It doesn't MATTER what the truth of the "plot" was. It isn't possible to keep everything that could be used maliciously off an airplane, so any attempt to do so is a knee-jerk reaction. See "security theater".
"Had they banned them before this action you would probably be crying that it's nothing more than a knee jerk reaction."
Nope. It's still a knee-jerk reaction, even after this "plan" has come to light. Of course, we plebes don't know what the "plan" was, but we're assured that it a) exists and b) is dastardly.
Much of that fuel energy is used to heat the atmosphere, so the highest energy state of the aircraft is sitting on the runway after fueling and before takeoff.
Uh huh. Read much about advanced physics lately? What I can understand sounds a lot like extra mystic rules to me.
"And my basic point was just because some ancient cult says "banging skulls releases soul fire" doesn't mean we should blow off their entire body of knowledge."
OK. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me.
"We have often found useful information in masses of superstition."
You're making my point for me. I assert that ancient civilizations learned stuff in ways that aren't very different from the way that WE learn stuff. They observe, they build models in their brains, and they draw conclusions. Some of those models are pretty outlandish by our modern understanding, but that's not because we know science and they didn't. It's because we understand more stuff than they did, because we didn't have to work it all out for ourselves from first principles. Our modern understanding builds very much on that tradition.
Clearly, if one defines "ancient tradition" as "mystical hokum", there's not much of what we call science there. But I think there's plenty of ancient knowledge that we could indeed understand as "science".
You're completely misinterpreting me if you think I'm discounting ancient civilizations. I am simply asserting that the distinction, between "ancient ways" and "modern scientific ways", is not very big.
Sure it is. "My" contains one vowel, and I think that's an English word. S'matter of fact, here is a web site of words that have syllables in which Y is the vowel.
"Ancient civilizations had arbitrary rules which helped them. They didn't know *why* the rules helped them."
Really? On what observations do you base this idea?
I believe you're making a false dichotomy. The difference between a guy banging rocks together to make fire and physicists banging particles together to make different particles is a difference in degree, not in kind.
"Satire is directionally proportional to the ability of individuals to question authority figures"
Fairly clumsily stated, but I think I see what you're after. However, if (as I assume) you wish to make a scientific assertion, you've got a lot of work to do on this, your founding thesis.
"A lack of dispute is extremely unhealthy"
Agreed. However, blaming Americans for your compatriots' shortcomings is a little silly. I'm an American, and I dispute lots of things. I would counsel your countrymen to do the same thing, and stop blaming other people for making you think things.
"the Americans -own- most of the British outlets"
What? You're telling me that the BBC is owned by Americans?
"the only way to survive is pandering to what American media will permit."
Even if that's true, it's each individual's responsibility to stand for what they believe in. It's cowardice to blame "the American media" for making people think the way they do. Intellectual laziness is the fault of the thinker.
"Britain has also bought a lot into the "special relationship" stuff, where Britain gives America its money, blood and brains, in return for which it gets the rights to show repeats of the A-Team"
Oh, come on now. Are you seriously thinking that there's some sort of compact that Tony Blair signed trading British soldiers for the A-Team reruns? You're being ridiculous, and muddying your point.
"What it hasn't sold, it has scrapped, and usually due to pressure from the US, Europe or Japan."
So, you're basically saying that Britain is in the state that it's in because other countries were mean to you. I think that's sorta pathetic.
There is a LOT going awry in America right now, from my perspective. Having said that, blaming America for your society's problems is cowardice. Grow a spine.
That'll get spun as "persecution". Because getting sent to the principal's office for being disruptive is morally equivalent to being fed to lions for espousing a certain philosophy.
"It is true that religion has a lot to do w/ questioning evolution"
No. No, that's not true. MY religion has NOTHING to do with questioning evolution. The religious people that question evolution are not all of the religious persons. (I happen to think they're not a very substantial fraction, but that's a statistical question that I think it'd be hard to measure, so I don't wish to draw any firm conclusions.)
If you expect people to be able to understand nuances of truth (and I certainly do), I think it'd be a good idea to practice what you preach.
I don't understand the distinction that you're trying to make between "science" and "what ancient civilizations did". Sure, The Scientific Method is a relatively new codification of ideas, but it's not like that was when people started reasoning out solutions to problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, pound force isn't a measure of pressure either. It's a measure of force. It says so right in the unit.
Uh huh. If you had to look up the definition for "joke" in the dictionary, I think you're not the person to ask about jokes.
So, yeah.
Did Keanu touch you in your bathing suit place?
That WHOOSH was the joke going over your head.
Who is "we"?
I don't understand what supporting a family has to do with being ethically bankrupt.
That's not the way it works.
"they have a duty to try and get it overturned through legal and ethical means first."
How do you get a law overturned, without first breaking it and going to court? And what is unethical about breaking an unethical law?
It doesn't MATTER what the truth of the "plot" was. It isn't possible to keep everything that could be used maliciously off an airplane, so any attempt to do so is a knee-jerk reaction. See "security theater".
"Had they banned them before this action you would probably be crying that it's nothing more than a knee jerk reaction."
Nope. It's still a knee-jerk reaction, even after this "plan" has come to light. Of course, we plebes don't know what the "plan" was, but we're assured that it a) exists and b) is dastardly.
"you almost NEVER see the so called 'peace loving muslims' out there vehemently denouncing the terrorist actions of their 'extreme' fringes"
And because you don't see it, you conclude it doesn't happen. Mmmkay.
If you own the stock, and you bought it in its overpriced state, you've already made a mistake, and it's not Google's responsibility to bail you out.
Much of that fuel energy is used to heat the atmosphere, so the highest energy state of the aircraft is sitting on the runway after fueling and before takeoff.
You're not serious, are you?
Are you really, REALLY worried about terrorists? You should be way more worried about sharks. And lightning.
"I don't think it's safe anymore to allow your eight year old to wander a large shopping mall alone"
Why?
Is the world a more dangerous place, or are there interests whose profit is served by making you think so?
"guy assigns a bunch of extra mystic rules"
Uh huh. Read much about advanced physics lately? What I can understand sounds a lot like extra mystic rules to me.
"And my basic point was just because some ancient cult says "banging skulls releases soul fire" doesn't mean we should blow off their entire body of knowledge."
OK. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me.
"We have often found useful information in masses of superstition."
You're making my point for me. I assert that ancient civilizations learned stuff in ways that aren't very different from the way that WE learn stuff. They observe, they build models in their brains, and they draw conclusions. Some of those models are pretty outlandish by our modern understanding, but that's not because we know science and they didn't. It's because we understand more stuff than they did, because we didn't have to work it all out for ourselves from first principles. Our modern understanding builds very much on that tradition.
Clearly, if one defines "ancient tradition" as "mystical hokum", there's not much of what we call science there. But I think there's plenty of ancient knowledge that we could indeed understand as "science".
You're completely misinterpreting me if you think I'm discounting ancient civilizations. I am simply asserting that the distinction, between "ancient ways" and "modern scientific ways", is not very big.
Sure it is. "My" contains one vowel, and I think that's an English word. S'matter of fact, here is a web site of words that have syllables in which Y is the vowel.
"Ancient civilizations had arbitrary rules which helped them. They didn't know *why* the rules helped them."
Really? On what observations do you base this idea?
I believe you're making a false dichotomy. The difference between a guy banging rocks together to make fire and physicists banging particles together to make different particles is a difference in degree, not in kind.
"Satire is directionally proportional to the ability of individuals to question authority figures"
Fairly clumsily stated, but I think I see what you're after. However, if (as I assume) you wish to make a scientific assertion, you've got a lot of work to do on this, your founding thesis.
"A lack of dispute is extremely unhealthy"
Agreed. However, blaming Americans for your compatriots' shortcomings is a little silly. I'm an American, and I dispute lots of things. I would counsel your countrymen to do the same thing, and stop blaming other people for making you think things.
"the Americans -own- most of the British outlets"
What? You're telling me that the BBC is owned by Americans?
"the only way to survive is pandering to what American media will permit."
Even if that's true, it's each individual's responsibility to stand for what they believe in. It's cowardice to blame "the American media" for making people think the way they do. Intellectual laziness is the fault of the thinker.
"Britain has also bought a lot into the "special relationship" stuff, where Britain gives America its money, blood and brains, in return for which it gets the rights to show repeats of the A-Team"
Oh, come on now. Are you seriously thinking that there's some sort of compact that Tony Blair signed trading British soldiers for the A-Team reruns? You're being ridiculous, and muddying your point.
"What it hasn't sold, it has scrapped, and usually due to pressure from the US, Europe or Japan."
So, you're basically saying that Britain is in the state that it's in because other countries were mean to you. I think that's sorta pathetic.
There is a LOT going awry in America right now, from my perspective. Having said that, blaming America for your society's problems is cowardice. Grow a spine.
"Wrong, my entire argument is not a straw man. Most of my argument doesn't even speak to this particular case."
The fact that it doesn't speak to this particular case is what MAKES it a straw man.
That'll get spun as "persecution". Because getting sent to the principal's office for being disruptive is morally equivalent to being fed to lions for espousing a certain philosophy.
So, you're saying that the British are more fundamentalist because of the decrease in televised satire, and that's somehow America's fault?
Wow. And I thought that the creationists had tortuous logic and dizzying jumps to conclusion. Good job!
Hey, Colbert can laugh all he wants. I'm loving the fact that it's a beautiful, sunny, 68 degree day in the middle of freakin' August.
"It is true that religion has a lot to do w/ questioning evolution"
No. No, that's not true. MY religion has NOTHING to do with questioning evolution. The religious people that question evolution are not all of the religious persons. (I happen to think they're not a very substantial fraction, but that's a statistical question that I think it'd be hard to measure, so I don't wish to draw any firm conclusions.)
If you expect people to be able to understand nuances of truth (and I certainly do), I think it'd be a good idea to practice what you preach.
I don't understand the distinction that you're trying to make between "science" and "what ancient civilizations did". Sure, The Scientific Method is a relatively new codification of ideas, but it's not like that was when people started reasoning out solutions to problems.