Anyone can be fooled, and that is why anecdotes are not compelling evidence.
That's true, but if hundreds of people are simultaneously fooled about the same things? If reliable people like George Marshall write a top secret memo to the President that he recovered an extraterrestrial craft, is it reasonable to assume that he was deluded?
Even still, there is non-human data available, such as the sensor data from those Belgian F-16's.
But if there are alien spacecraft visiting our planet, there ought to be compelling evidence.
Is it within the realm of possibility that some governments may be concealing available evidence? The memos from George C. Marshall to Roosevelt are quite interesting, at least.
In contrast, the sensor data from the two Belgian F-16's was made quite public.
That's Commission Junction, Newegg's affiliates provider. Perhaps the software that makes your hosts file can't deal with redirects and somebody else uses CJ and has crap on their website?
For starters: ignore eyewitnesses. Hard evidence only: high resolution photographs, no SD quality crap
So, any video evidence prior to c. 2000 is to be dismissed? Even if it's raw data from a pair of F-16 viewscreens? It's hard to make an argument if data is continuously dismissed. There are good algorithms now to detect tampering.
And ignore all eyewitnesses? Presidents of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize winners, and Army Generals?
This is akin to a theist saying "how do you propose we observe Heaven" as "proof" that their god exists.
It's interesting that you mention religion. We can have George C. Marshall (US WWII General and Nobel Peace Prize winner) write a letter to the President about recovering an extraterrestrial craft, we can have several Presidents of the United States talk about extraterrestrial life (even seeing craft themselves), we can have the Belgian army release F-16 sensor data about craft that appear on independent radars and perform far beyond the capabilities of human craft, and yet, since these all disagree with the so-called 'skeptical' view, these people are all denounced as mentally unstable. This sounds more like an orthodoxy railing against heretics than anything that resembles science.
That's not my problem. If you're foolish enough to think that aliens are traveling across lightyears of space in order to mutilate cattle and ass-rape rednecks, that's your problem.
I don't think I ever mentioned this. You're making a composition error.
Nobody is asking here for anything that can't be falsified.
Yes, they are. When the vast majority of UFO sightings have turned out to have prosaic, natural explanations, only a fool would stand there and continue to insist that the remaining "unexplained" incidents are actually little green men in flying saucers. It's no different than any other pseudo-science or religion; the beliefs of the people making the claims cannot be changed because they do not rely on evidence - they rely on faith. As such, they are by definition unfalsifiable.
Either you misunderstand or misrepresent on purpose. I was talking about building a sensor network to rival NORAD or the like. If such a system is built, and there are no echos, the hypothesis is falsified. No mention of 'little green men' was ever made - again, you falsely conflate.
The best example of this is the crop-circles; the people who came up with the idea have come forward and admitted it was a hoax. They've shown us how it's done. They've even been commissioned by corporations and governments to create advertisements using the same method. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, there's no shortage of idiots who continue to claim that some crop-circles are actually signs of a UFO landing. How is that not "asking for anything that can't be falsified"?
And a third time. You quote my comment but appear to be having an argument with somebody else. Try harder.
* the energy costs of building the panels
* the space between the panels for servicing
* the labor required to keep dust off the panels
* the longevity of the panels (about 20 years)
* how to recycle the panels
* the materials needed to make the panels
None of these are "forgotten", since we're not talking about solar panels but mirrors.
OK, fair point.
So:
the energy costs of building the mirrors, mirror mounts, mirror mount motors, and concrete for anchoring
the energy costs of building the collecting towers (I'll assume the salt is effectively free)
the space between the mirrors for servicing
maintaining the motors and gears (lubrication, etc)
the longevity of the mounts and motors
the materials to make the mounts, motors, gears, and concrete
the materials needed to make the collecting towers
This isn't to call it impossible, but you have to revise upward your numbers to account for the increased space needs for maintenance and for the energy costs that go back into building and maintaining the project....I guess that where you live, roofs are neither build or maintained, but simply appear from thin air in perfect condition and stay that way.
That's a silly thing to say - if this were the case there would be no roofer fatalities. Increasing the amount of time that people are working on roofs increases the fatality rate - gravity is a bitch. I don't see how that can be disputed, but please try.
Surely changing the law would make sense, rather than using archaic irrelevant laws to prevent people doing something that feels natural and normal to them?
There you go again, advocating for the complete overthrow of the government.
That sounds about right. I'd once estimated covering 1/4 of New Mexico would be sufficient.
Some omissions in the calculations, though:
the energy costs of building the panels
the space between the panels for servicing
the labor required to keep dust off the panels
the longevity of the panels (about 20 years)
how to recycle the panels
the materials needed to make the panels
the lack of an electrical grid that can move the energy from areas of high efficiency to areas of low efficiency
a way to store the energy for night time
the land cost
the environmental impact to indigenous and migratory species
getting humans to engage in a project of this size
If human life is a major factor, it's best to abandon the rooftop panels concept. Roofers have one of the highest fatality rates - a massive solar rooftop program is estimated to be more deadly than coal mining.
If you can't get insurance that's the private market in action.
Nope, my State has a pre-existing condition law. A few of my family members have pre-existing conditions - one is treated with a $3/mo prescription, the other requires no treatment.
When I went to get a policy written, I was offered a waiver rider on those two, since they were not needing coverage. I'd signed the waiver rider and was ready to submit the policy documentation when the noticed, "oh, wait, you're in NH. We can't offer you those waiver riders, there's a pre-existing condition law." Not having those riders meant an extra $7200 per year, which we cannot afford.
So, we're uninsured because of State interference in our private contract.
If I claim I have evidence of a mountain of gold hidden under Yankee Stadium, including all manner of sensor data, are you going to take me at my word?
does not on a practical level provide support for a highly improbable event.
Well, this is the fundamental problem. Humans think they have everything figured out. That there's simply no way to engage in FTL travel, because our current level of knowledge of physics doesn't provide for easy mechanisms to do so (though it does allow for some hard ones).
I'm making the presumption that no real scientist thinks that humans are the only form of intelligence to ever evolve in all of the galaxies in all of the universe.
Except this theory doesn't pan out for other types of insurance (e.g. car) or any other product or service. Central planning is why prices are so high. Central planning is why my family can't get health insurance.
That's a very narrow view. Science is a process, not only conclusions. Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things. The latter is necessary to allow the former to be examined. It's likely that private researchers will at some point in the future be able to afford such sensors. But why would they ever bother without proof, right?
"hard sensor data" is very useful, but only if we can look at it.
Agree, but I also trust physicists to interpret data that I can't get a copy of myself. I see that you've met plenty of dopes in the military. I've also met many very bright people so affiliated. Your anecdotes don't disprove their testimony any more than their testimony proves the existence.
Nope, it would be great if we had access to this. Since we don't, the testimony of hundreds of reliable witnesses isn't a bad start. This level of proof would be sufficient in a court.
Thylor at CIGNA $24M. That's not even counting the hundreds of senior executive making between $1-13M.
So, looking at this one (seemed easy to find data for), it seems that compensation for the CEO is at about 1/10th of 1% of the revenues or 1/50th of profits. If we added up all the top execs, what would the total compensation be, $100 million?
So, if those were knocked down to $10 million in total, policy rates could be reduced by a half of 1%. It looks like their profits would be about 7% of revenues, or about 4.5% adjusting with the government inflation number. This would suggest a non-profit insurer could beat their rates by about 2%.
This doesn't seem like an effective avenue for reducing insurance policy rates. Perhaps opening up competition would be a smarter approach.
no your insurance premiums went up because your insurance company is ran by greedy assholes.
Hardly - they operate on very low margins, and the executive compensation isn't a large part of their operating costs. The reason insurance premiums are so high is twofold: first, regulations (this is why my family is uninsured, pre-existing conditions laws) and more importantly the sorry state of the bond market. Insurance premiums are basically a way to get money up front, invest them, and then make payments. Profit is on the difference.
But, you can't very well go give your insurance premiums to a hedge fund, you need a fairly safe investment. So, corporate, government, or municipal bonds with good ratings. But the bond market has sucked for the past 10 years. When the profit differential is low, the insurance companies have to raise premiums to cover costs. Go ahead, plot the bond return rates vs. insurance premiums - you'll see a big divergence start when Alan Greenspan created the housing bubble with low interest rates (to replace the NASDAQ bubble, per Bernanke's recommendation).
So, yes, greedy assholes are responsible, but they're at the big international banks and their Federal Reserve, not at the insurance companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone can be fooled, and that is why anecdotes are not compelling evidence.
That's true, but if hundreds of people are simultaneously fooled about the same things? If reliable people like George Marshall write a top secret memo to the President that he recovered an extraterrestrial craft, is it reasonable to assume that he was deluded?
Even still, there is non-human data available, such as the sensor data from those Belgian F-16's.
But if there are alien spacecraft visiting our planet, there ought to be compelling evidence.
Is it within the realm of possibility that some governments may be concealing available evidence? The memos from George C. Marshall to Roosevelt are quite interesting, at least.
In contrast, the sensor data from the two Belgian F-16's was made quite public.
Warning, the above tinyurl in the posters sig sends you to http://www.tkqlhce.com/ a site banned by the hosts file I get from http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/ .
That's Commission Junction, Newegg's affiliates provider. Perhaps the software that makes your hosts file can't deal with redirects and somebody else uses CJ and has crap on their website?
For starters: ignore eyewitnesses. Hard evidence only: high resolution photographs, no SD quality crap
So, any video evidence prior to c. 2000 is to be dismissed? Even if it's raw data from a pair of F-16 viewscreens? It's hard to make an argument if data is continuously dismissed. There are good algorithms now to detect tampering.
And ignore all eyewitnesses? Presidents of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize winners, and Army Generals?
This is akin to a theist saying "how do you propose we observe Heaven" as "proof" that their god exists.
It's interesting that you mention religion. We can have George C. Marshall (US WWII General and Nobel Peace Prize winner) write a letter to the President about recovering an extraterrestrial craft, we can have several Presidents of the United States talk about extraterrestrial life (even seeing craft themselves), we can have the Belgian army release F-16 sensor data about craft that appear on independent radars and perform far beyond the capabilities of human craft, and yet, since these all disagree with the so-called 'skeptical' view, these people are all denounced as mentally unstable. This sounds more like an orthodoxy railing against heretics than anything that resembles science.
That's not my problem. If you're foolish enough to think that aliens are traveling across lightyears of space in order to mutilate cattle and ass-rape rednecks, that's your problem.
I don't think I ever mentioned this. You're making a composition error.
Yes, they are. When the vast majority of UFO sightings have turned out to have prosaic, natural explanations, only a fool would stand there and continue to insist that the remaining "unexplained" incidents are actually little green men in flying saucers. It's no different than any other pseudo-science or religion; the beliefs of the people making the claims cannot be changed because they do not rely on evidence - they rely on faith. As such, they are by definition unfalsifiable.
Either you misunderstand or misrepresent on purpose. I was talking about building a sensor network to rival NORAD or the like. If such a system is built, and there are no echos, the hypothesis is falsified. No mention of 'little green men' was ever made - again, you falsely conflate.
The best example of this is the crop-circles; the people who came up with the idea have come forward and admitted it was a hoax. They've shown us how it's done. They've even been commissioned by corporations and governments to create advertisements using the same method. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, there's no shortage of idiots who continue to claim that some crop-circles are actually signs of a UFO landing. How is that not "asking for anything that can't be falsified"?
And a third time. You quote my comment but appear to be having an argument with somebody else. Try harder.
None of these are "forgotten", since we're not talking about solar panels but mirrors.
OK, fair point.
So:
This isn't to call it impossible, but you have to revise upward your numbers to account for the increased space needs for maintenance and for the energy costs that go back into building and maintaining the project. ...I guess that where you live, roofs are neither build or maintained, but simply appear from thin air in perfect condition and stay that way.
That's a silly thing to say - if this were the case there would be no roofer fatalities. Increasing the amount of time that people are working on roofs increases the fatality rate - gravity is a bitch. I don't see how that can be disputed, but please try.
Thanks, that's what I was hoping to hear.
Yay, new podcast player for me. :)
I have 3.0 on mine, and it works well, especially given the price
Is this the color or the grayscale one? I'm nearly convinced.
Hrm, where have we heard this one before?
Surely changing the law would make sense, rather than using archaic irrelevant laws to prevent people doing something that feels natural and normal to them?
There you go again, advocating for the complete overthrow of the government.
That sounds about right. I'd once estimated covering 1/4 of New Mexico would be sufficient.
Some omissions in the calculations, though:
If human life is a major factor, it's best to abandon the rooftop panels concept. Roofers have one of the highest fatality rates - a massive solar rooftop program is estimated to be more deadly than coal mining.
If you can't get insurance that's the private market in action.
Nope, my State has a pre-existing condition law. A few of my family members have pre-existing conditions - one is treated with a $3/mo prescription, the other requires no treatment.
When I went to get a policy written, I was offered a waiver rider on those two, since they were not needing coverage. I'd signed the waiver rider and was ready to submit the policy documentation when the noticed, "oh, wait, you're in NH. We can't offer you those waiver riders, there's a pre-existing condition law." Not having those riders meant an extra $7200 per year, which we cannot afford.
So, we're uninsured because of State interference in our private contract.
If I claim I have evidence of a mountain of gold hidden under Yankee Stadium, including all manner of sensor data, are you going to take me at my word?
Nope, but I'll look at your evidence.
Your "level of proof" has been shown time and time again to be inadequate to uniformly administer basic justice
Do you have a better idea?
Nobody is asking to impact anybody's life, liberty, or property here, just to examine a topic scientifically.
does not on a practical level provide support for a highly improbable event.
Well, this is the fundamental problem. Humans think they have everything figured out. That there's simply no way to engage in FTL travel, because our current level of knowledge of physics doesn't provide for easy mechanisms to do so (though it does allow for some hard ones).
I'm making the presumption that no real scientist thinks that humans are the only form of intelligence to ever evolve in all of the galaxies in all of the universe.
He has proven to a high that the evidence provided is BALLS.
He's been dead for 15 years.
No, it's reality.
In that case, how would you go about getting funding for building a near-earth sensor network to test the hypothesis?
"Psychics" are constantly clamoring for "open mindedness",
Nobody is asking here for anything that can't be falsified.
Except this theory doesn't pan out for other types of insurance (e.g. car) or any other product or service. Central planning is why prices are so high. Central planning is why my family can't get health insurance.
"reputable people" means shit in science.
That's a very narrow view. Science is a process, not only conclusions. Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things. The latter is necessary to allow the former to be examined. It's likely that private researchers will at some point in the future be able to afford such sensors. But why would they ever bother without proof, right?
"hard sensor data" is very useful, but only if we can look at it.
Agree, but I also trust physicists to interpret data that I can't get a copy of myself. I see that you've met plenty of dopes in the military. I've also met many very bright people so affiliated. Your anecdotes don't disprove their testimony any more than their testimony proves the existence.
Have you ever looked at "hard" data?
Nope, it would be great if we had access to this. Since we don't, the testimony of hundreds of reliable witnesses isn't a bad start. This level of proof would be sufficient in a court.
Do the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you?
Not sure if you read the article I linked or not. I blockquoted the 'hard sensor data' and the testimony of reputable people excerpts on purpose.
Thylor at CIGNA $24M. That's not even counting the hundreds of senior executive making between $1-13M.
So, looking at this one (seemed easy to find data for), it seems that compensation for the CEO is at about 1/10th of 1% of the revenues or 1/50th of profits. If we added up all the top execs, what would the total compensation be, $100 million?
So, if those were knocked down to $10 million in total, policy rates could be reduced by a half of 1%. It looks like their profits would be about 7% of revenues, or about 4.5% adjusting with the government inflation number. This would suggest a non-profit insurer could beat their rates by about 2%.
This doesn't seem like an effective avenue for reducing insurance policy rates. Perhaps opening up competition would be a smarter approach.
Popular or not the pyschology is not only plausible, it's been demonstrated.
Really, Sagan has proved the negative regarding UFO's?
The Laffer maximum is at about 18% of GDP. US government spending is current at about 24% of GDP.
no your insurance premiums went up because your insurance company is ran by greedy assholes.
Hardly - they operate on very low margins, and the executive compensation isn't a large part of their operating costs. The reason insurance premiums are so high is twofold: first, regulations (this is why my family is uninsured, pre-existing conditions laws) and more importantly the sorry state of the bond market. Insurance premiums are basically a way to get money up front, invest them, and then make payments. Profit is on the difference.
But, you can't very well go give your insurance premiums to a hedge fund, you need a fairly safe investment. So, corporate, government, or municipal bonds with good ratings. But the bond market has sucked for the past 10 years. When the profit differential is low, the insurance companies have to raise premiums to cover costs. Go ahead, plot the bond return rates vs. insurance premiums - you'll see a big divergence start when Alan Greenspan created the housing bubble with low interest rates (to replace the NASDAQ bubble, per Bernanke's recommendation).
So, yes, greedy assholes are responsible, but they're at the big international banks and their Federal Reserve, not at the insurance companies.