Anyone who says "x is not science" is probably trolling. And probably wrong. It's No True Scotsman. It's "No True Science" can disagree with you on something, therefore anything that disagrees with you on it is "not science".
Science is a method. It's a tool. Anyone can use it. Or not use it. Like statistics, it can be used to lie. Like statistics, most liars use it. And like statistics, 98% of it is made up on the spot.
Sorry but it irks me when people say "x is not science" when they mean "I believe x is wrong, because...".
Don't. It just makes you wrong. Even if your scientific theory is right.
If terrorists wanted to simply take down planes, a simple bomb in the cargo bay would be simpler and more effective. Hell, they wouldn't even have to board the flight. Speaking of the Israelis... they put cargo into a pressure chamber and evacuate air to check that it's not rigged to blow at 10,000 feet. We? Don't.
Not that it would help all that much if we did. Rig it to blow the second time it's at 10,000 feet. Rig it to blow exactly 30 minutes after you dial the cell phone attached to it.
Or an RPG/SAM for that matter.
So because we can never be completely safe from terrorists, we get to have our rights violated half a dozen different ways with absolutely no benefit.
If tests are any indication they probably fail to stop more than that.
I have a magic rock that protects me from tigers. I know this because I strip-search everyone I meet and so far I've found 3 people who carried tiger's teeth as good-luck charms. In the meantime, not a single tiger attack. It's obviously working.
And please don't start with the "a gun going off on a plane oh no EVERYBODY WOULD DIE" thing. It's not true.
What really stopped terrorists from attacking airplanes is the same thing that stopped them in Pennsylvania: the passengers. That and some sensible moves like reinforcing cockpit doors and realizing that terrorists might actually want to kill everyone rather than just get some ransom money and go away.
...and it's not the Muslims' fault, because the people who were never forbidden from doing those things shouldn't be doing those things anyway because it makes Muslims angry.
So what you're saying is Muslims get violently angry when people who haven't been forbidden from doing things do the things they haven't been forbidden from doing.
Go ahead, double dog dare ya. Just place foot, aim and fire!
Aim, and then fire?
That's putting the horse before the cart, don't you think? Anything worth doing is worth doing right now. When everything looks like a nail, all you need is a hammer.
You know what? I can't argue with that. I apologize for calling you retarded. But I assume you already knew that online words like "retarded" and "stupid" tend to be thrown around as "someone who I disagree with".
I'm not sure I've ever met a person I didn't disagree with... on something, at least... and if I did, I don't think I'd much like them.
My point was, basically, that common sense and science operate by exactly the same methods (of hypothesizing and testing hypotheses), and therefore it's just as much science as science is. Common sense just tends to lag so-called "science" because when science actively seeks out and discovers a test that invalidates past ideas (which were held as "common sense"), it takes a while for common sense to catch up and broadly accept that the test was valid and a new hypothesis needed to be found to explain the discrepancy.
But I take fairly severe exception to "common sense isn't science", because they both operate under the same basic principles. As long as common sense doesn't ignore scientific discoveries, the two are almost unanimously in unison.
The runner's high is from endorphins, not adrenaline.
You should try competing some time. Hell, even try competing with yourself. Break your own time record for the mile by 10 seconds and then tell me there isn't any adrenaline.
"Water is wet. Fire will burn you. Moped Jesus spotted on the interstate" - wait, scratch that last one.
"Apples fall to the ground" is common sense precisely because it's been tested innumerable times. That's science. If an apple didn't fall to the ground, you'd have to come up with either an explanation of why gravity didn't make it fall in that particular incident, or a completely new explanation of gravity. That's science.
"The earth is flat" had also been tested innumerable times, but they were using the wrong test. Science does that sometimes.
Racism works by taking a "prevalent" idea amongst one populace, comparing it with an "isolated incident" in another populace, concluding they're identical, and then calling anyone who thinks a "prevalent" idea is worse than an "isolated incident" racist.
(If you missed that (racists aren't always the sharpest bunch), I just called you a racist.)
No. Maybe YOU are retarded, or maybe you just failed to comprehend my simple point. I'll try again.
You are also more likely to die from a shot to the chest than a shot to the arm or leg. But Jiro claimed that if there's even a possibility of it killing someone, the police shouldn't be allowed to do it unless they intend to kill. And that's just plain stupid, because people have died from being shot by a Taser too.
Any developer who believes that their add-on won't break in future updates is welcome to support any version up to version 8.0a1. The only reason an add-on should ever break due to a Firefox update is because the developer is too lazy to update it. And in that case you can still use the Add-on Compatibility Reporter to override the version check and enable the add-on.
People can die, and have died, from being shot by a Taser, so the same faulty logic holds that you can't Taser a suspect unless you intend to possibly kill him. And only an idiot would use logic like that. Or a lawyer. But I repeat myself.
OP was obviously talking about a numerical minority. I'm sorry if his slightly-misleading phraseology mislead you into believing that he was referring to a socialogical minority.
I don't need hints, I can read the link you posted perfectly well. Maybe you're the one who needed hints, as it appears that you couldn't.
A minority is a sociological group that does not make up a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority â" it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority", respectively.
Good job on being confused. Nobody else appeared to be. We all figured out that 43% is less than 50%. Go ahead and broadcast the fact that you didn't and got confused though.
Feel free to try to come up with a better explanation for why Zuck needs a copy of a contract that he read and signed.
Hell, I'd even settle for a halfway-coherent explanation of why my attention span or logical abilities are doubtful. But I know I won't get one.
From what information I have, it appears that Zuckerberg is more likely to be innocent. So yes, until I have information to other effects, my conclusion is and will remain that he's innocent. I realize that you have an irrational hatred of Zuckerberg, but the guy who's suing him is a proven lying scumbag and I really don't think you should be putting much stock in him to take down the evil Zuck.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, too easy.
Anyone who says "x is not science" is probably trolling. And probably wrong. It's No True Scotsman. It's "No True Science" can disagree with you on something, therefore anything that disagrees with you on it is "not science".
Science is a method. It's a tool. Anyone can use it. Or not use it. Like statistics, it can be used to lie. Like statistics, most liars use it. And like statistics, 98% of it is made up on the spot.
Sorry but it irks me when people say "x is not science" when they mean "I believe x is wrong, because...".
Don't. It just makes you wrong. Even if your scientific theory is right.
If terrorists wanted to simply take down planes, a simple bomb in the cargo bay would be simpler and more effective. Hell, they wouldn't even have to board the flight. Speaking of the Israelis... they put cargo into a pressure chamber and evacuate air to check that it's not rigged to blow at 10,000 feet. We? Don't.
Not that it would help all that much if we did. Rig it to blow the second time it's at 10,000 feet. Rig it to blow exactly 30 minutes after you dial the cell phone attached to it.
Or an RPG/SAM for that matter.
So because we can never be completely safe from terrorists, we get to have our rights violated half a dozen different ways with absolutely no benefit.
If tests are any indication they probably fail to stop more than that.
I have a magic rock that protects me from tigers. I know this because I strip-search everyone I meet and so far I've found 3 people who carried tiger's teeth as good-luck charms. In the meantime, not a single tiger attack. It's obviously working.
And please don't start with the "a gun going off on a plane oh no EVERYBODY WOULD DIE" thing. It's not true.
What really stopped terrorists from attacking airplanes is the same thing that stopped them in Pennsylvania: the passengers. That and some sensible moves like reinforcing cockpit doors and realizing that terrorists might actually want to kill everyone rather than just get some ransom money and go away.
I don't have a basement, you insensitive clod!
Did I forget the <sarcasm> tag? Oh darn.
It sounds to me like you are trying to forbid me from doing it.
...and it's not the Muslims' fault, because the people who were never forbidden from doing those things shouldn't be doing those things anyway because it makes Muslims angry.
So what you're saying is Muslims get violently angry when people who haven't been forbidden from doing things do the things they haven't been forbidden from doing.
Then what IS data?
Go ahead, double dog dare ya. Just place foot, aim and fire!
Aim, and then fire?
That's putting the horse before the cart, don't you think? Anything worth doing is worth doing right now. When everything looks like a nail, all you need is a hammer.
So abortion isn't legal in Canada?
Oh... human life is only "quite a bit above property" when it's trying to steal said property. Gotcha.
You're a fucking moron.
Try stealing my shit and I'll kill you. It's that simple. YOU value your life, not me; try not stealing my shit and see how that works out.
You know what? I can't argue with that. I apologize for calling you retarded. But I assume you already knew that online words like "retarded" and "stupid" tend to be thrown around as "someone who I disagree with".
I'm not sure I've ever met a person I didn't disagree with... on something, at least... and if I did, I don't think I'd much like them.
My point was, basically, that common sense and science operate by exactly the same methods (of hypothesizing and testing hypotheses), and therefore it's just as much science as science is. Common sense just tends to lag so-called "science" because when science actively seeks out and discovers a test that invalidates past ideas (which were held as "common sense"), it takes a while for common sense to catch up and broadly accept that the test was valid and a new hypothesis needed to be found to explain the discrepancy.
But I take fairly severe exception to "common sense isn't science", because they both operate under the same basic principles. As long as common sense doesn't ignore scientific discoveries, the two are almost unanimously in unison.
Yeah, it's been a while since I'd seen that delicious copypasta.
The runner's high is from endorphins, not adrenaline.
You should try competing some time. Hell, even try competing with yourself. Break your own time record for the mile by 10 seconds and then tell me there isn't any adrenaline.
It is the vast majority of the time.
"Water is wet. Fire will burn you. Moped Jesus spotted on the interstate" - wait, scratch that last one.
"Apples fall to the ground" is common sense precisely because it's been tested innumerable times. That's science. If an apple didn't fall to the ground, you'd have to come up with either an explanation of why gravity didn't make it fall in that particular incident, or a completely new explanation of gravity. That's science.
"The earth is flat" had also been tested innumerable times, but they were using the wrong test. Science does that sometimes.
No.
Racism works by taking a "prevalent" idea amongst one populace, comparing it with an "isolated incident" in another populace, concluding they're identical, and then calling anyone who thinks a "prevalent" idea is worse than an "isolated incident" racist.
(If you missed that (racists aren't always the sharpest bunch), I just called you a racist.)
No. Maybe YOU are retarded, or maybe you just failed to comprehend my simple point. I'll try again.
You are also more likely to die from a shot to the chest than a shot to the arm or leg. But Jiro claimed that if there's even a possibility of it killing someone, the police shouldn't be allowed to do it unless they intend to kill. And that's just plain stupid, because people have died from being shot by a Taser too.
Any developer who believes that their add-on won't break in future updates is welcome to support any version up to version 8.0a1. The only reason an add-on should ever break due to a Firefox update is because the developer is too lazy to update it. And in that case you can still use the Add-on Compatibility Reporter to override the version check and enable the add-on.
People can die, and have died, from being shot by a Taser, so the same faulty logic holds that you can't Taser a suspect unless you intend to possibly kill him. And only an idiot would use logic like that. Or a lawyer. But I repeat myself.
OP was obviously talking about a numerical minority. I'm sorry if his slightly-misleading phraseology mislead you into believing that he was referring to a socialogical minority.
I don't need hints, I can read the link you posted perfectly well. Maybe you're the one who needed hints, as it appears that you couldn't.
A minority is a sociological group that does not make up a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority â" it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority", respectively.
Good job on being confused. Nobody else appeared to be. We all figured out that 43% is less than 50%. Go ahead and broadcast the fact that you didn't and got confused though.
Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "majority". Then I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "plurality".
Hint: one of them means "more than 50%". One of them does not.
Now for your homework: is 43% greater than 50%? Show your work.
Option 3: Anonymous Coward is a moron.
Feel free to try to come up with a better explanation for why Zuck needs a copy of a contract that he read and signed.
Hell, I'd even settle for a halfway-coherent explanation of why my attention span or logical abilities are doubtful. But I know I won't get one.
From what information I have, it appears that Zuckerberg is more likely to be innocent. So yes, until I have information to other effects, my conclusion is and will remain that he's innocent. I realize that you have an irrational hatred of Zuckerberg, but the guy who's suing him is a proven lying scumbag and I really don't think you should be putting much stock in him to take down the evil Zuck.