You should not take political correctness so far that in the end no one is able to distinguish these diseases
That depends on your goals. If you wish to be able to effectively communicate and avoid confusion, then, yes, Frau Drosten is correct. But, if political correctness is your goal, then clarity can suffer.
Now, who could possibly prefer the latter over the former? 10 years ago, I would've said "nobody" or "only an idiot". But, having witnessed people appointed to a variety of profoundly important positions based at least partially on the basis of their race, I am no longer sure. People responsible for these appointments are obviously not idiots...
The customer — and the companies like Mr. Burro's, who act as middle-men — can (and do) impose just such a requirement themselves, carefully balancing the risks against insurance costs. There is simply no need for the government to insert its unwieldy self in these transactions. Nor in most others, I might add. As with Uber, the phenomenon of "Internet-in-every-pocket" makes information immediately available to everyone with a pocket — and government regulators are quickly becoming obsolete. They know it, and they fight it with various demagoguery — like what you are presenting.
Since Burro claims they already have the insurance, this is not an onerous demand in the least.
Do you like visiting DMV — such as to have your license renewed? Every single interaction with government is onerous and the vast majority should not be necessary.
This is a very different situation from Uber, since there are no "medallions" or other market limiting restrictions
The underlying very principle — that engaging in a trade requires a government permission (license) — ought to be beaten out of the Statists. With a lead pipe, if need be... We've been humouring them — such as by accepting "non-onerous" requirements — for too long, and it is way out of hand already.
forgetting to secure your load and killing innocent people, how civilized
Is such forgetfulness among the evils of not registering with authorities?
Do you have any sort of statistics confirming, that registration reduces such fatalities, or do you simply believe God punishes those, who don't register with the loving and caring State deriving its just power from Divine Right of the President and his Holy Governors?
And you may not realize this but Breitbart is not an unbiased source
Are you disputing a single fact stated on the page I linked to? No, you do not. Your attempt at rebuttal is therefor null and void and without any merit whatsoever.
Then you might want to listen more and spout off less about American politics, tovarysh.
Should I ever suddenly develop a need for your opinion on what I should be doing, I'll pump it out of your asshole, asshole. With a broomstick. But nice to see an Illiberal's real attitude towards immigrants, anyway. Thank you for this moment of clarity.
What is it with ex-russians/ukrainians turning into selfish-asshole right-wing/libertarian zealots once they emigrate
Well, now, since you turned this polite conversation to be entirely about me rather than corruption of public officials in countries rich and poor, here it goes...
We aren't turning "libertarian" — we moved here, because we always were. And we are disappointed. Disappointed, that the free country we were expecting to find here, is not as free as the USSR propaganda was claiming. That the Collectivism, of which we had our fill growing up, is alive and well here and that various jerk-offs like yourself prove their unselfishness by voting to force others to pay for their favourite causes.
How could you defend Hillary Clinton's life-long history of corruption ("cattle futures" rings a bell? moo!..) by calling her critic a "selfish-asshole" is beyond me. Is this supposed to convince anyone, that she is a fine lady, or something? Oh, well, I suppose, you'll understand, if I never reply to you, again, asshole.
Hey, those lost e-mails are not like a member of the military
Things must be pretty pathetic, if you must bring up Iran-Contras affair to defend a 21st-century Democratic politician. But, yes, those lost e-mails really are not like that. Whatever you might think of Lt-Colonel Norton and that entire things, that business was not for personal gain.
Losing e-mails is penny ante stuff
Losing would've been. But it was deliberate destruction of records. And lying to Congress.
the shit that goes down in Eastern Europe, Russia and the BRIC in general
Duude, you are talking to a Ukrainian expat:-)
We put people in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for the bribery and corruption
If the said pounding really was, what Clinton and Lerner were "facing", I would've been content — and fighting to stop the sexual abuse of inmates. But one of the women retired with full pension, and the other one is fixing to become President — with 46% of the nation retaining "favourable" opinion of her... Maybe, Americans ought to learn, what "Maidan" has come to mean too...
So, if America's public figures can lose important records without being corrupt, why are we automatically making such accusations against the little Moldova?
This is where you would normally demand a citation. [...]
mi really believes that a campaign manager-turned-spokesperson has more power than megabillionaires who have pledged to raise A BILLION DOLLARS for a presidential campaign. This means mi is an idiot.
mi doesn't believe what he just said, and is a troll.
I see, that you find my ideas intriguing. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
Hiring David Plouffe was a smart move for Uber. The man knows, how to improve pubic perception of anything. Not that I disapprove of his current employer, but to sell the country the shit-sandwich we have in the White House today — that's a sign of a true master.
While we are repeatedly told to hate on rich donors like Koch brothers, it is people like Mr. Plouffe, who really run the country...
Of course, the first sign of his coming onboard at Uber was the spike of spamming by the company. And not just the specials and discounts, which are legitimate things a business may send to existing active customers, but propaganda crap like "women equality at Uber" or "Uber for safer cities". I was disgusted and now begin my search for a ride with Lyft, but it must've been a win with most of their customers...
That is precisely why I am not arranging the links in the pretty little table you want.
Yeah, right. If the links really existed — as you claimed the do — you would simply listed them in the format requested — I am not asking for anything particularly complex — instead of posting yet again to explain, why refuse to do it.
Anyone who has made the least effort to study [...]
Gee, right. One would've thought, Hans Christian Andersen dealt with this kind of argument once and for all back in the 19th century, but, behold, yet another "scientist" tries to use it...
(a) we are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere
Maybe.
(b) higher CO2 concentrations will cause the planet to warm
They will? By how much?
(c) significant warming could cause serious harm
And you could save 15% of more on car insurance — your statement is just as non-committal as Geico's "promise".
My "if" condition is satisfied: there is substantial evidence that people are causing climate change and that climate change could cause significant harm.
Well, if there is such evidence, I'm yet to see it. You made claims, but you have not offered evidence. Maybe, this is not the right forum for such. I would've taken a scientific argument for it. However, being able to make real predictions is one of the requirements for a scientific discipline. Yet, you would not (or, as is rather evident by not, can not) offer any meaningful predictions, that have come true. Ergo, whatever it is you are practicing, is not science.
At this point, the burden of proof is on you.
Thank you for admitting, you have no proof.
Now, if you had a shred of common sense left still, you should be asking yourself this question: how come there are no obvious ways to satisfy this obnoxious guy's seemingly simple request? That's the only way for a healing to begin...
Every one of the links in this thread points to an easy-to-read article referencing a mainstream prediction
If this were true, you would've had no problem enumerating the pairs in the form I asked for. That you didn't do so suggests, it is not there. That you later try to switch the topic confirms the suspicion.
you will enjoy my challenge to you
Sorry, I don't feel like it. But I don't have to prove anything to you — I am not asking (much less demanding) you change your way of life to suit my views.
If there is substantial evidence that people are causing climate change and that climate change could cause significant harm
Begs the question, does not it? A giant "if"...
The only sound argument for inaction would be compelling evidence that harm will not occur
I see. So, unable to prove your contention, you are demanding, the opponents prove the opposite. Nope, not going to work. The burden of proof is on you. Put up or shut up.
Nor can a particular rat be brought back to life to have an experiment reproduced on the same animal. But whatever conclusions you make from observing one supernova (or rat), better be supported by observing another.
Did you really something so obvious spelled-out for you, Mr. Scientist?
If you had content, you would've had no problem shaping it into the requested form.
But, instead, so many posts — some of them outright whining — instead of simply offering the list requested... I think, I understand, why you are still sore with some of thems teachers of yours...
Typing is so 20th century. Though voice-commands may be an interim method, the ultimate solution will involve implanting the thing into the user's body. Not necessarily the brain, but somewhere, where a nerve can affect it — and be affected by it.
Any way you slice it, if it can not be reproduced, it is not science. That does not mean, it is necessarily wrong, like I said. But science it is not.
Now, we know already, that poison is bad for you. But if a particular regulation seeks to, for example, further lower the maximum amount of some poison in packaging, making (or pretending to) a scientific argument, whatever experiment was used to substantiate the argument better be reproducible.
Each entry in the list I am expecting would contain two links: one to a prediction, one to a confirmation. You've offered only one link here (although, inexplicably, you've listed it twice). Therefor, your submission is automatically rejected.
Yes but the spied on military and diplomatic communications, occasionally big industrial firms and very importantly foreign communications in most cases. The NSA is more or less spying on EVERY communication and domestic communications almost as frequently as foreign.
You are looking at it wrong. The only limit of government's codebreakers — including the venerable Alan Turing — was the available hardware. They too listened for all communications — there just weren't as many at the time, and they could not process as much as their "descendents" can now.
They were limited neither by laws nor by ethics — merely by the tech. Being forced to prioritize, they concentrated on the entities you've enumerated, but NSA — thanks to Moore's law — does not... Whether we ought to clip NSA's powers or not, there really is no difference between them and Bletchley Park — both did/do everything possible.
And, BTW, ethics-wise, why is spying on an industrial firm any more acceptable than on you? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the quail...
I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons
Flattered.
Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced.
Thank you for admitting so much. What the admission means, is that the studies are not scientific — because Reproducibility is one of the main principles of a scientific method.
Some (or even all) conclusions may still be correct, but the high horse of "science" has not spent a day in this barn...
This legislation wasn’t designed to promote good science—it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.
Which is just another way of saying, it was "crafted to prevent bureaucrats with nothing to lose from too much regulation, from regulating companies out of business for unscientific reasons."
No, sir. I do not claim to "debate climate science" or the finer details of your trade. I just want to see successful predictions made by the discipline. Because, if you wish to convince (and compel!) me to change my ways, you better have something more solid than "trust me, I'm a scientist".
Again, I'm looking for a list with each entry containing a link to a prediction and a link confirming it materializing. What you've offered so far (realiclimate.org, theconversation.com, newscientist.com) are all claims of successful predictions — but without actual predictions themselves.
What I'm driving at is that, once the result is known, finding somebody having predicted it in the past is easy — but that's too late. Having 10 grad-students, for example, you can have each of them predict a change to, say, ocean levels going from -1cm to +1cm in 2mm increments. Then, 5 years later, you pull out the "lucky" prediction and run with it, discarding all others.
So, what I'm asking, are the predictions prominent enough at the time they were made to warrant a web-page (such as a magazine article or official report of some kind), that came true...
As riverat1 admits here, he "tangled" with me on this matter before — and was unable to offer suitable citations. Can you?
Solving a problem, that does not exist. Yes, I understand, why you can't find yourself a real job.
I do this work because I think that humanity is on a reckless and destructive path
Right. Working for the great idea, saving stupid humans from themselves, while fending off ignorant assholes making fun of your sacrifice. Oh, the pain...
Now, can you list 2 or 3 successful predictions made by climate science in the past 2 decades? Each entry must include a link to a prediction and a link confirming it materializing within 80% of the predicted value(s)... The links for each entry much be 5 years apart or more (that is, predicting tomorrow's weather does not qualify). Game?
Slashdot Mirror
Why should it not be eligible for federal student loans — so long as that travesty exists, that is?
A better question may be, why do "federally-guaranteed loans" need to exist in the first place...
Another victim of the government monopoly...
That depends on your goals. If you wish to be able to effectively communicate and avoid confusion, then, yes, Frau Drosten is correct. But, if political correctness is your goal, then clarity can suffer.
Now, who could possibly prefer the latter over the former? 10 years ago, I would've said "nobody" or "only an idiot". But, having witnessed people appointed to a variety of profoundly important positions based at least partially on the basis of their race, I am no longer sure. People responsible for these appointments are obviously not idiots...
The customer — and the companies like Mr. Burro's, who act as middle-men — can (and do) impose just such a requirement themselves, carefully balancing the risks against insurance costs. There is simply no need for the government to insert its unwieldy self in these transactions. Nor in most others, I might add. As with Uber, the phenomenon of "Internet-in-every-pocket" makes information immediately available to everyone with a pocket — and government regulators are quickly becoming obsolete. They know it, and they fight it with various demagoguery — like what you are presenting.
Do you like visiting DMV — such as to have your license renewed? Every single interaction with government is onerous and the vast majority should not be necessary.
The underlying very principle — that engaging in a trade requires a government permission (license) — ought to be beaten out of the Statists. With a lead pipe, if need be... We've been humouring them — such as by accepting "non-onerous" requirements — for too long, and it is way out of hand already.
Is such forgetfulness among the evils of not registering with authorities?
Do you have any sort of statistics confirming, that registration reduces such fatalities, or do you simply believe God punishes those, who don't register with the loving and caring State deriving its just power from Divine Right of the President and his Holy Governors?
"I like paying taxes," — they say. "With them they buy civilization".
Offering a service without registering with the government first. Phew... How uncivilized!
Are you disputing a single fact stated on the page I linked to? No, you do not. Your attempt at rebuttal is therefor null and void and without any merit whatsoever.
Should I ever suddenly develop a need for your opinion on what I should be doing, I'll pump it out of your asshole, asshole. With a broomstick. But nice to see an Illiberal's real attitude towards immigrants, anyway. Thank you for this moment of clarity.
Well, now, since you turned this polite conversation to be entirely about me rather than corruption of public officials in countries rich and poor, here it goes...
We aren't turning "libertarian" — we moved here, because we always were. And we are disappointed. Disappointed, that the free country we were expecting to find here, is not as free as the USSR propaganda was claiming. That the Collectivism, of which we had our fill growing up, is alive and well here and that various jerk-offs like yourself prove their unselfishness by voting to force others to pay for their favourite causes.
How could you defend Hillary Clinton's life-long history of corruption ("cattle futures" rings a bell? moo!..) by calling her critic a "selfish-asshole" is beyond me. Is this supposed to convince anyone, that she is a fine lady, or something? Oh, well, I suppose, you'll understand, if I never reply to you, again, asshole.
Things must be pretty pathetic, if you must bring up Iran-Contras affair to defend a 21st-century Democratic politician. But, yes, those lost e-mails really are not like that. Whatever you might think of Lt-Colonel Norton and that entire things, that business was not for personal gain.
Losing would've been. But it was deliberate destruction of records. And lying to Congress.
Duude, you are talking to a Ukrainian expat :-)
If the said pounding really was, what Clinton and Lerner were "facing", I would've been content — and fighting to stop the sexual abuse of inmates. But one of the women retired with full pension, and the other one is fixing to become President — with 46% of the nation retaining "favourable" opinion of her... Maybe, Americans ought to learn, what "Maidan" has come to mean too...
As we all know, not a smidgen of corruption was involved in the disappearance of certain e-mails at the IRS recently. And the only emails deleted by the former Secretary of State from the private server she illegally used were those about yoga routines and the like.
So, if America's public figures can lose important records without being corrupt, why are we automatically making such accusations against the little Moldova?
Sigh... Haters gonna hate...
I see, that you find my ideas intriguing. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
Please, don't hate...
Hiring David Plouffe was a smart move for Uber. The man knows, how to improve pubic perception of anything. Not that I disapprove of his current employer, but to sell the country the shit-sandwich we have in the White House today — that's a sign of a true master.
While we are repeatedly told to hate on rich donors like Koch brothers, it is people like Mr. Plouffe, who really run the country...
Of course, the first sign of his coming onboard at Uber was the spike of spamming by the company. And not just the specials and discounts, which are legitimate things a business may send to existing active customers, but propaganda crap like "women equality at Uber" or "Uber for safer cities". I was disgusted and now begin my search for a ride with Lyft, but it must've been a win with most of their customers...
Also known as steganography.
Oh, I see, so now FOIA-requests are bad too — EPA certainly would be far more affected by such "harassment" than US Marshals Service or any other agencies using Stingray for example.
Or am I missing some giant dollop of sarcasm here?
Yeah, right. If the links really existed — as you claimed the do — you would simply listed them in the format requested — I am not asking for anything particularly complex — instead of posting yet again to explain, why refuse to do it.
Gee, right. One would've thought, Hans Christian Andersen dealt with this kind of argument once and for all back in the 19th century, but, behold, yet another "scientist" tries to use it...
Maybe.
They will? By how much?
And you could save 15% of more on car insurance — your statement is just as non-committal as Geico's "promise".
Well, if there is such evidence, I'm yet to see it. You made claims, but you have not offered evidence. Maybe, this is not the right forum for such. I would've taken a scientific argument for it. However, being able to make real predictions is one of the requirements for a scientific discipline. Yet, you would not (or, as is rather evident by not, can not) offer any meaningful predictions, that have come true. Ergo, whatever it is you are practicing, is not science.
Thank you for admitting, you have no proof.
Now, if you had a shred of common sense left still, you should be asking yourself this question: how come there are no obvious ways to satisfy this obnoxious guy's seemingly simple request? That's the only way for a healing to begin...
If this were true, you would've had no problem enumerating the pairs in the form I asked for. That you didn't do so suggests, it is not there. That you later try to switch the topic confirms the suspicion.
Sorry, I don't feel like it. But I don't have to prove anything to you — I am not asking (much less demanding) you change your way of life to suit my views.
Begs the question, does not it? A giant "if"...
I see. So, unable to prove your contention, you are demanding, the opponents prove the opposite. Nope, not going to work. The burden of proof is on you. Put up or shut up.
Nor can a particular rat be brought back to life to have an experiment reproduced on the same animal. But whatever conclusions you make from observing one supernova (or rat), better be supported by observing another.
Did you really something so obvious spelled-out for you, Mr. Scientist?
Not a digital native, I see...
If you had content, you would've had no problem shaping it into the requested form.
But, instead, so many posts — some of them outright whining — instead of simply offering the list requested... I think, I understand, why you are still sore with some of thems teachers of yours...
Typing is so 20th century. Though voice-commands may be an interim method, the ultimate solution will involve implanting the thing into the user's body. Not necessarily the brain, but somewhere, where a nerve can affect it — and be affected by it.
Any way you slice it, if it can not be reproduced, it is not science. That does not mean, it is necessarily wrong, like I said. But science it is not.
Now, we know already, that poison is bad for you. But if a particular regulation seeks to, for example, further lower the maximum amount of some poison in packaging, making (or pretending to) a scientific argument, whatever experiment was used to substantiate the argument better be reproducible.
Each entry in the list I am expecting would contain two links: one to a prediction, one to a confirmation. You've offered only one link here (although, inexplicably, you've listed it twice). Therefor, your submission is automatically rejected.
You are looking at it wrong. The only limit of government's codebreakers — including the venerable Alan Turing — was the available hardware. They too listened for all communications — there just weren't as many at the time, and they could not process as much as their "descendents" can now.
They were limited neither by laws nor by ethics — merely by the tech. Being forced to prioritize, they concentrated on the entities you've enumerated, but NSA — thanks to Moore's law — does not... Whether we ought to clip NSA's powers or not, there really is no difference between them and Bletchley Park — both did/do everything possible.
And, BTW, ethics-wise, why is spying on an industrial firm any more acceptable than on you? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the quail...
Flattered.
Thank you for admitting so much. What the admission means, is that the studies are not scientific — because Reproducibility is one of the main principles of a scientific method.
Some (or even all) conclusions may still be correct, but the high horse of "science" has not spent a day in this barn...
Which is just another way of saying, it was "crafted to prevent bureaucrats with nothing to lose from too much regulation, from regulating companies out of business for unscientific reasons."
No, sir. I do not claim to "debate climate science" or the finer details of your trade. I just want to see successful predictions made by the discipline. Because, if you wish to convince (and compel!) me to change my ways, you better have something more solid than "trust me, I'm a scientist".
Again, I'm looking for a list with each entry containing a link to a prediction and a link confirming it materializing. What you've offered so far (realiclimate.org, theconversation.com, newscientist.com) are all claims of successful predictions — but without actual predictions themselves.
What I'm driving at is that, once the result is known, finding somebody having predicted it in the past is easy — but that's too late. Having 10 grad-students, for example, you can have each of them predict a change to, say, ocean levels going from -1cm to +1cm in 2mm increments. Then, 5 years later, you pull out the "lucky" prediction and run with it, discarding all others.
So, what I'm asking, are the predictions prominent enough at the time they were made to warrant a web-page (such as a magazine article or official report of some kind), that came true...
As riverat1 admits here, he "tangled" with me on this matter before — and was unable to offer suitable citations. Can you?
Solving a problem, that does not exist. Yes, I understand, why you can't find yourself a real job.
Right. Working for the great idea, saving stupid humans from themselves, while fending off ignorant assholes making fun of your sacrifice. Oh, the pain...
Now, can you list 2 or 3 successful predictions made by climate science in the past 2 decades? Each entry must include a link to a prediction and a link confirming it materializing within 80% of the predicted value(s)... The links for each entry much be 5 years apart or more (that is, predicting tomorrow's weather does not qualify). Game?