the terrorists that the US funded and supported.
Hmm a Conservative who has read Mill. Would you like to have a left v right debate some time? I have been looking for a good opponent. Please no more animal farm though.
This headline is the most hateful and prejudiced comment about Americans I have heard all day!
Wow, you must live a very sheltered existence. I would be flattered if someone said that about me. I don't want to represent the average.
Just to make your day even more interesting: I have noticed at least 3 posts from people living in the US who took offence at this article. This means that some >0 percentage of the US population who can both read and write, either don't know what "make bad study subjects" means, or they aspire for their nation to be totally average in every way.
There, what I just wrote is now the most hateful and prejudiced comment about 'Americans' you have heard all day.
Free is free - there are no "interpretations" to free.
Somalians have no freedom, except the "freedom" to oppress their countrymen
You are just plain wrong, there are infinite interpretations to free. Dictionary.com has 5 definitions, google define lists two, the wikipedia page for freedom is a disambiguation page and is very long, including among other things 14 separate articles on different types of philosiophical ideas about types of freedom, each of which leads to a long and complex article and many of which have further sub-ideas on separate pages corresponding to different schools of thought and ideas about subtle nuances of the different concepts.
If you can sum up the entire meaning of freedom in a few words for us here and it truly encompasses everything that people mean by the word freedom and enables us to truly tackle all the related problems with your one single framework I will personally tell all the world's philosopher that they have it wrong and spread your definition around the world. You will be famous and regarded as on of the world's greatest philosophers.
I am just going to say this every time climate change is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
Austrian, Keynsian, Marixist, doesn't it seem strange to anyone that all our current economic theories are 100 years old? We have world wide lightspeed communication now, and jet airliners, and robotics. These radically change the economic landscape. I think it is time for a new model.
This post is clearly a schill for the Allied Athiest Alliance to propagate their false science among all the true believers of the real science practised by the United Athiest Alliance. Don't fall for it children.
Science be praised!
So you respond to the above by denying the definition in every dictionary, and coming up with a new one not listed there (the definition 'outside of nature' is usually listed under supernatural).
If we are to go with your definition, and assuming that nature in this context still holds it's normal definition ie. 'all that exists', then you are defining paranormal as 'that which is outside of the set of all things that exist.' Paraphrasing that, paranormal is defined as that which does not exist.
Your new definition is therefore not diminishing the previous poster's point at all, if anything you are strengthening it by saying that Randi's challenge is a challenge to prove that that which does not exist, exists. Given that this is a logical impossibility the challenge itself is a fraud as anything that was proven to exist during the challenge would therefore not be paranormal and would not qualify for the prize. So basically you are saying Randi is a fraud and will never pay out.
Most modern magicians use science extensively in their illusions.
Do you accept the following definition of the word 'paranormal' from wikipedia?:
paranormal
Adjective
Paranormal is a general term that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" or that indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure
It can be argued that no act is completely selfless. Yes people enjoy the feeling they get when they help others. It is equally fallacious however to argue that any act is completely selfish. Even some of the most despicable acts in history had partly altruistic motives, perhaps misguided ones, but nevertheless. In cases like this people often justify it to themselves by saying that they are stealing from a corrupt system to benefit their family, especially their children. Terrorists believe they are fighting for the freedom of everyone against corrupt and evil power, nazi's believed they were protecting the purity of a chosen race against evil outsiders, the US military believes that the poor villagers they blow up are evil doers intent on destroying their way of life.
All human action can be seen as either selfish or selfless, but in reality it is far more complex than that. To say that greed is the only motivation of human beings is a hugely jaded and pessimistic view of human nature, and no more justified than it's opposite. It is however wonderfully self fulfilling as you can find evidence to support either position everywhere you look as long as you filter out the evidence to the contrary.
I am just going to say this every time global warming is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
This is only superficially about compensation. The ruling means that as a crucial service the copyright police can't cut off your internet as a punishment for downloading mp3s.
Another example of analysis starting with a false premise. Games that are computable by a rational brain are a tiny minority, and are the exception, not some kind of base case. Most people find such games trivial and uninteresting. The human brain does not work in terms of rationally min-maxing potential game trees so the idea of players being "less rational" because they are not working in this highly inefficient mechanical mode is simply wrong. Human brains work using a form of massively parallel pattern matching. This means a chess master can look at a chess board for a few moments and almost instantly come up with a very strong move to make. With games more complex than chess the difference is even more pronounced. You don't iterate through each move like a dumb machine. This whole idea of this analysis is like concluding that people can't eat chicken because a chicken has a larger diameter than a persons mouth. We have ways.
When you change systems you dont find a way for people to handle the transition, there isn't one. Systems change all the time, people get a bit confused, then they learn. A little metric confusion over the whole country for a decade is actually not that much more serious than the current 'different from everyone else' confusion that is a constant problem.
The worst thing about this is that it is totally uneccesary. There was a study in the '60s that showed that targeted therapy in combination with psychedelic drugs can cure addiction with a very high success rate (compared to other methods) and almost no side effects. After lsd was made illegal research stopped but recently people have continued the program with ibogaine. The research is still far too preliminary for conclusive results but the fact that a potential treatment exists makes brain surgery even more inadvisable.
This is also not an isolated incident. The US has done hundreds of secret and sinister plans to subvert and weaken political movements in foreign countries, not to mention the ones that aren't secret at all. From drugs to mines and drones, to funding and equipping terrorist groups, if you live in a third world country the belief that the US is not your friend is not a paranoid conspiracy theory, it is a sensible precaution based on experience. The US admits as much themselves.
Using the words hillbilly and conspiracy theory to describe this situation may be accurate in this particular interest, but to generalise that to all poor countries where the population is suspicious of the US is just arrogant and offensive.
There are however serious complaints and actions. The Mana party are a bit more serious about it. Not that the NZPP aren't seriously against this agreement, their satire seems to have at least achieved coverage here, The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement has many of the hallmarks of the various copyright agreements slashdot has been fervently against in the past, such as being negotiated in secret and without consultation or representation. The treaty is much more far reaching in it's consequences than the ACTA treaty and it's brethren however. We are not even sure whether or not there are copyright and internet clauses in the TPPA, but I would be surprised if there aren't. What it basically amounts to is selling the country off.
I think we should at least be doing an auction to ensure we get the right price, so anyone here that is interested: For sale, one country, nearly new. Docile population. Good Climate. Near the beach. Item sold 'as is', may have pockets of democracy, ownership disputed. Bidding starts at one handful of peanuts.
Actually I am a gamer, and I have been wanting to move to linux for ages because it is simply better than windows. Yes I just want a toy, but linux can be a toy, linux can be whatever you want it to be and that is the great thing about it.
The truth is, most Linux users don't care about games.
There is a causal element there: Most people who care about games don't use linux. If games come to linux that could change.
Still, I always thought it was a pretty serious gap in Unity's coverage that you couldn't compile games for Linux, being able to develop on linux would be nice but one step at a time.