I declare you to be a liar. I'll bet $1000 that you cannot find any case ever where I've advocated criminalisation criticism of my position. Makinf up counterfactual statements is known as "lying" and the fact that you're so brazen about it indicates you have no sense of ethics at all.
The claim was not "you advocated for criminalization of criticism of your position", the claim was
coming from a side that literally wants to criminalize any criticism of its own position.
This is not, however, true when you're talking about bird shot from a shotgun, which does drop below killing velocity (substantially below, in fact) when it falls.
Since there have been at least a dozen confirmed bomb threats where GG has had their talks
Confirmed? Where are the police reports?
A dozen bomb threats doesn't appear to be true, but I did find three bomb threats against GG meetings: in Miami, Melbourne, and D.C. Now, those aren't police reports, but those appear to cost money from the DC police, at least.
Sarkeesian and Quinn both got more harassment than they deserved, for sure. Sarkeesian is a shitty game critic (and has stolen other people's game footage) but she shouldn't have gotten nearly that much attention. Quinn appears to have been emotionally abusive, and may have gotten more publicity (not a review, it seems) from a relationship, but again, those don't justify harassment either. That being said, apparently GG has still been doing stuff this whole time, but the actual harassment seems to have mostly gone away.
You (if you're the OP) were teaching, not doing research. Research in academia is definitely more like industry, at least in the biomedical field. You can take some time off (depending on your lab/company) but if anything, you get more of a work/life balance in industry. It's still a shitty balance, mind you, but...
It's worth doing things that aren't immediately applicable and things that are. Often, things that are immediately applicable will turn up new questions for basic research, and basic research leads to applications at some point (sometimes). But in order to really help people, you need both areas.
Pointing out your use of an ad hominem is not, itself, an ad hominem.
I don't have a dog in this fight; my position is that you're being a jackass. I'm not trying to argue about the effects of radiation here. While Mr D has also not provided evidence, at least he was polite.
You're a horrendous shill or sock puppet, I cannot tell which and the only reason I reply to your comments is to illustrate what a bullshit artist'e you are. My instinct tells me I am not the only one who has noticed and it was very entertaining watching how effortlessly your mindlessness was exposed.
I'm sure I will get modded into oblivion, but I don't care because that absolutely made my week. I want you to know, I am still laughing at you, right now.
Nice ad hominem, dude. You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either. This whole "OMG I'm so amused at how bad you are and how much better I am trolololol" thing is just silly. Act like an adult. Be the person Mr. Rodgers would want you to be.
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with that study's methodology. First off, it's a retrospective study, and not a well-controlled one at that. Second, their 90% CI is really large - and their choice of 90% CI is suspicious. In any retrospective study when you can analyze a lot of things, you have to lower the p-value you use to determine statistical significance, because if you look at a lot of different things with the same data set, you're likely to see some sort of relationship purely by chance. However, instead of lowering it (from the usual 0.05, which is admittedly somewhat arbitrary), they raised it to 0.1. They also have a huge discrepancy between their mean (20.9 mGy) and median (4.1 mGy). Lastly, if you look at their one figure, the error bars for most doses overlap with a relative rate of 1 - meaning they can't say whether it's statistically different from the normal population.
The experts on thyroid cancer probably want to push back against what they see as flawed conclusions and alarmist claims. That same group may have also made a statement when people said there had been no effect, and it just didn't make it here.
Sure, but then you've probably killed your system too, and probably pissed off everybody else who wanted GPS or equivalent, and made it a lot harder to put one back up after the war.
You are, empirically, wrong. Global trade has helped people in the West (on average - some people have been hurt, but more have gained) and it's helped a lot of less-developed countries raise their standard of living. Westerners don't gain as much from global trade, but on the whole it does raise quality of life.
As for saying efficiency makes quality of life worse - I cannot understand that opinion. Doing more with less is fantastic, and it's arguably one thing that makes us human.
Personnel matters (as opposed to personal matters) are still work-related, and should have been turned over. But yes, I agree otherwise, let's see what the investigation turns up.
Sure, I'm not sure why the FBI is looking into it - it certainly could be other things. I agree, let's see what the investigation says. From current evidence, she may not have broken laws - it looks more and more like she did, but maybe not - but she certainly lied about it.
Europe is more free than the US because it doesn't just guarantee freedom from interference, it guarantees basic rights you need to be free of extreme poverty and suffering.
Europe is more free than the US if you subscribe to that reasoning (and if you twist what the word "right" means - if someone else has to work to give it to you, it's not a basic right, but I digress...). If you don't, then it's not more free. Are you free if you don't have the freedom to fail?
You're still wrong - some information is classified as soon as it's generated, even if it isn't marked "classified". Some of that information was found on her server - it was classified at the time, even if it didn't have the appropriate markings - that's how classified information works. She lied when she said she turned all the emails over. Not turning them over is, in fact, illegal, and it was when the RNC did it too. Their bad behavior doesn't excuse hers.
What the AC failed to do, though, was explain why a climate scientist is more qualified to talk about relative scales of problems than anybody else is. Climate scientists are better at what they do than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they're good public policy makers, sociologists, economists... all of whom will need to be involved in determining what public policy should be.
Slashdot Mirror
The gamers, by and large, aren't the ones calling in the bomb threats. Three GG events have been threatened that I know about, however.
I declare you to be a liar. I'll bet $1000 that you cannot find any case ever where I've advocated criminalisation criticism of my position. Makinf up counterfactual statements is known as "lying" and the fact that you're so brazen about it indicates you have no sense of ethics at all.
The claim was not "you advocated for criminalization of criticism of your position", the claim was
coming from a side that literally wants to criminalize any criticism of its own position.
I imagine the packages they carry would make it pretty easy to tell which ones you could loot. Besides, delivery trucks are already color-coded.
This is not, however, true when you're talking about bird shot from a shotgun, which does drop below killing velocity (substantially below, in fact) when it falls.
The GG panel was one of the two that was cancelled. I'm pretty sure it wasn't GG that was making the threats.
Since there have been at least a dozen confirmed bomb threats where GG has had their talks
Confirmed? Where are the police reports?
A dozen bomb threats doesn't appear to be true, but I did find three bomb threats against GG meetings: in Miami, Melbourne, and D.C. Now, those aren't police reports, but those appear to cost money from the DC police, at least.
Sarkeesian and Quinn both got more harassment than they deserved, for sure. Sarkeesian is a shitty game critic (and has stolen other people's game footage) but she shouldn't have gotten nearly that much attention. Quinn appears to have been emotionally abusive, and may have gotten more publicity (not a review, it seems) from a relationship, but again, those don't justify harassment either. That being said, apparently GG has still been doing stuff this whole time, but the actual harassment seems to have mostly gone away.
You (if you're the OP) were teaching, not doing research. Research in academia is definitely more like industry, at least in the biomedical field. You can take some time off (depending on your lab/company) but if anything, you get more of a work/life balance in industry. It's still a shitty balance, mind you, but...
It's worth doing things that aren't immediately applicable and things that are. Often, things that are immediately applicable will turn up new questions for basic research, and basic research leads to applications at some point (sometimes). But in order to really help people, you need both areas.
Pointing out your use of an ad hominem is not, itself, an ad hominem.
I don't have a dog in this fight; my position is that you're being a jackass. I'm not trying to argue about the effects of radiation here. While Mr D has also not provided evidence, at least he was polite.
For some reason, I typo'd his name: he's Mr. Rogers. Further reading.
Relevant xkcd.
Nice try but as usual you have nothing.
You're a horrendous shill or sock puppet, I cannot tell which and the only reason I reply to your comments is to illustrate what a bullshit artist'e you are. My instinct tells me I am not the only one who has noticed and it was very entertaining watching how effortlessly your mindlessness was exposed.
I'm sure I will get modded into oblivion, but I don't care because that absolutely made my week. I want you to know, I am still laughing at you, right now.
Nice ad hominem, dude. You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either. This whole "OMG I'm so amused at how bad you are and how much better I am trolololol" thing is just silly. Act like an adult. Be the person Mr. Rodgers would want you to be.
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with that study's methodology. First off, it's a retrospective study, and not a well-controlled one at that. Second, their 90% CI is really large - and their choice of 90% CI is suspicious. In any retrospective study when you can analyze a lot of things, you have to lower the p-value you use to determine statistical significance, because if you look at a lot of different things with the same data set, you're likely to see some sort of relationship purely by chance. However, instead of lowering it (from the usual 0.05, which is admittedly somewhat arbitrary), they raised it to 0.1. They also have a huge discrepancy between their mean (20.9 mGy) and median (4.1 mGy). Lastly, if you look at their one figure, the error bars for most doses overlap with a relative rate of 1 - meaning they can't say whether it's statistically different from the normal population.
The experts on thyroid cancer probably want to push back against what they see as flawed conclusions and alarmist claims. That same group may have also made a statement when people said there had been no effect, and it just didn't make it here.
Nor should the police department be fighting this. Have they completely forgotten who they work for?
It's the NYPD, so yes.
Every country with a lot of power is interested in world domination.
Americium is an element, not an isotope of plutonium. It is, however, produced from plutonium (or uranium) by bombardment with neutrons.
Sure, but then you've probably killed your system too, and probably pissed off everybody else who wanted GPS or equivalent, and made it a lot harder to put one back up after the war.
You are, empirically, wrong. Global trade has helped people in the West (on average - some people have been hurt, but more have gained) and it's helped a lot of less-developed countries raise their standard of living. Westerners don't gain as much from global trade, but on the whole it does raise quality of life.
As for saying efficiency makes quality of life worse - I cannot understand that opinion. Doing more with less is fantastic, and it's arguably one thing that makes us human.
Personnel matters (as opposed to personal matters) are still work-related, and should have been turned over. But yes, I agree otherwise, let's see what the investigation turns up.
He (allegedly) took something that isn't his. How is that not stealing?
Specifically: she said she turned over all work-related emails, but did not do so. Now, it's possible it wasn't an intentional lie, which is why I'm willing to wait for the investigation to see how bad it is.
Sure, I'm not sure why the FBI is looking into it - it certainly could be other things. I agree, let's see what the investigation says. From current evidence, she may not have broken laws - it looks more and more like she did, but maybe not - but she certainly lied about it.
Europe is more free than the US because it doesn't just guarantee freedom from interference, it guarantees basic rights you need to be free of extreme poverty and suffering.
Europe is more free than the US if you subscribe to that reasoning (and if you twist what the word "right" means - if someone else has to work to give it to you, it's not a basic right, but I digress...). If you don't, then it's not more free. Are you free if you don't have the freedom to fail?
You're still wrong - some information is classified as soon as it's generated, even if it isn't marked "classified". Some of that information was found on her server - it was classified at the time, even if it didn't have the appropriate markings - that's how classified information works. She lied when she said she turned all the emails over. Not turning them over is, in fact, illegal, and it was when the RNC did it too. Their bad behavior doesn't excuse hers.
What the AC failed to do, though, was explain why a climate scientist is more qualified to talk about relative scales of problems than anybody else is. Climate scientists are better at what they do than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they're good public policy makers, sociologists, economists... all of whom will need to be involved in determining what public policy should be.