Wow, all this extra energy coming into the system, no extra energy coming out. And not only can't you find it but it hasn't had a noticeable affect on the temperature for at least 17 years.
So what does "problematic preconceptions about women's roles" refer to, if not the idea that women don't have preferences and priorities that (on average) are different from men's? If they do, why not celebrate that rather than seek to change it through some social engineering experiment that must be to the detriment of men through some kind of discrimination against them?
I am saying this notwithstanding issues of individual liberty prevalent in many societies around the world that should be the focus of the feminist movement but that are often ignored through political correctness.
So you are asserting that biology has absolutely no role in behaviour and that even more absurdly, there's no difference on average between male and female biology? You are literally asserting that "male" and "female" are social constructs with no grounding in biology that might explain their different preferences, wants and needs?
I know the termites have been busy eating the building that is intellectual honesty in this debate, but that is really beyond stupid.
Yes, you need to control for the fact that women often take time out to raise children, whereas men are more likely to continue to work through it. Once you've done that, come back with some new figures.
Why is this guy being marked "troll"? He's right. The predictions made by climate botherers have been absolutely terrible. Even the IPCC has been dialling back climate sensitivity. I remember when a "researcher" (although a scientist I use that term in its broadest possible sense) managed to get 15C out of his brand new model we were all encouraged to run at home. Absolutely ridiculous. But it was front page news. Can you believe that?
Perhaps as well as dialling back on the sensitivity the climate bothering fraternity should also dial back on the alarm. But I'm not sure how they can do that without also dialling back on institutional grant funding from central government. What a dilemma.
That was certainly my experience, although I put it down to placebo rather than any actual physical change. I'm not sure what the fact of the matter is here. Presumably a placebo affects a change in the brain itself anyway and this may be what the study is detecting.
They've already started rowing backwards. The trouble with giving Scotland more powers is that it means they finally have to come up with a solution to the West Lothian Question. And the socialists particularly are loathe to do this as it would dilute their influence in Parliament on English matters, as England is far more conservative than either Scotland or Wales. England is after all by far the largest country in the union (>50m people, compared to 6m in Scotland). It's a scandal that despite having powers devolved to Edinburgh Scottish MPs have continued to be allowed to vote on English matters at Westminster.
The Lords is just a revising chamber. The Commons has primacy and even if the Lords reject a bill the Commons can invoke the "guillotine" to pass it anyway. There are advantages and disadvantages of course. The main advantage is that the Lords cannot challenge the commons as they have no democratic legitimacy. All they can do is discuss and argue over the various provisions and amendments to the legislation that comes their way.
Special treatment. I know it's a cliché but that was really quite Orwellian.
The reason the EU would be reluctant to accept Scotland - at least in the short term - is it would encourage a whole load of other separatist movements across Europe and would further fragment an already highly fragmented demos.
Why is every thread about Windows infested with Linux enthusiasts? If you've got nothing to say about Windows 9, WTF is the point of even commenting on this?
(1) Wages, pay and conditions
(2) Investment
(3) Employment
I think all taxation should be personal taxation; that a business should not be classed as a person for legal purposes and that no taxation should be levied on industry or business at all.
That should enable the tearing up of what in the UK is a 10,000 page tax code, most of it concerning various bribes, shakedowns, let-offs and special cases for businesses. I think if you can't make a tax code that can be written on one side of a piece of A4 paper, you're probably being paid by the hour to write it.
Climate models are exercises in curve fitting. They're programmed to fit the data. They are adjusted to fit actual reality, not predict it in advance. This is the pea under the thimble.
I don't think so, no. You can only get so far by ignoring qualia and denying they exist (as people like Dennett do). Consciousness does not supervene on the physical, though obviously it is associated with brains and (who knows) might be a property of the universe as a whole. I like the panpsychist approach and do not believe our current understanding of nature is anywhere near close to correct. There's something to explain, much like there was something to explain about the nature of cavity radiation at the turn of the 20th century. An anomaly, so to speak. And I have no doubt that if it's discoverable by science, it will be the next scientific revolution. A complete paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.
Neither are the vast majority of politicians, activists, laymen, personalities, intellectuals and academics who lecture us on this issue. Still, he claims to represent the paradigm and if he does not, it's a real shame that none of these "scientists" (I use the term in its broadest possible sense) speak out against him. That they do not is indicative, don't you think?
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free and it's completely covered in ice still, I would say they have a point. Back to the drawing board with the models at least. If there is one. Which I doubt.
It's what Cairns-Smith called the bomb in the basement of modern physics.
...that qualia must belong to the physical world while at the same time physics and chemistry, which supposedly can in principle give us a complete account of this world, have no place for them
I interpret it as suggesting that even after you've described all particles, forces, fields and laws, there will still be something left to explain. Also known as "some things transcend Human understanding". You can be an atheist and believe this, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, all this extra energy coming into the system, no extra energy coming out. And not only can't you find it but it hasn't had a noticeable affect on the temperature for at least 17 years.
So what does "problematic preconceptions about women's roles" refer to, if not the idea that women don't have preferences and priorities that (on average) are different from men's? If they do, why not celebrate that rather than seek to change it through some social engineering experiment that must be to the detriment of men through some kind of discrimination against them?
I am saying this notwithstanding issues of individual liberty prevalent in many societies around the world that should be the focus of the feminist movement but that are often ignored through political correctness.
If this is correct, they're not black holes. I suppose that's all you need to know.
Straw man argument. Venus atmosphere is 90% CO2 and it's much closer to the Sun than the Earth.
So you are asserting that biology has absolutely no role in behaviour and that even more absurdly, there's no difference on average between male and female biology? You are literally asserting that "male" and "female" are social constructs with no grounding in biology that might explain their different preferences, wants and needs?
I know the termites have been busy eating the building that is intellectual honesty in this debate, but that is really beyond stupid.
Yes, you need to control for the fact that women often take time out to raise children, whereas men are more likely to continue to work through it. Once you've done that, come back with some new figures.
Why is this guy being marked "troll"? He's right. The predictions made by climate botherers have been absolutely terrible. Even the IPCC has been dialling back climate sensitivity. I remember when a "researcher" (although a scientist I use that term in its broadest possible sense) managed to get 15C out of his brand new model we were all encouraged to run at home. Absolutely ridiculous. But it was front page news. Can you believe that?
Perhaps as well as dialling back on the sensitivity the climate bothering fraternity should also dial back on the alarm. But I'm not sure how they can do that without also dialling back on institutional grant funding from central government. What a dilemma.
Why do you think falling temperatures are "best case"? Cold is far more detrimental to biological activity than warm.
That was certainly my experience, although I put it down to placebo rather than any actual physical change. I'm not sure what the fact of the matter is here. Presumably a placebo affects a change in the brain itself anyway and this may be what the study is detecting.
They've already started rowing backwards. The trouble with giving Scotland more powers is that it means they finally have to come up with a solution to the West Lothian Question. And the socialists particularly are loathe to do this as it would dilute their influence in Parliament on English matters, as England is far more conservative than either Scotland or Wales. England is after all by far the largest country in the union (>50m people, compared to 6m in Scotland). It's a scandal that despite having powers devolved to Edinburgh Scottish MPs have continued to be allowed to vote on English matters at Westminster.
Different regions of a country have differing needs and economic strengths and weaknesses. Fiscal transfers are made between regions all the time.
Did someone hit you over the head with a fucking spade? Cameron is a fascist? A fascist? WHAT?
Why do you even bother having an opinion when it's so idiotic?
No clue what you're talking about.
The Lords is just a revising chamber. The Commons has primacy and even if the Lords reject a bill the Commons can invoke the "guillotine" to pass it anyway. There are advantages and disadvantages of course. The main advantage is that the Lords cannot challenge the commons as they have no democratic legitimacy. All they can do is discuss and argue over the various provisions and amendments to the legislation that comes their way.
Special treatment. I know it's a cliché but that was really quite Orwellian.
The reason the EU would be reluctant to accept Scotland - at least in the short term - is it would encourage a whole load of other separatist movements across Europe and would further fragment an already highly fragmented demos.
Really? Fewer driver problems on Linux? Seriously? I mean WHAT?
Correct. I have a good experience on Windows too, with both 7 and 8.
Why is every thread about Windows infested with Linux enthusiasts? If you've got nothing to say about Windows 9, WTF is the point of even commenting on this?
Prick.
Precisely.
Taxes on businesses and profits are taxes on:
(1) Wages, pay and conditions
(2) Investment
(3) Employment
I think all taxation should be personal taxation; that a business should not be classed as a person for legal purposes and that no taxation should be levied on industry or business at all.
That should enable the tearing up of what in the UK is a 10,000 page tax code, most of it concerning various bribes, shakedowns, let-offs and special cases for businesses. I think if you can't make a tax code that can be written on one side of a piece of A4 paper, you're probably being paid by the hour to write it.
Climate models are exercises in curve fitting. They're programmed to fit the data. They are adjusted to fit actual reality, not predict it in advance. This is the pea under the thimble.
I don't think so, no. You can only get so far by ignoring qualia and denying they exist (as people like Dennett do). Consciousness does not supervene on the physical, though obviously it is associated with brains and (who knows) might be a property of the universe as a whole. I like the panpsychist approach and do not believe our current understanding of nature is anywhere near close to correct. There's something to explain, much like there was something to explain about the nature of cavity radiation at the turn of the 20th century. An anomaly, so to speak. And I have no doubt that if it's discoverable by science, it will be the next scientific revolution. A complete paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.
Neither are the vast majority of politicians, activists, laymen, personalities, intellectuals and academics who lecture us on this issue. Still, he claims to represent the paradigm and if he does not, it's a real shame that none of these "scientists" (I use the term in its broadest possible sense) speak out against him. That they do not is indicative, don't you think?
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free and it's completely covered in ice still, I would say they have a point. Back to the drawing board with the models at least. If there is one. Which I doubt.
I interpret it as suggesting that even after you've described all particles, forces, fields and laws, there will still be something left to explain. Also known as "some things transcend Human understanding". You can be an atheist and believe this, by the way.