Republicans are just a bit more blatant about it because it appeals to their idiot constituency.
It's just more blatant to you because you're not one of their idiot constituency. Democrats seem to be less blatant about it because you are one of their idiot constituency.
That you see one as being more blatant than the other says more about you than the politicians.
This entire article is about directly paying for content, instead of having ad supported content. (Well, the article is arguing in favor of ad supported content, but the premises are the same.) This $230/year is, specifically, paying for content. There's no realistic way to collect and distribute this money, so it's posed as an addition to your ISP bill, but this isn't about paying for delivery.
Likewise, the charges for cable TV include their payments to the networks and studios for content. Local ads in the cable feed to your house don't directly pay for content. Just as your ISP injecting ads into your internet connection doesn't pay for content.
If there was a way to directly pay for content and ads were still used in addition, as the GP suggested, the motivator there would be greed. The content was already paid for and this has nothing to do with delivery.
That's just a standard disclaimer. Who doesn't own shares of Tesla Motors? The Motley Fool probably owns some shares of almost every company they'd report on. That doesn't make it an ad.
Road trains sound like an awesome idea and would be fantastic for efficiently using already available highway space. But without stricter, and strictly enforced, vehicle condition inspections, participating in them could be extremely dangerous. As the driver's interaction with the car becomes more and more passive, people are less likely to notice issues with the car's function. Adding more and more sensors to watch vehicle condition may be a solution, though issues with the reliability and longevity of the sensors in rough environments will piss people off.
The state I live in now doesn't have any vehicle inspections and I've seen several tire blowouts on the highway since moving here. Even with fast computer reflexes, I'd imagine one of those could wipe out several other cars in a train. Without some sort of unified inspection code, your train will have a patchwork of cars from different states in different states of repair.
Almost as important, and exceedingly disturbing, is that this connection (between handling corpses and starting infections during surgery) was only made in 1847.
An arms race between the police and who else? Crimes in the US are not committed with the "latest and greatest assault rifles". They're committed with handguns (mostly crappy old Saturday night specials). The last arms race between US police and citizens was in the 1920's, when assault rifles were banned (as they still are).
"Ex-military" doesn't mean "unhinged violent psychopath". If an overwhelming show of force isn't necessary, like when you're serving a warrant for a nonviolent crime, kicking in doors and invading homes is more likely to cause a bad outcome than just knocking on the door. If the person who's home you're invading has been trained to deal with a similar situation and invading their home isn't necessary, you shouldn't go in with SWAT unless you really want a bad outcome.
Pro Religion, Pro Microsoft, Anti GNU, Anti Linux, Pro DRM. Posts unless extremely well explained will get modded down to troll.
Isn't that the problem in the first place? If people cannot/refuse to explain their position, yet choose to launch a Pro Religion, Pro Microsoft, Anti GNU, Anti Linux, Pro DRM tirade, what difference is there between a (supposedly) ignorant person and a troll? All they're doing is pushing people's emotional points without any (good) basis whatsoever.
This is an excellent point. The only functional difference between a poorly defended unpopular position and a troll is the intent of the poster, which is often impossible to determine from the post alone (Poe's law and all).
The broken window fallacy describes spurring economic activity with destruction. While that is what Zorg is describing, it actually works as a means to maintain "life" with busywork jobs. It may not create any economic value overall, but it certainly allows people to thrive.
A better way to describe destruction encouraging life is through competition of resources and culling the established players every now and then. If a particular species (or whatever) is allowed to establish dominance over a resource to the exclusion of others, diversity in that arena diminishes (though diversity in other arenas may increase). Destruction changes things and allows resources to be exploited in new ways. In this way, Cornelius is also stifling life by protecting the status quo and trying to preserve the current order.
Well, you'd ramp up the number of representatives, too. (Both to dilute the extremely stupid, corrupt, overbearing and to make bribery more difficult.) If we scaled up Congress to the same levels of representation (congresspeople per citizen) we had when the country was founded, we'd have over 10,000 congressmen today. At 25k unique congresspeople per decade, you'd run out of seats on your board pretty quickly.
Even sticking with the current number of representatives, the complete turnover every four years (staggered, but on average) would overwhelm available board positions pretty quickly.
So you agree that the only true scientific debate here is on the debunk-the-book side. But you're irritated that 100 researchers are motivated to agree with that.
Yes. And if you read through what I actually wrote, and left the poor strawmen alone, you'd see that that's all I ever claimed.
Simply: I don't like the involvement of politics in science. The book is politics and psuedoscience. Dobbs' review is science. The letter is politics. I'm irritated that the scientists involved in the letter feel so compelled to participate in the pollution of their field with politics.
Ignoring crackpots or debunking their "theories" with well-reasoned arguments (like Dobbs did) is good, but railing against crackpots with nothing but self-righteous petitions is not good (and has nothing to do with science). Dobbs' review stands on its own. The letter adds nothing to the reason of his arguments.
You must have some convoluted tangle of beliefs that I can't even begin to visualize.
I think that's the issue. I don't neatly fit into some simplistic dichotomy (liberal-conservative or whatever...), so trying to decipher what I'm I'm saying using that key must be baffling. You seem to imagine that because I don't agree with the letter, that I also disagree with Dobbs and agree with Wade. I'm not made of card: the worldview of real people can be more nuanced than that.
...maybe a rear or side camera views to help with lane changes...
That alone is an amazing idea. If the display of a useful side/rear view display is tied to the appropriate turn signal, we might actually see people using their signals again!
It's still wrong though, as women should not be penalized for not being masculine enough.
It is wrong, but women may not be punished for not being aggressive so much as men are being rewarded for it. That sounds like a distinction without a difference, but the default state is not get promotions and (especially) raises unless pushed for. Non-aggressive men may also get fewer raises and promotions.
It's a difficult situation to fix, too, because any correction would require companies giving regular raises based entirely on merit. That's how it should be, but companies are loath to give anything to employees that isn't pressured out of them, which is where the reward for aggression comes in. I wonder if the pay is more equal in government, where it's determined more by time of employment.
The aggressiveness certainly pays off, which is not the sign of an ideal system. I've never received a (non cost of living, non changing jobs) raise without asking for it, even though I always get them when I ask. My wife hadn't received any either, until I convinced her to push for one, which she immediately got.
If not being a serious scientist means I spend my days doing actual science instead of becoming embroiled in politics, then I'll wear that distinction with honor.
Sure, "Harry Potter" would be a weak password, but the AC above used, "I'm going to take my dog, Spot, to the park today." Even though it's grammatically correct (limiting the entropy), no dictionary attack will crack that in a reasonable amount of time. Rename the dog, throw in a typo, or screw with the punctuation and that's a quite strong passphrase.
I love scientific debate, but I loathe politics. This letter is politics. I don't see how you can look at that letter and call it "engaging in argument" with a straight face. The book is politics thinly disguised as scientific debate. Dobb's review is scientific debate (and a little politics), but the followup "me too!" letter is pure politics. Why did they even bother with it at all? Are they going to go tilt at the Time Cube guy next?
Regarding GTFO academia, I'll probably leave because I think the many downsides outweigh the many good aspects. But recognizing the suboptimal aspects of our structures and first bellyaching, then working to fix them is how we end up making things better. Taking what you're served is for chumps, as is the "America: take it or leave it" position you're advocating.
My "stance on global warming", whatever that means, isn't based on any political platform, so I doubt it'd particularly interest you.
The illiterate chimes in! The entire letter is here at a whopping three paragraphs, one of which was quoted in its entirety. Dobb's review is much better. The letter, as a collective "me too!", is emotional masturbation and science by petition.
A SCIENTIFIC consensus, which is not your average consensus.
Well, we don't know if there is consensus among the entire community of geneticists with regard to this particular issue. The equivalent of a petition with 139 signatures doesn't make scientific consensus. This is a consensus of 139 scientists, not scientific consensus.
Their argument is supported, at least in their view, by the research. Why do they need to spell out everything?
Because clearly it isn't, if their research is used in this book to support the opposing argument. If the book author has misinterpreted their results, but they don't bother to actually address his mistakes, then their letter amounts to no more than a big, "nuh-uh!"
Public debate needs to be held to a higher standard than it currently is. Would you expect to win a debate by having your entire team sign a letter saying no more than, "The other team is wrong"?
By what criteria is that an incorrect response? They are responding to a BOOK, which by definition does not need to go through rigorous peer review. They don't have to waste their time writing a paper just to appease the likes of you because there are already papers out there.
Why do you care if I think their letter is stupid? Why are you so upset that I'm arguing against their approach on a backwater site like this?
What does YOUR being offended by this advance science and human knowledge?
I'm practicing what I preach by specifically pointing out how their argument fails to be as convincing as it could be. That you're so emotionally invested in this that you only see me as getting offended doesn't change my argument.
I don't know what planet you're living on, but to point out that people are misusing your own research to make claims that the research itself doesn't support DOES advance science. Science is just as much about getting it right as it is about pointing out where others have it wrong.
I've bolded the important part above. Pointing out where, or how, others have it wrong is exactly what I'm advocating. Pointing out that others have it wrong, without any supporting evidence as in the letter we are discussing, does nothing to advance science.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans are just a bit more blatant about it because it appeals to their idiot constituency.
It's just more blatant to you because you're not one of their idiot constituency. Democrats seem to be less blatant about it because you are one of their idiot constituency.
That you see one as being more blatant than the other says more about you than the politicians.
This entire article is about directly paying for content, instead of having ad supported content. (Well, the article is arguing in favor of ad supported content, but the premises are the same.) This $230/year is, specifically, paying for content. There's no realistic way to collect and distribute this money, so it's posed as an addition to your ISP bill, but this isn't about paying for delivery.
Likewise, the charges for cable TV include their payments to the networks and studios for content. Local ads in the cable feed to your house don't directly pay for content. Just as your ISP injecting ads into your internet connection doesn't pay for content.
If there was a way to directly pay for content and ads were still used in addition, as the GP suggested, the motivator there would be greed. The content was already paid for and this has nothing to do with delivery.
That's just a standard disclaimer. Who doesn't own shares of Tesla Motors? The Motley Fool probably owns some shares of almost every company they'd report on. That doesn't make it an ad.
She carried two phones all of the time, which is why she succeeded. Who's the lunatic now?
Road trains sound like an awesome idea and would be fantastic for efficiently using already available highway space. But without stricter, and strictly enforced, vehicle condition inspections, participating in them could be extremely dangerous. As the driver's interaction with the car becomes more and more passive, people are less likely to notice issues with the car's function. Adding more and more sensors to watch vehicle condition may be a solution, though issues with the reliability and longevity of the sensors in rough environments will piss people off.
The state I live in now doesn't have any vehicle inspections and I've seen several tire blowouts on the highway since moving here. Even with fast computer reflexes, I'd imagine one of those could wipe out several other cars in a train. Without some sort of unified inspection code, your train will have a patchwork of cars from different states in different states of repair.
As the other poster mentioned, and as described in this page, obstructing traffic and driving the speed limit are entirely orthogonal legal concepts.
Almost as important, and exceedingly disturbing, is that this connection (between handling corpses and starting infections during surgery) was only made in 1847.
An arms race between the police and who else? Crimes in the US are not committed with the "latest and greatest assault rifles". They're committed with handguns (mostly crappy old Saturday night specials). The last arms race between US police and citizens was in the 1920's, when assault rifles were banned (as they still are).
"Ex-military" doesn't mean "unhinged violent psychopath". If an overwhelming show of force isn't necessary, like when you're serving a warrant for a nonviolent crime, kicking in doors and invading homes is more likely to cause a bad outcome than just knocking on the door. If the person who's home you're invading has been trained to deal with a similar situation and invading their home isn't necessary, you shouldn't go in with SWAT unless you really want a bad outcome.
Pro Religion, Pro Microsoft, Anti GNU, Anti Linux, Pro DRM. Posts unless extremely well explained will get modded down to troll.
Isn't that the problem in the first place? If people cannot/refuse to explain their position, yet choose to launch a Pro Religion, Pro Microsoft, Anti GNU, Anti Linux, Pro DRM tirade, what difference is there between a (supposedly) ignorant person and a troll? All they're doing is pushing people's emotional points without any (good) basis whatsoever.
This is an excellent point. The only functional difference between a poorly defended unpopular position and a troll is the intent of the poster, which is often impossible to determine from the post alone (Poe's law and all).
The broken window fallacy describes spurring economic activity with destruction. While that is what Zorg is describing, it actually works as a means to maintain "life" with busywork jobs. It may not create any economic value overall, but it certainly allows people to thrive.
A better way to describe destruction encouraging life is through competition of resources and culling the established players every now and then. If a particular species (or whatever) is allowed to establish dominance over a resource to the exclusion of others, diversity in that arena diminishes (though diversity in other arenas may increase). Destruction changes things and allows resources to be exploited in new ways. In this way, Cornelius is also stifling life by protecting the status quo and trying to preserve the current order.
We don't need leaders. We need representatives.
"Leaders", who treat the country and its citizens as their plaything, are what got us into this mess.
Well, you'd ramp up the number of representatives, too. (Both to dilute the extremely stupid, corrupt, overbearing and to make bribery more difficult.) If we scaled up Congress to the same levels of representation (congresspeople per citizen) we had when the country was founded, we'd have over 10,000 congressmen today. At 25k unique congresspeople per decade, you'd run out of seats on your board pretty quickly.
Even sticking with the current number of representatives, the complete turnover every four years (staggered, but on average) would overwhelm available board positions pretty quickly.
So you agree that the only true scientific debate here is on the debunk-the-book side. But you're irritated that 100 researchers are motivated to agree with that.
Yes. And if you read through what I actually wrote, and left the poor strawmen alone, you'd see that that's all I ever claimed.
Simply:
I don't like the involvement of politics in science.
The book is politics and psuedoscience.
Dobbs' review is science.
The letter is politics.
I'm irritated that the scientists involved in the letter feel so compelled to participate in the pollution of their field with politics.
Ignoring crackpots or debunking their "theories" with well-reasoned arguments (like Dobbs did) is good, but railing against crackpots with nothing but self-righteous petitions is not good (and has nothing to do with science). Dobbs' review stands on its own. The letter adds nothing to the reason of his arguments.
You must have some convoluted tangle of beliefs that I can't even begin to visualize.
I think that's the issue. I don't neatly fit into some simplistic dichotomy (liberal-conservative or whatever...), so trying to decipher what I'm I'm saying using that key must be baffling. You seem to imagine that because I don't agree with the letter, that I also disagree with Dobbs and agree with Wade. I'm not made of card: the worldview of real people can be more nuanced than that.
I can accept that compromise! So it's decided.
...maybe a rear or side camera views to help with lane changes...
That alone is an amazing idea. If the display of a useful side/rear view display is tied to the appropriate turn signal, we might actually see people using their signals again!
Nuts to that stuff. Make it twice as thick and double or triple the battery size.
I totally agree... in fact I said just that. How do we get from here to there? That's the hard part.
(I'm genuinely asking, by the way. It would be nice to start a discussion on how to solve this problems.)
It's still wrong though, as women should not be penalized for not being masculine enough.
It is wrong, but women may not be punished for not being aggressive so much as men are being rewarded for it. That sounds like a distinction without a difference, but the default state is not get promotions and (especially) raises unless pushed for. Non-aggressive men may also get fewer raises and promotions.
It's a difficult situation to fix, too, because any correction would require companies giving regular raises based entirely on merit. That's how it should be, but companies are loath to give anything to employees that isn't pressured out of them, which is where the reward for aggression comes in. I wonder if the pay is more equal in government, where it's determined more by time of employment.
The aggressiveness certainly pays off, which is not the sign of an ideal system. I've never received a (non cost of living, non changing jobs) raise without asking for it, even though I always get them when I ask. My wife hadn't received any either, until I convinced her to push for one, which she immediately got.
If not being a serious scientist means I spend my days doing actual science instead of becoming embroiled in politics, then I'll wear that distinction with honor.
Well, you could, you know, NOT CONNECT the IP enabled water heater to the Internet.
What if that's not a choice, either?
or
Do these scenarios really seem too far fetched or unlikely?
Sure, "Harry Potter" would be a weak password, but the AC above used, "I'm going to take my dog, Spot, to the park today." Even though it's grammatically correct (limiting the entropy), no dictionary attack will crack that in a reasonable amount of time. Rename the dog, throw in a typo, or screw with the punctuation and that's a quite strong passphrase.
I love scientific debate, but I loathe politics. This letter is politics. I don't see how you can look at that letter and call it "engaging in argument" with a straight face. The book is politics thinly disguised as scientific debate. Dobb's review is scientific debate (and a little politics), but the followup "me too!" letter is pure politics. Why did they even bother with it at all? Are they going to go tilt at the Time Cube guy next?
Regarding GTFO academia, I'll probably leave because I think the many downsides outweigh the many good aspects. But recognizing the suboptimal aspects of our structures and first bellyaching, then working to fix them is how we end up making things better. Taking what you're served is for chumps, as is the "America: take it or leave it" position you're advocating.
My "stance on global warming", whatever that means, isn't based on any political platform, so I doubt it'd particularly interest you.
The illiterate chimes in! The entire letter is here at a whopping three paragraphs, one of which was quoted in its entirety. Dobb's review is much better. The letter, as a collective "me too!", is emotional masturbation and science by petition.
Your post is very meta; I like it.
A SCIENTIFIC consensus, which is not your average consensus.
Well, we don't know if there is consensus among the entire community of geneticists with regard to this particular issue. The equivalent of a petition with 139 signatures doesn't make scientific consensus. This is a consensus of 139 scientists, not scientific consensus.
Their argument is supported, at least in their view, by the research. Why do they need to spell out everything?
Because clearly it isn't, if their research is used in this book to support the opposing argument. If the book author has misinterpreted their results, but they don't bother to actually address his mistakes, then their letter amounts to no more than a big, "nuh-uh!"
Public debate needs to be held to a higher standard than it currently is. Would you expect to win a debate by having your entire team sign a letter saying no more than, "The other team is wrong"?
By what criteria is that an incorrect response? They are responding to a BOOK, which by definition does not need to go through rigorous peer review. They don't have to waste their time writing a paper just to appease the likes of you because there are already papers out there.
Why do you care if I think their letter is stupid? Why are you so upset that I'm arguing against their approach on a backwater site like this?
What does YOUR being offended by this advance science and human knowledge?
I'm practicing what I preach by specifically pointing out how their argument fails to be as convincing as it could be. That you're so emotionally invested in this that you only see me as getting offended doesn't change my argument.
I don't know what planet you're living on, but to point out that people are misusing your own research to make claims that the research itself doesn't support DOES advance science. Science is just as much about getting it right as it is about pointing out where others have it wrong.
I've bolded the important part above. Pointing out where, or how, others have it wrong is exactly what I'm advocating. Pointing out that others have it wrong, without any supporting evidence as in the letter we are discussing, does nothing to advance science.