All those Nobelists in the Union of Concerned Scientsts are just hacks.
And being a Nobel Laureate qualifies them to speak on political pressure in government conservation sciences how, exactly? A Nobelist in some field of natural science who has worked for the government (or extensively reviewed the work of those who have), sure. But how many have? The last time the "Union of Concerned Scientists" trumpted that Nobel Laureates supported something it was a letter to President Bush regarding stem cell research. Turns out only two of the scientists won for work in embryology. 27 others won for other areas of medicine and the remaining 53 won for entirely unrelated fields like physics and economics. Before that it was a letter to then-President Clinton on the topic of missile defense which had exactly no winners in that area (though at least one physicist had some experience), but again plenty of doctors, chemists and economists. What is it about winning a Nobel Prize that qualifies you to speak on anything and everything as if you were an expert?
If you'd like to criticize the substance of their report, indicating what they did wrong and why their conclusions are flawed, that'd be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Until then, though, all you've contributed is ad hominem.
Pointing out the bias in the source is perfectly valid. In fact, it's good science to point out that your data or conclusions may be based on tainted sources.
Put another way, your response is the equivalent of suggesting that General Relativity must be wrong because Einstein abused his wife
And your response is like insisting that there is no cosmological constant because hey, Einstein insisted it was the biggest mistake of his life and he's a Nobel Laureate so it must be right!
You accused the poster of an ad hominem by attacking the source rather than the data but you're doing the exact opposite by trying to claim that the opinion of a Nobel Prize winner automatically carries greater weight on every topic on which they may care to opine.
Between this and another post of yours in this thread stating "you lose" I'm wondering if you're familiar with the concept of "debating". There are no "points" and there is no "winning".
This administration is completely and totally shitty. Deal with it.
Right, because repeating it over and over makes it so. I've got some serious problems with the current administration, and I didn't vote for it, but I vastly prefer it over the previous one.
The Democrats and the Republicans are indistinguishable as far as their actual policies are concerned. They're both corporate puppets who only follow the money.
Well then saying "this administration" serves no purpose. You must have had some purpose in pointing it out, since it wasn't relevant to bring up otherwise. I think you're just backpedalling. Say, how many points do you lose for that?
More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which
I also wonder how many of these biologists "knew of" the same incident. Scientists of a given discipline are a pretty tight knit and gossipy group. Asking if they "knew of" an incident smacks of urban legend mongering, everyone knows a guy whose cousin swears it happened to his old roommate.
First, the question posed had no time period specified. It was simply "have you ever experienced this", not have you experienced it under the current administration. Anyone who's been employed for 8 years or longer has spent more time under another (Democratic) administration than the current one.
And, of course the Clinton administration would never, ever put politics before policy. I love how these debates always degenerate into "your side is evil, my side is pure."
The title of the submission is "Beginning Applescript", but the book being reviewed is actually AppleScript: The Missing Manual. A book named Beginning Applescript exists, and was published only two months ago so this is where "changing her mind" came from. Also, considering she's bemoaning the lack of recent books on AppleScript geared towards beginners there's a certain irony in her submission title actually being another AppleScript book that meets her criteria and of which she's apparently entirely unaware.
Latvia is in the EU and is not, therefore, marred by rampant corruption or a careless government.
That's interesting reasoning. But sure, I could see how you might think Latvia is a model of honesty, considering it only spends 2% of its annual revenue on bribes.
http://www.eumap.org/pressinfo/ipc/timesofchange
Experts feel, however, that the best candidate countries are less corrupt than the worst member countries. As the study shows, Latvia is not among the best.
There could be a mechanism to unlock the rifles on a firing range.
And this mechanism would work in the 12 acres of private property my friend has behind his house (which is large enough to hunt legally)? It would work every single time we felt like going out back and putting a few round into paper? How would that work, exactly?
So no, I have absolutely no problem rendering a dangerous tool inoperable in settings where it should never be used.
There is virtually no such setting, and even if there were you would have to assign the task of deciding that to someone.
Giving people freedoms doesn't necessarily have to be a free-for-all.
Indeed. That's what licenses/permits are for. Considering the rate at which legal firearm holders commit crimes (much lower than the population as a whole) I think it's a pretty damn good system.
but if a hunting rifle can only be legally used for hunting
A hunting license licenses the owner to take a certain type of game (deer season, etc) on certain land (assigned state land, private land, etc) during certain times (hunting seasons, obviously) with certain tools (shotgun only, bow, etc). It only grants this, in the case of firearms, to people who already legally own them. A "hunting rifle" is simply a subset of rifle suitable for a certain task (which varies for the types of game). In every case the "hunting rifle" set overlaps other sets such as the "target shooting" set or "clay pigeon" set.
this actually a pretty good idea. The card mechanism could also be used to enforce hunting seasons.
No, it's a terrible idea. Even suspending basic rights and also assuming for a moment that a "hunting rifle" with no other legitimate purpose exists you're proposing that it be completely inoperable for 11 months (or whatever) of the year? And you see nothing wrong with forbidding use of a dangerous tool except for the brief times we let people loose in the woods with them? Not allowing people to become comfortable, or even passingly familiar with it until they're hopped up on adrenaline in the forest? You see nothing inherently dangerous with that at all?
Re:Actually, that is superficially correct.
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
Why do people eat when they are not hungry? Because they are unhappy.
It has absolutely nothing to do with people eating when they aren't hungry. It has to do with economics and lifestyle. Unhealthy food is simply the cheapest and easiest thing available to people. Other nations are catching up. You appear to simply have an axe to grind with the US.
Re:How much thinking did you put in your reply?
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
Then try the same experiment with women in Brazil or Italy, for example. They will give very, very different answers.
Considering both of those countries have the same depression ratio between men and women as the United States (1.7), I expect you'd get a similar answer.
The National Comorbidity Study, a large survey of adults in the United States released last year, found that 1.7 women for every man had experienced at least one episode of depression. Roughly the same ratio has been found in recent studies in nine other countries, including Canada, Brazil, Germany and Japan, said Marta Meana, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
Because the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbying groups there is, and they fight tooth and nail against anything that even resembles competency testing.
While the government as an entity has sovereign immunity, you can still sue individuals in a "private" capacity for things they've done in the course of their job function. "The theory appears to be that when federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires and lose the shield of sovereign immunity."
I believe it's $6. I couldn't find it explicitly stated anywhere, but if you read through How to become a.com/.net registrar" you find this passage:
The minimum payment security is equal to at least the number of anticipated monthly registrations x number of years (minimum one year and maximum of ten years) x $6 USD registration fee.
Of all the things to buy from GW, primer is the last thing you should buy (well, okay, after the relabled glue and tools). There are endless sources of inexpensive primer, and if you still feel like you need to drop the cash at least buy something good like Floquil or Tamiya.
Remember it? I still play it! Sadly only on the computer nowadays though. There's three programs that I know of:
QSpaceHulk is probably the best. It's 2nd edition, unfortunately, but it does have multiplayer. It's GPL'd
Sulk has a lot of potential. It's 1st edition and has a good AI, but currently no network play (only hotseat). It's written in Python with PyGame and is GPL'd.
Finally there's Spacehulk-SP. I don't know much about this one since it's written in VB and I haven't tried it under WINE. Surprisingly, it's GPL'd as well though.
No, the article is correct. It states that carbon-dating was done in 1988, but that the samples used for all the different tests (including the carbon dating and the vanillin testing that is the subject of the article) were taken from the shroud in 1978.
how the thinning ozone layer affects weather patterns?
No, they can't. Why not? Because Michael is an idiot. He'll post the most blatantly incorrect crap if it supports his agenda. The article says that the weather is driving the thinning of the ozone, not that the thinning ozone is affecting the weather.
Well, for what it's worth an ISP who does not reinstate disabled access/removed material IS open to liability (see Sec 202, part g). But since most of the situations in which it would apply are month to month contracts anyway there's not much recourse in practice.
Hmm, you're right. I just read the full text and I can't find what I was thinking of. The ISP does have 10 full days to return disabled access/material after a counter notification. I had thought there was a grace period you had to reply in and they wouldn't disable it at all. Probably because most of my experience with it comes from Usenet.
Slashdot Mirror
And being a Nobel Laureate qualifies them to speak on political pressure in government conservation sciences how, exactly? A Nobelist in some field of natural science who has worked for the government (or extensively reviewed the work of those who have), sure. But how many have? The last time the "Union of Concerned Scientists" trumpted that Nobel Laureates supported something it was a letter to President Bush regarding stem cell research. Turns out only two of the scientists won for work in embryology. 27 others won for other areas of medicine and the remaining 53 won for entirely unrelated fields like physics and economics. Before that it was a letter to then-President Clinton on the topic of missile defense which had exactly no winners in that area (though at least one physicist had some experience), but again plenty of doctors, chemists and economists. What is it about winning a Nobel Prize that qualifies you to speak on anything and everything as if you were an expert?
If you'd like to criticize the substance of their report, indicating what they did wrong and why their conclusions are flawed, that'd be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Until then, though, all you've contributed is ad hominem.
Pointing out the bias in the source is perfectly valid. In fact, it's good science to point out that your data or conclusions may be based on tainted sources.
Put another way, your response is the equivalent of suggesting that General Relativity must be wrong because Einstein abused his wife
And your response is like insisting that there is no cosmological constant because hey, Einstein insisted it was the biggest mistake of his life and he's a Nobel Laureate so it must be right!
You accused the poster of an ad hominem by attacking the source rather than the data but you're doing the exact opposite by trying to claim that the opinion of a Nobel Prize winner automatically carries greater weight on every topic on which they may care to opine.
Between this and another post of yours in this thread stating "you lose" I'm wondering if you're familiar with the concept of "debating". There are no "points" and there is no "winning".
This administration is completely and totally shitty. Deal with it.
Right, because repeating it over and over makes it so. I've got some serious problems with the current administration, and I didn't vote for it, but I vastly prefer it over the previous one.
The Democrats and the Republicans are indistinguishable as far as their actual policies are concerned. They're both corporate puppets who only follow the money.
Well then saying "this administration" serves no purpose. You must have had some purpose in pointing it out, since it wasn't relevant to bring up otherwise. I think you're just backpedalling. Say, how many points do you lose for that?
I also wonder how many of these biologists "knew of" the same incident. Scientists of a given discipline are a pretty tight knit and gossipy group. Asking if they "knew of" an incident smacks of urban legend mongering, everyone knows a guy whose cousin swears it happened to his old roommate.
First, the question posed had no time period specified. It was simply "have you ever experienced this", not have you experienced it under the current administration. Anyone who's been employed for 8 years or longer has spent more time under another (Democratic) administration than the current one.
And, of course the Clinton administration would never, ever put politics before policy. I love how these debates always degenerate into "your side is evil, my side is pure."
Yes. The part where he said he lived with his parents and played Everquest obsessively.
His wrong what?
You made $80,000 dollars running an EverQuest script while a minor living with your parents? And they STILL wouldn't spring for broadband?
The title of the submission is "Beginning Applescript", but the book being reviewed is actually AppleScript: The Missing Manual. A book named Beginning Applescript exists, and was published only two months ago so this is where "changing her mind" came from. Also, considering she's bemoaning the lack of recent books on AppleScript geared towards beginners there's a certain irony in her submission title actually being another AppleScript book that meets her criteria and of which she's apparently entirely unaware.
That's interesting reasoning. But sure, I could see how you might think Latvia is a model of honesty, considering it only spends 2% of its annual revenue on bribes.
http://www.allaboutlatvia.com/article/24/corrupt-g overnment
"Political corruption is one of the aspects of the Latvian politics most criticized in different researches and surveys."
http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/ 2001/2001.12.03.eu.html
In Latvia, the perception of corruption remains high, and corruption poses a serious obstacle to the proper and efficient functioning of the public administration.
http://www.eumap.org/pressinfo/ipc/timesofchange
Experts feel, however, that the best candidate countries are less corrupt than the worst member countries. As the study shows, Latvia is not among the best.
And this mechanism would work in the 12 acres of private property my friend has behind his house (which is large enough to hunt legally)? It would work every single time we felt like going out back and putting a few round into paper? How would that work, exactly?
So no, I have absolutely no problem rendering a dangerous tool inoperable in settings where it should never be used.
There is virtually no such setting, and even if there were you would have to assign the task of deciding that to someone.
Giving people freedoms doesn't necessarily have to be a free-for-all.
Indeed. That's what licenses/permits are for. Considering the rate at which legal firearm holders commit crimes (much lower than the population as a whole) I think it's a pretty damn good system.
Obviously.
but if a hunting rifle can only be legally used for hunting
A hunting license licenses the owner to take a certain type of game (deer season, etc) on certain land (assigned state land, private land, etc) during certain times (hunting seasons, obviously) with certain tools (shotgun only, bow, etc). It only grants this, in the case of firearms, to people who already legally own them. A "hunting rifle" is simply a subset of rifle suitable for a certain task (which varies for the types of game). In every case the "hunting rifle" set overlaps other sets such as the "target shooting" set or "clay pigeon" set.
this actually a pretty good idea. The card mechanism could also be used to enforce hunting seasons.
No, it's a terrible idea. Even suspending basic rights and also assuming for a moment that a "hunting rifle" with no other legitimate purpose exists you're proposing that it be completely inoperable for 11 months (or whatever) of the year? And you see nothing wrong with forbidding use of a dangerous tool except for the brief times we let people loose in the woods with them? Not allowing people to become comfortable, or even passingly familiar with it until they're hopped up on adrenaline in the forest? You see nothing inherently dangerous with that at all?
It has absolutely nothing to do with people eating when they aren't hungry. It has to do with economics and lifestyle. Unhealthy food is simply the cheapest and easiest thing available to people. Other nations are catching up. You appear to simply have an axe to grind with the US.
Considering both of those countries have the same depression ratio between men and women as the United States (1.7), I expect you'd get a similar answer.
Because the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbying groups there is, and they fight tooth and nail against anything that even resembles competency testing.
Link.
So they could laugh at me for propagating an urban legend"?
Of all the things to buy from GW, primer is the last thing you should buy (well, okay, after the relabled glue and tools). There are endless sources of inexpensive primer, and if you still feel like you need to drop the cash at least buy something good like Floquil or Tamiya.
QSpaceHulk is probably the best. It's 2nd edition, unfortunately, but it does have multiplayer. It's GPL'd
Sulk has a lot of potential. It's 1st edition and has a good AI, but currently no network play (only hotseat). It's written in Python with PyGame and is GPL'd.
Finally there's Spacehulk-SP. I don't know much about this one since it's written in VB and I haven't tried it under WINE. Surprisingly, it's GPL'd as well though.
No, the article is correct. It states that carbon-dating was done in 1988, but that the samples used for all the different tests (including the carbon dating and the vanillin testing that is the subject of the article) were taken from the shroud in 1978.
No, they can't. Why not? Because Michael is an idiot. He'll post the most blatantly incorrect crap if it supports his agenda. The article says that the weather is driving the thinning of the ozone, not that the thinning ozone is affecting the weather.
There wasn't a single suitable library released under the LGPL? The LGPL exists for precisely that reason, so I find that hard to believe.
Well, for what it's worth an ISP who does not reinstate disabled access/removed material IS open to liability (see Sec 202, part g). But since most of the situations in which it would apply are month to month contracts anyway there's not much recourse in practice.
the scientific opinion of an editor who posts urban legends as legitimate science news?
Hmm, you're right. I just read the full text and I can't find what I was thinking of. The ISP does have 10 full days to return disabled access/material after a counter notification. I had thought there was a grace period you had to reply in and they wouldn't disable it at all. Probably because most of my experience with it comes from Usenet.