> "Skeptic" comes from the Greek skeptesthai ("to look carefully"). "Science" came from the Latin "scire" ("to know").
And underlying "scire" is a root meaning of "divide" or "split", with a suggestion that "scire" originally had the semantics of "careful examination", somewhat similar to our modern "dig in to".
> Sounds to me like skepticism and science go hand in hand. They're not opposites like you seem to want to imply they are.
Yes, skepticism is normally considered a part of the scientific worldview. A scientist's first responsibility is to be skeptical of his/her own findings.
And that whole "peer review" thingy is just a formalization of skepticism toward one another's claims. That's why science is self-correcting, and things like Piltdown Man and the fake dino-bird brought out of China a few years ago, which creationists are so fond of harping on, are actually exposed by scientists rather than by creationists. Skepticism is very important to science.
In fact, if you visit the sci.skeptic you'll find that it's the people who support "normal science" who are called skeptics, not the loonies, and the crowd of loonies there use "skeptic" as if it were a dirty word. What michael refered to are normally called "deniers" rather than "skeptics". There is still a taint of critical thought associated with the word "skeptic".
> I forgot... So, there are "games" you can play, where you accomplish nothing, learn nothing and do nothing... and now you don't even have to play?!? You can just BUY your way into a powerful character without having to go through the annoying trouble of GAINING EXPERIENCE?
There are supposedly places where you can order degrees for cash, so anyone buying a character should go first class, spend a bit more, and convert "Luke Orkwhacker" to "Luke Orkwhacker, PhD".
I honestly think you could live large by starting up a modern bogo-relics trade, selling Werdna's Scalp or even just YAWP certificates for roguelike games. I used to know D&D players who were so focused on acquisition and status that they were hardly interested in the actual play of the game; I honestly believe some of them would have paid for trophies for events they hadn't actually entered.
> Cablevision has raised rates everytime I look at the bill. Don't get me wrong, Optimum Online is very fast and nice and few problems occur. But lately, between Cable and the Modem and an $80+ cable bill every month, I'm getting very close to switching back to basic broadcast television.
Don't fear the rabbit ears.
I ditched premium cable ages ago, for exactly the reason you describe. More recently my apartments quit carrying basic cable, so I went out and found a pair of rabbit ears. I haven't regretted it.
Yes, there's hardly anything on but trash, but there's still more on than I ought to spend the time watching. I get ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, and PBS. If they each only have two hours of fun stuff per week, that's still a whopping 12 hours eaten out of my 112 waking hours per week.
> When I first read the title, I thought "Hitchhiker's Guide To Being Made Into A Movie" like the article was about a howto on being turned into a movie:)
I'm just waiting to hear that Hollywood is making Slashdot into a movie.
>...almost as if they believe that human life exists at that scale and it would be a horrible sin to tamper with it unless there is an unrealized but vast profit to be made.
The two dominant political parties in the USA are made up of coalitions of strange bedfellows. You are seeing one manifestation of that in the Republican party: the religious right gets to be on top until the financial stakes get high enough, then big business gets its turn.
> Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
Redefinition seems to be the government's most powerful tool these days. "This is a war." "This isn't a war." "He is an enemy combatant." "He isn't a POW." If you want to set aside the law, the constitution, or international law, just redefine the terms.
And of course, "That isn't sex." This is a game that everyone can play.
> The article states that these are advisory committees. It seems reasonable to staff them with people whose opinions you trust.
Just make sure you're staffing them with people you trust scientifically rather than politically.
Re: Interview with Christopher Reeve
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
> I think it would be worth while to set up an interview on Slashdot with him.
Seconded.
Meanwhile, FYI, there will be a documentary about him and an interview on ABC tomorrow (Wednesday) evening. As I understand it, the documentary was made by his son over the past 18 months, and shows Christopher actually making some surprising (albeit limited) progress. Last year they put him in a swimming pool for the first time since his injury, and were surprised to discover that he could move his feet a little bit. Apparently there has been more progress since then, though I haven't heard how much.
Re:Posting as an AC on this issue should give a cl
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
> The ones like the AC from above simply state all research is biased so research that favours their views is just as good as any.
This brings to mind something I read on talk.origins over the summer. Paraphrasing from memory:
People whose position is refuted by the evidence will argue long and hard that nothing is ultimately knowable.
The politicization of science lies not only in committee packing, but in a public that will pick and choose what science it accepts and what science it rejects based on whether or not the results support their political, religious, and economic interests.
> A good deal of cranial and neurosurgery is performed through the sinus cavity rather than through the skull. In particular, if you ever get a pituitary tumor-- heaven forbid-- your surgeon will use a craneofacial approach to excise it. In other words, he'll use a microscope and some specialized tools to pull the tumor out bit by bit through your nose.
And as anyone who has seen Total Recall will tell you, the procedure involves minimal discomfort to the nose.
> Apparently, some Archeaologists really don't take some Egyptian History too seriously unless collaborated by other sources.
Herodotos, the "father of history", saw some inscriptions on the pyramids in the Fifth Century BCE, and was apparently told by the tour guides that the inscriptions were a record of all the onions needed to feed the builders.
> For years Zahi Hawass has claimed that there is "nothing" to see up the shafts, that there is no "door". Now, he's gone 180 degrees and claims there IS a door.
Personally I think the whole thing is a hoax - but I won't say that, 'cause I'm afraid some archaeologist will <buzz>punch my lights out</buzz>.
> The alledged hijacking of Rudolf Gantenbrink's work is a straw man, Gantenbrink is refered to in all the papers you will find in academia relating to the exploration of the shafts.
I think the special actually referred to him by name five minutes into the program.
> (After we see it's just another wall). "This is a very important discovery, and I am very pleased with what we found".
I bet Siggy Freud would have enjoyed it:
1) everyone gets excited about poking a pole in a hole
2) hole gets poked 3) everyone wonders why they were so excited about it two minutes ago ... 4) everyone starts looking forward to the next episode
I always find it interesting that the price of games is essentially unchanged from the commercial market for Apple ][ games back in 1980, when most would fit on a single 5-1/4" floppy. (360Kb, IIRC.)
> In the end it will all work, because, unlike most software companies, auto companies have to take legal liability for their failures.
Hopefully so. The first thing that caught my attention when I read the article was the mention of "upgrading" your car with software downloads, which I found pretty scary. I suppose we'll all want USB ports so we can back up our autos and restore them if the upgrades don't pan out.
> That attracts the best and the brightest, but unfortunately it also gives them the incentive to cheat.
Contrary to intuitions, it is often the best and brightest who cheat at universities, too. Lot of pre-med students get busted. Apparently the B&B are very good at rationalizing things to themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
> "Skeptic" comes from the Greek skeptesthai ("to look carefully"). "Science" came from the Latin "scire" ("to know").
And underlying "scire" is a root meaning of "divide" or "split", with a suggestion that "scire" originally had the semantics of "careful examination", somewhat similar to our modern "dig in to".
> Sounds to me like skepticism and science go hand in hand. They're not opposites like you seem to want to imply they are.
Yes, skepticism is normally considered a part of the scientific worldview. A scientist's first responsibility is to be skeptical of his/her own findings.
And that whole "peer review" thingy is just a formalization of skepticism toward one another's claims. That's why science is self-correcting, and things like Piltdown Man and the fake dino-bird brought out of China a few years ago, which creationists are so fond of harping on, are actually exposed by scientists rather than by creationists. Skepticism is very important to science.
In fact, if you visit the sci.skeptic you'll find that it's the people who support "normal science" who are called skeptics, not the loonies, and the crowd of loonies there use "skeptic" as if it were a dirty word. What michael refered to are normally called "deniers" rather than "skeptics". There is still a taint of critical thought associated with the word "skeptic".
Should be useful to security auditors. Get out and take a stroll around your site, and be alarmed at any chalk-up you find.
And of course, do something about it.
> I forgot... So, there are "games" you can play, where you accomplish nothing, learn nothing and do nothing... and now you don't even have to play?!? You can just BUY your way into a powerful character without having to go through the annoying trouble of GAINING EXPERIENCE?
There are supposedly places where you can order degrees for cash, so anyone buying a character should go first class, spend a bit more, and convert "Luke Orkwhacker" to "Luke Orkwhacker, PhD".
I honestly think you could live large by starting up a modern bogo-relics trade, selling Werdna's Scalp or even just YAWP certificates for roguelike games. I used to know D&D players who were so focused on acquisition and status that they were hardly interested in the actual play of the game; I honestly believe some of them would have paid for trophies for events they hadn't actually entered.
> Here ya go. Five digit slashdot account number maxed out on karma!
Hey, I'll sell you a single-digit Slashdot account number.
But you'll have to guess the password, 'cause I forgot it. Yeah.
> Anyone know if Cheech and Chong are free?
Cheech Marin recently played one of the leading roles in Nash Bridges, which has (I think) run its course now.
BTW, IMO did a creditable job of the (admittedly lightweight) part.
> Cablevision has raised rates everytime I look at the bill. Don't get me wrong, Optimum Online is very fast and nice and few problems occur. But lately, between Cable and the Modem and an $80+ cable bill every month, I'm getting very close to switching back to basic broadcast television.
Don't fear the rabbit ears.
I ditched premium cable ages ago, for exactly the reason you describe. More recently my apartments quit carrying basic cable, so I went out and found a pair of rabbit ears. I haven't regretted it.
Yes, there's hardly anything on but trash, but there's still more on than I ought to spend the time watching. I get ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, and PBS. If they each only have two hours of fun stuff per week, that's still a whopping 12 hours eaten out of my 112 waking hours per week.
> It's nice to see Hollywood making at least one "non-teen-idol goes on a road trip/goes to college and finds them self" movie for next year.
Hey - I liked Lord of the Rings.
> > Forget about the book, watch the movie again and ask yourself: who were the bad guys?
> Paul Verhoeven and Edward Neumeier.
LoL.
> When I first read the title, I thought "Hitchhiker's Guide To Being Made Into A Movie" like the article was about a howto on being turned into a movie
I'm just waiting to hear that Hollywood is making Slashdot into a movie.
>
The two dominant political parties in the USA are made up of coalitions of strange bedfellows. You are seeing one manifestation of that in the Republican party: the religious right gets to be on top until the financial stakes get high enough, then big business gets its turn.
> Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
Redefinition seems to be the government's most powerful tool these days. "This is a war." "This isn't a war." "He is an enemy combatant." "He isn't a POW." If you want to set aside the law, the constitution, or international law, just redefine the terms.
And of course, "That isn't sex." This is a game that everyone can play.
> The article states that these are advisory committees. It seems reasonable to staff them with people whose opinions you trust.
Just make sure you're staffing them with people you trust scientifically rather than politically.
> I think it would be worth while to set up an interview on Slashdot with him.
Seconded.
Meanwhile, FYI, there will be a documentary about him and an interview on ABC tomorrow (Wednesday) evening. As I understand it, the documentary was made by his son over the past 18 months, and shows Christopher actually making some surprising (albeit limited) progress. Last year they put him in a swimming pool for the first time since his injury, and were surprised to discover that he could move his feet a little bit. Apparently there has been more progress since then, though I haven't heard how much.
The politicization of science lies not only in committee packing, but in a public that will pick and choose what science it accepts and what science it rejects based on whether or not the results support their political, religious, and economic interests.> The ones like the AC from above simply state all research is biased so research that favours their views is just as good as any.
This brings to mind something I read on talk.origins over the summer. Paraphrasing from memory:
> A good deal of cranial and neurosurgery is performed through the sinus cavity rather than through the skull. In particular, if you ever get a pituitary tumor-- heaven forbid-- your surgeon will use a craneofacial approach to excise it. In other words, he'll use a microscope and some specialized tools to pull the tumor out bit by bit through your nose.
And as anyone who has seen Total Recall will tell you, the procedure involves minimal discomfort to the nose.
(That scene still hurts when I think about it!)
> Apparently, some Archeaologists really don't take some Egyptian History too seriously unless collaborated by other sources.
Herodotos, the "father of history", saw some inscriptions on the pyramids in the Fifth Century BCE, and was apparently told by the tour guides that the inscriptions were a record of all the onions needed to feed the builders.
> For years Zahi Hawass has claimed that there is "nothing" to see up the shafts, that there is no "door". Now, he's gone 180 degrees and claims there IS a door.
Personally I think the whole thing is a hoax - but I won't say that, 'cause I'm afraid some archaeologist will <buzz>punch my lights out</buzz>.
> The alledged hijacking of Rudolf Gantenbrink's work is a straw man, Gantenbrink is refered to in all the papers you will find in academia relating to the exploration of the shafts.
I think the special actually referred to him by name five minutes into the program.
> They couldn't have built them! Because they couldn't build them NOW (without Western technologies).
How many pyramids have Westerners built?
Or by "Western", did you perchance mean "Mayan"?
> (After we see it's just another wall). "This is a very important discovery, and I am very pleased with what we found".
I bet Siggy Freud would have enjoyed it:
> Because they strongly suspected piercing the door would be a disappointment?
Because they could only sell enough ads for one special?
> Not bring down the price of the games.
I always find it interesting that the price of games is essentially unchanged from the commercial market for Apple ][ games back in 1980, when most would fit on a single 5-1/4" floppy. (360Kb, IIRC.)
> In the end it will all work, because, unlike most software companies, auto companies have to take legal liability for their failures.
Hopefully so. The first thing that caught my attention when I read the article was the mention of "upgrading" your car with software downloads, which I found pretty scary. I suppose we'll all want USB ports so we can back up our autos and restore them if the upgrades don't pan out.
> The IC engine, over a hundred years old and horribly inefficient, needs to go the way of bustles and button-up corsets.
A cotton-panties guy, eh? You need a vacation in Paris.
> That attracts the best and the brightest, but unfortunately it also gives them the incentive to cheat.
Contrary to intuitions, it is often the best and brightest who cheat at universities, too. Lot of pre-med students get busted. Apparently the B&B are very good at rationalizing things to themselves.