...and when the "FAA-decreed" property rights conflict with, say, the property rights "granted" by Putin to his oligarch friends, or that Beijing gave to the company in China that'a a front for the PLA?
At least we'll finally see what combat in space looks like.
"Non scientists need to accept that scientists are flawed people just like them but that science still works." Personally, I think you've got that backwards. SCIENTISTS need to accept that they are just people, not endowed with some sort of special cosmic powers of understanding above those of anyone else.
Who is more qualified to discuss the ramifications of, say, gay marriage: a physicist or a plumber? Trick question: they're both people whose expertise has nothing to do with the subject of discussion, ergo, they're equivalent and their opinions should carry equal weight.
A harder one: who's more qualified to discuss what we should do about climate change: a climatologist, or a day-care worker? Oops, trick question again. I didn't ask IF climate change is a thing (for that, a climatologist is clearly better trained and more acquainted with the systems and data relevant to the question), I asked WHAT should we do about it? In that case, the answer really has nothing to do with climatology and both again should have equal weight in the discussion.
Scientists (previously) held a moral credibility in most peoples' minds *because* of their perceived objectivity. Maybe it's unfair, but the public perception of the blinkered guy in the lab coat that cares more about his titration results than getting lunch contributed to this. It's likely that if that man has data, he'll give you the straight analysis precisely because he is (perceived to be) detached from the results and context that the rest of us swim in.
The moment someone says "listen to be BECAUSE I'm a scientist" he/she has just wagered their credibility. When the next thing out of their mouths is some nakedly biased political opinion, is anyone surprised that the perceived value of the subsequent words from a 'scientist' falls?
Further, we live in a technocratic era of celebrity. "Celebrity" scientists have been co-opted - cheerfully, willingly in many cases - to advance POLITICAL goals wielding their scientific credibility - sometimes in their field, sometimes not. Noam Chomsky? James Hansen? Richard Dawkins?
No, I'd say it's nearly the opposite of what you stated. It's scientists asserting broadly their voices should carry more weight, and getting all hurt that people dare to evaluate their pronouncements because we're starting to ascribe to them the simple venalities that motivate normal people from politicians to movie stars to insist that they "need to be heard".
You mean, like "losing" all your critical raw data in a massive "dog at my homework" moment?
Because I'm sure it's not "...government and industry associations, sensational journalists..." or, say, politicians that are winning nobel prizes, oscar awards, etc for telling us that the climate is changing and man is to blame?
It's not just reporting. The FDA and medical community has told us with all seriousness for decades that there is a link between cholesterol and heart disease - there really isn't. "Scientists" told us in the 60s that nursing babies was stupid; animals and poor people nursed. Smart, civilized people used "scientifically formulated" synthetic formulas! Scientists said "DDT is killing baby birds, stop using it!" when in fact it was poorly designed experiments that left birds calcium deficient and thus - yes - laying fragile eggs. Scientists have said things like "stop using baby talk to speak to children, it hinders their development", while others cheerfully opined (using their "sciency" wisdom) on the geopolitics of the Cold War (Union of Concerned Scientists) - something for which they were no more qualified to comment than Kissenger would have been qualified to design a moon rocket.
I agree with Adams, I've been saying it for years: science is critical to the success of our society, but the moment (around the early 1950s) that scientists started opening their yaps on political subjects, they were trading their credibility for politics. Now they've spent that currency, they can't understand why people question their motivations (as if they were like "normal" people motivated by power, ego, money, etc. - right?).
Eisenhower famously warned us about the military-industrial complex, he was absolutely right. Of course, the NEXT BIT of that same speech is less-often quoted:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."
I'd love it if there was some sort of service evaluation tool that could follow you around, frankly. I make a deliberate effort to be polite and courteous to service people, even (especially) when circumstances make it hard - it's the mark of being a civilized human. I have *absolutely* no problem with people evaluating my conduct and wearing that evaluation on my sleeve.
Sure, there are going to be some people that just downrate me for personality, or whatever. What would be great is if the evaluators are LIKEWISE simply rated, like "Uberdriver78423 rates Styopa 2.2*; Uberdriver78423's has rated 1326 passengers an average of 1.1**"
*(on a scale of 1-10) ** meaning Uberdriver78423 is a crabby bitch that hates everyone.
Why do we care? If I call Comcast, and they log me as "asshole", as long as they solve my problem why would I possibly care? They're poorly-paid people doing a nearly-thankless job, so I'd submit that they have a fair amount of unresolved frustrations. I suspect too that - at the root of it - my behavior is likely the trigger. If I really don't want to be called an asshole behind my back, perhaps I should go out of my way to NOT be an asshole to such folks?
So again, why do I care what people call me behind my back, in particular, people I'll likely never deal with again?
Just noticed this relevant article today too, about how poorly-communicated and -understood relatively simple information regarding non-contentious medical advice, like "take aspirin to reduce risk of heart attack'.
Using the above as an example, if 2000 people took aspirin daily for 2 years, it's estimated that in that population there would be 4 heart attacks instead of 5. The benefit may be clear and proven, but is it reasonably communicated how minuscule that actual benefit is?
(shurg) it's a matter of definition. Here in the US, free wifi is pretty much as common as free refills. If you're GIVING away wifi - even to non guests - it seems stupid to argue over it. OTOH, in Europe, it seems that every bloody hotel and airport feels that you should pay $10 / day or somesuch for the ability to get on the internet. To me, that's gouging. Rather than cheat the hotel, I simply don't use them, and share as broadly as possible that X hotel charges for internet.
Well, we know which asshole would be standing there pouring drinks now, don't we? Seriously, if a business gives you unlimited (something), you wouldn't feel the teensiest bit guilty then giving it away, costing them possible business?
Pretty clearly an incentive for business to never give people like you things like free refills. Congrats - you live in Europe.
My only question is what if the hotel is giving free wi-fi to guests, and then those guests are re-offering that bandwidth freely for people who didn't pay? That doesn't seem fair either, sort of like a fast food restaurant offering free refills, and then some asshole continuously refilling his large beverage to pour into other people's cups so they don't buy drinks at all.
I don't know if there's a tech that could tell when packets are coming from X machine, or coming form sources 'beyond' that machine, but to me it would be legit if a hotel *could* prevent such usage. Otherwise you have a freeloader issue.
If you are suggesting that the sole reason that people take advantage of someone - particularly in a male/female sexual context - is because of corporatism you're either being staggeringly disingenuous or astonishingly unaware of the say, last 100,000 years of hominid behavior, or for that matter, the behavior of mammalia, chordata, or hell, living THINGS, ever./facepalm
His point is that the widespread class warfare against "the rich" is a useful tool for the left to generate rage (because who doesn't envy at least a little the people that are wealthier, and despise the grossly wealthy who flaunt their wealth through ostentatious consumption), but in fact the "rich" that are the target of POLICY - ie the top 10% or top 25% - reaches well down into what most of us would colloquially call the middle class.
A 32 year old woman took a year to recognize that the harassment "started day one", and when she was "pushed" by her PHYSICS professor to participate in online sexual roleplay and send naked pictures (which she did?) she didn't comprehend that his interest in her might be more than academic?
At what age is someone expected to be able to deploy the word "no" on their own behalf?
Honestly, I have a lot less problem with a business mandating vaccination as a term of employment (ESPECIALLY if they are obviously heavily interacting with the public and even more especially children) than the government mandating it.
EDIT to the above (love Slashdot's posting system):
What *needs* to happen is that someone needs to show up to a gearhead rally with a Prius wired with that SAME digital file and BETTER speakers, meaning that right next to the "roaring Mustang" is an even-louder Prius, sounding otherwise identical. LOL.
As long as it's clear to the buyer what's going on, who cares?
People spend good $ on stupid crap all the time. Is an automobile owner paying for "fake engine sound" any sillier than someone spending $15 a month to kill pretend monsters to get pretend gear to better kill pretend monsters?
Personally, I admire the efficiency of an engine that can generate 200+ horsepower that you can barely hear from 10' away. That's astonishing, if you think about it. But I get it, some people want the sound. Seems sorta silly to me, but that's just me.
First, I'd politely suggest that the first step toward constructive discussion is not to patronize the person you're talking to. Condescension might make you feel great, but isn't a great way to start a difficult discussion.
OTOH, if you're actually genuine about believing that "anyone who doesn't agree with global warming doesn't understand science"...then you might want to check your biases. There are a LOT of scientists - including some climatologists - who disbelieve the all or parts of the current paradigm that "the planet is warming and humans are the main cause". Let's use, for example, Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) who's shown that observed temps are *radically* different than pretty nearly all the climate models put forward by the IPCC: http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/d......if that doesn't make you suspicious of "sky is falling" predictions by the IPCC, what would?
As you posted AC, and I don't even know if you'll come back to respond, it's not worth a comprehensive discussion here, so I'll be as succinct as possible. (If you do come back, and want to have a constructive dialogue, I'd be happy to.) First, we'll set aside all of planetary history before the last 3m years (because they were warmer), I'd invite you to look at this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... or more zoomed in for specifics: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
There are *clearly* nearly-vertical temperature and CO2 spikes every 100k years or so. The last one was about 100k years ago.
If something happens repeatedly, say, a dozen times in a row, in a reasonably consistent cycle, and then it happens a 13th time, a reasonable observer is going to assert that what ever caused the previous 12 is causing the 13th, and whatever caused them to end will ALSO cause the 13th to end. The fact that you happen to be present to see the 13th, doesn't mean you're the cause.
Second: Climatologists have been scrambling for an explanation of why their models predicted constant warming, but it seems to have vanished for much of the past 15 years. http://www.reuters.com/article... This has led to the current theory that the oceans have absorbed far more warming than modeled previously. Could be science, or could be desperately shifting goalposts. Your mileage will vary based on your politics, most likely.
But all in all, the society we've created - that largely includes (and one might say is a result of) jobs filled by people sitting at their desks - in the net has resulted in an increased lifespan. That's incontestable.
Teasing out causality is a challenge, of course, and I wouldn't presume to do so, but the simple fact is that we are - in terms of health & lifespan - better off than we were in 1940.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING WE WANT.
I know this is a crazy idea, but maybe we could have a serious discussion about what our government spends its money on, instead of just continuing to write checks for every bloody social program or war we feel like funding, and then kicking the can to future congresses by coming up with a "sequester" that takes a flat cut of every budget.
I mean, yes, at least taking a TINY bit from each budget is better than never cutting spending at all, but that result is what you get when the room is filled with incompetents too stupid to compromise/prioritize in any way.
Two points: 1) the fact that we're the wealthiest nation with the highest standard of living ever in human history, and are having this discussion is pretty pathetic. 2) Congress is largely to blame, but POTUS gets much of this as the nation looks to him for leadership, yet he cheerfully - like everyone else in Washington, largely in both parties - as if the money will never really run out. Every SOTU speech is filled with new programs he wants to enact, and new things to spend $ on. To repeat:
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING WE WANT.
I know, I don't belong in politics. Clearly, I'm irrational by Washington standards.
Slashdot Mirror
...and when the "FAA-decreed" property rights conflict with, say, the property rights "granted" by Putin to his oligarch friends, or that Beijing gave to the company in China that'a a front for the PLA?
At least we'll finally see what combat in space looks like.
"Non scientists need to accept that scientists are flawed people just like them but that science still works."
Personally, I think you've got that backwards. SCIENTISTS need to accept that they are just people, not endowed with some sort of special cosmic powers of understanding above those of anyone else.
Who is more qualified to discuss the ramifications of, say, gay marriage: a physicist or a plumber? Trick question: they're both people whose expertise has nothing to do with the subject of discussion, ergo, they're equivalent and their opinions should carry equal weight.
A harder one: who's more qualified to discuss what we should do about climate change: a climatologist, or a day-care worker? Oops, trick question again. I didn't ask IF climate change is a thing (for that, a climatologist is clearly better trained and more acquainted with the systems and data relevant to the question), I asked WHAT should we do about it? In that case, the answer really has nothing to do with climatology and both again should have equal weight in the discussion.
Scientists (previously) held a moral credibility in most peoples' minds *because* of their perceived objectivity. Maybe it's unfair, but the public perception of the blinkered guy in the lab coat that cares more about his titration results than getting lunch contributed to this. It's likely that if that man has data, he'll give you the straight analysis precisely because he is (perceived to be) detached from the results and context that the rest of us swim in.
The moment someone says "listen to be BECAUSE I'm a scientist" he/she has just wagered their credibility. When the next thing out of their mouths is some nakedly biased political opinion, is anyone surprised that the perceived value of the subsequent words from a 'scientist' falls?
Further, we live in a technocratic era of celebrity. "Celebrity" scientists have been co-opted - cheerfully, willingly in many cases - to advance POLITICAL goals wielding their scientific credibility - sometimes in their field, sometimes not. Noam Chomsky? James Hansen? Richard Dawkins?
No, I'd say it's nearly the opposite of what you stated. It's scientists asserting broadly their voices should carry more weight, and getting all hurt that people dare to evaluate their pronouncements because we're starting to ascribe to them the simple venalities that motivate normal people from politicians to movie stars to insist that they "need to be heard".
You mean, like "losing" all your critical raw data in a massive "dog at my homework" moment?
Because I'm sure it's not "...government and industry associations, sensational journalists..." or, say, politicians that are winning nobel prizes, oscar awards, etc for telling us that the climate is changing and man is to blame?
You folks are hilarious.
It's not just reporting.
The FDA and medical community has told us with all seriousness for decades that there is a link between cholesterol and heart disease - there really isn't.
"Scientists" told us in the 60s that nursing babies was stupid; animals and poor people nursed. Smart, civilized people used "scientifically formulated" synthetic formulas!
Scientists said "DDT is killing baby birds, stop using it!" when in fact it was poorly designed experiments that left birds calcium deficient and thus - yes - laying fragile eggs.
Scientists have said things like "stop using baby talk to speak to children, it hinders their development", while others cheerfully opined (using their "sciency" wisdom) on the geopolitics of the Cold War (Union of Concerned Scientists) - something for which they were no more qualified to comment than Kissenger would have been qualified to design a moon rocket.
I agree with Adams, I've been saying it for years: science is critical to the success of our society, but the moment (around the early 1950s) that scientists started opening their yaps on political subjects, they were trading their credibility for politics. Now they've spent that currency, they can't understand why people question their motivations (as if they were like "normal" people motivated by power, ego, money, etc. - right?).
Eisenhower famously warned us about the military-industrial complex, he was absolutely right.
Of course, the NEXT BIT of that same speech is less-often quoted:
I'd love it if there was some sort of service evaluation tool that could follow you around, frankly.
I make a deliberate effort to be polite and courteous to service people, even (especially) when circumstances make it hard - it's the mark of being a civilized human. I have *absolutely* no problem with people evaluating my conduct and wearing that evaluation on my sleeve.
Sure, there are going to be some people that just downrate me for personality, or whatever.
What would be great is if the evaluators are LIKEWISE simply rated, like "Uberdriver78423 rates Styopa 2.2*; Uberdriver78423's has rated 1326 passengers an average of 1.1**"
*(on a scale of 1-10)
** meaning Uberdriver78423 is a crabby bitch that hates everyone.
Why do we care?
If I call Comcast, and they log me as "asshole", as long as they solve my problem why would I possibly care? They're poorly-paid people doing a nearly-thankless job, so I'd submit that they have a fair amount of unresolved frustrations.
I suspect too that - at the root of it - my behavior is likely the trigger. If I really don't want to be called an asshole behind my back, perhaps I should go out of my way to NOT be an asshole to such folks?
So again, why do I care what people call me behind my back, in particular, people I'll likely never deal with again?
"Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change"
Didn't we JUST have a story about how ignorant the general public is about science?
Ergo...?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...
Just noticed this relevant article today too, about how poorly-communicated and -understood relatively simple information regarding non-contentious medical advice, like "take aspirin to reduce risk of heart attack'.
Using the above as an example, if 2000 people took aspirin daily for 2 years, it's estimated that in that population there would be 4 heart attacks instead of 5. The benefit may be clear and proven, but is it reasonably communicated how minuscule that actual benefit is?
(shurg) it's a matter of definition.
Here in the US, free wifi is pretty much as common as free refills. If you're GIVING away wifi - even to non guests - it seems stupid to argue over it.
OTOH, in Europe, it seems that every bloody hotel and airport feels that you should pay $10 / day or somesuch for the ability to get on the internet. To me, that's gouging. Rather than cheat the hotel, I simply don't use them, and share as broadly as possible that X hotel charges for internet.
Then you understand neither "natural monopolies"* nor the broadband market in the US.
*although you use the term a LOT. That's something, anyway.
Congrats you're 0 for 2 (that's 100% from some perspectives!).
Well, we know which asshole would be standing there pouring drinks now, don't we?
Seriously, if a business gives you unlimited (something), you wouldn't feel the teensiest bit guilty then giving it away, costing them possible business?
Pretty clearly an incentive for business to never give people like you things like free refills. Congrats - you live in Europe.
My only question is what if the hotel is giving free wi-fi to guests, and then those guests are re-offering that bandwidth freely for people who didn't pay? That doesn't seem fair either, sort of like a fast food restaurant offering free refills, and then some asshole continuously refilling his large beverage to pour into other people's cups so they don't buy drinks at all.
I don't know if there's a tech that could tell when packets are coming from X machine, or coming form sources 'beyond' that machine, but to me it would be legit if a hotel *could* prevent such usage. Otherwise you have a freeloader issue.
Links or someplace I could see more information about the two compared?
Then it's probably a good thing that 2014 was in the 3% coldest years in the last 10,000?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Whew, I was terrified there for a second!
If you are suggesting that the sole reason that people take advantage of someone - particularly in a male/female sexual context - is because of corporatism you're either being staggeringly disingenuous or astonishingly unaware of the say, last 100,000 years of hominid behavior, or for that matter, the behavior of mammalia, chordata, or hell, living THINGS, ever. /facepalm
His point is that the widespread class warfare against "the rich" is a useful tool for the left to generate rage (because who doesn't envy at least a little the people that are wealthier, and despise the grossly wealthy who flaunt their wealth through ostentatious consumption), but in fact the "rich" that are the target of POLICY - ie the top 10% or top 25% - reaches well down into what most of us would colloquially call the middle class.
A 32 year old woman took a year to recognize that the harassment "started day one", and when she was "pushed" by her PHYSICS professor to participate in online sexual roleplay and send naked pictures (which she did?) she didn't comprehend that his interest in her might be more than academic?
At what age is someone expected to be able to deploy the word "no" on their own behalf?
You do know that in the American English vernacular, a 'rally' can just be a gathering, it doesn't solely mean a specific type of race, yes?
Honestly, I have a lot less problem with a business mandating vaccination as a term of employment (ESPECIALLY if they are obviously heavily interacting with the public and even more especially children) than the government mandating it.
Maybe that's just me.
EDIT to the above (love Slashdot's posting system):
What *needs* to happen is that someone needs to show up to a gearhead rally with a Prius wired with that SAME digital file and BETTER speakers, meaning that right next to the "roaring Mustang" is an even-louder Prius, sounding otherwise identical. LOL.
As long as it's clear to the buyer what's going on, who cares?
People spend good $ on stupid crap all the time.
Is an automobile owner paying for "fake engine sound" any sillier than someone spending $15 a month to kill pretend monsters to get pretend gear to better kill pretend monsters?
Personally, I admire the efficiency of an engine that can generate 200+ horsepower that you can barely hear from 10' away. That's astonishing, if you think about it. But I get it, some people want the sound. Seems sorta silly to me, but that's just me.
First, I'd politely suggest that the first step toward constructive discussion is not to patronize the person you're talking to. Condescension might make you feel great, but isn't a great way to start a difficult discussion.
OTOH, if you're actually genuine about believing that "anyone who doesn't agree with global warming doesn't understand science"...then you might want to check your biases. There are a LOT of scientists - including some climatologists - who disbelieve the all or parts of the current paradigm that "the planet is warming and humans are the main cause". Let's use, for example, Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) who's shown that observed temps are *radically* different than pretty nearly all the climate models put forward by the IPCC: http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/d... ...if that doesn't make you suspicious of "sky is falling" predictions by the IPCC, what would?
As you posted AC, and I don't even know if you'll come back to respond, it's not worth a comprehensive discussion here, so I'll be as succinct as possible. (If you do come back, and want to have a constructive dialogue, I'd be happy to.)
First, we'll set aside all of planetary history before the last 3m years (because they were warmer), I'd invite you to look at this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
or more zoomed in for specifics: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
There are *clearly* nearly-vertical temperature and CO2 spikes every 100k years or so. The last one was about 100k years ago.
If something happens repeatedly, say, a dozen times in a row, in a reasonably consistent cycle, and then it happens a 13th time, a reasonable observer is going to assert that what ever caused the previous 12 is causing the 13th, and whatever caused them to end will ALSO cause the 13th to end. The fact that you happen to be present to see the 13th, doesn't mean you're the cause.
First, warm, but not the hottest dozen in history. Do you even realize when you're being absurdly hyperbolic?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com...
(from the 1990 IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports...)
Second: Climatologists have been scrambling for an explanation of why their models predicted constant warming, but it seems to have vanished for much of the past 15 years.
http://www.reuters.com/article...
This has led to the current theory that the oceans have absorbed far more warming than modeled previously. Could be science, or could be desperately shifting goalposts. Your mileage will vary based on your politics, most likely.
But all in all, the society we've created - that largely includes (and one might say is a result of) jobs filled by people sitting at their desks - in the net has resulted in an increased lifespan. That's incontestable.
Teasing out causality is a challenge, of course, and I wouldn't presume to do so, but the simple fact is that we are - in terms of health & lifespan - better off than we were in 1940.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING WE WANT.
I know this is a crazy idea, but maybe we could have a serious discussion about what our government spends its money on, instead of just continuing to write checks for every bloody social program or war we feel like funding, and then kicking the can to future congresses by coming up with a "sequester" that takes a flat cut of every budget.
I mean, yes, at least taking a TINY bit from each budget is better than never cutting spending at all, but that result is what you get when the room is filled with incompetents too stupid to compromise/prioritize in any way.
Two points:
1) the fact that we're the wealthiest nation with the highest standard of living ever in human history, and are having this discussion is pretty pathetic.
2) Congress is largely to blame, but POTUS gets much of this as the nation looks to him for leadership, yet he cheerfully - like everyone else in Washington, largely in both parties - as if the money will never really run out. Every SOTU speech is filled with new programs he wants to enact, and new things to spend $ on. To repeat:
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING WE WANT.
I know, I don't belong in politics. Clearly, I'm irrational by Washington standards.