Okay, I have a question: what is the purpose of extended magazines? Why do people want them so badly? I can't see any significant benefit for hunting or target shooting, the blaze of glory scenario really does seem to be the motivation here. By all means correct me if I've got that wrong, but whether it's shooting preschoolers or protecting preschoolers from mad-max style gangs (or the government) the desire for extended magazines seems to be rooted in fantasy and then justified with some thin argument about rights and how reloading is anathema to a well regulated militia.
Meh. I have to tell clients that they have "a virus" because they don't recognize the word malware. It doesn't detract from the conversation or change anything about the meaning, it just makes it easier to communicate. I am certainly unfond of Ted Stevens and think that he was a terrible legislator, but if his "series of tubes" speech had come from a desire to explain an unfamiliar concept rather than from ignorance I wouldn't have faulted him for it.
The budget is congress' responsibility, petitioning the Whitehouse for that wouldn't help. Here you've complained about useless petitions and then followed up with a useless petition suggestion of your own.
I love the petition website as an attempt to get people a little more involved with public policy but (maybe because I read Slashdot too much) so many of the petitions seem to be nonsense like "I want a nuclear powered spaceship to Andromeda." Or "more funding for SETI." Addressing climate change is a better suggestion, but the president has attempted to address climate change in a few ways already. Doing more or something different isn't a bad idea, but you would need to be more specific - a requirement for city planners to implement some manner of public transportation, a plan for reduced dependance on beef, etc.
So... if I select out a certain wavelength of light then it isn't proper to call it light anymore? Come on, if you're using common parlance then "heat" really just means "thermal energy" anyway. This may be a little esoteric, but I could see this developing into a lot of potential applications.
I'll grant that this isn't breaking news for most people, but as science reporting goes this is pretty good. It's better than another fad diet or fish oil bullshit story.
You actually used two fallacies in your original post: one was the naturalistic fallacy, claiming that eating meat was good because it was natural, while the second was a straw man fallacy, where you made an argument claiming that eating meat was natural (and therefore good) in counter to an argument by OP that modern meat processing was yucky (an unnatural process).
In your second post you have used two fallacies again: the first was another straw man fallacy - GP gave a perfectly reasonable, though unrelated, example of the naturalistic fallacy and you have made an argument against some concoction of your own, where you've put the GP's example together with the previous topic. Your second fallacy is called an appeal to ridicule. Example: you used the appeal to ridicule fallacy because you are an obstinate idiot incapable of critical thought and resentful of those who are, the very idea that you have anything worthwhile to say is preposterous.
It's a Ugandan bill, the christian groups spearheading it are obviously Ugandan. The link to US branch of The Fellowship is tenuous, claimed by David Bahati (sponsor of the bill and Fellowship member in Uganda), denied by Bob Hunter (who was, I guess, representing the American branch of the Fellowship. I can't find any information on him.).
It's not based on a single comment, but it does seem to be coming from a single reporter, Jeff Sharlet, who apparently broke the story (or made it up, if that's your thinking). Here's a little more on it:
The article on homosexuality laws says nothing about Muslims. There has been a strong push recently in Uganda to make homosexuality punishable by death, and this has been spearheaded by Christian groups and linked to Christian groups in the US, most prominently the Fellowship Foundation ("The Family"):
Though it's worth noting that this link has been repudiated.
Yes, it's true that there are many Muslim groups who are also anti-gay, as well as groups from other religions (Mormons). This article does nothing to hide that fact, merely by not discussing it. That was not the topic at hand.
Yeah, the fine is surprisingly sensible compared to the prison sentence and the usual monetary penalties sought by the copyright industry. I can only assume that the terrible prison sentence was intended to be the bulk of the penalty and without that the fine would have been much much higher.
It's not different results, I searched for "Bush Tax Cuts Increase Revenue" in quotes and it looks like you did it without the quotes. I also get the Heritage Foundation link when I do it that way.
For your other comment: Yes, my two links were definitely partisan, no question there. But Forbes is the same way - it's generally pro conservative, but *always* pro rich and pro concentration of wealth. None of these give a reliable analysis of this suggested phenomenon. I like cornjones' link, but then again it pretty well agrees with what I'm saying...
I'm not in a position to argue this topic from an informed standpoint, but I will say that the graph in the Forbes article you linked is not convincing - the only bit where the marginal tax rate and receipt curves seem to sync up is a little dip in 2002. Otherwise, the best case that it seems to be making is that the two are unrelated. The blue curve shows the smooth growth of the economy, the red curve shows the discontinuous passage of laws.
When it comes to the Bush tax cuts, revenue surely did not increase. In total dollars, the government collected about $1 trillion in income tax receipts in 2001, according to the Office of Management and Budget. This fell below one trillion for the next five years following the Bush tax cuts, not climbing above that level again until 2006.
Your assessment of how we handle things when times are good is valid: instead of investing surplus on paying down the debt or in infrastructure, we tend to blow it on the frivolities of the moment. However, this is incorrect:
We had money to fund NOAA before the current people in charge borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, why can't we go back to that?
We blew the largest part of our budget surplus on the Bush Tax Cuts, the second largest part on the two wars, and the third largest part on stimulus and all of this, including the stimulus, was spent before the current people in charge took office. Under Obama we did spend additional money on stimulus, but all of that stimulus spending together, including stimulus tax cuts, are still less than the Bush Tax Cuts. Even if you believe that the stimulus spending was ill advised (which seems to be at odds with the results) the answer to the issue you raise about why we had money for NOAA before but not now is clear: we didn't. We never had the money to spend on those tax cuts, and all of the budgetary pain that we're going through now is the result.
It's a high energy laser and the optics for that are rather expensive, this is why stereolithographic printers are expensive, but in addition to that cost you have more moving parts and just a physically much larger unit. The powder bed needs to be on a tray which can lower down to the volume at which you'd like to print, you need to store the source powder somewhere, and after the printing is done you need to manually clean the printed pieces into another tray which can catch the unused material powder. You basically need to devote a room to this, or at least a large portion of a garage or workshop. It's not impossible in the home, but it is impractical.
If you want a real answer: it's because the ability to use and then recycle mod points is tantamount to allowing mods to limitlessly influence a discussion.
Man, it always cracks me up to see someone get up on a soap box about some health or nutrition issue and make declarations about "saturated fat" and "cholesterol" like they know what they're talking about.
You know that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol are really bad for us, don't you? You know that declaring research that you don't agree with to be "junk" is bad science, right?
From the American Heart Association:
"There is overwhelming evidence that reductions in saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, and weight offer the most effective dietary strategies for reducing total cholesterol, LDL-C levels, and cardiovascular risk. Decreases in saturated fat should come at the expense of total fat because there is no biological requirement for saturated fat."
I'm making an assumption that is perhaps unfair, but people who start declaring things about fat being good for you are usually Atkins initiates so:
"[High protein] diets are generally associated with higher intakes of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol because the protein is provided mainly by animal sources. In high-protein diets, weight loss is initially high due to fluid loss related to reduced carbohydrate intake, overall caloric restriction, and ketosis-induced appetite suppression. Beneficial effects on blood lipids and insulin resistance are due to the weight loss, not to the change in caloric composition."
And just for good measure:
"The greatest impact on lowering total and LDL cholesterol is derived from reduced intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol as well as weight reduction in obese persons."
But here I am doing the same thing. The important thing to realize is that science reporting is terrible and that especially applies to health reporting, and double especially to reporting on diet. Half of all science reporting is health related, because people just gobble that stuff up and it doesn't matter how tenuous their conclusions are. It's gotten so bad that you can pretty well guarantee that any time you feel that you can make a declaration about some revelation in diet or behavior, you have been duped. You still need to exercise and eat your vegetables. This has always been, and it always will be.
He's missing a lot of things, I was wondering where the Green Revolution was myself - that one is easily as important as any of the others. But the fact that he doesn't exhaustively summarize all of history does nothing to detract from the point he's trying to make: that fundamental changes brought by computers have largely been made by now and at this point we're settling into iterative changes. (Or, conversely, that robots are a big deal and will change everything.)
You run into the same problem with this as you do with WebTV or with any other (of many) web terminal styled home computers: it may be true that most of what people use their computers for is web surfing, but that doesn't mean that it is sufficient.
I don't see how tablets are any different from netbooks. They're semi-useful devices that have a limited place but are outclassed by more capable machines which have been around for a long time. Acer may now be willing to get on the bandwagon for the sake of some short-term profits, but that doesn't make Mr. Wang's declaration any less correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I have a question: what is the purpose of extended magazines? Why do people want them so badly? I can't see any significant benefit for hunting or target shooting, the blaze of glory scenario really does seem to be the motivation here. By all means correct me if I've got that wrong, but whether it's shooting preschoolers or protecting preschoolers from mad-max style gangs (or the government) the desire for extended magazines seems to be rooted in fantasy and then justified with some thin argument about rights and how reloading is anathema to a well regulated militia.
Meh. I have to tell clients that they have "a virus" because they don't recognize the word malware. It doesn't detract from the conversation or change anything about the meaning, it just makes it easier to communicate. I am certainly unfond of Ted Stevens and think that he was a terrible legislator, but if his "series of tubes" speech had come from a desire to explain an unfamiliar concept rather than from ignorance I wouldn't have faulted him for it.
The budget is congress' responsibility, petitioning the Whitehouse for that wouldn't help. Here you've complained about useless petitions and then followed up with a useless petition suggestion of your own.
I love the petition website as an attempt to get people a little more involved with public policy but (maybe because I read Slashdot too much) so many of the petitions seem to be nonsense like "I want a nuclear powered spaceship to Andromeda." Or "more funding for SETI." Addressing climate change is a better suggestion, but the president has attempted to address climate change in a few ways already. Doing more or something different isn't a bad idea, but you would need to be more specific - a requirement for city planners to implement some manner of public transportation, a plan for reduced dependance on beef, etc.
Aha! Thank you.
Thanks, but that doesn't seem right. Parent was happy because Reddit keeps programmers and trolls off of Slashdot?
Well that useless. So what's an imp?
What's an imp? This is a term I haven't heard before.
So... if I select out a certain wavelength of light then it isn't proper to call it light anymore? Come on, if you're using common parlance then "heat" really just means "thermal energy" anyway. This may be a little esoteric, but I could see this developing into a lot of potential applications.
I'll grant that this isn't breaking news for most people, but as science reporting goes this is pretty good. It's better than another fad diet or fish oil bullshit story.
You actually used two fallacies in your original post: one was the naturalistic fallacy, claiming that eating meat was good because it was natural, while the second was a straw man fallacy, where you made an argument claiming that eating meat was natural (and therefore good) in counter to an argument by OP that modern meat processing was yucky (an unnatural process).
In your second post you have used two fallacies again: the first was another straw man fallacy - GP gave a perfectly reasonable, though unrelated, example of the naturalistic fallacy and you have made an argument against some concoction of your own, where you've put the GP's example together with the previous topic. Your second fallacy is called an appeal to ridicule. Example: you used the appeal to ridicule fallacy because you are an obstinate idiot incapable of critical thought and resentful of those who are, the very idea that you have anything worthwhile to say is preposterous.
It's a Ugandan bill, the christian groups spearheading it are obviously Ugandan. The link to US branch of The Fellowship is tenuous, claimed by David Bahati (sponsor of the bill and Fellowship member in Uganda), denied by Bob Hunter (who was, I guess, representing the American branch of the Fellowship. I can't find any information on him.).
It's not based on a single comment, but it does seem to be coming from a single reporter, Jeff Sharlet, who apparently broke the story (or made it up, if that's your thinking). Here's a little more on it:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2010/06/14/david-bahati-lou-engle-expressed-support-for-ugandas-anti-homosexuality-bill-guest-post-by-jeff-sharlet/
The article on homosexuality laws says nothing about Muslims. There has been a strong push recently in Uganda to make homosexuality punishable by death, and this has been spearheaded by Christian groups and linked to Christian groups in the US, most prominently the Fellowship Foundation ("The Family"):
http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/11/25/author-links-sponsors-of-anti-homosexuality-bill-to-the-family/
Though it's worth noting that this link has been repudiated.
Yes, it's true that there are many Muslim groups who are also anti-gay, as well as groups from other religions (Mormons). This article does nothing to hide that fact, merely by not discussing it. That was not the topic at hand.
Yeah, the fine is surprisingly sensible compared to the prison sentence and the usual monetary penalties sought by the copyright industry. I can only assume that the terrible prison sentence was intended to be the bulk of the penalty and without that the fine would have been much much higher.
Pastuer's anthrax vaccine did not require killing the cows, he just needed some of the bacteria. This is a poor example. Better examples:
A rumor that rhino horns are a curative has lead to the near-extinction of black rhinos, and white rhinos aren't doing so well either.
Silphion was a plant with genuine contraceptive properties that was driven to extinction after those properties were discovered.
Contrapositve example:
Sex, drugs, and rock and roll - bad and plentiful.
It's not different results, I searched for "Bush Tax Cuts Increase Revenue" in quotes and it looks like you did it without the quotes. I also get the Heritage Foundation link when I do it that way.
For your other comment: Yes, my two links were definitely partisan, no question there. But Forbes is the same way - it's generally pro conservative, but *always* pro rich and pro concentration of wealth. None of these give a reliable analysis of this suggested phenomenon. I like cornjones' link, but then again it pretty well agrees with what I'm saying...
I'm not in a position to argue this topic from an informed standpoint, but I will say that the graph in the Forbes article you linked is not convincing - the only bit where the marginal tax rate and receipt curves seem to sync up is a little dip in 2002. Otherwise, the best case that it seems to be making is that the two are unrelated. The blue curve shows the smooth growth of the economy, the red curve shows the discontinuous passage of laws.
Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue
This is the second result (was a bad link, but I found it with some digging):
Deficit Fraud Romney: Jobless Benefits Are Too Expensive, But The Bush Tax Cuts Increase Revenue
Quote from that second one:
When it comes to the Bush tax cuts, revenue surely did not increase. In total dollars, the government collected about $1 trillion in income tax receipts in 2001, according to the Office of Management and Budget. This fell below one trillion for the next five years following the Bush tax cuts, not climbing above that level again until 2006.
We had money to fund NOAA before the current people in charge borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, why can't we go back to that?
We blew the largest part of our budget surplus on the Bush Tax Cuts, the second largest part on the two wars, and the third largest part on stimulus and all of this, including the stimulus, was spent before the current people in charge took office. Under Obama we did spend additional money on stimulus, but all of that stimulus spending together, including stimulus tax cuts, are still less than the Bush Tax Cuts. Even if you believe that the stimulus spending was ill advised (which seems to be at odds with the results) the answer to the issue you raise about why we had money for NOAA before but not now is clear: we didn't. We never had the money to spend on those tax cuts, and all of the budgetary pain that we're going through now is the result.
It's a high energy laser and the optics for that are rather expensive, this is why stereolithographic printers are expensive, but in addition to that cost you have more moving parts and just a physically much larger unit. The powder bed needs to be on a tray which can lower down to the volume at which you'd like to print, you need to store the source powder somewhere, and after the printing is done you need to manually clean the printed pieces into another tray which can catch the unused material powder. You basically need to devote a room to this, or at least a large portion of a garage or workshop. It's not impossible in the home, but it is impractical.
If you want a real answer: it's because the ability to use and then recycle mod points is tantamount to allowing mods to limitlessly influence a discussion.
What? The green revolution has come and gone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
Obviously technology continues to improve, but the major developments happened in the 60s and 70s.
Thank you, was looking for the Sluggy. I'm disappointed that more people aren't putting it higher on the list.
Man, it always cracks me up to see someone get up on a soap box about some health or nutrition issue and make declarations about "saturated fat" and "cholesterol" like they know what they're talking about.
You know that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol are really bad for us, don't you? You know that declaring research that you don't agree with to be "junk" is bad science, right?
From the American Heart Association:
"There is overwhelming evidence that reductions in saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, and weight offer the most effective dietary strategies for reducing total cholesterol, LDL-C levels, and cardiovascular risk. Decreases in saturated fat should come at the expense of total fat because there is no biological requirement for saturated fat."
I'm making an assumption that is perhaps unfair, but people who start declaring things about fat being good for you are usually Atkins initiates so:
"[High protein] diets are generally associated with higher intakes of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol because the protein is provided mainly by animal sources. In high-protein diets, weight loss is initially high due to fluid loss related to reduced carbohydrate intake, overall caloric restriction, and ketosis-induced appetite suppression. Beneficial effects on blood lipids and insulin resistance are due to the weight loss, not to the change in caloric composition."
And just for good measure:
"The greatest impact on lowering total and LDL cholesterol is derived from reduced intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol as well as weight reduction in obese persons."
But here I am doing the same thing. The important thing to realize is that science reporting is terrible and that especially applies to health reporting, and double especially to reporting on diet. Half of all science reporting is health related, because people just gobble that stuff up and it doesn't matter how tenuous their conclusions are. It's gotten so bad that you can pretty well guarantee that any time you feel that you can make a declaration about some revelation in diet or behavior, you have been duped. You still need to exercise and eat your vegetables. This has always been, and it always will be.
You seem to have misinterpreted what parent and GP were saying - they were pointing out that scientists are not, in general, greedy douchbags.
This is in opposition to certain interest groups who try to paint them as such: climate deniers, agro businesses, etc.
He's missing a lot of things, I was wondering where the Green Revolution was myself - that one is easily as important as any of the others. But the fact that he doesn't exhaustively summarize all of history does nothing to detract from the point he's trying to make: that fundamental changes brought by computers have largely been made by now and at this point we're settling into iterative changes. (Or, conversely, that robots are a big deal and will change everything.)
You run into the same problem with this as you do with WebTV or with any other (of many) web terminal styled home computers: it may be true that most of what people use their computers for is web surfing, but that doesn't mean that it is sufficient.
I don't see how tablets are any different from netbooks. They're semi-useful devices that have a limited place but are outclassed by more capable machines which have been around for a long time. Acer may now be willing to get on the bandwagon for the sake of some short-term profits, but that doesn't make Mr. Wang's declaration any less correct.