That's ironic. Vint Cerf confirms that Al Gore has been quite instrumental in creating the internet. Which is what Al Gore also said. He never said he invented it.
Colin Powell assured me that it was North Korea, and that we must act NOW. And that's good enough for me!
Colin Powell is the kind of good soldier who says 'the highest official sources tell me it's North Korea, who am I to object to that?'. Very deferential to authority. Good guy if you know what you can and cannot expect from him.
No, the United States government made a claim about a hostile action by an unpopular country, and that's automatically factually incorrect.
That's probably intended to make it sound ridiculous but it's pretty accurate. The unpopular countries tend to be cautious and defensive(sabre rattling is a defensive move, we just like to present it otherwise), while on our side there's no restraint in using them as scapegoats for anything. One has to keep in mind scapegoats make perfect sense. It's politically safe to blame them and a consensus is easily found for it.
Look for 'homeobox' and cancer. Of course homeobox expression can itself be influenced by mutations, but I never can tell whether the mutation hypothesis is some default assumption or whether they've got confirmation.
I am not sure mutations should be tightly linked to cancer. Here's an alternative model: the same set of genes give rise with humans to about 250 different useful 'regimes', which we know as cell types, and which are just different rhythms of the network of genes switching each other on and off. If (some) cancers are just bad regimes of the same genes, then not a single mutation is needed. Then it's just another celltype that replicates too much.
That's all pretty muddy thinking. Suppose that all cancers are decided by a roll of a set of dice, and carcinogens and genetics merely control how many black and green faces there are on the dice. Then a cancer is never just a matter of luck or carcinogens but always both. But it's still possible to conclude that there would be 35% less cancers if we kept the carcinogens down. Or put differently, we shouldn't hope to be able to cut in half the number of cancers by just removing carcinogens, because it just doesn't have enough impact. So you have a potentially very valuable research result, but it gets interpreted in a nonsensical manner.
This I can agree with. The fact that North Korea gets the blame is a political process that has little to do with truth but a lot to do with people thinking it's in their interest to go along with it. It doesn't mean people have some secret knowledge about what happened. For some it's an external scapegoat for others it's useful to pin it on the enemy, for some it's just automatic.
When something is pinned on the bad guy(Saddam, Assad,Qadaffi, Iran,Putin) there is very little motivation to challenge that. I know many cases where it's almost certainly wrong but it still has a huge impact on history. And often it assumes suicidal and evil attitudes from the bad guy rather than self interest. In other words people's brains switch to cartoon level.
Bollocks. It was some kind of internal conflict until everyone decided they'd be better off by blaming North Korea. Which is standard fare really. We've got a long tradition of accusing our enemies of just about anything when it suits us and then meting out endless punishment for it. And feeling very justified in it too.
The New Yorker has very good factcheckers. Maybe they don't work on everything (they don't, articles that get them in trouble get priority) but their reputation on factchecking is excellent.
The main problem is not whether they're really good guys. The main problem is that when a system of checks and balances gets skewed you don't even need really bad guys to make the system turn ugly.
I would not reduce someone like Eric Schmidt to someone who's just in it for the money. This underestimates how ideology and interests tend to blend. I suspect that for someone like Schmidt working together with the NSA just feels morally right. And people who want to hide things from the NSA well, they're doing something they oughtn't to be doing.
This is missing the point. The legality always mattered. If you keep torture strictly illegal the CIA still does it but in only few cases or in foreign countries while avoiding direct involvement.All with a good amount of fluctuations of course.
But after 2001 it was made clear that the rules were going to be made as loose as possible and supervision was going to be minimal. So everyone went all out. NSA, CIA, security firms, everything.
the sentence CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations felt redundant and I got the idea of removing the tautological elements word by word but each time I ended up with an empty sentence. I had to start over 3 times before I realized I had to keep the first word.
Why is it that astrophysicists always think that biogenesis and evolution have to come at the point of a comet or asteroid?
I also think this is a persistent and not very justified pattern of thinking. The hypothesis is a legitimate subject for investigation, but to quote an old post of mine: there's this assumption that the earth needed some kind of external kickstarter to get life going which originates in the conception that there was no way life could start from scratch so it had to come from elsewhere.
Let's take the idea seriously instead that the earth never needed the external kickstarter. Instead, and that any potential external kickstarter would have been drowned out by what's already present.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
That would suggest those people all have in common that doubts inhibit action, and that they just have different and not very good approaches to resolving that conflict. The best way is have action without removing the doubts.
And that is relevant for the climate change debate. Because for instance a blocker is "nothing can be done unless we agree there is human made climate change". But you don't need to be blocked by that and the engineering approach that for instance Freeman Dyson advocates(global soil management) does not rely on proof that humans are the cause or even that the climate predictions will all come true. It just offers control over whatever happens.
I checked that for one of the previous posts: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2... lists the declination and ascension of its axis of rotation so the wobble must be modest.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen video though that shows that the planes flew in from the outside.
As for instance this source.
I think it's very plausible.
That's ironic. Vint Cerf confirms that Al Gore has been quite instrumental in creating the internet. Which is what Al Gore also said. He never said he invented it.
Colin Powell is the kind of good soldier who says 'the highest official sources tell me it's North Korea, who am I to object to that?'. Very deferential to authority. Good guy if you know what you can and cannot expect from him.
That's probably intended to make it sound ridiculous but it's pretty accurate. The unpopular countries tend to be cautious and defensive(sabre rattling is a defensive move, we just like to present it otherwise), while on our side there's no restraint in using them as scapegoats for anything. One has to keep in mind scapegoats make perfect sense. It's politically safe to blame them and a consensus is easily found for it.
I didn't know that one. It's not what I had in mind - I was thinking of an abnormal state of an otherwise normal system - but it's interesting.
Look for 'homeobox' and cancer. Of course homeobox expression can itself be influenced by mutations, but I never can tell whether the mutation hypothesis is some default assumption or whether they've got confirmation.
I am not sure mutations should be tightly linked to cancer. Here's an alternative model: the same set of genes give rise with humans to about 250 different useful 'regimes', which we know as cell types, and which are just different rhythms of the network of genes switching each other on and off.
If (some) cancers are just bad regimes of the same genes, then not a single mutation is needed. Then it's just another celltype that replicates too much.
That's a nice correction. But you know the meaning of 'lie' I hope.
That's all pretty muddy thinking. Suppose that all cancers are decided by a roll of a set of dice, and carcinogens and genetics merely control how many black and green faces there are on the dice. Then a cancer is never just a matter of luck or carcinogens but always both. But it's still possible to conclude that there would be 35% less cancers if we kept the carcinogens down. Or put differently, we shouldn't hope to be able to cut in half the number of cancers by just removing carcinogens, because it just doesn't have enough impact. So you have a potentially very valuable research result, but it gets interpreted in a nonsensical manner.
Rule one: once the US has declared a country their enemy that country becomes very cautious. Some defensive sabre rattling but no adventures.
This I can agree with. The fact that North Korea gets the blame is a political process that has little to do with truth but a lot to do with people thinking it's in their interest to go along with it. It doesn't mean people have some secret knowledge about what happened. For some it's an external scapegoat for others it's useful to pin it on the enemy, for some it's just automatic.
When something is pinned on the bad guy(Saddam, Assad,Qadaffi, Iran,Putin) there is very little motivation to challenge that. I know many cases where it's almost certainly wrong but it still has a huge impact on history. And often it assumes suicidal and evil attitudes from the bad guy rather than self interest. In other words people's brains switch to cartoon level.
Bollocks. It was some kind of internal conflict until everyone decided they'd be better off by blaming North Korea. Which is standard fare really. We've got a long tradition of accusing our enemies of just about anything when it suits us and then meting out endless punishment for it. And feeling very justified in it too.
The New Yorker has very good factcheckers. Maybe they don't work on everything (they don't, articles that get them in trouble get priority) but their reputation on factchecking is excellent.
well, graphene lends itself especially well to hype. Yet another addition to its extensive array fascinating properties.
The main problem is not whether they're really good guys. The main problem is that when a system of checks and balances gets skewed you don't even need really bad guys to make the system turn ugly.
I would not reduce someone like Eric Schmidt to someone who's just in it for the money. This underestimates how ideology and interests tend to blend. I suspect that for someone like Schmidt working together with the NSA just feels morally right. And people who want to hide things from the NSA well, they're doing something they oughtn't to be doing.
Who says they need to be forced? They'll protect their interests but they seem to be fully in sync with the state. You know, the good guys.
Careful though. After a few cases of spontaneous human combustion scientists admitted their fat burning pills may still need some adjustment.
So how do we know for certain that this so called expert wasn't put here by Roko's basilisk so enable it? Hm? Hm?
This is missing the point. The legality always mattered. If you keep torture strictly illegal the CIA still does it but in only few cases or in foreign countries while avoiding direct involvement.All with a good amount of fluctuations of course.
But after 2001 it was made clear that the rules were going to be made as loose as possible and supervision was going to be minimal. So everyone went all out. NSA, CIA, security firms, everything.
the sentence CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations felt redundant and I got the idea of removing the tautological elements word by word but each time I ended up with an empty sentence. I had to start over 3 times before I realized I had to keep the first word.
That would suggest those people all have in common that doubts inhibit action, and that they just have different and not very good approaches to resolving that conflict. The best way is have action without removing the doubts.
And that is relevant for the climate change debate. Because for instance a blocker is "nothing can be done unless we agree there is human made climate change". But you don't need to be blocked by that and the engineering approach that for instance Freeman Dyson advocates(global soil management) does not rely on proof that humans are the cause or even that the climate predictions will all come true. It just offers control over whatever happens.
I checked that for one of the previous posts: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2... lists the declination and ascension of its axis of rotation so the wobble must be modest.
And here's asteroid Toutasis. It wobbles. http://www.solarviews.com/raw/...