The fact that biased scientists exist does not change the fact that science is, in part, a process of eliminating bias, and that good science is free of bias.
it serves our modern (scientifically biased) prejudices
Scientifically biased? Science is the antithesis of bias. It usually involves an extensive systematic process of eliminating bias.
It would be nice if religious authorities could be as diligent. But that's too risky; might accidentally invalidate their biases, and then they would have to change the way they interpret the world around them. Heaven forbid.
Well, the Illuminatus fans aren't going to like this, but change just for change's sake is inherently bad. Unless there is some tangible improvement that justifies the cost of retraining, the cost of mistakes, and the cost of replacing and fixing things that don't work under the new system, it's incredibly wasteful.
Yup, people don't like change. But it's not because most people are sheep. It's because change by itself really does suck.
It's true that many people ARE sheep, and can't see when the suck-mo-ness of the change is overwhelmed by the improvement it brings. But I don't think that would be true of this new calendar.
I always find the small spelling differences between British English and American English interesting. For instance, here in the US, that would have been spelled "Nukular Engineer"
Brits are all pack rats. Jeez, carrying around a truckload of paper? I have forty gigs of capacity, but I detest carrying around the equivalent of more than about a clipboard's worth of virtual paper. So I only use a small fraction of the available space. Anyway, I hate spending a lot of time choosing which music I'm going to play. Much better to limit my options and just play the same songs over and over again.
Given what they charge for their support contracts, they had damn well better have some skilled and dedicated engineers on hand. Of course you get the same people under warranty. They want you to sell you a support contract before the warranty expires. When you need support, it's fantastic to have skilled and dedicated people available. Sun's support doesn't suck. Their prices suck, and their Java policies suck, and many of their other policies suck. But their support is top notch.
My wife used to be an editor at a technical consulting company. She copyedited most of the documents that were presented to customers. Every night I would get an earful about how frustrated she was. Management didn't appreciate her contribution to their sales figures. They didn't realize how crappy most of the consultants writing was, mostly because management's writing wasn't so hot either. I looked at some of the AWFUL proposals she had to take home at night (because their genius work couldn't possibly need a lot of proofreading, so they can wait 'till the last minute to submit it to the editors, right?).
She did get a lot of joy out of using Deloitte's Bullfighter though. It's basically a Word plug-in that detects BS like "synergy" and "paradigm". I sent her a link a while back and she had her buddy in MIS secretly install it on all the consultants computers. Unfortunately Deloitte isn't distributing it anymore.
BullFighter
It's being a little overzealous in it's effects on the spammer's systems? Maybe they set it up to be proportional to the amount of "legitimate" advertising messages that the user receives from those sites.
>> A space elevator has to be equatorial. >> Without centifugal 'force' it won't stay up. > > it would be centripetal, not centrifugal force, > but you are right.
If you're going to be pedantic, you should at least get your facts straight. Centripetal force doesn't "keep it up". Centripetal force is what keeps it from flying off into space. The original poster was correct in common usage of the word centrifugal (go look it up in a dictionary), and even put quotes around the word "force" because he/she was probably aware that Slashdot is well populated with nit-pickers who know that the centrifugal effect is not strictly a force.
"This invention is almost a year old now, because at first people here did not believe us -- that no one had thought of this before. But when they checked the literature and found we were right, they told us we couldn't tell anybody until they got a patent on it," said Hummel.
I wonder how many lives could have been saved already if they hadn't kept this under wraps for a year...
Like
Homo Sapiens? OK, well, as far as we know these pollutants aren't causing guys to grow ovaries yet. But there is definitely evidence they are affecting us.
Maybe it's a disease. Maybe it's a mutation. Maybe these particular bass cross bred with some frogs. Nobody can say for sure at this point, but they sure can speculate that it's all our fault. And that's just bad science.
Yeah, the Potomac is famous for its purity. So despite the fact that it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, in all probability it is actually a fish-frog hybrid.
The fact that you got modded Troll speaks tomes, IMHO. Well, they don't control the moderation. It's just that there are enough moderators who buy into the groupthink that it's effectively censorship of ideas that oppose the groupthink. For example, if you were to make an honest, well-thought-out, detailed and insightful post which happens to criticize the Libertarian Party's platform, you would be modded -1 Troll within minutes.
If true, it means, he has a good team around him. Which is fine by me.
You seriously wouldn't care if the President is wearing a wire at the debates... I'm sure business and political leaders at home and abroad would agree with you and continue to take him seriously after finding out he can't think on his feet or remember details accurately, and is effectively a puppet.
He LOOKED like he was being fed information as the debate progressed. He kept getting odd looks on his face like he was getting interrupted, odd pauses, etc. But this is what really moved me into the tinfoil-hat camp: he was talking about his faith, and its ability to seal-ah, heal... or something like that. Sounded to me like he misheard his prompter, said the wrong word, and corrected himself.
Congressman Ron Paul is a libertarian, though officially a member of the Republican party. Hardly some naive idealist.
*Exactly* my point. Thanks for providing an example. I'm NOT saying the parties don't need to be changed! If you can't work with people who you disagree with, you're never going to get anywhere in politics. If good ideas can't make it into the mainstream, it's not because people are stupid and can't change. It's because we lack courageous inspirational leadership who are able to communicate those ideas in a way that makes sense. That requires effort. It requires getting involved, and helping people understand new ideas. Dismissing the mainstream, saying, \"I can't work with those people, so I'm starting my OWN party!" is a copout. Be a Libertarian, that's great! But the Libertarian Party is a waste of time.
(replying to my own post, sorry)
Before anyone misreads ANOTHER of my posts in this thread, I want to make clear that I don't support the Republican party myself. I was just saying that if you are a die-hard Libertarian, you'll find more support in the Republican party than in the Democratic party.
If you think that any D/R candidate that has anything resembling those positions can get elected, think again. They won't make it past the central committee filters.
So get involved with one of the parties and work to change the committees. They're elected positions, IIRC.
As for the lesser of two evils, think of it this way:
Vote for what you really don't want == a vote for evil; Vote for what you don't want as much == a vote for lesser evil; Vote for what you want == a true vote. Why vote for what you don't want? Is your integrity that low that you would change principles into a wasted vote on a horse race principle when the so-called horses that can win are what you don't want? Why not make your vote work towards the horse you want to win instead?
If you don't care that much about making positive change in the world, vote for a third party, or don't vote at all. I don't care what you do with your vote. All I'm saying is that if you DO care, and you want to have a positive, measurable effect on US politics, then get involved with the Republican Party (since that would be easier from your Libertarian point of view) and explain to them why Libertarian ideas are better than what they're doing now. You don't have to call them Libertarian ideas, just explain the ideas, using small words, and talk slowly. Those Libertarian ideas ARE better, right? So it shouldn't be difficult convincing them. Right?
I never said that. Go back and read my post again, especially the last part. What I was saying was that we can either change things by
(A) providing more choices to the uninformed masses
or
(B) getting involved with either the D's or the R's and work toward changing that party's platform to be more in line with your best ideas about how to run the country.
I think the second choice has a much better chance of having an actual impact on the world. But it's not nearly as attractive to most people because it means you have to be informed, have original ideas, and, heaven forbid, get involved.
You were also well on your way to saying that most people disagree with the founding fathers, if you were going to put them in the same category as the 'third parties' I listed. That's not true at all, and it wasn't true in their time. I think most people disagree with the Libertarian Party's interpretation of the Constitution. Saying that the Libertarian Party's interpretation of the Constitution is the same as what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it is a good subject for debate. I'd be on the opposing side. The ideas the Founding Fathers put on paper worked rather well in reality. As I wrote above, I think the Libertarian Party's ideas implemented in reality would result in chaos.
What makes Libertarian ideas so attractive (especially to us tech types), is that they're simple and elegant ideas. Hell, they ought to be, most of them have survived the test of time from the Founding Fathers and before. But they don't always work in every situation, as you will see if you pay attention for a while. Especially in key areas like conserving environmental resources, and infrastructure issues like energy and telecommunications.
I'm sure the Libertarian Party supported California's energy deregulation a couple years back. Not because they carefully examined the issues, markets, and potential problems, but because it fit into their simple philosophy, so therefore it had to work in reality, right? OK, well, that didn't quite work out. But the philosophy still works because now we can SUE ENRON, right? Maybe you can convince your Libertarian buddies to chip in for the legal fees. Let me know how that goes for ya.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that biased scientists exist does not change the fact that science is, in part, a process of eliminating bias, and that good science is free of bias.
It would be nice if religious authorities could be as diligent. But that's too risky; might accidentally invalidate their biases, and then they would have to change the way they interpret the world around them. Heaven forbid.
Yup, people don't like change. But it's not because most people are sheep. It's because change by itself really does suck.
It's true that many people ARE sheep, and can't see when the suck-mo-ness of the change is overwhelmed by the improvement it brings. But I don't think that would be true of this new calendar.
Brits are all pack rats. Jeez, carrying around a truckload of paper? I have forty gigs of capacity, but I detest carrying around the equivalent of more than about a clipboard's worth of virtual paper. So I only use a small fraction of the available space. Anyway, I hate spending a lot of time choosing which music I'm going to play. Much better to limit my options and just play the same songs over and over again.
don't try to tell me "Sun sucks."
Given what they charge for their support contracts, they had damn well better have some skilled and dedicated engineers on hand. Of course you get the same people under warranty. They want you to sell you a support contract before the warranty expires. When you need support, it's fantastic to have skilled and dedicated people available. Sun's support doesn't suck. Their prices suck, and their Java policies suck, and many of their other policies suck. But their support is top notch.
My wife used to be an editor at a technical consulting company. She copyedited most of the documents that were presented to customers. Every night I would get an earful about how frustrated she was. Management didn't appreciate her contribution to their sales figures. They didn't realize how crappy most of the consultants writing was, mostly because management's writing wasn't so hot either. I looked at some of the AWFUL proposals she had to take home at night (because their genius work couldn't possibly need a lot of proofreading, so they can wait 'till the last minute to submit it to the editors, right?).
She did get a lot of joy out of using Deloitte's Bullfighter though. It's basically a Word plug-in that detects BS like "synergy" and "paradigm". I sent her a link a while back and she had her buddy in MIS secretly install it on all the consultants computers. Unfortunately Deloitte isn't distributing it anymore. BullFighter
It's being a little overzealous in it's effects on the spammer's systems? Maybe they set it up to be proportional to the amount of "legitimate" advertising messages that the user receives from those sites.
In Just a Geek you mentioned that you might be Buddhist if you had the patience for it. I'm curious whether you've checked out any
... and I'm curious what you thought about any buddhist groups that you have checked out.
local
zen
people
>> A space elevator has to be equatorial.
>> Without centifugal 'force' it won't stay up.
>
> it would be centripetal, not centrifugal force,
> but you are right.
If you're going to be pedantic, you should at least get your facts straight. Centripetal force doesn't "keep it up". Centripetal force is what keeps it from flying off into space. The original poster was correct in common usage of the word centrifugal (go look it up in a dictionary), and even put quotes around the word "force" because he/she was probably aware that Slashdot is well populated with nit-pickers who know that the centrifugal effect is not strictly a force.
Shiver Metimbers is too his real name. Also, you forgot the apostrophe in APOSTROPHE'S and in MORON'S in your sig.
I bet you're the last member of the Milli Vanilli fan club, too
I wonder how many lives could have been saved already if they hadn't kept this under wraps for a year...
Like Homo Sapiens? OK, well, as far as we know these pollutants aren't causing guys to grow ovaries yet. But there is definitely evidence they are affecting us.
Maybe it's a disease. Maybe it's a mutation. Maybe these particular bass cross bred with some frogs. Nobody can say for sure at this point, but they sure can speculate that it's all our fault. And that's just bad science.
Yeah, the Potomac is famous for its purity. So despite the fact that it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, in all probability it is actually a fish-frog hybrid.
It's not as if we have any scientific evidence that human-created pollutants like chemicals released by common household plastics can produce weird hormonal reactions in humans and animals. By the way, please stop chewing on your pen, Bobby.
Oh, not at all. I was just using them as an example. They DO make a great example though.
The fact that you got modded Troll speaks tomes, IMHO.
Well, they don't control the moderation. It's just that there are enough moderators who buy into the groupthink that it's effectively censorship of ideas that oppose the groupthink. For example, if you were to make an honest, well-thought-out, detailed and insightful post which happens to criticize the Libertarian Party's platform, you would be modded -1 Troll within minutes.
If true, it means, he has a good team around him. Which is fine by me.
You seriously wouldn't care if the President is wearing a wire at the debates... I'm sure business and political leaders at home and abroad would agree with you and continue to take him seriously after finding out he can't think on his feet or remember details accurately, and is effectively a puppet.
He LOOKED like he was being fed information as the debate progressed. He kept getting odd looks on his face like he was getting interrupted, odd pauses, etc. But this is what really moved me into the tinfoil-hat camp: he was talking about his faith, and its ability to seal-ah, heal... or something like that. Sounded to me like he misheard his prompter, said the wrong word, and corrected himself.
I didn't say make it more Libertarian. I said convince the people in the party that the Libertarian ideas are better, if you think they are.
(replying to my own post, sorry)
Before anyone misreads ANOTHER of my posts in this thread, I want to make clear that I don't support the Republican party myself. I was just saying that if you are a die-hard Libertarian, you'll find more support in the Republican party than in the Democratic party.
(A) providing more choices to the uninformed masses
or
(B) getting involved with either the D's or the R's and work toward changing that party's platform to be more in line with your best ideas about how to run the country.
I think the second choice has a much better chance of having an actual impact on the world. But it's not nearly as attractive to most people because it means you have to be informed, have original ideas, and, heaven forbid, get involved.
You were also well on your way to saying that most people disagree with the founding fathers, if you were going to put them in the same category as the 'third parties' I listed. That's not true at all, and it wasn't true in their time. I think most people disagree with the Libertarian Party's interpretation of the Constitution. Saying that the Libertarian Party's interpretation of the Constitution is the same as what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it is a good subject for debate. I'd be on the opposing side. The ideas the Founding Fathers put on paper worked rather well in reality. As I wrote above, I think the Libertarian Party's ideas implemented in reality would result in chaos.
What makes Libertarian ideas so attractive (especially to us tech types), is that they're simple and elegant ideas. Hell, they ought to be, most of them have survived the test of time from the Founding Fathers and before. But they don't always work in every situation, as you will see if you pay attention for a while. Especially in key areas like conserving environmental resources, and infrastructure issues like energy and telecommunications.
I'm sure the Libertarian Party supported California's energy deregulation a couple years back. Not because they carefully examined the issues, markets, and potential problems, but because it fit into their simple philosophy, so therefore it had to work in reality, right? OK, well, that didn't quite work out. But the philosophy still works because now we can SUE ENRON, right? Maybe you can convince your Libertarian buddies to chip in for the legal fees. Let me know how that goes for ya.