The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.
Not per capita. Per capita, China is well down the list. And they are only exempt up to the point where their per capita emissions begin to become comparable to developed countries.
Any attempt to impose rational explanation on magic simply ruins the exeperinece of the tale by creating obvious falsehood and makes it clear that the story teller is a hack who doesn't know his own business.
claims the origin of the phrase "useful idiots" is circa the early 80's
It doesn't actually say when it was said, but it does sound as if it was said in the early 80s. However, you pointed out that the book was written in 1989, which is absolutely irrelevant. Dumbass.
And your point is what? That if it's not in google, it doesn't exist?
If it cannot be found through Google then it is highly unlikely to be of any significance. It is more likely that you spelt the title wrong if you didn't make it up. Anyway, you cited it, you show that it exists.
I haven't declined to argue anything.
Then answer the question.
However, you predictably launched into a grammer-nazi nit-parade.
That's "grammar"! With an "a"! Oh the irony...
Anyway, you insulted me by saying I had no understanding of capitalism or democracy -- the argument by assertion fallacy. I find you amusing in that you are so sure of yourself, despite having no grasp of elementary grammar, basic logic, or common courtesy.
The book cited in that link was written in 1989. The first reference to Lenin's use of the phrase "useful idiots" in Western culture appeared in Nazi propaganda in 1938.
Newsflash, dumbass! Books written after an event may refer to historical events! The book was written in 1989 but identifies an earlier pamphlet as the source of the quote.
The propaganda film 'Auf der Kommunischt' showed footage of Lenin, and quoted him as referring to the peasants as 'useful fools [idiots]' who did not understand communism.
A Google search for 'Auf der Kommunischt' returns 0 hits.
The Nazi's were ardent anti-bolsheviks.
Really? I had never noticed. Thanks so much for educating me. Incidentally, you incorrectly used a possessive apostrophe in "Nazi's".
Why am I not suprised (or impressed) by your complete lack of understanding of capitalism, or democracy.
That statement should have a question mark on the end, even if it is a rhetorical question.
Why I am I not surprised that you declined to argue your case why central control in the private sector does not result in ownership?
Huge portions of our society have an abysmal diet and little to no regular exercise. Most people are sleep deprived on a regular basis.
Diet preference, appetite, inclination to exercise, sleep requirements, etc. are all genetically regulated.
When you look at two twins separated at birth they tend to have similar backgrounds so they often have similar IQ test scores but you will also find twins with significant differences in IQ, which is clearly an environmental impact.
You miss the point. In studies averaged over lots of samples, people with similar (or identical) genes are found to be much closer in intelligence than people who share a similar environment (when compared against a baseline of people of no particular genetic background or shared environment).
DNA is important but if you want to increase the standard functional intelligence of our society starting with environment is going to get you far quickly.
In a large led study they found a strong correlation between having led exposure and incarceration, a decreased IQ and impulse control issues.
I assume you mean "lead"? Rather than, say, "LEDs"?
So, assuming causality
That's a big assumption.
actively removing led should is going to have a large impact on society
Levelling the playing field as far as environment is concerned is only going to make the effect of genetics on intelligence greater. And of course, genetics determines the sensitivity of individuals to lead exposure.
And you still find a high degree of variability.
You are incorrect. Studies on *identical* twins separated at birth show similar intelligence test scores to the same person tested twice. In contrast children fostered in the same home environment show very little correlation in intelligence tests.
Environmental factors do have the potential to have large effects on a person's intelligence, but for most people their environment is similar enough for this to make little difference.
This is an excellent game which does wonders for your typing speed. It doesn't help much with accuracy though because it ignores spaces and you don't have to delete your errors. Still recommended. Dammit, I don't have a Win box handy.
Lack of a single nutrient can cause a 15point drop in IQ. Led can lead to severe mental retardation and other issues.
Of course you can make a big negative impact on someone's intelligence through their environment. That's easy. A big enough blow to the head should do.
While several studies show the HUGE impact led has on people's development few studies have demonstrated any relationship with your DNA and intelligence.
On the contrary. Studies on identical twins separated at birth and brought up in entirely separate environments show remarkable similarities in intelligence.
Or more basically the variety in the average DNA is much less important than interment when determining someone's intellect.
I don't understand. "Interment" is the process of burying the dead?
PS: We can do something about environment but there is not much we can do about DNA.
True to an extent but that will change. Anyway, your point is...?
Also your sweeping characterisation of the stupid as being born that way smacks very much of a particularily nasty type of eugenics, as does your pinning of "highly intellectual" people.
It's true though. Intelligence is determined very strongly by your genes -- much more strongly than differences in environment.
I am aware that there are more than a few people of low intelligence who are genetically built that way, but I would say these are in the vast minority. Much of this has to do with environment rather than their genes.
Why do you find the idea that your intelligence is primarily defined by genetics more disturbing than the view that it is defined by your environment?
I've had the same problem playing NetHack. The best option is to use a magic whistle (a blessed eucalyptus leaf will work in a pinch).
If a magic whistle isn't available, then a leash can work well. Failing that, be sure to feed your pet regularly and always carry some tripe. The dog, attracted by the smell, will follow you more closely.
There is a great deal of dross that is published in even the better scientific journals and it is quite a task keeping up with even a small field. I can't imagine many people who are not directly involved in research would be able to find the time to keep abreast.
I'd like to see better summaries of research published; something available in between reading all the abstracts and interesting papers in the top journals of the field and just reading the occasional flasgship paper in/Science/ or/Nature/.
If you want to be correct the entire distro is the OS
Actually, if you want to be correct, the entire distro is not the operating system.
Add to that the fact that anyone who disagrees with him is considered to have a moral defect
And where did he say that? It is a polite request that you include his contribution (which he is allowing you to use for free) in the name of the OS. You might disagree with his request and not acquiesce (I don't) but to call him a maniac for doing so is absurd.
Natural Selection made sense - it provided an explanation for paring down of an already existing diverse gene pool. And, it was mathematically sound. Evolution, OTOH, claims that nature created that diversity in the first place without ever explaining how
You are confused and ignorant as to what you are arguing against. Evolution is merely the genetic change in a population over time; I don't think anyone is arguing that this doesn't occur.
Natural selection is the primary process through which evolution in biological organisms occurs, and the reason why evolution is not purely random as in the straw man you keep constructing.
Your arrogance in asserting your claims when you haven't even bothered to do the most basic research into what you're arguing against is astounding. If it wasn't for your number of posts I would assume you were a troll.
But that's just one opinion from a guy who is pissed that criminals receive better treatment in the US from the government than orphans do.
I don't know what the US government treatment is for orphans (though I'd imagine it's not that great considering its other social policies) but I doubt they get intentionally killed.
even something as simple as protein folding requires extraordinary odds to get right in a truly random universe
No, it doesn't. Care to back up your claim?
I think evolution would be much more believable if scientists came out and explained the mechanisms by which a series of random events could produce even a single cell.
No one is saying that cells came about solely through random events. And, even if they were, random events will (given enough time) produce single cells.
There's no attempt to actually discover or explain the natural mechanisms or requirements for evolution.
What part of the current model of natural selection do you have problems with?
Instead, our children will be told that evolution is a process where random events created life and kept on improving it - as if a string of random events alone, however long, would produce something useful.
If that is what children are being told then that is of course wrong. That is not what I was taught as a child however.
Incidentally, it's not hard to disprove evolution - at least the part which suggests that it was shaped by merely random events. Simply write a program which fills a framebuffer with random numbers and tell me if it ever produces anything structured or resembling life, or even anything worth looking at.
It does. Even if you leave out the main principle of Natural Selection (the "selection" part, i.e. survival of the fittest), if you fill a framebuffer with random data you will eventually cycle through every possible image that could possibly be shown.
I am currently working on a PhD in the field of Evolutionary Computation. To be specific, I am working on a technique known as Genetic Programming. It uses similar techniques to Natural Selection to create sophisticated programs out of initial random data. Read up on it.
I've come to view evolution as a test for critical thinking skills.
Yes, if continental drift, atomic decay, etc, were constant throughout the ages, we may be able to safely conclude that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Problem is, we can't prove this.
They do all more or less agree though, so they'd all have to be inconsistent to be wrong. Nothing can be proved to be absolute, but some theories are overwhelmingly more likely than others given the weight of supporting evidence.
You left out the fossil record, the DNA record, ice cores, astronomical evidence etc. by the way. You're welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.
Not per capita. Per capita, China is well down the list. And they are only exempt up to the point where their per capita emissions begin to become comparable to developed countries.
The same is true about the heart transplant example: It still costs the same or more under socialism
No it doesn't. Under capitalism you have to pay for the profit margins of whoever has fronted the capital for the enterprise.
Any attempt to impose rational explanation on magic simply ruins the exeperinece of the tale by creating obvious falsehood and makes it clear that the story teller is a hack who doesn't know his own business.
Highlander II.
You made my foes list for pussying out of the discussion.
the cite your provided
My what provided?
claims the origin of the phrase "useful idiots" is circa the early 80's
It doesn't actually say when it was said, but it does sound as if it was said in the early 80s. However, you pointed out that the book was written in 1989, which is absolutely irrelevant. Dumbass.
And your point is what? That if it's not in google, it doesn't exist?
If it cannot be found through Google then it is highly unlikely to be of any significance. It is more likely that you spelt the title wrong if you didn't make it up. Anyway, you cited it, you show that it exists.
I haven't declined to argue anything.
Then answer the question.
However, you predictably launched into a grammer-nazi nit-parade.
That's "grammar"! With an "a"! Oh the irony...
Anyway, you insulted me by saying I had no understanding of capitalism or democracy -- the argument by assertion fallacy. I find you amusing in that you are so sure of yourself, despite having no grasp of elementary grammar, basic logic, or common courtesy.
The book cited in that link was written in 1989. The first reference to Lenin's use of the phrase "useful idiots" in Western culture appeared in Nazi propaganda in 1938.
Newsflash, dumbass! Books written after an event may refer to historical events! The book was written in 1989 but identifies an earlier pamphlet as the source of the quote.
The propaganda film 'Auf der Kommunischt' showed footage of Lenin, and quoted him as referring to the peasants as 'useful fools [idiots]' who did not understand communism.
A Google search for 'Auf der Kommunischt' returns 0 hits.
The Nazi's were ardent anti-bolsheviks.
Really? I had never noticed. Thanks so much for educating me. Incidentally, you incorrectly used a possessive apostrophe in "Nazi's".
Why am I not suprised (or impressed) by your complete lack of understanding of capitalism, or democracy.
That statement should have a question mark on the end, even if it is a rhetorical question.
Why I am I not surprised that you declined to argue your case why central control in the private sector does not result in ownership?
Lenin referred to these people as "useful idiots".
No he didn't.
When a centralized authority assumes control of the resource, they own it.
So the board of directors actually own companies, not the shareholders?
Huge portions of our society have an abysmal diet and little to no regular exercise. Most people are sleep deprived on a regular basis.
Diet preference, appetite, inclination to exercise, sleep requirements, etc. are all genetically regulated.
When you look at two twins separated at birth they tend to have similar backgrounds so they often have similar IQ test scores but you will also find twins with significant differences in IQ, which is clearly an environmental impact.
You miss the point. In studies averaged over lots of samples, people with similar (or identical) genes are found to be much closer in intelligence than people who share a similar environment (when compared against a baseline of people of no particular genetic background or shared environment).
DNA is important but if you want to increase the standard functional intelligence of our society starting with environment is going to get you far quickly.
I'm not disputing that.
In a large led study they found a strong correlation between having led exposure and incarceration, a decreased IQ and impulse control issues.
I assume you mean "lead"? Rather than, say, "LEDs"?
So, assuming causality
That's a big assumption.
actively removing led should is going to have a large impact on society
Levelling the playing field as far as environment is concerned is only going to make the effect of genetics on intelligence greater. And of course, genetics determines the sensitivity of individuals to lead exposure.
And you still find a high degree of variability.
You are incorrect. Studies on *identical* twins separated at birth show similar intelligence test scores to the same person tested twice. In contrast children fostered in the same home environment show very little correlation in intelligence tests.
Environmental factors do have the potential to have large effects on a person's intelligence, but for most people their environment is similar enough for this to make little difference.
This is an excellent game which does wonders for your typing speed. It doesn't help much with accuracy though because it ignores spaces and you don't have to delete your errors. Still recommended. Dammit, I don't have a Win box handy.
Lack of a single nutrient can cause a 15point drop in IQ. Led can lead to severe mental retardation and other issues.
Of course you can make a big negative impact on someone's intelligence through their environment. That's easy. A big enough blow to the head should do.
While several studies show the HUGE impact led has on people's development few studies have demonstrated any relationship with your DNA and intelligence.
On the contrary. Studies on identical twins separated at birth and brought up in entirely separate environments show remarkable similarities in intelligence.
Or more basically the variety in the average DNA is much less important than interment when determining someone's intellect.
I don't understand. "Interment" is the process of burying the dead?
PS: We can do something about environment but there is not much we can do about DNA.
True to an extent but that will change. Anyway, your point is...?
Also your sweeping characterisation of the stupid as being born that way smacks very much of a particularily nasty type of eugenics, as does your pinning of "highly intellectual" people.
It's true though. Intelligence is determined very strongly by your genes -- much more strongly than differences in environment.
I am aware that there are more than a few people of low intelligence who are genetically built that way, but I would say these are in the vast minority. Much of this has to do with environment rather than their genes.
Why do you find the idea that your intelligence is primarily defined by genetics more disturbing than the view that it is defined by your environment?
That is the most insightful piece of text beginning with "Dude" that I have ever come across.
I've had the same problem playing NetHack. The best option is to use a magic whistle (a blessed eucalyptus leaf will work in a pinch).
If a magic whistle isn't available, then a leash can work well. Failing that, be sure to feed your pet regularly and always carry some tripe. The dog, attracted by the smell, will follow you more closely.
HTH
No.
There is a great deal of dross that is published in even the better scientific journals and it is quite a task keeping up with even a small field. I can't imagine many people who are not directly involved in research would be able to find the time to keep abreast.
/Science/ or /Nature/.
I'd like to see better summaries of research published; something available in between reading all the abstracts and interesting papers in the top journals of the field and just reading the occasional flasgship paper in
RMS has given the world gcc, emacs, and a host of other advanced projects. I think he has earned the right to express his views.
Looking at your website, you offer a script for "automating FTP opertions [sic]". I rest my case.
If you want to be correct the entire distro is the OS
Actually, if you want to be correct, the entire distro is not the operating system.
Add to that the fact that anyone who disagrees with him is considered to have a moral defect
And where did he say that? It is a polite request that you include his contribution (which he is allowing you to use for free) in the name of the OS. You might disagree with his request and not acquiesce (I don't) but to call him a maniac for doing so is absurd.
Natural Selection made sense - it provided an explanation for paring down of an already existing diverse gene pool. And, it was mathematically sound. Evolution, OTOH, claims that nature created that diversity in the first place without ever explaining how
You are confused and ignorant as to what you are arguing against. Evolution is merely the genetic change in a population over time; I don't think anyone is arguing that this doesn't occur.
Educate yourself.
Natural selection is the primary process through which evolution in biological organisms occurs, and the reason why evolution is not purely random as in the straw man you keep constructing.
Educate yourself.
Your arrogance in asserting your claims when you haven't even bothered to do the most basic research into what you're arguing against is astounding. If it wasn't for your number of posts I would assume you were a troll.
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
These lines have always confused me. Is it poetic licence or has the pronounciation of "eye" or "symmetry" changed since the poem was written?
But that's just one opinion from a guy who is pissed that criminals receive better treatment in the US from the government than orphans do.
I don't know what the US government treatment is for orphans (though I'd imagine it's not that great considering its other social policies) but I doubt they get intentionally killed.
even something as simple as protein folding requires extraordinary odds to get right in a truly random universe
No, it doesn't. Care to back up your claim?
I think evolution would be much more believable if scientists came out and explained the mechanisms by which a series of random events could produce even a single cell.
No one is saying that cells came about solely through random events. And, even if they were, random events will (given enough time) produce single cells.
There's no attempt to actually discover or explain the natural mechanisms or requirements for evolution.
What part of the current model of natural selection do you have problems with?
Instead, our children will be told that evolution is a process where random events created life and kept on improving it - as if a string of random events alone, however long, would produce something useful.
If that is what children are being told then that is of course wrong. That is not what I was taught as a child however.
Incidentally, it's not hard to disprove evolution - at least the part which suggests that it was shaped by merely random events. Simply write a program which fills a framebuffer with random numbers and tell me if it ever produces anything structured or resembling life, or even anything worth looking at.
It does. Even if you leave out the main principle of Natural Selection (the "selection" part, i.e. survival of the fittest), if you fill a framebuffer with random data you will eventually cycle through every possible image that could possibly be shown.
I am currently working on a PhD in the field of Evolutionary Computation. To be specific, I am working on a technique known as Genetic Programming. It uses similar techniques to Natural Selection to create sophisticated programs out of initial random data. Read up on it.
I've come to view evolution as a test for critical thinking skills.
Me too.
Yes, if continental drift, atomic decay, etc, were constant throughout the ages, we may be able to safely conclude that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Problem is, we can't prove this.
They do all more or less agree though, so they'd all have to be inconsistent to be wrong. Nothing can be proved to be absolute, but some theories are overwhelmingly more likely than others given the weight of supporting evidence.
You left out the fossil record, the DNA record, ice cores, astronomical evidence etc. by the way. You're welcome.