There is a difference between not knowing the explanation for the presence of life (which every honest scientist would agree with) and saying intelligent design is the equal of actual scientific theories (which no-one is suggesting aside from the religious lunatic fringe).
"[N]eedlessly running up legal costs" certainly does happen, and is certainly an abuse of the system, but demanding legal costs for defending against a bad-faith frivolous lawsuit is not an example, and courts (in civilized jurisdictions) are required to award them. Proving bad faith might be tricky, but that too does happen sometimes. I wish Democratic Underground luck
Righthaven sounds like a bully bemoaing the 'injustice' of a victim that finally fought back.
This is exactly what evil corporations do all the time. Request consent for something seemingly innocuous that in fact signs any your rights to any confidentially at all, with about as much opportunity for negotiating the terms as the average EULA.
The point about religions getting so excited about sex is that 3000 years ago societies depended on population - their human capital - for their economic and military strength. Therefore the goal was to have as many people as possible. Not exactly the same as having as many babies as possible - infant mortality was high. Sex had to be within marriage, which meant a publicly known monogamous relationship, so that there was a reliable determination of paternity to identify which adults could be imposed upon to raise the child.
Thus, male homosexuality was considered anti-social, as it was an abrogation of a man's duty to the community to produce offspring. (Female homosexuality didn't matter as long as the woman still wanted children.)
There's nothing wrong with viewing sex as something spiritual, for those that choose to view it that way. But there is something very wrong with applying values that only made sense before there was reliable contraception, paternity testing, and prevention of sexual transmission of disease. Even worse, people will tout religious 'values' having no clue whatsoever what it is that they are actually 'valuing' or why. If a 'value' is something they've internalized and have no conscious understanding of, rational discussion is not possible.
Now, from the perspective of biology and evolutionary psychology, you can be very sure there are associations between sex and the brain's reward mechanisms.
...independent of technology. The system favours profitability from depressed wages, not productivity. With a population with no disposable income, there's no demand for production of consumer goods or services, and this results in a vicious cycle of poverty and desperation for the majority, with the very rich continuing to amass unproductive wealth in order to maintain the fear and insecurity the system is based on. Technology is not a factor.
The legal profession is probably the weakest example possible. Many lawyers (though not all) were not doing anything of value to society in the first place, and society benefits from lawyers becoming unemployed, where they can do less harm.
There used to be very few careers for sociopaths, but now they are in high demand as CEOs. That's not a result of technology, but of the conventional mind-set of contemporary society.
Has anyone considered that he will face the consequences of his actions (you know, like an adult) because he simply thought his country's ideals were that important? He would have understood better than any civilian the consequences of going up against the US military's torture regime and show trials. Manning made the world a better place even knowing the abuse he would suffer after being caught.
Obama ordered the concentration camp / gulag at Guantanamo closed. It turned out he didn't mean it, but it's not their fault that a lot of people were fooled.
"all you're asked to do is not... gather any information... Why is this a problem?"
Answer: Human nature.
I haven't been on a jury, but I've worked in clinical trials where participants were forbidden to try to learn whether they were on a placebo or not, but that challenge just makes people want to know that much more, and guessing invalidates the trial just as much as knowing for sure.
Lots of people can be adults about their civic duties, but there are enough that can't.
I've always thought that the only way the "Archimedes death ray" would be even remotely plausible would be to shine enough light in the eyes of the crew that someone knocks over an open flame. Or maybe disorient them enough that the flaming oil catapult could get a good shot in.
But the fact that the story only appeared over a thousand years after the lifetime of Archimedes or any possible eyewitness pretty much tells us everything we need to know.
For decades people seem to be continually astonished whenever evolutionary psychology 'discovers' a new feature of human behaviour that is explained by evolutionary psychology. Humans have a diversity of behaviours - whether mating behaviour or other kinds - because there is no single ideal strategy.
Also someone should point out to the 'researchers' that not all one-night stands are one night by design, not all are cheating, and not all cheating takes the form of one-night stands. Plus with modern technology for contraception, prevention of transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases, and determining paternity, the one-night stand isn't the high-risk behaviour it might have been when we were foraging societies living on the savannas.
In theory the idea behind Caprica was the corporate politics and foreign policy machinations behind the creation (and then abuse) of cybernetic life in the form of the Cylons, but there was effectively the first working Cylon by the end of the pilot, and she was created by a semi-supernatural deus ex machina. Also she just happened to be a copy of the personality of a religious fanatic with a pathological and completely unmotivated hatred of her parents. So before the series has even begun we already have the Cylons, and the mystery of why they turned out they way they did is just because they're spoiled, angry, borderline psychotic teenagers. (Actually, the virtual reality fantasy of a spoiled, angry, borderline psychotic teenager) Monotheism wasn't a great competing philosophical system, it was just a creepy cult with no point to it other than a pretext for adding lots of pretty teenage girls to the story.
There was one nice touch with the early 20th century clothing. There was something creepy about seeing fashion your brain is telling you is old juxtaposed with futuristic technology. I found that more convincingly alien than any costume or prosthetic.
So, Microsoft has held human civilization back about 10 years, and the open source community has, with a massive and inefficient duplication of effort, recovered a few of those lost years in spite of Microsoft's efforts to stop them.
While I can't imagine that a (relatively ) passive kind of medium like the Internet will substitute for more traditional education, it can be, and frequently already is, a valuable supplement. It might not be enough to get someone to the point of graduating, but it might get them as far as maybe a second-year level. Even that would be a major step forward in the use of time, money and other resources.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between not knowing the explanation for the presence of life (which every honest scientist would agree with) and saying intelligent design is the equal of actual scientific theories (which no-one is suggesting aside from the religious lunatic fringe).
Scientists (real ones) would say the standard model was wrong if the evidence indicated that that was the case. Same with the big bang theory.
That's what "retool[ing] our theory to fit the current data" means.
That's not necessarily the same as giving up a theory. Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but it's very useful within certain limits of application.
"If creationists want to have their delusions discussed by honest people"
The question pretty much just answers itself.
"[N]eedlessly running up legal costs" certainly does happen, and is certainly an abuse of the system, but demanding legal costs for defending against a bad-faith frivolous lawsuit is not an example, and courts (in civilized jurisdictions) are required to award them. Proving bad faith might be tricky, but that too does happen sometimes. I wish Democratic Underground luck
Righthaven sounds like a bully bemoaing the 'injustice' of a victim that finally fought back.
This is exactly what evil corporations do all the time. Request consent for something seemingly innocuous that in fact signs any your rights to any confidentially at all, with about as much opportunity for negotiating the terms as the average EULA.
"my work for something like Cancer, or MS?"
If you can come up with a cure for Microsoft, the whole of civilization will owe you something. And curing cancer would be almost as good.
Seriously, when does a video game deal with *any* topic other than in a superficial way? What part of 'game' is confusing people?
The point about religions getting so excited about sex is that 3000 years ago societies depended on population - their human capital - for their economic and military strength. Therefore the goal was to have as many people as possible. Not exactly the same as having as many babies as possible - infant mortality was high. Sex had to be within marriage, which meant a publicly known monogamous relationship, so that there was a reliable determination of paternity to identify which adults could be imposed upon to raise the child.
Thus, male homosexuality was considered anti-social, as it was an abrogation of a man's duty to the community to produce offspring. (Female homosexuality didn't matter as long as the woman still wanted children.)
There's nothing wrong with viewing sex as something spiritual, for those that choose to view it that way. But there is something very wrong with applying values that only made sense before there was reliable contraception, paternity testing, and prevention of sexual transmission of disease. Even worse, people will tout religious 'values' having no clue whatsoever what it is that they are actually 'valuing' or why. If a 'value' is something they've internalized and have no conscious understanding of, rational discussion is not possible.
Now, from the perspective of biology and evolutionary psychology, you can be very sure there are associations between sex and the brain's reward mechanisms.
...independent of technology. The system favours profitability from depressed wages, not productivity. With a population with no disposable income, there's no demand for production of consumer goods or services, and this results in a vicious cycle of poverty and desperation for the majority, with the very rich continuing to amass unproductive wealth in order to maintain the fear and insecurity the system is based on. Technology is not a factor.
The legal profession is probably the weakest example possible. Many lawyers (though not all) were not doing anything of value to society in the first place, and society benefits from lawyers becoming unemployed, where they can do less harm.
There used to be very few careers for sociopaths, but now they are in high demand as CEOs. That's not a result of technology, but of the conventional mind-set of contemporary society.
There is no business case for 'picosecond resolution', other than for fraudulent transactions.
Has anyone considered that he will face the consequences of his actions (you know, like an adult) because he simply thought his country's ideals were that important? He would have understood better than any civilian the consequences of going up against the US military's torture regime and show trials. Manning made the world a better place even knowing the abuse he would suffer after being caught.
Obama ordered the concentration camp / gulag at Guantanamo closed. It turned out he didn't mean it, but it's not their fault that a lot of people were fooled.
Wait, isn't 48Cr a radioactive isotope?
"all you're asked to do is not... gather any information... Why is this a problem?"
Answer: Human nature.
I haven't been on a jury, but I've worked in clinical trials where participants were forbidden to try to learn whether they were on a placebo or not, but that challenge just makes people want to know that much more, and guessing invalidates the trial just as much as knowing for sure.
Lots of people can be adults about their civic duties, but there are enough that can't.
I've always thought that the only way the "Archimedes death ray" would be even remotely plausible would be to shine enough light in the eyes of the crew that someone knocks over an open flame. Or maybe disorient them enough that the flaming oil catapult could get a good shot in.
But the fact that the story only appeared over a thousand years after the lifetime of Archimedes or any possible eyewitness pretty much tells us everything we need to know.
Obama has already proven his true convictions to anyone paying attention.
For decades people seem to be continually astonished whenever evolutionary psychology 'discovers' a new feature of human behaviour that is explained by evolutionary psychology. Humans have a diversity of behaviours - whether mating behaviour or other kinds - because there is no single ideal strategy.
Also someone should point out to the 'researchers' that not all one-night stands are one night by design, not all are cheating, and not all cheating takes the form of one-night stands. Plus with modern technology for contraception, prevention of transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases, and determining paternity, the one-night stand isn't the high-risk behaviour it might have been when we were foraging societies living on the savannas.
You know these things happen 'accidentally' because 50% of the time the error is in the customer's favour.....
In theory the idea behind Caprica was the corporate politics and foreign policy machinations behind the creation (and then abuse) of cybernetic life in the form of the Cylons, but there was effectively the first working Cylon by the end of the pilot, and she was created by a semi-supernatural deus ex machina. Also she just happened to be a copy of the personality of a religious fanatic with a pathological and completely unmotivated hatred of her parents. So before the series has even begun we already have the Cylons, and the mystery of why they turned out they way they did is just because they're spoiled, angry, borderline psychotic teenagers. (Actually, the virtual reality fantasy of a spoiled, angry, borderline psychotic teenager) Monotheism wasn't a great competing philosophical system, it was just a creepy cult with no point to it other than a pretext for adding lots of pretty teenage girls to the story.
There was one nice touch with the early 20th century clothing. There was something creepy about seeing fashion your brain is telling you is old juxtaposed with futuristic technology. I found that more convincingly alien than any costume or prosthetic.
Ah, the magic of collective nouns.
So, Microsoft has held human civilization back about 10 years, and the open source community has, with a massive and inefficient duplication of effort, recovered a few of those lost years in spite of Microsoft's efforts to stop them.
I for one am not grateful.
the way bank robbers love banks.
What, was that some kind of secret?
While I can't imagine that a (relatively ) passive kind of medium like the Internet will substitute for more traditional education, it can be, and frequently already is, a valuable supplement. It might not be enough to get someone to the point of graduating, but it might get them as far as maybe a second-year level. Even that would be a major step forward in the use of time, money and other resources.
My 1988 street address spelled backwards will be in a dictionary some day?
The disasters would happen, but they wouldn't all happen in the same century.