So, when my income is $0, I pay no taxes at a very low rate. When my income is $500K, I pay maximum taxes (about half my income). So, I actually earn just over $100K a year but pay taxes at the maximum rate.
and then you said you sell them at some point. Is the $500k you refer to your yearly income while they're profitable, or including the sale. If it's the former, then you may be making significantly more than you suggested at first (your $100k number). I guess the point is that the former may weaken your argument and the latter may strengthen it.
So we both agree that the most correct answer would be 'false', yes? Since a *theory* can't precisely be true?
NO. This is not a true or false question. Unlike politics, in science the winner is not the one who can fit his position on a bumper-sticker. If you insist on "most correct", then the answer would be true, based on the fact that the Big Bang is the most complete model we have at this time, but "most *likely* to be correct" is probably better.
This isn't a case of anyone disputing the definition of the word theory at all.
That's exactly what you're doing. At this point it's been explained to you over and over again, and not just by me. I don't think it's possible that you still don't understand it after all that. I now understand that the conversation is completely pointless because you insist on using *your* definition of the word, rather than the *actual* definition of the word.
Right now I can't decide if you're really just a great troll who's strung me along all afternoon, or if you really believe that using the wrong definition of the word "theory" in the context of science is somehow clever.
Big Bang - Not so much. You could observe the universe in motion, and presume that was under momentum from an explosion, but this unnecessarily excludes other sources of motion. The assumption that there was a 'bang' at all is the matter of faith.
You really don't understand what a theory is, do you? I mentioned above that a theory is not a wild guess. It is also not indisputable. Presently, regardless of it's flaws, the Big Bang theory provides more testable predictions than any of its competitors. You start out with a premise, and see if it makes useful predictions. The Big Bang very well could be proven wrong over time, that's not the point. Right now it appears to be the most accurate model to explain the behaviour of the universe. NO theory is indisputable. If another theory comes along that better models what we've seen, that's what we'll be using, but that hasn't happened.
The assumption that there was a 'bang' at all is the matter of faith.
No. The assumption that the FSM created it because he was bored one day is a matter of faith. The fact that the Big Bang theory makes testable predictions makes it a *theory*.
I do like how you've separated the context in order to weaken the train of thought, but I'm actually getting kind of bored with the discussion...
I didn't need to weaken anything, it was like that all by itself.
At this point I really have no idea what you're getting at.
First I corrected you on the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context when you said "That being said, it really is 'just a theory' as one can NEVER prove it..
Your next post went on about a difference you came up with between "science" and "Science" which I said was not particularly useful, and an explanation of why.
Your next post from there complained that I picked an easy example, and challenged me to "do it again" using a detailed explanation of climate change. I pointed out that the principle is the same regardless of the type of science.
Now you're stating that it's all a matter of belief. No, it is not. A theory is testable through the predictions it makes. Gravity predicts that if I drop a ball it wall fall to the ground every time, and at the same rate every time. The Big Bang is testable because objects in space and patterns of radiation turn out pretty much to be where one would expect them to be when using this theory. If it were only a belief, there's almost no chance that any useful predictions could be made when using it.
The original point of my responses was that a theory is not a guess, and it is certainly vastly different from being "faith-based" as you suggested.
Fine, fine. You make an excellent argument for Creation Science vs Evolutionary Science. Now lets see if you can do it again for, say, Climate Science. A field where there are fewer people in agreement as to what the 'scientific mind' should accept as true.
No.
Plain and simple, I'm not going to "do it again", for two reasons. First of all, I'm not a climatologist, and I'm not going to become one just so I can reply to a post on Slashdot. Secondly, even if I did, you could just go on with "Okay, well that's two, now how about the theory of blahblahblahWhatever?". Guess what? The same damn principle applies no matter what theory you want to talk about. Right now Theory A is favoured in climatology. There are some people who favour Theory B. If the people researching Theory B are able to prove their case, and that their model is actually more accurate, then that's the one that will be recognized as the most accurate theory. The problem you seem to have is that they can't solve it in thirty minutes or less as if it's a pizza delivery. Science isn't instant. Even if you're right and the established theory is wrong, that doesn't mean that you're instantly recognized as such, you have to actually PROVE it first.
I call bullshit. In fact it would seem that I know MORE about science than you, due to your statements here.
Well, I read your reply, and I don't see any actual evidence for that, but hey, whatever.
You take the word science, and then create your own meaning based on capitalizing the first letter. The word you're actually looking for is "politics". No field is immune to politics and infighting, science included.
Now, the fun part is that you seem to be going for the conspiracy-theorist angle, when in fact usually the "suppressed" party just hasn't made their case as well as "the establishment". For example, "Creation Science" hasn't displaced evolution because they simply haven't made anywhere near as strong a case as Evolutionary Science. Are there instances where the underdog is right? Of course there are, but they're challenging all of the findings that came before them. The burden of proof is at that point on them if they believe they've got something that dramatically changes the way we look at a given subject. If it's a well-researched field, then that would be pretty extraordinary, and would require equally extraordinary evidence on their part. Most times these "suppressed" researchers simply do not have that evidence.
Scientists on the whole do not fight for theories that they know are incorrect. It would be stupid to do so, since if the theory is incorrect any assumptions or predictions made that are based on that theory are incorrect and the theory is useless. Someone may individually be overzealous when defending their theory, but in the end, the evidence should show who's model is the most accurate.
That being said, it really is 'just a theory' as one can NEVER prove it. Not EVER. Not even with a time machine, because if it were true it would be damn hard to record the event without altering it dramatically. That would, as far as I know, disqualify it from ever reaching 'law' status.
And here we go again. Theory does not mean what you seem to think it means. A theory in science is as good as it gets. It does not mean wild-guess, it does not mean "I have a feeling". Evolution, The Big Bang, Gravity....these things are our descriptions that best explains conditions or phenomena that have been observed. If a better theory comes along, one which better explains our observations, it would supplant these but right now that isn't the case. "Law" is an outdated term, which was inaccurate to begin with because nothing is immutable. There is always the possibility that new understanding of a given subject will prove that our previous understanding was incorrect.
I really like these sort of 'science of the past' conclusions. They're nearly all faith-based, just like the other religions they compete with...
You know you're one of the people who the article is talking about, right? You don't understand these elements of science, and here you are telling people how they're wrong. Science and Religion are not equal. One is based on observation and experimentation, the other is based on "revealed" knowledge, from a source that by it's very nature is unquestionable.
As hard as it is for me to believe, especially given the reasons that I listed before, martinw89 provided an example of exactly what you were talking about. I apologize for doubting you, and I hope the people in the area with that police force wake up and demand better from their government. That is truly pathetic.
I don't shock easily, but that did it. If I was living in that community, I'd be raising bloody hell with the mayor and council (or whatever their local form of government is). The very idea that they would do that is an outrage, but once it's known it's the responsibility of the citizens to get it fixed. In my area most of the local cops have a college education, and if they want to ever get past patrolman it's very difficult to do so without a Bachelor's or better (I know a few cops with Master's degrees). Of course we also pay them very well, so it's not that hard to attract people like that (the competition to get into these departments is pretty damn heavy). I know everyplace is different, but I guess I didn't realize that it was *that* different elsewhere. Thanks for the link, and all I can say is I hope people start taking their local governments to task when they find their local P.D. has these kinds of hiring standards.
Sorry, not buying this..... Let's think this through. 1) There's a secret rule that keeps "smart people" from becoming cops. 2) You are more intelligent than any of the cops, so naturally they don't want you. 3) They have no problem at all *telling* you, the rejected applicant, about the secret rule. 4) The chief of police, a cop himself, tells you "Yep Askew, you're too smart for us. Hell, you're clearly smarter than me, since I had to pass the anti-intelligence test to become a cop as well, thereby proving that I'm dumb and submissive, as opposed to a strong-minded thinkin' man such as yourself"
If there was a rule like this, which I doubt, I don't see any way on earth that you'd get people to admit to it. Nobody likes to admit they're stupid, let alone admit that they "passed" a test to certify that they're stupid.
nah, assuming they let him do 10%, that's only $500,000.00. Since this is San Francisco, that's the equivalent of 3 days rent and a couple of trips to Starbucks.
The following items are simply not plausible: Dating an alien. Having a replicator. Visits from Faeries/Unicorns. Batman/Superman/Spider-man (the "actual" people) attend your party.
The following items are plausible: Teenagers hold wild party. Teenagers drinking. Teenagers doing drugs. Teenagers having sex.
A reporter can reasonably think that things from the second list actually happened, as opposed to things from the first list which no sane person would possibly believe. Basically, if you don't want people to believe something about you, don't go running around spreading the rumor yourself, especially if it's a plausible rumor.
yeah, except what you answered that you'd be okay with, without complaint, was this:
And then when you get kidnapped and wonder why there's no one rescuing you since, after all, you still have your cell phone on and with you, you can remember this series of posts.
Missing persons cases present an unusual problem for police -- it's not a crime to disappear. Without a crime, police can't get a search warrant. In a criminal case, no warrant would mean no phone records for authorities.
You're probably far more likely to go missing due to an accident (car goes off the road, injure yourself while hiking, etc) than to be kidnapped by mobsters.
Okay, now this is getting weird and you've piqued my curiosity.....you'd really rather be kidnapped and held prisoner indefinitely by some unknown person than have the police check your cell-phone record and come rescue you? Really? I'm kinda having a hard time believing that......
And if i don't want a headache, i just cut off my head! No sinus worries, no blocked nose, no headache. Nope. Sorry, it does not work.
You equate turning off your cell-phone to cutting off your head? Look, I like my phone as much as anyone, but that seems just a little extreme. If you're so desperate to go missing, why exactly do you need your cellphone with you anyway? I imagine that if you're trying to disappear you'd probably not be taking phone-calls.
Unless there is a specific complaint regarding a missing person, the cops should have zero right to proactively locate a missing person.
Um, the police aren't just picking names out of the phone book to see if they're missing. *Somebody* is reporting them as missing, that's why they're being looked for. Surely you're not suggesting that the person who is missing is the one who has to contact the police to come find them....
After all courts have repeatedly ruled that cops are not liable legally for not stopping a crime.
"Exigent circumstances". For instance, if the police have good reason to believe that you're torturing someone in your basement, and that serious harm or injury to that person will result without immediate action, they can kick in your door without a warrant. Similarly, if you suddenly are 10 hours late coming home from work after 25 years of being on time, and your wife calls the police, there's a very good chance that something has happened to you and that you're lying on the side of the road in a car wreck. In the cases from TFA, someone called the police and reported a reason why they believed the person was in danger.
No, that's all you can say, because you're a sheeple that drank the Open Group Kool-Aid.
Yeah maaaaaaan, it's just like, if everyone was like, all enlightened and stuff, it'd be just like that maaaaaaan. Stick it to the maaaaaan and like, take back the name for like the community maaaaaaaan. C'mon, 'Sheeple'? Really?.
The Linux kernel was developed independently of UNIX, following the POSIX standard which gives it great interoperability with UNIX systems. That's all. Warm fuzzy talk about culture doesn't change that.
And if it behaves like Unix, and if it is designed like Unix, and if it runs Unix programs and scripts, then it must be Unix.
Wow, so my homebrew Ferrari from the above example really *is* a Ferrari then. Cool.
And lo and behold, the world was split into two camps: those who believe what they are told by people with money, and those who think for themselves.
Funny, from this conversation I get the idea it's split into two camps: Those who know what UNIX is, and those who don't. How's life over in the "don't" camp? They're operating systems, not religions or lifestyle choices. But then again, since you're redefining things based on your own personal definitions, maybe they're actually both. Who am I to argue with such an enlightened, free-thinkin' rebel as you?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just curious, in the one post you said:
and then you said you sell them at some point. Is the $500k you refer to your yearly income while they're profitable, or including the sale. If it's the former, then you may be making significantly more than you suggested at first (your $100k number). I guess the point is that the former may weaken your argument and the latter may strengthen it.
Yarrrrrrrrrrrrr!
/me taps foot and holds out hand.
You. Geek-card. Now.
Your credentials are hereby revoked.
NO. This is not a true or false question. Unlike politics, in science the winner is not the one who can fit his position on a bumper-sticker. If you insist on "most correct", then the answer would be true, based on the fact that the Big Bang is the most complete model we have at this time, but "most *likely* to be correct" is probably better.
That's exactly what you're doing. At this point it's been explained to you over and over again, and not just by me. I don't think it's possible that you still don't understand it after all that. I now understand that the conversation is completely pointless because you insist on using *your* definition of the word, rather than the *actual* definition of the word.
Right now I can't decide if you're really just a great troll who's strung me along all afternoon, or if you really believe that using the wrong definition of the word "theory" in the context of science is somehow clever.
Oh for the love of pasta.....
You really don't understand what a theory is, do you? I mentioned above that a theory is not a wild guess. It is also not indisputable. Presently, regardless of it's flaws, the Big Bang theory provides more testable predictions than any of its competitors. You start out with a premise, and see if it makes useful predictions. The Big Bang very well could be proven wrong over time, that's not the point. Right now it appears to be the most accurate model to explain the behaviour of the universe. NO theory is indisputable. If another theory comes along that better models what we've seen, that's what we'll be using, but that hasn't happened.
No. The assumption that the FSM created it because he was bored one day is a matter of faith. The fact that the Big Bang theory makes testable predictions makes it a *theory*.
I didn't need to weaken anything, it was like that all by itself.
At this point I really have no idea what you're getting at.
First I corrected you on the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context when you said "That being said, it really is 'just a theory' as one can NEVER prove it..
Your next post went on about a difference you came up with between "science" and "Science" which I said was not particularly useful, and an explanation of why.
Your next post from there complained that I picked an easy example, and challenged me to "do it again" using a detailed explanation of climate change. I pointed out that the principle is the same regardless of the type of science.
Now you're stating that it's all a matter of belief. No, it is not. A theory is testable through the predictions it makes. Gravity predicts that if I drop a ball it wall fall to the ground every time, and at the same rate every time. The Big Bang is testable because objects in space and patterns of radiation turn out pretty much to be where one would expect them to be when using this theory. If it were only a belief, there's almost no chance that any useful predictions could be made when using it.
The original point of my responses was that a theory is not a guess, and it is certainly vastly different from being "faith-based" as you suggested.
No.
Plain and simple, I'm not going to "do it again", for two reasons. First of all, I'm not a climatologist, and I'm not going to become one just so I can reply to a post on Slashdot. Secondly, even if I did, you could just go on with "Okay, well that's two, now how about the theory of blahblahblahWhatever?".
Guess what? The same damn principle applies no matter what theory you want to talk about. Right now Theory A is favoured in climatology. There are some people who favour Theory B. If the people researching Theory B are able to prove their case, and that their model is actually more accurate, then that's the one that will be recognized as the most accurate theory. The problem you seem to have is that they can't solve it in thirty minutes or less as if it's a pizza delivery. Science isn't instant. Even if you're right and the established theory is wrong, that doesn't mean that you're instantly recognized as such, you have to actually PROVE it first.
Well, I read your reply, and I don't see any actual evidence for that, but hey, whatever.
You take the word science, and then create your own meaning based on capitalizing the first letter. The word you're actually looking for is "politics". No field is immune to politics and infighting, science included.
Now, the fun part is that you seem to be going for the conspiracy-theorist angle, when in fact usually the "suppressed" party just hasn't made their case as well as "the establishment". For example, "Creation Science" hasn't displaced evolution because they simply haven't made anywhere near as strong a case as Evolutionary Science. Are there instances where the underdog is right? Of course there are, but they're challenging all of the findings that came before them. The burden of proof is at that point on them if they believe they've got something that dramatically changes the way we look at a given subject. If it's a well-researched field, then that would be pretty extraordinary, and would require equally extraordinary evidence on their part. Most times these "suppressed" researchers simply do not have that evidence.
Scientists on the whole do not fight for theories that they know are incorrect. It would be stupid to do so, since if the theory is incorrect any assumptions or predictions made that are based on that theory are incorrect and the theory is useless. Someone may individually be overzealous when defending their theory, but in the end, the evidence should show who's model is the most accurate.
And here we go again. Theory does not mean what you seem to think it means. A theory in science is as good as it gets. It does not mean wild-guess, it does not mean "I have a feeling". Evolution, The Big Bang, Gravity....these things are our descriptions that best explains conditions or phenomena that have been observed. If a better theory comes along, one which better explains our observations, it would supplant these but right now that isn't the case. "Law" is an outdated term, which was inaccurate to begin with because nothing is immutable. There is always the possibility that new understanding of a given subject will prove that our previous understanding was incorrect.
You know you're one of the people who the article is talking about, right? You don't understand these elements of science, and here you are telling people how they're wrong. Science and Religion are not equal. One is based on observation and experimentation, the other is based on "revealed" knowledge, from a source that by it's very nature is unquestionable.
In America only old people know about North and South Korea.
Gypsy. The word is Gypsy.
As hard as it is for me to believe, especially given the reasons that I listed before, martinw89 provided an example of exactly what you were talking about. I apologize for doubting you, and I hope the people in the area with that police force wake up and demand better from their government. That is truly pathetic.
I don't shock easily, but that did it. If I was living in that community, I'd be raising bloody hell with the mayor and council (or whatever their local form of government is). The very idea that they would do that is an outrage, but once it's known it's the responsibility of the citizens to get it fixed. In my area most of the local cops have a college education, and if they want to ever get past patrolman it's very difficult to do so without a Bachelor's or better (I know a few cops with Master's degrees). Of course we also pay them very well, so it's not that hard to attract people like that (the competition to get into these departments is pretty damn heavy). I know everyplace is different, but I guess I didn't realize that it was *that* different elsewhere. Thanks for the link, and all I can say is I hope people start taking their local governments to task when they find their local P.D. has these kinds of hiring standards.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that link seems to go to an index page in the NYT arts section. Can you try reposting the link?
Sorry, not buying this.....
Let's think this through.
1) There's a secret rule that keeps "smart people" from becoming cops.
2) You are more intelligent than any of the cops, so naturally they don't want you.
3) They have no problem at all *telling* you, the rejected applicant, about the secret rule.
4) The chief of police, a cop himself, tells you "Yep Askew, you're too smart for us. Hell, you're clearly smarter than me, since I had to pass the anti-intelligence test to become a cop as well, thereby proving that I'm dumb and submissive, as opposed to a strong-minded thinkin' man such as yourself"
If there was a rule like this, which I doubt, I don't see any way on earth that you'd get people to admit to it. Nobody likes to admit they're stupid, let alone admit that they "passed" a test to certify that they're stupid.
nah, assuming they let him do 10%, that's only $500,000.00. Since this is San Francisco, that's the equivalent of 3 days rent and a couple of trips to Starbucks.
Plausibility.
The following items are simply not plausible:
Dating an alien.
Having a replicator.
Visits from Faeries/Unicorns.
Batman/Superman/Spider-man (the "actual" people) attend your party.
The following items are plausible:
Teenagers hold wild party.
Teenagers drinking.
Teenagers doing drugs.
Teenagers having sex.
A reporter can reasonably think that things from the second list actually happened, as opposed to things from the first list which no sane person would possibly believe. Basically, if you don't want people to believe something about you, don't go running around spreading the rumor yourself, especially if it's a plausible rumor.
I don't even want to think about what parmesan snuff does to the insides of your sinuses.....
Loosen the tinfoil, it's gonna start to chafe.
A warrant for what? As mentioned in TFA:
Missing persons cases present an unusual problem for police -- it's not a crime to disappear. Without a crime, police can't get a search warrant. In a criminal case, no warrant would mean no phone records for authorities.
You're probably far more likely to go missing due to an accident (car goes off the road, injure yourself while hiking, etc) than to be kidnapped by mobsters.
A warrant for what? Being missing isn't against the law.....remember, way back when you read the summary: "It is not a crime to go missing."
Okay, now this is getting weird and you've piqued my curiosity.....you'd really rather be kidnapped and held prisoner indefinitely by some unknown person than have the police check your cell-phone record and come rescue you? Really? I'm kinda having a hard time believing that......
You equate turning off your cell-phone to cutting off your head? Look, I like my phone as much as anyone, but that seems just a little extreme. If you're so desperate to go missing, why exactly do you need your cellphone with you anyway? I imagine that if you're trying to disappear you'd probably not be taking phone-calls.
Um, the police aren't just picking names out of the phone book to see if they're missing. *Somebody* is reporting them as missing, that's why they're being looked for. Surely you're not suggesting that the person who is missing is the one who has to contact the police to come find them....
"Exigent circumstances". For instance, if the police have good reason to believe that you're torturing someone in your basement, and that serious harm or injury to that person will result without immediate action, they can kick in your door without a warrant. Similarly, if you suddenly are 10 hours late coming home from work after 25 years of being on time, and your wife calls the police, there's a very good chance that something has happened to you and that you're lying on the side of the road in a car wreck. In the cases from TFA, someone called the police and reported a reason why they believed the person was in danger.
Yeah maaaaaaan, it's just like, if everyone was like, all enlightened and stuff, it'd be just like that maaaaaaan. Stick it to the maaaaaan and like, take back the name for like the community maaaaaaaan. C'mon, 'Sheeple'? Really?.
The Linux kernel was developed independently of UNIX, following the POSIX standard which gives it great interoperability with UNIX systems. That's all. Warm fuzzy talk about culture doesn't change that.
Wow, so my homebrew Ferrari from the above example really *is* a Ferrari then. Cool.
Funny, from this conversation I get the idea it's split into two camps: Those who know what UNIX is, and those who don't. How's life over in the "don't" camp?
They're operating systems, not religions or lifestyle choices. But then again, since you're redefining things based on your own personal definitions, maybe they're actually both. Who am I to argue with such an enlightened, free-thinkin' rebel as you?
The President doesn't have to claim ignorance, he embodies it.