The study gets to be fake because it wasn't what was being studied. What was being studied was whether ostensibly scholarly journals did due dilligence in analyzing studies for publication.
The problem with this theory is they were not attempting to publish a paper on that subject. They were only working on more bogus papers.
but if the answer that comes back is contrary to the observed and lived experience of something like 99 percent of the population, AND this is used as an argument to deconstruct that 99 percent's lived experience as merely socially-imposed convention, then you're no longer doing science, you're doing activism.
Way more than 99 percent of the time, hydrogen clouds do not coalesce into a star. That's why there still are interstellar hydrogen clouds. But very rarely, they do make a star.
In other words, you can find some very important things out by taking a look at what happens only 1% of the time.
Are there deep mysteries about gender and race that we struggle to understand?
Yes. It turns out like most human interaction on a large scale, it's pretty complicated.
Efforts to declare these fields "simple" are about the same as Flat Earthers. Their model is way simpler than the academics, but it's missing a whole lot of nuance that exists in the real world.
Why would the government cut the budget up that much rather than just letting business do it?
Why would a business not located in Vermont pay for one of their employees to move to Vermont?
The problem with the government doing it is that it is mandated before, then a budget is made, then it's a shitshow to get through it and once it's gone it's over with and done for
This program is paying moving expenses. What recurring moving expenses do you think you'd have?
I don't understand it,
That's mostly because you're not trying to understand it. You're only trying to demonize it.
The flaw in this is you are taxing the middle and lower classes at a higher rate that the wealthy. Because middle and lower buy goods. Wealthy buy services.
For example, lawn care. The middle and low buy a lawnmower, and pay sales tax on that lawnmower. The wealthy hire a gardener. No sales tax. While the customers indirectly pay sales tax on the gardener's much more expensive lawnmower, that tax is spread out over many customers. Resulting in a lower effective tax rate.
You can try to mitigate this problem somewhat with something like a VAT. But that's nowhere near as straightforward as a sales tax and results in a great deal of bickering about what value you are taxing...or it's a de-facto income tax.
The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty remains
Which is why Kavenaugh has not been arrested for rape.
Especially as the Job interviewers are the Government.
You have no constitutional right to a job with the government. There's also the teensy-tiny problem of lying during his previous investigation when he was confirmed to the DC circuit.
For us little people, that would result in charges and jail time. But we have a separate constitution for our betters, right?
Yes they COULD have complied differently, but they did not
Do you frequently forget what you posted? Because above you said the law forced them to do it this way.
The fact that you must abandon your argument and attempt to re-trench would kinda indicate you're not on the right side of this.
They complied only in reaction to what the government demanded
The government never demanded interruption of Internet access. The government demanded they notify their customers. How that notification was to be done was left up to the business to decide. After all, these businesses should know the best way to notify their customers, right?
Every other ISP was sane, and put a notice on the bill and/or sent an email.
CenturyLink's MBAs decided this was a wonderful marketing opportunity, and responded by cutting their customer's Internet access. When that blew up in their face for being incredibly idiotic, they tried blaming the government for their error.
And, thanks to decades of conditioning, you are happily accepting their propaganda.
Which is why you desperately keep attempting to get out of this comment stream, because it's rather uncomfortable for you to have to think about your worldview being built on bullshit.
Why are your not web apps using HTTP and HTTPS ports?
Why do you think web browsers are the only things that can speak HTTP or HTTPS? Heck, there might be an entire network application protocol that uses HTTP(s) but isn't a browser.
Most likely they just redirected the HTTP and HTTPS ports.
Did they direct them to somewhere other than the Internet? Golly, that sounds a lot like blocking Internet access......
Not everyone is so selfish as to believe they must destroy people above them on the financial ladder
Remember when unions totally destroyed everyone on the top of the financial ladder in the 1950s?
Oh wait....they didn't? You mean it's possible for the wealthy to exist and help people at the bottom? And we already did it, multiple times in our history as this particular ideological cycle swings back and forth?
Golly it's almost like you're looking for a reason to demand nothing happen to those you aspire to be....
When's the last time an interviewer brought in a woman to say that you sexually assaulted her 36 years ago and then expected you to prove that you didn't?
Every single employer has asked about my personal and job history (as much as allowed by law). And most employers have asked about criminal accusations via asking if I've been arrested.
Also, Supreme Court Justice is just a teensy-tiny bit more important than my job. Probably deserves a little bit more of an investigation.
Finally, the one woman who was allowed to testify doesn't erase the other women who did come forward, but Grassley forbade. Pattern of behavior is pretty important when evaluating people. But it would appear Grassley was kinda afraid of confirmation taking longer...almost like there was lots more to this pattern of behavior.
But congrats! You got a totally impartial Justice who has sworn vengeance against me. That's totally not going to affect the only branch of our government whose power is only based on the respect of everyone else.
And you need a reason to shoot down every R nomination to the court to overturn the 2nd amendment.
Ah yes, let's see...how many Democrats have actually run on repealing the 2nd amendment? None? Hmmmm....perhaps you are getting a little bit manipulated.
Also, you might wanna brush up on your history a tad. The 2nd amendment was not a personal right free from regulation until a Supreme Court decision in 2003. Until then, gun control was perfectly constitutional. Just like anti-abortion laws were perfectly constitutional until Roe.
I don't care what label you apply to yourself. I care what you actually do. Because you can apply all sorts of high-minded labels and justifications for your actions, but the results of those actions are what actually matters.
So feel free to call yourself whatever you want. You're actions are that of a Republican. So you are a Republican.
If you don't want to be a Republican, well then you're going to need to work towards different results. Continuing to back Republicans because you think they're more libertarian or whatever is not going to change the results.
it logically follows that there should some level of enforced respect for that concept as well
25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What crime should we charge those women with? 'Cause I can guarantee we can find something she did "wrong" during that pregnancy - every single woman who goes through a miscarriage can.
Also, that 25% statistic is cases where the woman knows she's pregnant. We have no idea how many miscarriages happen before the woman knows she's pregnant. Since we're now in the business of protecting "human potential", how do you propose we proceed protecting these? Shall we require all women to turn over their tampons for testing, to ensure she didn't waste some human potential?
It is 50% the father and he has rights
He does not have a right to force a woman to take risks she does not want to take. And guess what? Pregnancy is risky. So until the fetus can be transferred to his body, she wins any conflict.
About the only "paternity" thing should be he gets to disclaim it, but only if the mother consents and/or can afford to raise the child without support.
paternity tests (which are quite safe)
The rate at which amniocentesis causes miscarriage is higher than the rate of late-term abortions. You are literally causing abortions by demanding paternity tests while banning abortion.
So you want to penalize them for achieving the goal of the law better than their competitors?
This isn't better. They interfered with a host of non-browser Internet connections, and did not ensure that the customer actually saw the ad. It's not like someone else in the household can't click "OK".
So, in terms of actually reaching all of their customers, this ad is not as effective as something printed on their bill. It also potentially opens them up to penalties under this law, since their customer may not see the ad.
So no, this is about the worst possible way of attempting to comply with the law.
Granted, there are times where the programmer just makes the wrong choice
This ad would be one of those times.
The CenturyLink corporate counsel (probably more than one) had to weigh in on this and conclude that this was done in a way that both met the requirements of the law and also did not expose the company to additional liability.
It's blatantly obvious that this decision did not originate with legal. Because the legal department would far, far, far, prefer something written on paper. Like printed on the customer's bill.
Thanks to this ad, the company can be sued under this law because the customer can legitimately claim they did not see the ad. Their poor, corrupted, porn-surfing child clicked the "OK" button. And now the customer was never notified about how the good people at CenturyLink could save them with some filtering software.
So no, this is not legal saying "We must put up an ad!!". This is an MBA saying, "Hey, we could stuff an ad in front of all of our customers, and so many people would sign up that I'll get a huge bonus!!". And legal deciding they probably could win enough of the lawsuits.
The thing you can't quite seem to grasp is there are ways to comply with this law without blocking someone's Internet and displaying an ad. The fact that they chose this particularly idiotic method if complying with the law is the problem.....but it was done by a large corporation, so you are unable to understand that difference.
Maybe you missed that it's not 2045 yet. So CA hasn't "tossed out all fossil fueled power generation plants" yet.
Also, you'll note the 2045 thing is about formulating a plan to do it, not actually enacting any regulations. Hint: They're not going to hit the 2045 date.
CNG is much cleaner as a motor fuel, especially diesel
Which is why much of the buses in CA already run on it. Moving to EVs is the next step.
Plus, with current emission standards, MOST newer gasoline powered vehicles are emitting cleaner vapors than they are ingesting when the air quality is bad
You're talking about China air quality bad. CA's air quality is already good enough that vehicles are a net reduction in air quality.
You still haven't addressed HOW the state is going to get enough electricity to charge all these batteries
Yeah, it's too bad California is a totally isolated entity, and must produce all electricity ever used in the state. It also must produce a large surplus before ever even thinking about moving to battery powered vehicles.
Oh wait....CA can import power like it already does. Largely from Pacific Northwest hydro. And guaranteed increased demand for power from things like mandating EV buses may have a teensy-tiny effect on the financing and construction of additional power generation.
Also, ya miss the part where the state just mandated photovoltaic panels on all new residential construction (except shaded buildings)? Might have some effect on the power generation of the state.
Not necessarily. Two people can carry a 6" log to put it into place. A 24" log is going to require machinery, which is probably going to be burning some sort of hydrocarbon.
There's the fuel burned in the forestry of lots of really damn big trees, which will take longer to grow than the wood used for conventional lumber.
May still be a net sink, and way better than concrete construction. But someone would have to do the math vs conventional construction.
Logs do not have as high an R value as other materials we use.
According to the DOE, a log has an R-value of 1.51 per inch, including the effects of thermal mass. Or about R-18 from one foot log walls. And 12 inch logs would be considered really, really, really damn big. The same report says a typical log wall with no windows is R-8.
A 2x4 wall with basic fiberglass insulation is R-14. Spray foam can easily double that. 2x6 exterior walls are pretty common now, so that even more insulation can get shoved in there.
And this also blissfully ignores the air infiltration issues from logs, which is why we started building "log cabins" with conventional framing and a half-log veneer.
I recall that just a few months ago California also tossed out all fossil fueled power generation plants in a similar move.
You really need to see someone about this memory issue. 'Cause that didn't happen.
IF smog is your concern, do CNG powered buses.
Still produces some smog-forming chemicals. Also, they're already in place. This is plan is about replacing those buses as they reach EOL.
Also, it's not like this is hard to do. There's no new technology to invent. There's already cities that use 100% EV buses, and these cities are not small. So all that is needed is a reason to switch. And this regulation supplies that reason.
Slashdot Mirror
The study gets to be fake because it wasn't what was being studied. What was being studied was whether ostensibly scholarly journals did due dilligence in analyzing studies for publication.
The problem with this theory is they were not attempting to publish a paper on that subject. They were only working on more bogus papers.
but if the answer that comes back is contrary to the observed and lived experience of something like 99 percent of the population, AND this is used as an argument to deconstruct that 99 percent's lived experience as merely socially-imposed convention, then you're no longer doing science, you're doing activism.
Way more than 99 percent of the time, hydrogen clouds do not coalesce into a star. That's why there still are interstellar hydrogen clouds. But very rarely, they do make a star.
In other words, you can find some very important things out by taking a look at what happens only 1% of the time.
Are there deep mysteries about gender and race that we struggle to understand?
Yes. It turns out like most human interaction on a large scale, it's pretty complicated.
Efforts to declare these fields "simple" are about the same as Flat Earthers. Their model is way simpler than the academics, but it's missing a whole lot of nuance that exists in the real world.
Yes, if you personally have not experienced it, it can not possibly happen.
You forgot to include about 75% of the Department of Defense's budget in your subsidy calculation.
Why would the government cut the budget up that much rather than just letting business do it?
Why would a business not located in Vermont pay for one of their employees to move to Vermont?
The problem with the government doing it is that it is mandated before, then a budget is made, then it's a shitshow to get through it and once it's gone it's over with and done for
This program is paying moving expenses. What recurring moving expenses do you think you'd have?
I don't understand it,
That's mostly because you're not trying to understand it. You're only trying to demonize it.
The flaw in this is you are taxing the middle and lower classes at a higher rate that the wealthy. Because middle and lower buy goods. Wealthy buy services.
For example, lawn care. The middle and low buy a lawnmower, and pay sales tax on that lawnmower.
The wealthy hire a gardener. No sales tax. While the customers indirectly pay sales tax on the gardener's much more expensive lawnmower, that tax is spread out over many customers. Resulting in a lower effective tax rate.
You can try to mitigate this problem somewhat with something like a VAT. But that's nowhere near as straightforward as a sales tax and results in a great deal of bickering about what value you are taxing...or it's a de-facto income tax.
The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty remains
Which is why Kavenaugh has not been arrested for rape.
Especially as the Job interviewers are the Government.
You have no constitutional right to a job with the government. There's also the teensy-tiny problem of lying during his previous investigation when he was confirmed to the DC circuit.
For us little people, that would result in charges and jail time. But we have a separate constitution for our betters, right?
Yes they COULD have complied differently, but they did not
Do you frequently forget what you posted? Because above you said the law forced them to do it this way.
The fact that you must abandon your argument and attempt to re-trench would kinda indicate you're not on the right side of this.
They complied only in reaction to what the government demanded
The government never demanded interruption of Internet access. The government demanded they notify their customers. How that notification was to be done was left up to the business to decide. After all, these businesses should know the best way to notify their customers, right?
Every other ISP was sane, and put a notice on the bill and/or sent an email.
CenturyLink's MBAs decided this was a wonderful marketing opportunity, and responded by cutting their customer's Internet access. When that blew up in their face for being incredibly idiotic, they tried blaming the government for their error.
And, thanks to decades of conditioning, you are happily accepting their propaganda.
Which is why you desperately keep attempting to get out of this comment stream, because it's rather uncomfortable for you to have to think about your worldview being built on bullshit.
Says the guy who forgot REST existed.
Why are your not web apps using HTTP and HTTPS ports?
Why do you think web browsers are the only things that can speak HTTP or HTTPS? Heck, there might be an entire network application protocol that uses HTTP(s) but isn't a browser.
Most likely they just redirected the HTTP and HTTPS ports.
Did they direct them to somewhere other than the Internet? Golly, that sounds a lot like blocking Internet access......
Not everyone is so selfish as to believe they must destroy people above them on the financial ladder
Remember when unions totally destroyed everyone on the top of the financial ladder in the 1950s?
Oh wait....they didn't? You mean it's possible for the wealthy to exist and help people at the bottom? And we already did it, multiple times in our history as this particular ideological cycle swings back and forth?
Golly it's almost like you're looking for a reason to demand nothing happen to those you aspire to be....
When's the last time an interviewer brought in a woman to say that you sexually assaulted her 36 years ago and then expected you to prove that you didn't?
Every single employer has asked about my personal and job history (as much as allowed by law). And most employers have asked about criminal accusations via asking if I've been arrested.
Also, Supreme Court Justice is just a teensy-tiny bit more important than my job. Probably deserves a little bit more of an investigation.
Finally, the one woman who was allowed to testify doesn't erase the other women who did come forward, but Grassley forbade. Pattern of behavior is pretty important when evaluating people. But it would appear Grassley was kinda afraid of confirmation taking longer...almost like there was lots more to this pattern of behavior.
But congrats! You got a totally impartial Justice who has sworn vengeance against me. That's totally not going to affect the only branch of our government whose power is only based on the respect of everyone else.
And you need a reason to shoot down every R nomination to the court to overturn the 2nd amendment.
Ah yes, let's see...how many Democrats have actually run on repealing the 2nd amendment? None? Hmmmm....perhaps you are getting a little bit manipulated.
Also, you might wanna brush up on your history a tad. The 2nd amendment was not a personal right free from regulation until a Supreme Court decision in 2003. Until then, gun control was perfectly constitutional. Just like anti-abortion laws were perfectly constitutional until Roe.
I think you are confusing me with a Republican
I don't care what label you apply to yourself. I care what you actually do. Because you can apply all sorts of high-minded labels and justifications for your actions, but the results of those actions are what actually matters.
So feel free to call yourself whatever you want. You're actions are that of a Republican. So you are a Republican.
If you don't want to be a Republican, well then you're going to need to work towards different results. Continuing to back Republicans because you think they're more libertarian or whatever is not going to change the results.
it logically follows that there should some level of enforced respect for that concept as well
25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What crime should we charge those women with? 'Cause I can guarantee we can find something she did "wrong" during that pregnancy - every single woman who goes through a miscarriage can.
Also, that 25% statistic is cases where the woman knows she's pregnant. We have no idea how many miscarriages happen before the woman knows she's pregnant. Since we're now in the business of protecting "human potential", how do you propose we proceed protecting these? Shall we require all women to turn over their tampons for testing, to ensure she didn't waste some human potential?
It is 50% the father and he has rights
He does not have a right to force a woman to take risks she does not want to take. And guess what? Pregnancy is risky. So until the fetus can be transferred to his body, she wins any conflict.
About the only "paternity" thing should be he gets to disclaim it, but only if the mother consents and/or can afford to raise the child without support.
paternity tests (which are quite safe)
The rate at which amniocentesis causes miscarriage is higher than the rate of late-term abortions. You are literally causing abortions by demanding paternity tests while banning abortion.
So you want to penalize them for achieving the goal of the law better than their competitors?
This isn't better. They interfered with a host of non-browser Internet connections, and did not ensure that the customer actually saw the ad. It's not like someone else in the household can't click "OK".
So, in terms of actually reaching all of their customers, this ad is not as effective as something printed on their bill. It also potentially opens them up to penalties under this law, since their customer may not see the ad.
So no, this is about the worst possible way of attempting to comply with the law.
Granted, there are times where the programmer just makes the wrong choice
This ad would be one of those times.
The CenturyLink corporate counsel (probably more than one) had to weigh in on this and conclude that this was done in a way that both met the requirements of the law and also did not expose the company to additional liability.
It's blatantly obvious that this decision did not originate with legal. Because the legal department would far, far, far, prefer something written on paper. Like printed on the customer's bill.
Thanks to this ad, the company can be sued under this law because the customer can legitimately claim they did not see the ad. Their poor, corrupted, porn-surfing child clicked the "OK" button. And now the customer was never notified about how the good people at CenturyLink could save them with some filtering software.
So no, this is not legal saying "We must put up an ad!!". This is an MBA saying, "Hey, we could stuff an ad in front of all of our customers, and so many people would sign up that I'll get a huge bonus!!". And legal deciding they probably could win enough of the lawsuits.
I eagerly await your explanation of how my not-web-browsers that still use the Internet will click that button.
in a country which holds as its primary legal value innocent until proven guilty.
That would be relevant if a Senate confirmation hearing was a criminal trial. It isn't. It's a fancy job interview.
But hey, you need a reason to ignore those allegations to overturn Roe, so I'm sure that distinction won't quite matter to you.
The thing you can't quite seem to grasp is there are ways to comply with this law without blocking someone's Internet and displaying an ad. The fact that they chose this particularly idiotic method if complying with the law is the problem.....but it was done by a large corporation, so you are unable to understand that difference.
Hit one button to clear the ad is okay.
I eagerly await your explanation of how my not-web-browsers that still use the Internet will hit that button.
Maybe you missed this
Maybe you missed that it's not 2045 yet. So CA hasn't "tossed out all fossil fueled power generation plants" yet.
Also, you'll note the 2045 thing is about formulating a plan to do it, not actually enacting any regulations. Hint: They're not going to hit the 2045 date.
CNG is much cleaner as a motor fuel, especially diesel
Which is why much of the buses in CA already run on it. Moving to EVs is the next step.
Plus, with current emission standards, MOST newer gasoline powered vehicles are emitting cleaner vapors than they are ingesting when the air quality is bad
You're talking about China air quality bad. CA's air quality is already good enough that vehicles are a net reduction in air quality.
You still haven't addressed HOW the state is going to get enough electricity to charge all these batteries
Yeah, it's too bad California is a totally isolated entity, and must produce all electricity ever used in the state. It also must produce a large surplus before ever even thinking about moving to battery powered vehicles.
Oh wait....CA can import power like it already does. Largely from Pacific Northwest hydro. And guaranteed increased demand for power from things like mandating EV buses may have a teensy-tiny effect on the financing and construction of additional power generation.
Also, ya miss the part where the state just mandated photovoltaic panels on all new residential construction (except shaded buildings)? Might have some effect on the power generation of the state.
Not necessarily. Two people can carry a 6" log to put it into place. A 24" log is going to require machinery, which is probably going to be burning some sort of hydrocarbon.
There's the fuel burned in the forestry of lots of really damn big trees, which will take longer to grow than the wood used for conventional lumber.
May still be a net sink, and way better than concrete construction. But someone would have to do the math vs conventional construction.
Logs do not have as high an R value as other materials we use.
According to the DOE, a log has an R-value of 1.51 per inch, including the effects of thermal mass. Or about R-18 from one foot log walls. And 12 inch logs would be considered really, really, really damn big. The same report says a typical log wall with no windows is R-8.
A 2x4 wall with basic fiberglass insulation is R-14. Spray foam can easily double that. 2x6 exterior walls are pretty common now, so that even more insulation can get shoved in there.
And this also blissfully ignores the air infiltration issues from logs, which is why we started building "log cabins" with conventional framing and a half-log veneer.
I recall that just a few months ago California also tossed out all fossil fueled power generation plants in a similar move.
You really need to see someone about this memory issue. 'Cause that didn't happen.
IF smog is your concern, do CNG powered buses.
Still produces some smog-forming chemicals. Also, they're already in place. This is plan is about replacing those buses as they reach EOL.
Also, it's not like this is hard to do. There's no new technology to invent. There's already cities that use 100% EV buses, and these cities are not small. So all that is needed is a reason to switch. And this regulation supplies that reason.
Could you explain why California should never import electricity ever?
And why this "must never import" position doesn't apply to all the food California exports to every other state?