I hear that genetic algorithms are pretty good at finding the most lightly shape though, so this may not be as big a problem as it used to be.
They may be *better* at predicting structure, but they are still a shit long way from being any good. Remember that whole big Blue Gene deal, building the biggest baddest computer out there, that was done pretty much to be able to predict protein structure, and (last i heard) they still aren't even close. Every so many years a new technique for prediction comes out (Ohh, threading! *wait x years* Ohh, genetic algorithms! etc etc) with big expectations that works for a few proteins and thats about it.
The role of the government shouldn't be to fund every kind of research under the sun.
I disagree, in fact, I think gov't *should* fund science, especially basic science. Corporations, as a general rule, don't do basic research. They cherry-pick from academic science those bits that they think can be made profitable. If you want gov't funding of science to end, you need to either figure out a way for private funding of basic research (remembering, of course, that it needs to be open and peer-reviewed), or say goodbye to scientific advancement.
All government organizations are inefficient, and jockey more for position and power than for results.
That's just silly. Some gov't entities are horribly inefficient, others are quite good. Some corporate divisions are horribly inefficient, some are quite good. If you seriously believe that power & position-jockeying are limited to gov't, you haven't worked in a large corporation.
If a government organization could obtain positive results, it would mean they couldn't ask for more money.
Also frequently not true, nor limited to gov't. Your issues are with bureaucracies in large entities, something not limited to gov't.
I'm a fan of getting the State out of science entirely -- let the market produce what the market has a demand for, not for pie-in-the-sky results that never seem to be worth the cost to taxpayers and the economy as a whole.
Then you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Science is a non-linear recursive endeavor where you never really know what you're going to discover, nor what value it might or might not have to the market. Basic research is not a money-making field, and never will be...yet it is required for 99% of the results that you feel do have a positive affect on the taxpayer (and are money-makers). Also, who is deciding whether the results are "worth" the cost? Surely not scientifically-ignorant Slashdot posters.
I personally know so many college-educated Ph.Ds and all who are constantly trying to get grants so they don't have to go into the "real world" that it disgusts me.
Do you stop to listen why they do that? Because in the "real world" (which in PhD-speak means Industry), you are severely limited in what kind of research you can do. You generally can't do the stuff you find interesting, rather you do the stuff your company thinks will be profitable (and you hope there is some overlap of the two). It is similar to an artist ending up at an ad agency...sure they are making "art," but not really.
Wow are you just wrong. Honestly, if you take this opinion further, you can see that all patents are bad -- when it comes to the general populace.
No. The current system of *long* patents, patentability of too many things (including genes, which imho are pretty close to facts), and a broken patent system is bad. The theory of a patent system is actually quite needed.
Patents are a post-market solution to create scarcity of a supply of something. Scarcity is needed to increase the price per the supply/demand curve. By artificially making an item scarce, a higher demand will mean a higher price. Patents are uncompetitive, though, the absolute sole reason why certain monopolies exist.
Patents are a very old solution to the fact that ideas are not physical. You are right that they are intended to produce scarcity when there is none, and that is not a bad thing done correctly. Objects and ideas are simply different entities, and neither can be adequately dealt with by rules for the other. We can all agree that the concept of physical property and ownership is a good thing for society. If I have a club, its mine and you can't just take it without an agreement with me. Same goes for ideas. If I come up with an idea for the Transmogrifier 3000 and an ingenious way to implement it, I should be able to derive something for that. If there is no patent system, then my only option is secrecy..which will only work until I ship the first one. In order for me to expend time, effort, and money to create this wonderful new idea and implementation, I need to know that I will be able to recoup from it. That means I need some kind of ownership of the idea and implementation, thus patents. It is similar for copyright. People long ago realized that 'in order for the xxxx of arts and sciences...' we need 'quote quote.'
Some will say that inventors won't invent without patents, but this is untrue if you look at the vast number of modern inventions that we use every day that have 10,000 parts that have expired patents and maybe 10-20 that are still patented. [...] Why do inventors keep creating new phones if the majority of their parts are unprotected?
If an inventor can't derive income from a new invention, why would they do it? Perhaps the idle rich will see fit to invent for the betterment of mankind, but I'm kind of skeptical. Your example is quite silly on its face. We live in a society that has patents, that they expire does not undermine the value of our patent system. People still invent new things because these new things are patentable, and there is value in a patented thing (as Apple and the 60+ (or whatever) patents on the iPhone).
Some will say that drugs won't get invented, but if you look at the initial medical treatment market, we had doctors who actually wanted to help people by creating new drugs and allowing them to be manufacturered by others regardless of who invented it.
Um, what the hell are you talking about? Which initial medical treatment market? Please offer some more detail. Additionally, at this point in medical science, individual doctors pretty much never create drugs. Hundreds of researchers, scientists, and support staff create drugs, pharmacuetical companies shepherd these drugs through years of testing, and individual doctors prescribe them.
Consider this: if you knew of 3 companies making the same new drug, who would you trust more? The company who spent years in clinical trials, showing you that their ingredients is safe, or the 2 companies who attempted to copy said drug through reverse engineering it -- possibly incorporating something unsafe?
First off, people would more that likely just buy the cheapest one. Secondly, how do you know which drug is safer?
The same is true with any "invention" that isn't patented -- you decide what product you need based on the cost and the safety. Sometimes the less expensive product is less safe or less effective, somet
Infact, when stacked up next to a nice progressive DVD those HD channels aren't that hot anyways. Even when not compared to good DVD's in a side by side comparison those HD channels aren't that impressive.
If it's good HD, that is just not true. Sure, for poorly encoded, or lower bit-rate transcoded stuff that may be so, but check out PBS-HD and tell me it's not better.
The main difference between a creationist and a rational humanist is that the creationist understands that they are running on faith.
I hate this 'science is a faith' bs. Science is a method of understanding things. It is observer-independent, reproducible, and logically understandable. Creationism and religion in general are observer-dependent, irreproducible, and do not require any logical consistency.
As for souls, they reside in the same scientific realm as unicorns, leprechauns, and the Easter Bunny. They are unobservable, and can not fit in the realm. Science can not say they do *not* exist, merely that there is a lack of any evidence, at all, whatsoever in the history of science that even hints at their existence.
So scientific geniuses of the past were religious...that means nothing. Newton never managed to scientifically show god, or souls, or little naked flying babies. People are able to contain incongruent belief systems quite well, that does not make them congruent.
Science and Faith are, by definition, in conflict. Science requires observable evidence, Faith is the absence of it. That some people are able to entertain aspects of each is not surprising, that does not mean they have magically reconciled the issue.
This is a canard--actually the reverse is true. It is the Christian faith alone that can account for logic, reason, and rationality.
Wow, I think we have a winner for 'Clean Skies Initiative' award for diametric speech.
Why should anyone be rational if the Christian God does not exist? Why are men under any obligation to be rational in a materialistic universe?
No one is under *obligation* in the 'God demands' definition of obligation if you don't buy into God. I am not aware that people have suggested our species is obligated by rationality. The fact that rational behavior exists is different that it being obligated by something.
As a Christian Theist, I believe all men should be rational.
As a atheist, I believe humans are rational. Hell, I believe most animals, plants, living organisms big and small are rational. I also believe that 'rational' behaviors vary completely by circumstance.
I believe people should believe things on good evidence.
As a scientist, I agree with you. Now if you could explain the 'good evidence' for your Christian God, I'd like to hear it.
I think we are under obligation to use our intellectual tools to glorify God, and to learn about this world--we should be consistent. I believe that becasse God requires all men to be rational. I can make sense of the obligation to be rational.
I think we are under no obligation to do anything, certainly not by an omnipotent creator. I think we have, as a species, discovered that learning about the world brings wide and varied benefits. Being rational beings helps us live, makes living easier, and enhances life.
If this world is sound and fury signifying nothing, why must men be rational? Why don't I just live moment by moment and be inconsistent: thinking on thing one time and another thing another time, caring nothing for logic?
There is no must to it. You can be inconsistent, unmoved by logic, living by the moment (in fact we call those people politicians). It behooves you not to, though, since life is a series of widely connected events. If you are to minimize strife, and maximize benefit, then rational behavior is a great boon, and is realized as such.
After all, logic has no place in the material universe--it is an abstract, non-material set of laws. How can laws of logic actually exist in an atheistic universe?
Sure it does. Logic has no requirements for divine basis (in fact, I would argue that they are somewhat exclusive).
The odd thing about the materialist is this: the materialist who wants to be rational has already departed from his materialism.
No. If i understand your argument, you are saying that desiring material things means you can not act in a way that might decrease your material acquisition at the moment. That life is a series of events with previous behaviors affecting future situations means rational behavior is applicable to materialists. My boss is a dick, so I want to punch him in the face. I don't because doing so would harm my ability to buy food, ipods, smack, hookers, etc.
If naturalism is true, there's no such thing as rationality, there's just whatever people end up thinking and doing. Why call men to be rational then?
So, because I think I am nothing but a soulless meat-popsicle, nothing can be rational? If you are willing to accept that 'thought' exists, then rational thought is not a problem. If I can think, then determining a rational solution to a problem is quite normal. If you are claiming that as a soulless meat-popsicle, I can't think...well then we are at am impasse.
Screw that, we've got them beat in the greater San Diego area. Located in lovely Santee, CA (or Klantee, or Santucky depending on your preference...) A bunch of my grad school friends took a field-trip to the Institute for Creation Research and went on their museum tour. Apparently is quite well done, with out-of-context quotes of real peer-reviewed science papers, superb rhetorical slight-of-word, and a veneer of 'research.'
First off, calling Larry King a journalist is stretching it a bit anyway. That being said, this situation is certainly of dubious nature. This isn't some reporter deciding which bits of rumor/hearsay/etc are of import or valid nature. This is the wholesale removal of a very notable part of a live interview for a later rebroadcast AND editing of the transcript, both without mention of the changes. It seems unlikely that King is trying to make sure what he puts out there is factual (and again King is an interviewer...thats pretty much it), rather it has a decided feel of self-censorship. The 'factualness' of the deleted portion is really a red herring, maher is making no factual claim, nor does he imply that. He is obviously giving an opinion, and he even says he 'thinks' twice in the censored quote. Beyond that, this is an interview with Maher, presumably because King thinks he is a person of significant enough popular interest to get ratings. Maher isn't there to report on anything as a journalist, but to give his opinion as a celebrity with political leanings.
So, to sum up. 1. Larry King isn't really a journalist, nor is he performing reporting duties in the way we generally consider them. 2. This is an undeclared ex post facto edit, both in broadcast and online form. 3. It is a substantial edit of content, not a minor edit. There is ample reason to believe that other than honest ideals were at work because of that.
Prop 87 passes, because Californians are generically such fools as to routinely believe they can get something for nothing, if a majority votes in favor of it
Yup, that's it. We're just a bunch of idiots who can't think straight. Perpertual motion, sure. Laws of thermodynamics? pshaw.
This makes extracting and selling oil in California less profitable than doing so in Texas or the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, oil companies with multi-state operations -- which is to say all of the big ones -- will reduce their business in California and increase it in other states. The reduced supply of gasoline will, quite naturally, drive up the price. Zap, the tax has now been paid for by the consumer, as it always is.
Well, first of all, from TFA, "...California through a tax that would be as high as 6 percent a barrel. Energy companies already pay such levies in most other oil-producing states." So, actually california is just levelling the field, and making us as attractive a locale, rather than a more attractive locale. Secondly, also from TFA, "economic factors may also limit the extent to which the tax is passed along to consumers," since California oil refiners could simply buy lower-priced oil from outside the state, keeping gas prices steady." Thirdly, since California represents the fifth biggest economy on the planet, I have a hard time imagining that oil companies will just decide it isn't worth it. As long as there is profit to be made, even if the percentage has been reduced, then business will stay around to make it.
So long as California cannot change the rules of doing business in other states, the most it can ever do, while pursuing the fool's gold of squeezing money out of those damn "rich" corporations, is impoverish itself by driving successful business to other states.
As noted above, that is just silly logic. And as for the snark about "rich" corporations, perhaps you missed how the oil comapnies seem to be doing ok.
I wondered about that....I used to go to Contois Music in Burlington back in the day (that'd be the early 90's). Nice guys, but this whole things seems a bit iffy.
Seriously though, as someone noted not too long ago, with his rather large charitable donations, doesn't it sort of seem like Gates has managed to turn into some kind post-modern Robin Hood?
What gives YOU--a unique human genetic combination--the right to tear apart another unique human genetic combination for your own survival?
A unique human genetic combination != a person. That is simply my belief. Fertilized eggs are rejected by our bodies (well, women's bodies) all the time, that is natural and amoral. For what it is worth, I view a fetus as non-human until it is able to live outside of its mother's body.
As for throwing embryos away, I've a problem with that. But the moral problem of tearing apart unique human genetic combinations for research purposes is orders of magnitude worse than simply throwing away embryos.
I do not understand this logic. You seem to imply that it is not the destruction of a 'uhgc' that is really the problem. The use of that 'uhgc' is somehow much, much worse that simply destroying it. I could understand if the entity in question were able to feel and sense pain, but that is simply not the case, being as there is nothing even approaching a nervous system. Do you disagree with that? And if so, on what basis?
You are not without moral boundaries in the subject.
Of course. I've not suggested otherwise. However, as with everything, society as a whole is who gets to decide where those boundaries are with regard to policy. I would submit that as of now, society agrees more with me than you. IVF is considered a very good thing, despite the fact that is does require destruction of tremendous #s of 'uhgc's. ESC research is a logical descendent of IVF acceptance, and it will come to pass (politically speaking, both houses of congress support it, and none of the major candidates in either party oppose it).
To be perfectly clear, it is not a question of wasting a resource by discarding fertilized eggs; it is a question of using those eggs for research contrary to the correct moral strictures against experimenting on humans without their permission.
Only if you accept the premise that a blastocyst (50-150 non-differentiated cells) == a human being.
Stop turning it into a mere question of "wasting research food".
If you want to argue the moral stricture of a blastocyst, then you are going to have an awful time with IVF. As a society we see IVF as good, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of embryos are created and destroyed (that is, murdered if blastocyst==human). Good luck trying to eliminate IVF on the grounds of embryo murder. Once you (or our society) buys into IVF, the anti-stemcell position does become little more than 'wasting research food'.
The number one key is to have the right equipment for 'hands free' operation. For cell phones this means buying and using the voice-dial features available on most phones now, and getting a headset for hands free operation in your vehicle.
Myth. The effect of having handsfree cell phones vs handheld cell phone is nearly always statistically insignificant. This same U of Utah group did another study showing this in simulated driving conditions, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did a study in Perth, AU that found type of phone (hands free or not) did not effect the injury crash risk. Studies generally suggest that it is an attention deficit that causes accidents, and that deficit is due to the cell phone conversation, not the equipment.
Secondly you must learn to modify your driving habits so that if the conversation moves to a point of needing to take your eyes off the road
Again, it isn't just eyes off the road that is the problem. Its a general cognitive deficit while performing a cognitively difficult task (driving). While it is absolutely the better thing to pull of the side of the road when you are going to be even more incapacitated, that doesnt mean driving while on the phone is ok the rest of the time.
Banning the use of Cellphones in cars is not the solution; proper training and equipment is the right answer.
I disagree, banning cellphones in cars is the best solution available. Proper training is difficult/impossible to achieve, and equipment has been shown to be the least of the problems.
Any distraction is bad. That's pretty well established. As you point out, we need to determine where to draw the line. Here's why I think cell phones are a decent enough place: 1. There are a number of studies showing cell phones make you drive as bad or worse than being drunk. 2. Cell phone usage is unique in that it tends to be a temporally longer event. You might fiddle with the radio for 15 or 30 seconds, brush your hair for a minute, but a cell phone conversation can be essentially unlimited in time. 3. Driving with cell phones is a relatively new phenomenon, and as such is less well established as 'OK' in the general consciousness. This makes it easier to prevent than, say, preventing tape-deck fiddling.
The problem with your 'but other things are distracting too' argument is that it leads to a discussion that misses the point. We want to be expedient about making driving safer, not get bogged down in 'hair combing vs passenger talking vs baby crying vs etc, etc.' We've agreed driving drunk or high is an un-acceptable level of danger, and it's looking like cell phone usage while driving is (fortunately) heading that way.
Mythbusters all READY did the study, only they didn't get a grant to waste doing it.
So you are suggesting that a "study" done for the teevee with an apparent sample size of two by a couple of smart tinkerers with a study done by trained scientists in a controlled setting that encompassed 40 people? Seriously, you think the mythbusters are going to be able to publish their episode in Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society? I enjoy a nice "Busted" clip as much as the next guy, but it's a far cry from actual research science.
Actually, the list is: Outside person, object, or event 29.4% (plus or minus 4.7%) Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4% (plus or minus 7.2%) Other occupant 10.9% (plus or minus 3.3%) Moving object in vehicle 4.3% (plus or minus 3.2%) Other device/object 2.9% (plus or minus 1.6%) Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8% (plus or minus 1.1%) Eating and/or drinking 1.7% (plus or minus 0.6%) Using/dialing cell phone 1.5% (plus or minus 0.9%) Smoking related 0.9% (plus or minus 0.4%) Other distractions 25.6% (plus or minus 6.0%) Unknown distraction 8.6% (plus or minus 5.3%)
According to UNC's HSRC. However, also note that this data is from 1995-1999 when 1. cell phones were less common, 2. cell phones were less likely to be noted in accident reports (which is where this data comes from), and where a huge percentage of the reports did not include usable data (ie 36% of accidents listed distraction status as "missing," "unknown," or "other", and 34% of those that were noted with a distraction status of positive had the cause unidentified or missing). The same group (which includes my dad) is doing a further study where they actually have cameras in cars that record what is happening right before a sudden change in velocity (ie accident or near accident).
Lots of later studies, including the one noted in the original post, have pretty conclusively shown that driving while talking on a cell phone (hands-free or not) is as dangerous as driving while legally intoxicated. Cell phone distraction is also clearly of a different class than talking to a passenger.
Now, notice something: we're talking about a "warming trend" over the last 400 years. That would be the interval from roughly the beginning of the "Little Ice Age" to now. So, in other words, we're now substantially warmer than the low point of a historically unprecedented low temperature interval.
Wow, talk about mis-representing a report. The 400 year number is due to lack of high-quality data prior to that date, not selective choice of reference temperatures. As you've clearly read (at least) the summary, you'll note that they also claim that the past few decades have likely been the warmest since ~900AD (a time frame which included the 'medieval warm period' as well). As for 'unprecented low temperature interval,' that is a rather blatent fib...quoth the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1C, and says current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."
In other words, the conclusions of Mann et al. aren't very well supported --- and those are the ones most often used politically.
That is also a rather slanted view of the report. It isn't that the general conclusions aren't supported, it is that the data is of too poor a quality to make such a claim as 'warmest decade in a millenium.' The very next paragraph says that surface temperature reconstructions for pre-industrial revolution time are one of multiple pieces of evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and "they are not the primary evidence." So, really the report agrees with Mann that post-industrial human events have increased the global temperature. It is also notable that Mann's 1999 paper does note the uncertainty of proxy measures for such long timescales. "Taken at face value, the 20th century appears to be the warmest century this millennium, the 1990s the warmest decade, and several recent individual years the warmest on record. However, the expanded uncertainties in early centuries preclude, as yet, any definitive conclusions prior to about AD 1400."
All this means is we have returned to pre-mini-ice-age temperatures.
No, actually, that is not true. If you look at the report, they say there is data of sufficient quality to say we are hotter than we've been in *at least* 400 years. Before that, there is less confidence in the measurable proxies of temperature, yet it still appears current temperatures are hotter than any time going back to 900 AD. The data for previous times are even less reliable, and thus being careful scientists, the NAS is not willing to make statements about those times.
I don't know of anyone that does not accept global warming (as in the warming of regions of the earth). I know a lot of people which can't agree on the causes.
So you know a lot of scientifically ignorant people. Let's say this again for those in the back of the class: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." (From the National Academy of Sciences). Or, if you prefer, "Human activities... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents... that absorb or scatter radiant energy.... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" from the IPCC.
Cyclical Global warming != greenhouse effect.
True, that is why really smart scientists spend time examining the effect of anthropogenic climate change as a separate thing from cyclic climate change.
Greenhouse gases effect may play a part
Substitute do for may, and you are right.
For your edification, the report is available in full format, and a 4 page executive summary.
I whole heartedly agree!! I would venture to guess, if you took out the direct revenue to the system from speeding infractions, that the overly eager enforcement of them would drop.
That is certainly true. Here in san diego, we had a big to-do with red-light cameras where the company installing them got a cut of each ticket. Turns out a bunch were "mis-calibrated" and were hitting legal drivers. I've always wondered about other legal aspects of them, wherein the owner of the car gets in trouble, not necessarily the driver.
I think we should take the fines from speeding and other minor infractions, pool it, and at the end of the year, redistribute it back to the licensed drivers who did not commit (or get caught) for an infraction that year.
Well that's fine, but you will have to raise taxes to pay for that lost gov't revenue.
I'd much rather see the cops out patrolling the high crime areas, looking to help prevent violent crime...rather than try to make money off people maybe speeding a little to get to work, and are meek and easy to pull over.
I always see that argument trotted out, yet it is almost always inappropriate. The number of lives lost to automobile accidents exceeds those lost to violent crime. People generally don't get worked up about car crashes, despite the fact that you are more likely to die from those than from any other cause (unless you are very young or old enough for heart disease, cancer, etc to get you (that is to say, you are outside the typical slashdot profile)). If we could cut automobile accidents in half, we would save far more people than if we cut violent crime in half.
Personally, I think that technological solutions (jammers, faraday cages) to etiquette problems (talking on your cell phone and disturbing others) are a mistake, and I feel that people who advocate such drastic measures just to prevent themselves from being inconvenienced are more rude than the people they complain about. You don't like the person next to you talking on his cell phone? Don't ask the owners/government to make it so it won't work -- instead, ask the guy to stop, and remind him how rude he's being.
Wow, I just totally disagree. I think a technological solution is ideal for these situations. In a theatre in particular, what proportion of cell phone rings are because someone simply forgot to turn off their phone? How do you fix that etiquette problem?
Slashdot Mirror
They may be *better* at predicting structure, but they are still a shit long way from being any good. Remember that whole big Blue Gene deal, building the biggest baddest computer out there, that was done pretty much to be able to predict protein structure, and (last i heard) they still aren't even close. Every so many years a new technique for prediction comes out (Ohh, threading! *wait x years* Ohh, genetic algorithms! etc etc) with big expectations that works for a few proteins and thats about it.
-Ted
I disagree, in fact, I think gov't *should* fund science, especially basic science. Corporations, as a general rule, don't do basic research. They cherry-pick from academic science those bits that they think can be made profitable. If you want gov't funding of science to end, you need to either figure out a way for private funding of basic research (remembering, of course, that it needs to be open and peer-reviewed), or say goodbye to scientific advancement.
All government organizations are inefficient, and jockey more for position and power than for results.
That's just silly. Some gov't entities are horribly inefficient, others are quite good. Some corporate divisions are horribly inefficient, some are quite good. If you seriously believe that power & position-jockeying are limited to gov't, you haven't worked in a large corporation.
If a government organization could obtain positive results, it would mean they couldn't ask for more money.
Also frequently not true, nor limited to gov't. Your issues are with bureaucracies in large entities, something not limited to gov't.
I'm a fan of getting the State out of science entirely -- let the market produce what the market has a demand for, not for pie-in-the-sky results that never seem to be worth the cost to taxpayers and the economy as a whole.
Then you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Science is a non-linear recursive endeavor where you never really know what you're going to discover, nor what value it might or might not have to the market. Basic research is not a money-making field, and never will be...yet it is required for 99% of the results that you feel do have a positive affect on the taxpayer (and are money-makers). Also, who is deciding whether the results are "worth" the cost? Surely not scientifically-ignorant Slashdot posters.
I personally know so many college-educated Ph.Ds and all who are constantly trying to get grants so they don't have to go into the "real world" that it disgusts me.
Do you stop to listen why they do that? Because in the "real world" (which in PhD-speak means Industry), you are severely limited in what kind of research you can do. You generally can't do the stuff you find interesting, rather you do the stuff your company thinks will be profitable (and you hope there is some overlap of the two). It is similar to an artist ending up at an ad agency...sure they are making "art," but not really.
-Ted
-Ted
Honestly, if you take this opinion further, you can see that all patents are bad -- when it comes to the general populace.
No. The current system of *long* patents, patentability of too many things (including genes, which imho are pretty close to facts), and a broken patent system is bad. The theory of a patent system is actually quite needed.
Patents are a post-market solution to create scarcity of a supply of something. Scarcity is needed to increase the price per the supply/demand curve. By artificially making an item scarce, a higher demand will mean a higher price. Patents are uncompetitive, though, the absolute sole reason why certain monopolies exist.
Patents are a very old solution to the fact that ideas are not physical. You are right that they are intended to produce scarcity when there is none, and that is not a bad thing done correctly. Objects and ideas are simply different entities, and neither can be adequately dealt with by rules for the other. We can all agree that the concept of physical property and ownership is a good thing for society. If I have a club, its mine and you can't just take it without an agreement with me. Same goes for ideas. If I come up with an idea for the Transmogrifier 3000 and an ingenious way to implement it, I should be able to derive something for that. If there is no patent system, then my only option is secrecy..which will only work until I ship the first one. In order for me to expend time, effort, and money to create this wonderful new idea and implementation, I need to know that I will be able to recoup from it. That means I need some kind of ownership of the idea and implementation, thus patents. It is similar for copyright. People long ago realized that 'in order for the xxxx of arts and sciences...' we need 'quote quote.'
Some will say that inventors won't invent without patents, but this is untrue if you look at the vast number of modern inventions that we use every day that have 10,000 parts that have expired patents and maybe 10-20 that are still patented. [...] Why do inventors keep creating new phones if the majority of their parts are unprotected?
If an inventor can't derive income from a new invention, why would they do it? Perhaps the idle rich will see fit to invent for the betterment of mankind, but I'm kind of skeptical. Your example is quite silly on its face. We live in a society that has patents, that they expire does not undermine the value of our patent system. People still invent new things because these new things are patentable, and there is value in a patented thing (as Apple and the 60+ (or whatever) patents on the iPhone).
Some will say that drugs won't get invented, but if you look at the initial medical treatment market, we had doctors who actually wanted to help people by creating new drugs and allowing them to be manufacturered by others regardless of who invented it.
Um, what the hell are you talking about? Which initial medical treatment market? Please offer some more detail. Additionally, at this point in medical science, individual doctors pretty much never create drugs. Hundreds of researchers, scientists, and support staff create drugs, pharmacuetical companies shepherd these drugs through years of testing, and individual doctors prescribe them.
Consider this: if you knew of 3 companies making the same new drug, who would you trust more? The company who spent years in clinical trials, showing you that their ingredients is safe, or the 2 companies who attempted to copy said drug through reverse engineering it -- possibly incorporating something unsafe?
First off, people would more that likely just buy the cheapest one. Secondly, how do you know which drug is safer?
The same is true with any "invention" that isn't patented -- you decide what product you need based on the cost and the safety. Sometimes the less expensive product is less safe or less effective, somet
Yes.
-Ted
Infact, when stacked up next to a nice progressive DVD those HD channels aren't that hot anyways. Even when not compared to good DVD's in a side by side comparison those HD channels aren't that impressive.
If it's good HD, that is just not true. Sure, for poorly encoded, or lower bit-rate transcoded stuff that may be so, but check out PBS-HD and tell me it's not better.
-Ted
The main difference between a creationist and a rational humanist is that the creationist understands that they are running on faith.
I hate this 'science is a faith' bs. Science is a method of understanding things. It is observer-independent, reproducible, and logically understandable. Creationism and religion in general are observer-dependent, irreproducible, and do not require any logical consistency.
As for souls, they reside in the same scientific realm as unicorns, leprechauns, and the Easter Bunny. They are unobservable, and can not fit in the realm. Science can not say they do *not* exist, merely that there is a lack of any evidence, at all, whatsoever in the history of science that even hints at their existence.
So scientific geniuses of the past were religious...that means nothing. Newton never managed to scientifically show god, or souls, or little naked flying babies. People are able to contain incongruent belief systems quite well, that does not make them congruent.
Science and Faith are, by definition, in conflict. Science requires observable evidence, Faith is the absence of it. That some people are able to entertain aspects of each is not surprising, that does not mean they have magically reconciled the issue.
-Ted
This is a canard--actually the reverse is true. It is the Christian faith alone that can account for logic, reason, and rationality.
Wow, I think we have a winner for 'Clean Skies Initiative' award for diametric speech.
Why should anyone be rational if the Christian God does not exist? Why are men under any obligation to be rational in a materialistic universe?
No one is under *obligation* in the 'God demands' definition of obligation if you don't buy into God. I am not aware that people have suggested our species is obligated by rationality. The fact that rational behavior exists is different that it being obligated by something.
As a Christian Theist, I believe all men should be rational.
As a atheist, I believe humans are rational. Hell, I believe most animals, plants, living organisms big and small are rational. I also believe that 'rational' behaviors vary completely by circumstance.
I believe people should believe things on good evidence.
As a scientist, I agree with you. Now if you could explain the 'good evidence' for your Christian God, I'd like to hear it.
I think we are under obligation to use our intellectual tools to glorify God, and to learn about this world--we should be consistent. I believe that becasse God requires all men to be rational. I can make sense of the obligation to be rational.
I think we are under no obligation to do anything, certainly not by an omnipotent creator. I think we have, as a species, discovered that learning about the world brings wide and varied benefits. Being rational beings helps us live, makes living easier, and enhances life.
If this world is sound and fury signifying nothing, why must men be rational? Why don't I just live moment by moment and be inconsistent: thinking on thing one time and another thing another time, caring nothing for logic?
There is no must to it. You can be inconsistent, unmoved by logic, living by the moment (in fact we call those people politicians). It behooves you not to, though, since life is a series of widely connected events. If you are to minimize strife, and maximize benefit, then rational behavior is a great boon, and is realized as such.
After all, logic has no place in the material universe--it is an abstract, non-material set of laws. How can laws of logic actually exist in an atheistic universe?
Sure it does. Logic has no requirements for divine basis (in fact, I would argue that they are somewhat exclusive).
The odd thing about the materialist is this: the materialist who wants to be rational has already departed from his materialism.
No. If i understand your argument, you are saying that desiring material things means you can not act in a way that might decrease your material acquisition at the moment. That life is a series of events with previous behaviors affecting future situations means rational behavior is applicable to materialists. My boss is a dick, so I want to punch him in the face. I don't because doing so would harm my ability to buy food, ipods, smack, hookers, etc.
If naturalism is true, there's no such thing as rationality, there's just whatever people end up thinking and doing. Why call men to be rational then?
So, because I think I am nothing but a soulless meat-popsicle, nothing can be rational? If you are willing to accept that 'thought' exists, then rational thought is not a problem. If I can think, then determining a rational solution to a problem is quite normal. If you are claiming that as a soulless meat-popsicle, I can't think...well then we are at am impasse.
-Ted
Screw that, we've got them beat in the greater San Diego area. Located in lovely Santee, CA (or Klantee, or Santucky depending on your preference...) A bunch of my grad school friends took a field-trip to the Institute for Creation Research and went on their museum tour. Apparently is quite well done, with out-of-context quotes of real peer-reviewed science papers, superb rhetorical slight-of-word, and a veneer of 'research.'
-Ted
First off, calling Larry King a journalist is stretching it a bit anyway. That being said, this situation is certainly of dubious nature. This isn't some reporter deciding which bits of rumor/hearsay/etc are of import or valid nature. This is the wholesale removal of a very notable part of a live interview for a later rebroadcast AND editing of the transcript, both without mention of the changes. It seems unlikely that King is trying to make sure what he puts out there is factual (and again King is an interviewer...thats pretty much it), rather it has a decided feel of self-censorship. The 'factualness' of the deleted portion is really a red herring, maher is making no factual claim, nor does he imply that. He is obviously giving an opinion, and he even says he 'thinks' twice in the censored quote. Beyond that, this is an interview with Maher, presumably because King thinks he is a person of significant enough popular interest to get ratings. Maher isn't there to report on anything as a journalist, but to give his opinion as a celebrity with political leanings.
So, to sum up. 1. Larry King isn't really a journalist, nor is he performing reporting duties in the way we generally consider them. 2. This is an undeclared ex post facto edit, both in broadcast and online form. 3. It is a substantial edit of content, not a minor edit. There is ample reason to believe that other than honest ideals were at work because of that.
-Ted
Yup, that's it. We're just a bunch of idiots who can't think straight. Perpertual motion, sure. Laws of thermodynamics? pshaw.
This makes extracting and selling oil in California less profitable than doing so in Texas or the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, oil companies with multi-state operations -- which is to say all of the big ones -- will reduce their business in California and increase it in other states. The reduced supply of gasoline will, quite naturally, drive up the price. Zap, the tax has now been paid for by the consumer, as it always is.
Well, first of all, from TFA,
"...California through a tax that would be as high as 6 percent a barrel. Energy companies already pay such levies in most other oil-producing states." So, actually california is just levelling the field, and making us as attractive a locale, rather than a more attractive locale. Secondly, also from TFA, "economic factors may also limit the extent to which the tax is passed along to consumers," since California oil refiners could simply buy lower-priced oil from outside the state, keeping gas prices steady." Thirdly, since California represents the fifth biggest economy on the planet, I have a hard time imagining that oil companies will just decide it isn't worth it. As long as there is profit to be made, even if the percentage has been reduced, then business will stay around to make it.
So long as California cannot change the rules of doing business in other states, the most it can ever do, while pursuing the fool's gold of squeezing money out of those damn "rich" corporations, is impoverish itself by driving successful business to other states.
As noted above, that is just silly logic. And as for the snark about "rich" corporations, perhaps you missed how the oil comapnies seem to be doing ok.
-Ted
I wondered about that....I used to go to Contois Music in Burlington back in the day (that'd be the early 90's). Nice guys, but this whole things seems a bit iffy.
-Ted
I wish i had mod points right now, that was truly wonderful. Thank you.
-Ted
What a good idea.
Seriously though, as someone noted not too long ago, with his rather large charitable donations, doesn't it sort of seem like Gates has managed to turn into some kind post-modern Robin Hood?
-Ted
What gives YOU--a unique human genetic combination--the right to tear apart another unique human genetic combination for your own survival?
A unique human genetic combination != a person. That is simply my belief. Fertilized eggs are rejected by our bodies (well, women's bodies) all the time, that is natural and amoral. For what it is worth, I view a fetus as non-human until it is able to live outside of its mother's body.
As for throwing embryos away, I've a problem with that. But the moral problem of tearing apart unique human genetic combinations for research purposes is orders of magnitude worse than simply throwing away embryos.
I do not understand this logic. You seem to imply that it is not the destruction of a 'uhgc' that is really the problem. The use of that 'uhgc' is somehow much, much worse that simply destroying it. I could understand if the entity in question were able to feel and sense pain, but that is simply not the case, being as there is nothing even approaching a nervous system. Do you disagree with that? And if so, on what basis?
You are not without moral boundaries in the subject.
Of course. I've not suggested otherwise. However, as with everything, society as a whole is who gets to decide where those boundaries are with regard to policy. I would submit that as of now, society agrees more with me than you. IVF is considered a very good thing, despite the fact that is does require destruction of tremendous #s of 'uhgc's. ESC research is a logical descendent of IVF acceptance, and it will come to pass (politically speaking, both houses of congress support it, and none of the major candidates in either party oppose it).
-Ted
Because if you do, the terrorists win.
-Ted
To be perfectly clear, it is not a question of wasting a resource by discarding fertilized eggs; it is a question of using those eggs for research contrary to the correct moral strictures against experimenting on humans without their permission.
Only if you accept the premise that a blastocyst (50-150 non-differentiated cells) == a human being.
Stop turning it into a mere question of "wasting research food".
If you want to argue the moral stricture of a blastocyst, then you are going to have an awful time with IVF. As a society we see IVF as good, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of embryos are created and destroyed (that is, murdered if blastocyst==human). Good luck trying to eliminate IVF on the grounds of embryo murder. Once you (or our society) buys into IVF, the anti-stemcell position does become little more than 'wasting research food'.
-Ted
The number one key is to have the right equipment for 'hands free' operation. For cell phones this means buying and using the voice-dial features available on most phones now, and getting a headset for hands free operation in your vehicle.
Myth. The effect of having handsfree cell phones vs handheld cell phone is nearly always statistically insignificant. This same U of Utah group did another study showing this in simulated driving conditions, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did a study in Perth, AU that found type of phone (hands free or not) did not effect the injury crash risk. Studies generally suggest that it is an attention deficit that causes accidents, and that deficit is due to the cell phone conversation, not the equipment.
Secondly you must learn to modify your driving habits so that if the conversation moves to a point of needing to take your eyes off the road
Again, it isn't just eyes off the road that is the problem. Its a general cognitive deficit while performing a cognitively difficult task (driving). While it is absolutely the better thing to pull of the side of the road when you are going to be even more incapacitated, that doesnt mean driving while on the phone is ok the rest of the time.
Banning the use of Cellphones in cars is not the solution; proper training and equipment is the right answer.
I disagree, banning cellphones in cars is the best solution available. Proper training is difficult/impossible to achieve, and equipment has been shown to be the least of the problems.
-Ted
Any distraction is bad. That's pretty well established. As you point out, we need to determine where to draw the line. Here's why I think cell phones are a decent enough place: 1. There are a number of studies showing cell phones make you drive as bad or worse than being drunk. 2. Cell phone usage is unique in that it tends to be a temporally longer event. You might fiddle with the radio for 15 or 30 seconds, brush your hair for a minute, but a cell phone conversation can be essentially unlimited in time. 3. Driving with cell phones is a relatively new phenomenon, and as such is less well established as 'OK' in the general consciousness. This makes it easier to prevent than, say, preventing tape-deck fiddling.
The problem with your 'but other things are distracting too' argument is that it leads to a discussion that misses the point. We want to be expedient about making driving safer, not get bogged down in 'hair combing vs passenger talking vs baby crying vs etc, etc.' We've agreed driving drunk or high is an un-acceptable level of danger, and it's looking like cell phone usage while driving is (fortunately) heading that way.
-Ted
So you are suggesting that a "study" done for the teevee with an apparent sample size of two by a couple of smart tinkerers with a study done by trained scientists in a controlled setting that encompassed 40 people? Seriously, you think the mythbusters are going to be able to publish their episode in Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society? I enjoy a nice "Busted" clip as much as the next guy, but it's a far cry from actual research science.
-Ted
Actually, the list is:
Outside person, object, or event 29.4% (plus or minus 4.7%)
Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4% (plus or minus 7.2%)
Other occupant 10.9% (plus or minus 3.3%)
Moving object in vehicle 4.3% (plus or minus 3.2%)
Other device/object 2.9% (plus or minus 1.6%)
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8% (plus or minus 1.1%)
Eating and/or drinking 1.7% (plus or minus 0.6%)
Using/dialing cell phone 1.5% (plus or minus 0.9%)
Smoking related 0.9% (plus or minus 0.4%)
Other distractions 25.6% (plus or minus 6.0%)
Unknown distraction 8.6% (plus or minus 5.3%)
According to UNC's HSRC. However, also note that this data is from 1995-1999 when 1. cell phones were less common, 2. cell phones were less likely to be noted in accident reports (which is where this data comes from), and where a huge percentage of the reports did not include usable data (ie 36% of accidents listed distraction status as "missing," "unknown," or "other", and 34% of those that were noted with a distraction status of positive had the cause unidentified or missing). The same group (which includes my dad) is doing a further study where they actually have cameras in cars that record what is happening right before a sudden change in velocity (ie accident or near accident).
Lots of later studies, including the one noted in the original post, have pretty conclusively shown that driving while talking on a cell phone (hands-free or not) is as dangerous as driving while legally intoxicated. Cell phone distraction is also clearly of a different class than talking to a passenger.
-Ted
Wow, talk about mis-representing a report. The 400 year number is due to lack of high-quality data prior to that date, not selective choice of reference temperatures. As you've clearly read (at least) the summary, you'll note that they also claim that the past few decades have likely been the warmest since ~900AD (a time frame which included the 'medieval warm period' as well). As for 'unprecented low temperature interval,' that is a rather blatent fib...quoth the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1C, and says current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."
In other words, the conclusions of Mann et al. aren't very well supported --- and those are the ones most often used politically.
That is also a rather slanted view of the report. It isn't that the general conclusions aren't supported, it is that the data is of too poor a quality to make such a claim as 'warmest decade in a millenium.' The very next paragraph says that surface temperature reconstructions for pre-industrial revolution time are one of multiple pieces of evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and "they are not the primary evidence." So, really the report agrees with Mann that post-industrial human events have increased the global temperature. It is also notable that Mann's 1999
paper does note the uncertainty of proxy measures for such long timescales. "Taken at
face value, the 20th century appears to be the warmest century this millennium, the
1990s the warmest decade, and several recent individual years the warmest on record.
However, the expanded uncertainties in early centuries preclude, as yet, any definitive
conclusions prior to about AD 1400."
-Ted
No, actually, that is not true. If you look at the report, they say there is data of sufficient quality to say we are hotter than we've been in *at least* 400 years. Before that, there is less confidence in the measurable proxies of temperature, yet it still appears current temperatures are hotter than any time going back to 900 AD. The data for previous times are even less reliable, and thus being careful scientists, the NAS is not willing to make statements about those times.
I don't know of anyone that does not accept global warming (as in the warming of regions of the earth). I know a lot of people which can't agree on the causes.
So you know a lot of scientifically ignorant people. Let's say this again for those in the back of the class: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." (From the National Academy of Sciences). Or, if you prefer, "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" from the IPCC.
Cyclical Global warming != greenhouse effect.
True, that is why really smart scientists spend time examining the effect of anthropogenic climate change as a separate thing from cyclic climate change.
Greenhouse gases effect may play a part
Substitute do for may, and you are right.
For your edification, the report is available in full format, and a 4 page executive summary.
-Ted
That is certainly true. Here in san diego, we had a big to-do with red-light cameras where the company installing them got a cut of each ticket. Turns out a bunch were "mis-calibrated" and were hitting legal drivers. I've always wondered about other legal aspects of them, wherein the owner of the car gets in trouble, not necessarily the driver.
I think we should take the fines from speeding and other minor infractions, pool it, and at the end of the year, redistribute it back to the licensed drivers who did not commit (or get caught) for an infraction that year.
Well that's fine, but you will have to raise taxes to pay for that lost gov't revenue.
I'd much rather see the cops out patrolling the high crime areas, looking to help prevent violent crime...rather than try to make money off people maybe speeding a little to get to work, and are meek and easy to pull over.
I always see that argument trotted out, yet it is almost always inappropriate. The number of lives lost to automobile accidents exceeds those lost to violent crime. People generally don't get worked up about car crashes, despite the fact that you are more likely to die from those than from any other cause (unless you are very young or old enough for heart disease, cancer, etc to get you (that is to say, you are outside the typical slashdot profile)). If we could cut automobile accidents in half, we would save far more people than if we cut violent crime in half.
-Ted
Wow, I just totally disagree. I think a technological solution is ideal for these situations. In a theatre in particular, what proportion of cell phone rings are because someone simply forgot to turn off their phone? How do you fix that etiquette problem?
-Ted