But he did establish the ethic that any action is moral if it is in pursuit of revolution. Ie., "the ends justify the means." Which is the single most evil proposition ever devised.
It is utilized in subtle form by today's leftists when they use a term which means something entirely different, in a manner such as what you just did with "capitalism."
Capitalism by definition is simply the private ownership of the means of production.
Unless force is used to prevent someone from producing that which is scarce at a cheaper price, capitalism will do exactly the opposite of what you propose. Which means that you are either an indoctrinated tool, or engaging in deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
Why is it that when something is unknown, poorly understood, or not yet understood, human beings simply cannot leave it at that, and go on investigating with an open mind?
Rather, we seem to be forced by the wiring of our brains to reach conclusions that are entirely unwarranted. The algorithm goes basically like this:
IF something is unknown, THEN there must be supernatural forces at work.
We seem to need to derive something out of nothing. This leads to eons of delusion.
We are intelligent, but our intelligence has serious flaws.
Nothing that precludes us from devising a sentient machine intelligence, however.
The Surface Pro can competently run industrial-strength programs (not stupid "apps") like the full Office Suite/OpenOffice, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, SPICE tools, FPGA development tools, CNC Machine tool path software and control programs, Mathematica, Matlab, VMware, all of the software development IDEs, Photoshop, video editing software, corporate-scale accounting, database, financial programs, etc. As well as running several of these at the same time. Try that on an Android or iPad toy.
A lot of technically productive people spend significant time traveling. The fact that you can rip off the keyboard, unlike a laptop, coupled with the highly productive pen and touch screen (including touch kbd and working handwriting recog.), makes it possible to continue doing real (graphic oriented) work (with slightly reduced efficiency) in situations where you might not want a folding thing. Or for people who just hate sitting idle for an hour here and there and want to continue the work that they'd do on a desktop at the office (slap on the kbd, and whip out a Bluetooth mouse if you want, for minimal extra baggage).
For ex., I use it at a restaurant to run LTspice simulations and design circuit boards laying flat on the table with the kbd ripped off, since it's more discrete that way. Actually, for me that's my kind of fun. I have little need for games & entertainment.
Ultimately, the economy relies on production. It cannot be consumption only. The wise marketing strategy for M$ with the Surface Pro is to target the people who actually produce, by selling it as a portable tool for doing real work. The Surface Pro enables true "bring your own desktop." They can leave the consumption marketplace to the makers of "toys" like the iPad and Android tablets.
I write lots of state machines that control external world gadgets, which input new results to my program to use to compute the next state. Consequently I can only wonder about this idea of removing side effects as: "WTF?"
That said, I tend to write modules so that they only write to globals within that module.
Writing an IIR filter without memory is a pretty funny idea.
Have we even seen amino acids polymerize into random peptide fragments, ie. proto-proteins? So at least we can say that given enough "tries," there is a decent probability that after a while some little proteins with interesting properties (enzymatic?) may arise?
One thing which bugs me is that, after all the years since the first experiments took place which synthesized amino acids by putting CH4, NH3, etc. in a flask and passing electrical discharges through it, why hasn't anyone managed to synthesize at least a self-replicating, metabolizing, proto-cell or something "alive" in the lab? I mean, given that we should be able to simulate the optimal conditions and energy inputs, it's just a bit strange that we haven't produced this result. If such a simulation could yield a living cell or even a molecule blob that clearly has the characteristics of life (energy in, copies of itself out), yet some fundamental chemistry differences that make it clearly "alien" then Ohhh what a big deal that would be...
HPS is in the >100 lumen/watt ballpark. LEDs, while capable of much more efficiency when operated at currents below their maximum ratings, usually operate near the same 100lm/W efficiencies when operated at maximum current. Economics dictates pushing them to their limits in order to minimize the number of expensive emitters needed per fixture.
I suspect that your HPS just concentrates its heat dissipation over a smaller area, so it gets much hotter. And it of course produces nearly 3x more heat if it's 400W vs. 144W. But a 400W LED fixture would produce nearly the same heat overall. It just wouldn't get as hot;-)
Electronic ballasts with PFC can run HID lamps quietly.
I basically accept that it is very likely that we are f*ing things up with CO2 emissions.
Yet the more I see what is happening with this evolution of an inquisitional attitude of "we understand the science, and you are just stupid and pro-oil" then I am growing disgusted and increasingly distrustful. Once you develop this attitude, then your rationality goes out the window. They have become just as religious now.
On this basis, I would confidently predict that IF serious evidence presents itself contradicting AGW, that the AGW crowd will fight against it tooth and nail, and would continue to lobby for their global regulatory schemes to combat global warming even if glaciation was encroaching upon central America.
Because the self-proclaimed "enlightened" can't imagine why anyone shouldn't trust them, so convinced they are of their immunity from their own human nature.
Wrong. The market doesn't exist. Formalization of property rights to the atmosphere could lead to a different, effective, and more just solution than the regulation model, which repeatedly fails yet people dogmatically believe in it because it is the only thing which with they are familiar.
You link to a very valuable video, presumably to point out the fact that those who disagree with anthropogenic climate change are subject to irrationality within their reasoning processes.
However, ALL human beings are subject to these limitations--including the climate scientists.
More importantly, this the reason why another class of people--those who accept that the science of anthropogenic climate change is most likely correct--cannot in any way accept 99% of the "solutions" suggested, all of which involve massive increases in government power and regulation of society--a model which has certainly failed. The only people who don't yet see that it has failed are those who do not truly understand the significance of the information outlined in this video, for the same very reason! As in, 99.999...% of society.
Basically, we need a new model for governing society. It must be based on a scientific understanding of mind, and logically consistent principles starting with respect for the individual life. There is no such thing as a "common good." There are only individuals. Not a single one of them must be abused in order to optimize some abstract number which attempts to measure someone's concept of what is good for society. No one may ever be obligated to do anything in a free society (no jury duty, conscription, or taxes, but you have to pay for any services), though certainly there can be prohibited actions (crimes, which must involve intentionally depriving someone else of life, liberty, or property).
Without a new model, the most likely outcome of our efforts to fix climate change will be more catastrophic than the potential outcomes of unchecked climate change. It may very well be possible that even if such a model can be proposed (I have wished to work on this, but health issues severely limit my capacity to do anything but remain employed), that due to considerations of system dynamics there may not be any actual path to realizing it. Translation: no "revolution" can predictably lead to a "working" new governance.
My personal view is that the correct model will involve "government" being restricted to prosecuting a very limited set of crimes: murder, rape, assault, theft, vandalism, etc., and resolving civil disputes and disputes over contract law. Voting will be used for dismantling laws, police forces, and dissolving incompetent legislative entities. Ie., the people will have direct means of undoing government through peaceful means. The forces acting to constrain power must be greater than that power and it's rate of growth. Legislators will be selected at random--since this is the only means to produce the least corrupt legislative entities. Violators of civil rights will face criminal charges, with dissolution of entire bureaucracies for repeat offenders. Most of the "social engineering" that we attempt today will have to be simply abandoned (ex. Drug War--just let 'em sell and use drugs), and issues such as climate change resolved through formalization of new property rights, ie. privatization of the atmosphere with initial issuance of shares (complete with royalty rights paid to holders by polluters-both the power plant and the consumer!) equally distributed to each and every human being alive at present, possibly with automatic dilution and issuance of new shares to newborns. Then market forces (desire to reduce royalty costs) may affect prices for energy sources in such a way as to disfavor CO2 emitters over time. All without giving government a single penny of new tax revenue, or politically defining new economic winners. There's an original idea for you! Something that is sorely lacking in today's world where nearly everyone's thinking is purely ideological.
Since I don't see this situation improving for at least 10000-1000000 years if ever, and "solutions" proposed to climate change I'm likely to be extremely skeptical of, even if I think we are most likely the cause of the climate change.
Of course, I may believe all of this for reasons that escape me!;-) Because at least I do truly "get" the video. Some years of meditation also helped in that regard.
Then you can get busted for making an illegal recording on top of getting convicted of the original charge, because the evidence will never see the light of day.
Well it's not going to be that way much longer. The "concept of freedom" isn't understood or valued except for "my freedom to get what I want paid for by someone else."
The people, including most on this liberally biased forum, demand that the government give them whatever they want.
The consequence is that the government can do to them whatever it wants.
No. No. No! It is not Microsoft's fault that it is the "taxpayers" paying for this. It is the IRSs fault. And the punishment should be the immediate firing of the entirety of it. But that won't happen because the government is not about serving taxpayers. It is a self serving emergent organism that seeks continued existence which is made more likely by continually enlarging itself. It will continue to do so until it destroys the now underlying society.
Try reading what I said. I said: "If you think they won't suddenly change their research interests when it is necessary to do so in order to continue to receive a paycheck, then you really don't understand the reality of what we are as human beings. There is nothing wrong with that of course."
Is there something wrong with that? No, people change their interests all the time to go where the money is.
Next I said: "What would be wrong would be to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But if you think that people can consistently draw the ethical line there just because they have Ph.D. after their name, then you are a fool."
This is a hypothetical, generalized statement. Perhaps you misunderstood this. It is very clear to me that this statement does not imply that anyone that I know of is doing that, but that some scientist somewhere, probably is, even if in subtle ways that they can fool themselves about despite maintaining a belief that they would never falsify data and always maintain solid ethical standards. It also says that if someone is doing this, it would be wrong. That is all it says. Capisce?
Certainly if I knew of anyone doing that, I would have a duty to do something about it. But I don't. So I suggest you read things much more carefully, and if it's unclear, seek clarification before jumping to conclusions.
The real point is of course, that my statement is about the fact that humans behave according to incentives. This is always true despite the fact that we can simultaneously tell ourselves that we are acting rationally. We can act rationally sometimes, as in, we have the *potential* to exec. decisions based on rational thought. But that doesn't mean that this is always what we do, or that we ever do it at all. Most of the time in fact, human beings just do what they want, and rationalize it later. What is also true, is that we are nearly incapable of distinguishing which came first, the conclusion, or the thoughts leading up to it.
Yet many people believe that "people are rational." This is hogwash, and a self-delusion.
In the limit, there is some level of stress, for which any human being will act against their most deeply held moral principles.
At lower levels of stress, most of us also tend to engage in subtle deviations from perfect ethical conduct. Yet, we will vociferously deny this, or seek out social groups who affirm our modified ethics as still being ethical. We will go to great efforts to be part of an "in group" as well as to maintain our self concept.
These factors are at play in all human endeavors. It is most of the reason why all political systems throughout history ultimately lead to catastrophe, and why great screw-ups in science can occur.
Exactly what is going on with AGW, well I don't think anyone really knows for sure. Hopefully, time will tell.
Wow. This is a really good reminder of the importance of understanding just what science really is. Along with a concise definition.
A question: Are there really no falsifying observations stated with the AGW hypothesis? And if there are none, why not? WTF is going on?
I work in electronics engineering, and recently got reclassified from a technologist to an engineer position. Part of that process involved me having to convince management that >70% of my time is spent doing work consistent with their "R&D Science and Engineering" job description. Part of that description involved using the scientific method. Engineers, however, don't write papers so much as produce products. The scientific method is used constantly in developing and testing designs. Since we don't usually explicitly and formally state hypotheses, it is easy to forget the rigorous definition.
My brain is full (along with my stomach--thankfully). I'm going to have to sit and just contemplate about this for a while. And perhaps read some of my scientist colleagues papers where they explicitly state hypothesis, to see how they do it.
No, there is no argument against Creationism, because there doesn't need to be any argument against Creationism. There is simply no evidence, as in none whatsoever, to support it. Therefore it is nothing more than a supposition, not worth anyone's time.
Which is entirely different from global warming/climate change, whatever the f*ck they are calling it today. The arguments against which are that 1. the evidence in support of it is flawed; 2. the scientists who argue for it may have or likely have been influenced by the incentive inherent in their own need to collect a paycheck; 3. That political persons and entities most definitely have been corrupted by said incentives.
Two entirely different things. In the case of climate change, the first argument against should, eventually, be resolved by solid facts. The 2nd and 3rd arguments are extremely difficult if not impossible to refute. The implications are that IF you expect people who are at this point skeptical to be convinced by your arguments, you had better be polite and professional when you state your views. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
I have reached the point where I simply trust no one on this. This is after being strongly in agreement that global warming was occurring, was probably caused by humans, and probably would cause trouble if something wasn't done. That is entirely decoupled from what I think or may have thought *should* be done, and whether or not I believe that humans are capable of doing whatever needs to be done without screwing things up even worse. Back to the point...
The more the climate change people crystalize into a faction, which assumes things about anyone who is skeptical and starts calling names like "denialist" etc., rather than politely explaining their position no matter how long it takes, the less I trust any of them.
I work with scientists at a national laboratory. If you think they won't suddenly change their research interests when it is necessary to do so in order to continue to receive a paycheck, then you really don't understand the reality of what we are as human beings. There is nothing wrong with that of course. What would be wrong would be to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But if you think that people can consistently draw the ethical line there just because they have Ph.D. after their name, then you are a fool.
Finally I have only ever experienced bona-fide intolerance, to the point of nearly having someone spit in my face simply because I offered a contrary position as a purely intellectual exercise, from some people on one particular side of the political spectrum. I won't say which. But the answer is the ironic one. And the ones currently doing most of the name calling.
So you are shooting yourselves in the foot folks. As soon as this name calling "denialist" bullshit started, you signed the check for your own demise. If you were really working from objectivity, you would have been smarter than that.
Well if the cops just happen to get the wild idea that you might have some illegal drugs on you, you may find yourself in a hospital getting fucked up the ass by all sorts of medical apparatus, with no option to decline. Like this:
http://www.policestateusa.com/...
This is the monster we have created, and now have to live with. And it's starting to eat us. And you are not exempt from having one of these "mistakes" happen to you.
A kid with a decent $15 multimeter is way ahead of one with no meter at all. There is nothing wrong with cheap DMMs, as long as their limitations are understood. I have some kit Elenco DMMs for about $15 that are useful in many circumstances. I also have very good bench DMMs by Fluke and Tek. And middle of the road handheld 4.5 digit DMMs. All have their place. Any one of them is infinitely superior to nothing.
The Measurement Category (CAT I,II,III,IV, etc.) ratings vary all over the place, with the worst having no rating or a questionable one. If you are working on live circuits in an industrial setting (circumstances which have many onerous requirements for safety) then this matters A LOT. Because, if you are measuring the voltage of a 480VAC bus with an under-rated DMM, and a voltage spike hits it that sparks over internally, the under-rated DMM is going to turn into a 480V arc-flash disaster right in your hands. That is why Fluke DMMs are worth $400-600 for the top models, because they have the internal clearances and beefy transient suppression/protection circuit elements. As well as accuracy.
I didn't understand this stuff out of ignorance when I started working in an industrial (national, research lab) 15 years ago. Their oppressive safety training requirements have changed me over the years. Now I really appreciate it. Because despite all the effort to drive home the point, it still goes in one ear and out the other for most folks.
I spent a lot of time as a kid playing with very high voltages making sparks, at very low currents. So I didn't realize that a 480VAC bus could produce a massive ball of plasma which could melt my face off. Now I understand, fortunately through opening my mind, rather than getting hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
Marx was an idiot.
But he did establish the ethic that any action is moral if it is in pursuit of revolution. Ie., "the ends justify the means." Which is the single most evil proposition ever devised.
It is utilized in subtle form by today's leftists when they use a term which means something entirely different, in a manner such as what you just did with "capitalism."
Capitalism by definition is simply the private ownership of the means of production.
Unless force is used to prevent someone from producing that which is scarce at a cheaper price, capitalism will do exactly the opposite of what you propose. Which means that you are either an indoctrinated tool, or engaging in deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
Why is it that when something is unknown, poorly understood, or not yet understood, human beings simply cannot leave it at that, and go on investigating with an open mind?
Rather, we seem to be forced by the wiring of our brains to reach conclusions that are entirely unwarranted. The algorithm goes basically like this:
IF something is unknown, THEN there must be supernatural forces at work.
We seem to need to derive something out of nothing. This leads to eons of delusion.
We are intelligent, but our intelligence has serious flaws.
Nothing that precludes us from devising a sentient machine intelligence, however.
Chips I buy work from -40 to 125C. What about proteins? I can't wait to see the specs for those: Temp range: 30-40C pH range: 6.8-7.2
What are you talking about the touch screen not working with Office or the desktop? I use touch and the pen on those all the time.
But you can stick a u-SD card in it.
The Surface Pro can competently run industrial-strength programs (not stupid "apps") like the full Office Suite/OpenOffice, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, SPICE tools, FPGA development tools, CNC Machine tool path software and control programs, Mathematica, Matlab, VMware, all of the software development IDEs, Photoshop, video editing software, corporate-scale accounting, database, financial programs, etc. As well as running several of these at the same time. Try that on an Android or iPad toy.
A lot of technically productive people spend significant time traveling. The fact that you can rip off the keyboard, unlike a laptop, coupled with the highly productive pen and touch screen (including touch kbd and working handwriting recog.), makes it possible to continue doing real (graphic oriented) work (with slightly reduced efficiency) in situations where you might not want a folding thing. Or for people who just hate sitting idle for an hour here and there and want to continue the work that they'd do on a desktop at the office (slap on the kbd, and whip out a Bluetooth mouse if you want, for minimal extra baggage).
For ex., I use it at a restaurant to run LTspice simulations and design circuit boards laying flat on the table with the kbd ripped off, since it's more discrete that way. Actually, for me that's my kind of fun. I have little need for games & entertainment.
Ultimately, the economy relies on production. It cannot be consumption only. The wise marketing strategy for M$ with the Surface Pro is to target the people who actually produce, by selling it as a portable tool for doing real work. The Surface Pro enables true "bring your own desktop." They can leave the consumption marketplace to the makers of "toys" like the iPad and Android tablets.
I write lots of state machines that control external world gadgets, which input new results to my program to use to compute the next state. Consequently I can only wonder about this idea of removing side effects as: "WTF?"
That said, I tend to write modules so that they only write to globals within that module.
Writing an IIR filter without memory is a pretty funny idea.
Have we even seen amino acids polymerize into random peptide fragments, ie. proto-proteins? So at least we can say that given enough "tries," there is a decent probability that after a while some little proteins with interesting properties (enzymatic?) may arise?
One thing which bugs me is that, after all the years since the first experiments took place which synthesized amino acids by putting CH4, NH3, etc. in a flask and passing electrical discharges through it, why hasn't anyone managed to synthesize at least a self-replicating, metabolizing, proto-cell or something "alive" in the lab? I mean, given that we should be able to simulate the optimal conditions and energy inputs, it's just a bit strange that we haven't produced this result. If such a simulation could yield a living cell or even a molecule blob that clearly has the characteristics of life (energy in, copies of itself out), yet some fundamental chemistry differences that make it clearly "alien" then Ohhh what a big deal that would be...
You're confusing heat with temperature.
HPS is in the >100 lumen/watt ballpark. LEDs, while capable of much more efficiency when operated at currents below their maximum ratings, usually operate near the same 100lm/W efficiencies when operated at maximum current. Economics dictates pushing them to their limits in order to minimize the number of expensive emitters needed per fixture.
I suspect that your HPS just concentrates its heat dissipation over a smaller area, so it gets much hotter. And it of course produces nearly 3x more heat if it's 400W vs. 144W. But a 400W LED fixture would produce nearly the same heat overall. It just wouldn't get as hot ;-)
Electronic ballasts with PFC can run HID lamps quietly.
Bingo!
I basically accept that it is very likely that we are f*ing things up with CO2 emissions.
Yet the more I see what is happening with this evolution of an inquisitional attitude of "we understand the science, and you are just stupid and pro-oil" then I am growing disgusted and increasingly distrustful. Once you develop this attitude, then your rationality goes out the window. They have become just as religious now.
On this basis, I would confidently predict that IF serious evidence presents itself contradicting AGW, that the AGW crowd will fight against it tooth and nail, and would continue to lobby for their global regulatory schemes to combat global warming even if glaciation was encroaching upon central America.
Because the self-proclaimed "enlightened" can't imagine why anyone shouldn't trust them, so convinced they are of their immunity from their own human nature.
Wrong. The market doesn't exist. Formalization of property rights to the atmosphere could lead to a different, effective, and more just solution than the regulation model, which repeatedly fails yet people dogmatically believe in it because it is the only thing which with they are familiar.
You link to a very valuable video, presumably to point out the fact that those who disagree with anthropogenic climate change are subject to irrationality within their reasoning processes.
However, ALL human beings are subject to these limitations--including the climate scientists.
More importantly, this the reason why another class of people--those who accept that the science of anthropogenic climate change is most likely correct--cannot in any way accept 99% of the "solutions" suggested, all of which involve massive increases in government power and regulation of society--a model which has certainly failed. The only people who don't yet see that it has failed are those who do not truly understand the significance of the information outlined in this video, for the same very reason! As in, 99.999...% of society.
Basically, we need a new model for governing society. It must be based on a scientific understanding of mind, and logically consistent principles starting with respect for the individual life. There is no such thing as a "common good." There are only individuals. Not a single one of them must be abused in order to optimize some abstract number which attempts to measure someone's concept of what is good for society. No one may ever be obligated to do anything in a free society (no jury duty, conscription, or taxes, but you have to pay for any services), though certainly there can be prohibited actions (crimes, which must involve intentionally depriving someone else of life, liberty, or property).
Without a new model, the most likely outcome of our efforts to fix climate change will be more catastrophic than the potential outcomes of unchecked climate change. It may very well be possible that even if such a model can be proposed (I have wished to work on this, but health issues severely limit my capacity to do anything but remain employed), that due to considerations of system dynamics there may not be any actual path to realizing it. Translation: no "revolution" can predictably lead to a "working" new governance.
My personal view is that the correct model will involve "government" being restricted to prosecuting a very limited set of crimes: murder, rape, assault, theft, vandalism, etc., and resolving civil disputes and disputes over contract law. Voting will be used for dismantling laws, police forces, and dissolving incompetent legislative entities. Ie., the people will have direct means of undoing government through peaceful means. The forces acting to constrain power must be greater than that power and it's rate of growth. Legislators will be selected at random--since this is the only means to produce the least corrupt legislative entities. Violators of civil rights will face criminal charges, with dissolution of entire bureaucracies for repeat offenders. Most of the "social engineering" that we attempt today will have to be simply abandoned (ex. Drug War--just let 'em sell and use drugs), and issues such as climate change resolved through formalization of new property rights, ie. privatization of the atmosphere with initial issuance of shares (complete with royalty rights paid to holders by polluters-both the power plant and the consumer!) equally distributed to each and every human being alive at present, possibly with automatic dilution and issuance of new shares to newborns. Then market forces (desire to reduce royalty costs) may affect prices for energy sources in such a way as to disfavor CO2 emitters over time. All without giving government a single penny of new tax revenue, or politically defining new economic winners. There's an original idea for you! Something that is sorely lacking in today's world where nearly everyone's thinking is purely ideological.
Since I don't see this situation improving for at least 10000-1000000 years if ever, and "solutions" proposed to climate change I'm likely to be extremely skeptical of, even if I think we are most likely the cause of the climate change.
Of course, I may believe all of this for reasons that escape me! ;-) Because at least I do truly "get" the video. Some years of meditation also helped in that regard.
Then you can get busted for making an illegal recording on top of getting convicted of the original charge, because the evidence will never see the light of day.
Well it's not going to be that way much longer. The "concept of freedom" isn't understood or valued except for "my freedom to get what I want paid for by someone else."
The people, including most on this liberally biased forum, demand that the government give them whatever they want.
The consequence is that the government can do to them whatever it wants.
And they never grasp the connection.
It will eventually come to blows.
And what follows will be even worse.
No. No. No! It is not Microsoft's fault that it is the "taxpayers" paying for this. It is the IRSs fault. And the punishment should be the immediate firing of the entirety of it. But that won't happen because the government is not about serving taxpayers. It is a self serving emergent organism that seeks continued existence which is made more likely by continually enlarging itself. It will continue to do so until it destroys the now underlying society.
Which is just about when the IRS will manage to have upgraded most of its PCs to Windows 7.
"But I just don't understand how people think there could be such a worldwide conspiracy in the climate science community to fudge the science."
I don't think there is a "conspiracy" either.
Collective human social behavior, that is all.
Try reading what I said. I said: "If you think they won't suddenly change their research interests when it is necessary to do so in order to continue to receive a paycheck, then you really don't understand the reality of what we are as human beings. There is nothing wrong with that of course."
Is there something wrong with that? No, people change their interests all the time to go where the money is.
Next I said: "What would be wrong would be to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But if you think that people can consistently draw the ethical line there just because they have Ph.D. after their name, then you are a fool."
This is a hypothetical, generalized statement. Perhaps you misunderstood this. It is very clear to me that this statement does not imply that anyone that I know of is doing that, but that some scientist somewhere, probably is, even if in subtle ways that they can fool themselves about despite maintaining a belief that they would never falsify data and always maintain solid ethical standards. It also says that if someone is doing this, it would be wrong. That is all it says. Capisce?
Certainly if I knew of anyone doing that, I would have a duty to do something about it. But I don't. So I suggest you read things much more carefully, and if it's unclear, seek clarification before jumping to conclusions.
The real point is of course, that my statement is about the fact that humans behave according to incentives. This is always true despite the fact that we can simultaneously tell ourselves that we are acting rationally. We can act rationally sometimes, as in, we have the *potential* to exec. decisions based on rational thought. But that doesn't mean that this is always what we do, or that we ever do it at all. Most of the time in fact, human beings just do what they want, and rationalize it later. What is also true, is that we are nearly incapable of distinguishing which came first, the conclusion, or the thoughts leading up to it.
Yet many people believe that "people are rational." This is hogwash, and a self-delusion.
In the limit, there is some level of stress, for which any human being will act against their most deeply held moral principles.
At lower levels of stress, most of us also tend to engage in subtle deviations from perfect ethical conduct. Yet, we will vociferously deny this, or seek out social groups who affirm our modified ethics as still being ethical. We will go to great efforts to be part of an "in group" as well as to maintain our self concept.
These factors are at play in all human endeavors. It is most of the reason why all political systems throughout history ultimately lead to catastrophe, and why great screw-ups in science can occur.
Exactly what is going on with AGW, well I don't think anyone really knows for sure. Hopefully, time will tell.
Wow. This is a really good reminder of the importance of understanding just what science really is. Along with a concise definition.
A question: Are there really no falsifying observations stated with the AGW hypothesis? And if there are none, why not? WTF is going on?
I work in electronics engineering, and recently got reclassified from a technologist to an engineer position. Part of that process involved me having to convince management that >70% of my time is spent doing work consistent with their "R&D Science and Engineering" job description. Part of that description involved using the scientific method. Engineers, however, don't write papers so much as produce products. The scientific method is used constantly in developing and testing designs. Since we don't usually explicitly and formally state hypotheses, it is easy to forget the rigorous definition.
My brain is full (along with my stomach--thankfully). I'm going to have to sit and just contemplate about this for a while. And perhaps read some of my scientist colleagues papers where they explicitly state hypothesis, to see how they do it.
No, there is no argument against Creationism, because there doesn't need to be any argument against Creationism. There is simply no evidence, as in none whatsoever, to support it. Therefore it is nothing more than a supposition, not worth anyone's time.
Which is entirely different from global warming/climate change, whatever the f*ck they are calling it today. The arguments against which are that 1. the evidence in support of it is flawed; 2. the scientists who argue for it may have or likely have been influenced by the incentive inherent in their own need to collect a paycheck; 3. That political persons and entities most definitely have been corrupted by said incentives.
Two entirely different things. In the case of climate change, the first argument against should, eventually, be resolved by solid facts. The 2nd and 3rd arguments are extremely difficult if not impossible to refute. The implications are that IF you expect people who are at this point skeptical to be convinced by your arguments, you had better be polite and professional when you state your views. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
I have reached the point where I simply trust no one on this. This is after being strongly in agreement that global warming was occurring, was probably caused by humans, and probably would cause trouble if something wasn't done. That is entirely decoupled from what I think or may have thought *should* be done, and whether or not I believe that humans are capable of doing whatever needs to be done without screwing things up even worse. Back to the point...
The more the climate change people crystalize into a faction, which assumes things about anyone who is skeptical and starts calling names like "denialist" etc., rather than politely explaining their position no matter how long it takes, the less I trust any of them.
I work with scientists at a national laboratory. If you think they won't suddenly change their research interests when it is necessary to do so in order to continue to receive a paycheck, then you really don't understand the reality of what we are as human beings. There is nothing wrong with that of course. What would be wrong would be to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But if you think that people can consistently draw the ethical line there just because they have Ph.D. after their name, then you are a fool.
Finally I have only ever experienced bona-fide intolerance, to the point of nearly having someone spit in my face simply because I offered a contrary position as a purely intellectual exercise, from some people on one particular side of the political spectrum. I won't say which. But the answer is the ironic one. And the ones currently doing most of the name calling.
So you are shooting yourselves in the foot folks. As soon as this name calling "denialist" bullshit started, you signed the check for your own demise. If you were really working from objectivity, you would have been smarter than that.
This is the monster we have created, and now have to live with. And it's starting to eat us. And you are not exempt from having one of these "mistakes" happen to you.
A kid with a decent $15 multimeter is way ahead of one with no meter at all. There is nothing wrong with cheap DMMs, as long as their limitations are understood. I have some kit Elenco DMMs for about $15 that are useful in many circumstances. I also have very good bench DMMs by Fluke and Tek. And middle of the road handheld 4.5 digit DMMs. All have their place. Any one of them is infinitely superior to nothing.
The Measurement Category (CAT I,II,III,IV, etc.) ratings vary all over the place, with the worst having no rating or a questionable one. If you are working on live circuits in an industrial setting (circumstances which have many onerous requirements for safety) then this matters A LOT. Because, if you are measuring the voltage of a 480VAC bus with an under-rated DMM, and a voltage spike hits it that sparks over internally, the under-rated DMM is going to turn into a 480V arc-flash disaster right in your hands. That is why Fluke DMMs are worth $400-600 for the top models, because they have the internal clearances and beefy transient suppression/protection circuit elements. As well as accuracy.
I didn't understand this stuff out of ignorance when I started working in an industrial (national, research lab) 15 years ago. Their oppressive safety training requirements have changed me over the years. Now I really appreciate it. Because despite all the effort to drive home the point, it still goes in one ear and out the other for most folks.
I spent a lot of time as a kid playing with very high voltages making sparks, at very low currents. So I didn't realize that a 480VAC bus could produce a massive ball of plasma which could melt my face off. Now I understand, fortunately through opening my mind, rather than getting hurt.
Keep learning!