Personally, I trust scientists much more than businessmen. Good scientists are trained to be brutally honest with themselves, and to use methods that expose rather than hide flaws in their own reasoning.
I've personally known enough scientist and engineers to know that this is pollyanish thinking at best. Scientists will put their names on an idea, and then become entrenched. They will make technically stupid decisions, because those decisions will be more lucrative for them. You qualify your mindset with "good scientist", but good scientist aren't necessarily the ones getting the grants.
Businessmen are trained to be confident in their abilities and conclusions regardless of reality.
Again, a skewed bias in your outlook. Businessmen that disregard reality are not in business for long. Good businessmen are very keen to listen to their engineers, their customers, and any regulatory regimes that they operate within.
The scientist deserve no more trust than the businessmen.
Are companies at point now that lawyers outnumber engineers and software developers?
I think you fail to realize the relative productivity of an engineer and a lawyer. Think about how many man years it takes to develop a non-trivial, market ready software product vs filing a legal brief?
It's not that minorities can't be racist or that women can't be sexist, it's that there's less harm resulting when a minority engages in it than when somebody in the majority does.
That is one of the stupidest things I've seen said on/. lately. So, you're claiming that the harm done to my son by the racist principal is less because he was mixed race and the principal was black? He drew a cartoon of a Dave Chapel skit that used the word nigger. Got suspended for 10 days, and the black kids that ganged up on him got an apology from him. Later, in another fight, he got sentenced to 9 months of probation and community service by a black judge. The black kid that started the fight got protection. You telling me that these racists don't cause harm?
They don't just want the kids in school. They want the kids in "special programs" in school.
True story. Sister-in-law is a teacher in Reidsville, NC school district. One child needed special attention for a day for a reading disorder. The administrator got the kid reclassified to an entirely different category, because that category would have the federal government pay for an entire full-time teacher's salary instead of the district having to pay for a part-time salary.
Certain sounds caused them to attack each other? And hunters make little wooden whistles that cause ducks to land in front of them. And certain chemicals will make all sorts of animals think they're fixin' to get a little pootang. Is any of that "news for nerds"?
So why the need to point out that the scientist thought Rush Limbaugh was obnoxious? Are you denying that the article mentioned Rush Limbaugh?
The article tried to use some "science", that demonstrated nothing, as a political laughing point. The only reason it was put on the front page was because it attempted to make Rush Limbaugh a laughing point. IOW, it was flamebait, not news for nerds, and it did not matter. Rush Limbaugh does enough to make a fool of himself (as does Rachel Maddow*). We don't need to wrap up attacks against him as "science".
*Rachel Maddow may be, or may have been a 'he'. It's contorted logic always makes me woozy long before I can reach a conclusion on that point. Why do the even let someone that ugly go outside? Can't someone do something? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
Next, you will explain to us all how the "blue code of silence" doesn't exist.
I've known enough cops to know that: - the job makes you a paranoid, egomaniac nut job. - cops "protect" each other.
The founding fathers knew that to. That why we rely on an independant magistrate to issue warrants to protect citizens, not "filling out a form" or "manager approval".
No. Not even with some sort of evidence indicating that the person was both dealing drugs and prostituting. In the case that there was evidence, she should have been arrested and arraigned. Harrassing ANYONE on the street serves no purpose.
My wife is a personal trainer, and had a cop as a client. He said they were just seeing if they could make her cry. According to him, it is a game they play.
And "healthcare reform" isn't the same shenanigans? TARP funds aren't the same shenanigans? We don't want to let them know where we are any time they desire, but we should let them have control of 1/6th of our economy?
People, control is control. If they have a noose around a leg, they can get one around an arm. And in all cases, the goal is to get the noose around your neck. Your "protector" is and always will be your "master".
The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.
And how do you get on their radar? Maybe you had a cop for a boyfriend and dumped him? Maybe you're the head of the homeowner's association, and sent the cop a letter to clean up her yard? Maybe you were on the way home from your oldest son's graduation ceremony following the directions given to you by the GPS, when you find yourself at a police roadblock, having forgotten your driver's license in the rush to get to said ceremony? Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?
(The last didn't happen to me, but it did happen to my wife.)
People use less gas, sure, but at higher prices. The oil companies still make out like bandits. If we add another tax on top, it will be incorporated into the cost, prices will go up, and oil companies will still make out like bandits.
And you still have people worried that China will buy up everything that Canada can supply.
Why is it "astroturfing for oil companies" to point out that it is stupid to expect them to conduct climate studies or absorb the cost of a tax increase? Stop name calling and trying to throw up a distraction and deal with the issue at hand.
By your own admission, they have customers lined up to buy everything they can produce. They don't need to care if the developed nations slit their own throats. Exxon simply redirects the next Valdez to a Chinese or Indian port. The only study they care about is how to get more black gold out of the ground.
The part where loud noises disrupt animals? That's news to you? You should get out of your mom's basement and visit the country a little more often. You strip away the politicization of science, and the article is empty.
Internal competition is common at great companies. It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete. The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive. At Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence.
This sounds like the same thing they do to external competition.
Oh, wait. You're one of those guys that think big companies and governments have unlimited resources. My bad.
No, I'm saying they have deeper pockets and can spend much more on climate research than NGOs can. And unlike NGOs, their future depends on that research. If because of inaction, no research disproving Climate Change, the fossil fuel industries have new laws and taxes they have to pay they may find they can not compeat with those who do not have those laws and taxes never mind these new competitors actually getting subsidized.
Except, companies don't pay taxes. Companies collect taxes. The effect on Exxon's bottom line from a new carbon tax will be negligible, because I'll still have to put gas in my tank to get to work. If the US economy goes tits up, and Exxon can't sell their fuel here, they'll sell the fuel to China, or India, or whichever economy is still going. Please stop using the oil companies as boogey men. They've got more than enough customers in line that they don't care if we hang ourselves. They'll just say, "Next."
Exxon-Mobile had profits, profits not revenue, of $304,186 Billion last year. Chevron had profits of $167,402 Billion. And Royal Dutch Shell, $278,186 Billion. Walmart, a petroleum retailer, had profits of $400,216 Billion. Oil exporters like the Middle East and Russia, along with the USA's 2 largest oil suppliers Canada and Mexico, and India and China (who fund the USA's deficit) have even more money. The only reason none of them should have scientific proof disproving Climate Change is because there is none. I seriously doubt all of the environmental NGOs world wide received $10 Billion.
Who has deeper pockets, the fossil fuel industries or environmental NGOs? I bet Exxon-Mobile has deeper pockets than Greenpeace. So why aren't they releasing scientific studies for peer review that proves climate change isn't real?
Because, they are an OIL COMPANY, not a climate change study company. You know, they have to invest their money in stuff like, I dunno, oil wells and tankers and stuff.
Oh, wait. You're one of those guys that think big companies and governments have unlimited resources. My bad.
Occam's razor shows that we should go with #2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest easily debunked [realclimate.org] talking point.
It has been shown that large subsets of the the base data is bogus, that leading 'scientist' have manipulated their data, and intimidated competing scientist. A motive has been shown for those pushing the warming movement. You claim 50 years of research, but 30 years ago the big scare was global cooling.
How do you debunk that a large subset of the data is based on bullocks (http://surfacestations.org). There is no way to "correct" corrupted primary data. Attempting to do so will have to involve the hubris that you knew what the reading were supposed to be in the first place.
Men have died with electrical burns on their body before natural (lightning strikes). Ergo, there's nothing suspicious about the woman with the electrical wire and her dead husband. It must have been a lightning strike. See the logical fallacy?
Except you don't see a woman with an electrical wire. You see a woman that has wires throughout her house. Dragging the woman out to the front yard and putting a bullet through her head is premature. So is blaming any warming on humans and then destroying multiple economies.
It rained 1" in my swimming pool last night. But, if I go down to the local pool, there's 5' more water in it than there was yesterday. Obviously, it was the rain alone that did it there as well. See the logical fallacy?
The logical fallacy leaping to the conclusion that something other than the rain caused the water to rise, and then rushing to construct an enclosure for the pool to keep the water out.
Slashdot Mirror
And all it takes is a piece of rope and a few bricks.
Personally, I trust scientists much more than businessmen. Good scientists are trained to be brutally honest with themselves, and to use methods that expose rather than hide flaws in their own reasoning.
I've personally known enough scientist and engineers to know that this is pollyanish thinking at best. Scientists will put their names on an idea, and then become entrenched. They will make technically stupid decisions, because those decisions will be more lucrative for them. You qualify your mindset with "good scientist", but good scientist aren't necessarily the ones getting the grants.
Businessmen are trained to be confident in their abilities and conclusions regardless of reality.
Again, a skewed bias in your outlook. Businessmen that disregard reality are not in business for long. Good businessmen are very keen to listen to their engineers, their customers, and any regulatory regimes that they operate within.
The scientist deserve no more trust than the businessmen.
Are companies at point now that lawyers outnumber engineers and software developers?
I think you fail to realize the relative productivity of an engineer and a lawyer. Think about how many man years it takes to develop a non-trivial, market ready software product vs filing a legal brief?
It's not that minorities can't be racist or that women can't be sexist, it's that there's less harm resulting when a minority engages in it than when somebody in the majority does.
That is one of the stupidest things I've seen said on /. lately. So, you're claiming that the harm done to my son by the racist principal is less because he was mixed race and the principal was black? He drew a cartoon of a Dave Chapel skit that used the word nigger. Got suspended for 10 days, and the black kids that ganged up on him got an apology from him. Later, in another fight, he got sentenced to 9 months of probation and community service by a black judge. The black kid that started the fight got protection. You telling me that these racists don't cause harm?
They don't just want the kids in school. They want the kids in "special programs" in school.
True story. Sister-in-law is a teacher in Reidsville, NC school district. One child needed special attention for a day for a reading disorder. The administrator got the kid reclassified to an entirely different category, because that category would have the federal government pay for an entire full-time teacher's salary instead of the district having to pay for a part-time salary.
I wouldn't run wire. I'd run conduit.
You have no idea what the future holds. I've seen it, and Cat6 won't be good enough.
I knew that, but there weren't any bandit laying in wait to hold us up for our cargo, so I didn't get to carry an actual shotgun.
The cannons don't thunder.
There's nothing to plunder.
I'm a over 40 victim of fate.
Arriving to late.
Arriving to late.
Certain sounds caused them to attack each other? And hunters make little wooden whistles that cause ducks to land in front of them. And certain chemicals will make all sorts of animals think they're fixin' to get a little pootang. Is any of that "news for nerds"?
So why the need to point out that the scientist thought Rush Limbaugh was obnoxious? Are you denying that the article mentioned Rush Limbaugh?
The article tried to use some "science", that demonstrated nothing, as a political laughing point. The only reason it was put on the front page was because it attempted to make Rush Limbaugh a laughing point. IOW, it was flamebait, not news for nerds, and it did not matter. Rush Limbaugh does enough to make a fool of himself (as does Rachel Maddow*). We don't need to wrap up attacks against him as "science".
*Rachel Maddow may be, or may have been a 'he'. It's contorted logic always makes me woozy long before I can reach a conclusion on that point. Why do the even let someone that ugly go outside? Can't someone do something? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
Roll back to 1986. I was a helper on a furniture truck. Always rode as passenger. My CB handle became "Shotgun".
Next, you will explain to us all how the "blue code of silence" doesn't exist.
I've known enough cops to know that:
- the job makes you a paranoid, egomaniac nut job.
- cops "protect" each other.
The founding fathers knew that to. That why we rely on an independant magistrate to issue warrants to protect citizens, not "filling out a form" or "manager approval".
No. Not even with some sort of evidence indicating that the person was both dealing drugs and prostituting. In the case that there was evidence, she should have been arrested and arraigned. Harrassing ANYONE on the street serves no purpose.
My wife is a personal trainer, and had a cop as a client. He said they were just seeing if they could make her cry. According to him, it is a game they play.
And "healthcare reform" isn't the same shenanigans?
TARP funds aren't the same shenanigans?
We don't want to let them know where we are any time they desire, but we should let them have control of 1/6th of our economy?
People, control is control. If they have a noose around a leg, they can get one around an arm. And in all cases, the goal is to get the noose around your neck. Your "protector" is and always will be your "master".
And how exactly is clamoring for less government not also clamoring for less of this bull?
This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE,
Then what is the problem with getting a warrant? The threshold for a warrant only requires probable cause.
The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.
And how do you get on their radar? Maybe you had a cop for a boyfriend and dumped him? Maybe you're the head of the homeowner's association, and sent the cop a letter to clean up her yard? Maybe you were on the way home from your oldest son's graduation ceremony following the directions given to you by the GPS, when you find yourself at a police roadblock, having forgotten your driver's license in the rush to get to said ceremony? Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?
(The last didn't happen to me, but it did happen to my wife.)
People use less gas, sure, but at higher prices. The oil companies still make out like bandits. If we add another tax on top, it will be incorporated into the cost, prices will go up, and oil companies will still make out like bandits.
And you still have people worried that China will buy up everything that Canada can supply.
Why is it "astroturfing for oil companies" to point out that it is stupid to expect them to conduct climate studies or absorb the cost of a tax increase? Stop name calling and trying to throw up a distraction and deal with the issue at hand.
By your own admission, they have customers lined up to buy everything they can produce. They don't need to care if the developed nations slit their own throats. Exxon simply redirects the next Valdez to a Chinese or Indian port. The only study they care about is how to get more black gold out of the ground.
The part where loud noises disrupt animals? That's news to you? You should get out of your mom's basement and visit the country a little more often. You strip away the politicization of science, and the article is empty.
It is some front page news that some people dislike Rush Limbaugh and some old music?
How about this? I kill the black mold in my shower by showing it pictures of Rachel Maddow.
This isn't news for nerds. This is stupid.
Internal competition is common at great companies. It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete. The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive. At Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence.
This sounds like the same thing they do to external competition.
Oh, wait. You're one of those guys that think big companies and governments have unlimited resources. My bad.
No, I'm saying they have deeper pockets and can spend much more on climate research than NGOs can. And unlike NGOs, their future depends on that research. If because of inaction, no research disproving Climate Change, the fossil fuel industries have new laws and taxes they have to pay they may find they can not compeat with those who do not have those laws and taxes never mind these new competitors actually getting subsidized.
Except, companies don't pay taxes. Companies collect taxes. The effect on Exxon's bottom line from a new carbon tax will be negligible, because I'll still have to put gas in my tank to get to work. If the US economy goes tits up, and Exxon can't sell their fuel here, they'll sell the fuel to China, or India, or whichever economy is still going. Please stop using the oil companies as boogey men. They've got more than enough customers in line that they don't care if we hang ourselves. They'll just say, "Next."
Exxon-Mobile had profits, profits not revenue, of $304,186 Billion last year. Chevron had profits of $167,402 Billion. And Royal Dutch Shell, $278,186 Billion. Walmart, a petroleum retailer, had profits of $400,216 Billion. Oil exporters like the Middle East and Russia, along with the USA's 2 largest oil suppliers Canada and Mexico, and India and China (who fund the USA's deficit) have even more money. The only reason none of them should have scientific proof disproving Climate Change is because there is none. I seriously doubt all of the environmental NGOs world wide received $10 Billion.
Falcon
Pax681, get your sarcasm detector checked, and then reread my comment 8*).
For my part, I just love to watch the smug warmist squirming as they try to explain such incredibly sloppy and unscientific data gathering.
Who has deeper pockets, the fossil fuel industries or environmental NGOs? I bet Exxon-Mobile has deeper pockets than Greenpeace. So why aren't they releasing scientific studies for peer review that proves climate change isn't real?
Because, they are an OIL COMPANY, not a climate change study company. You know, they have to invest their money in stuff like, I dunno, oil wells and tankers and stuff.
Oh, wait. You're one of those guys that think big companies and governments have unlimited resources. My bad.
Occam's razor shows that we should go with #2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest easily debunked [realclimate.org] talking point.
It has been shown that large subsets of the the base data is bogus, that leading 'scientist' have manipulated their data, and intimidated competing scientist. A motive has been shown for those pushing the warming movement. You claim 50 years of research, but 30 years ago the big scare was global cooling.
How do you debunk that a large subset of the data is based on bullocks (http://surfacestations.org). There is no way to "correct" corrupted primary data. Attempting to do so will have to involve the hubris that you knew what the reading were supposed to be in the first place.
That is: The logical fallacy is...
Men have died with electrical burns on their body before natural (lightning strikes). Ergo, there's nothing suspicious about the woman with the electrical wire and her dead husband. It must have been a lightning strike. See the logical fallacy?
Except you don't see a woman with an electrical wire. You see a woman that has wires throughout her house. Dragging the woman out to the front yard and putting a bullet through her head is premature. So is blaming any warming on humans and then destroying multiple economies.
It rained 1" in my swimming pool last night. But, if I go down to the local pool, there's 5' more water in it than there was yesterday. Obviously, it was the rain alone that did it there as well. See the logical fallacy?
The logical fallacy leaping to the conclusion that something other than the rain caused the water to rise, and then rushing to construct an enclosure for the pool to keep the water out.