there's no such thing as making more money than you should. you have a value, it should be arrived at. where when i say "you" am referring to any person or corporate entity, like wikipedia
cronyism? nepotism? greed?
do you honestly think purposefully impoverishing yourself will protect you from this?
money is not a prerequisite for such failures of character
i trust random anonymous people than "quality" submissions by someone with an agenda to sell
random people off the street have no agenda. or rather, in a nonhierarchical structure, the overlapping agendas of random people cancel each other out to arrive at true neutrality on a subject matter. after all, you are posting anonymously and you obviously have a flawed bias;-)
"experts" making encyclopedias in the traditional manner have a bill of goods they need to sell us. plenty of "facts" in this world are nothing more than statements of indoctrination into a given agenda. "experts" in a field of study are often champions of indoctrination, not education
true propaganda in this world never tells a single lie. it merely omitts certain unmentioned facts here and there in such a way to color people's perceptions. that's why they are called half-truths. meanwhile, a wide open encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to is the only way to illuminate those corners of propaganda that someone with an agenda doesn't want you to see
even a subconscious agenda a contributor is not aware of: their own biases they are blind to, such that they have no intent to lie to you, this is a threat to real truth
and so what you see as wikipedia's greatest weakness is in fact its greatest strength
money is really just an abstract expression of human interest and value. pick the most idealistic human endeavour you can think of. it has value to other human beings. therefore, it is monetized. sure, it needn't be expressed in actual dollars, but a conversion to that occurs at some point for anyone who interacts with that human endeavour. the church? marriage and love? science? they all involve cash transations at some point
why do you think you achieve some sort of higher moral ground or purpose by shunning money? all you do is hobble your own ability to properly understand how the world you live in actually functions. i'm not asking you to worship money. and money certainly leads people to do evil things. but again, money is just an abstract expression of human desires. the real evil is aspects of human nature itself, not a piece of green paper with alexander hamilton's face on it
all i'm asking you to do is grant money the proper respect it deserves for quantifying abstract human interest in such a way that it makes the world we live in a better place. yes, money is a great invention, like the wheel or the semiconductor. it makes your world a better place. bartering chickens for school books gets kind of old after awhile. thus the glorious invention of money. and no, i'm not gordon gecko. i'm just a realist. realism trumps cotton candy idealism any day. and the most sober realistic consideration of money in this world is that it makes your life better
it ruins the impartiality, it ruins the experience, it compromises the purpose, blah, blah, blah, zzz...
you have to pay the bills. idealism doesn't pay the bills. a "compromised" wikipedia is better than no wikipedia
there really isn't anything you can say that is more illuminating on the subject. either you can run the site financially or you can't. it really is that cut and dry
ebooks are an example of technophilia overwhelming common sense. they haven't yet succeeded, and they will never succeed. ebooks are NOT, repeat are NOT superior to wood pulp. sure you can use them in low light situations, but they aren't as durable and they require batteries
every new technology satisfies a need that was not satisfied before. there is no need to improve upon wood pulp when it comes to book. a paperback book beats an ebook in any way, any day. technophilia informs some people that they are an improvement, but they aren't thinking like a consumer does. a consumer looks at a paperback and an ebook and he or she chooses a paperback, every time
T. gondii is an intracellular parasite in the phylum Apicomplexa. Its life cycle can be completed only in cats and other felids, which are the definitive hosts. However, T. gondii also infects a wide variety of intermediate hosts, including humans. In many mammals, T. gondii is known to be an important cause of abortions and stillbirths and to selectively infect muscle and brain tissue. A variety of neurologic symptoms, including incoordination, tremors, head-shaking, and seizures, have been described in sheep, pigs, cattle, rabbits, and monkeys infected with T. gondii (2).
Kopi Luwak (pronounced [kopi luwak]) or Civet coffee is coffee made from coffee berries which have been eaten by and passed through the digestive tract of the Asian Palm Civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus). The civets eat the berries, but the beans inside pass through their system undigested. This process takes place on the islands of Sumatra, Java and Sulawesi in the Indonesian Archipelago, and in the Philippines (where the product is called Kape Alamid). Vietnam has a similar type of coffee, called weasel coffee, which are coffee berries which have been defecated by local weasels. In actuality the "weasel" is just the local version of the Asian Palm Civet.
well, not really a cat, a civet cat. hmmm. the same civet cat that gave us SARS
ok, stop it. the fringe information overload and my hypochondria is giving me a headache
as such they are lesser beings that are suitable for food and pets. it is entirely reasonable to kill them for food and speak of them as property. no one should be cruel to them simply because cruelty to animals is a preface to cruelty to other human beings
to think of animals as equal to people, such as the woman i walked by in manhattam wearing the "animals are people too!" t shirt, or to think of animals as superior to people (more noble, because they don't commit various crimes you see somepeople engaged in), is an error in your ability to see a proper persepctive on the world
we humans matter more than animals. we just do. the moral basis for this is simply that we can do more, we are more powerful, due to our brains and our ability you communicate dense meaning. this is a burden we must carry, and one of our responsilibities is that we make sure the planet and the animals in our care are not treated cruelty or abused
but in no way does that equate to animals deserving anything of equal consideration or import as a human being
animals are property. nothing wrong with that concept at all
there are some luminous exceptions. carl sagan. stephen jay gould
but most are, frankly, asocial. they would rather exercise their minds in the pursuit of science. actually explaining what they do to other people is a drag and a waste of time. not that you can blame them. this ability to tune out the rest of the world and engage their mind in silence is actually a very valuable skill for a scientist, and it is a mindset that probably led them to science in the first place as a life pursuit
the result is that those with a malicious antiscience agenda or those who simply mean well but are woefully misinformed are the ones who represent science. because the information that gets out there in general circulation is not the information that is most true, but the information that is most communicated. the antidote to this unfortunate status quo is to get some scientists out of the ivory tower and up on a soap box
the monklike state of existence of many scientists, to investigate and research in silence, and then the looking down disdainfully upon the common man and his mispercetions: this is part of the problem. this anti-populist attitude of many scientists is part of the problem. an arrogance, a classism, an us-versus-them way of looking at the world. it is the lack of communication efforts of scientists themselves that leads to the dangerous and stupid ideas many common people swallow in the first place
so who do i blame for bad science journalism? scientists themselves. for generally not making themselves available. the ultimate antidote would be for some of you brilliant but silent minds to clear your throat for once, and finally speak up
stephen jay gould and carl sagan have left us. some luminous mind out there: please open your mouth and fill their shoes
is to equip every home's septic system with an incinerator
that's not happening
luckily, this whole issue isn't really a problem. we all have radon in our homes too. that competes with any of these substances on a scale of worry. however, if the concentrations are low enough, the concentrations shouldn't worry you. this whole issue is nothing but sensationalism
why is there a kneejerk attitude towards a national in the usa?. a national id seems rather prudent, a cost and effort saving initiative. most every other modern western democracy has one. it's just a good, modest idea. really
and yet you encounter this sort of hysteria like it iss satan himself doling out the mark of the beast and we will all be under the boot of fascism if we have a national id. it really doesn't make any sense. we already have drivers licenses
the issue is not that a national id is some major encroachment on privacy rights. the issue is just the idea of a national id has become a lightning rod for immediate kneejerk rejection, regardless of any sane rational thought on the issue
for those who go into rabid frothing at the mouth over a national id, just calm the f*** down, really. it isn't a big deal
i am attacking the pop science interpretation of the big bang
you deplore the pop science interpretation of the big bang
therefore, you need to censure me, the guy who is attacking the pop science interpretation
how does that follow?
aren't we actually naturally in agreement?
when i attack the pop science interpretation, and you say the pop science interpretation is wrong and in reality the theory makes room for my interpretation, doesn't that mean you are actually supporting my assertions?
with arrogance. science is not an aristocracy, a class system. science is egalitarian, a plurality of ideas in competition to arrive at the fittest theory. you cannot seal yourself in an ivory tower, take a piece of chalk and write "pop science journalism" and look with disdain at what lies beyond that line. because science isn't structured like that. but your approach towards me is structured like that
if you agree with me that the big bang might not necessarily talk about a beginning, then why are we even arguing?;-) you in essence agree with me, but continue on with your argument with me in the spirit of an entirely different argument against an entirely different foe
you understand me to be the uneducated fool of pop science. but watch that your kneejerk rejection of pop science crap doesn't become a kneejerk rejection of different ideas. for i have one, a different idea, and it is an idea that is possible, according to your depictions of the big bang, and i am using my idea to stand in opposition to pop science interpretations of the big bang
in which case, how is that me, a foe of the pop science interpretation, become in your mind the essence of it?
why must the big band describe the totality of the universe? why isn't it just a localized effect?
you ask for data. this has to be the 4th time in this thread i've told you i have none. and yet you think you can disregard me by simply stating i have no data. well then disregard me already and move on!
dude: i'm not in the realm of hard data. i'm extrapolating simply from the history of science. hunches and gut instinct. i am freely admitting to you what i am saying to you is not hard science, i'm thinking that 2 centuries from now, the big bang theory will be discarded, because it smells temporary to me, as many other anthropocentric theories have been so before
if you wish me to present to you a compendium of hard science disproving the big bang theory, then you're wasting your time, obviously. to me at least. and yet you still try to engage me on that point. point engaged. move on dude
but if you wish to talk to me on my level, which is freely admitted as a hunch, then do so
i concede i have no data, and you still press me on that. bizarre
1. we don't know everything, and there is a lot more to discover
agree or disagree?
2. as we discover more, our theories may radically change
agree or disagree?
3. we pick the theories that best match of the evidence. given partial evidence, and therefore a range of possible theories and therefore a large gray area, then a subtle bias towards anthropocentric theories can easily manifest itself
that's the history of science. really. including all of the science that led up to the discovery of the hall effect
but the big bang theory clearly indicates that it started with an infinite state of density and temperature
that's a beginning. do you wish to represent that part of the theory as not saying it is a beginning?
again, i freely admit i don't have much going for what i am saying. but at least i am not misrepresenting anything. meanwhile, you wish to say that an instrinsic concept of the big bang theory that i am reacting to: that it had a beginning, is just the pop science representation of the theory
uh huh. got it. you don't have to defeat me by misrepresenting things friend. i don't actually require being defeated. i'm the one telling you i don't have anything but a hunch
the history of science is a story of moving away from anthropocentric theories of reality, and the big bang is rather anthropocentric
that's all i got for you. make of it what you will
meanwhile saying "Big Bang cosmology just says that the universe was once small, hot, and dense, and subsequently expanded and cooled" is a backtrack and understatement of what the big bang theory encompasses. it talks of a beginning friend: an infinite state of density and temperature
i'm glad you can say that it is not talking about a beginning there!
i freely admit i don't have much going for what i am saying. but at least i am not misrepresenting things like you do
all i am saying is that the history of science is a story of moving away from anthropocentric theories of reality, and the big bang is rather anthropocentric
that's all i got for you. make of it what you will
asking me to consider the preponderance of the evidence before me. i am not disregarding it
i am merely extrapolating from anthropocentric theories of science in previous ages, and asking you to simply consider that cosmology is young, and we have yet a lot more to discover, some of which may overthrown theoretical convention
the transit of the sun around the earth was once considered obvious by serious scientists. i am merely asking you to consider the anthropocentric nature of the big bang theory. that is the only reason for suspicion. i am in no way representing to you a preponderence of evidence in my direction, nor asserting that the evidence you have for the big bang is in any way false
i'm just going on instinct and an anti-anthropocentric bias of my own. if a scientific theory seems anthropocentric, history has shown it to be eventually uprooted. that's all i got going for me
i don't have any of the superiority of knowledge you seek. you have more knowledge on the subject than me
happy?
now all i ask of you, in intellectual honesty, is to admit to me that the big bang theory has an anthropocentric bias to it
i have an anti-anthropocentirc bias. i freely admit to my own bias
but as us simple humans grasp around for the best theory to match all of the evidence, we often wind up reaching for the most anthropocentric theory. is cosmology still not eyet a young science? is there not yet more to discover that could uproot theoretical convention?
just ask the astronomers of old who scientificially studied the transit of the sun around the earth if you disagree with my points
you've got a great rhetorical approach: prove the obvious with copious links or what you say is wrong
darling, i don't need to cite the obvious
it isn't obvious to you that more america bashing than china or russia bashing goes on in the world?
okkkayyyy
darling: it's not beholden on to me to hold your delicate hand with copious links just because you are sheltered from obvious observations of the world we live in
Slashdot Mirror
there's no such thing as making more money than you should. you have a value, it should be arrived at. where when i say "you" am referring to any person or corporate entity, like wikipedia
cronyism? nepotism? greed?
do you honestly think purposefully impoverishing yourself will protect you from this?
money is not a prerequisite for such failures of character
i trust random anonymous people than "quality" submissions by someone with an agenda to sell
;-)
random people off the street have no agenda. or rather, in a nonhierarchical structure, the overlapping agendas of random people cancel each other out to arrive at true neutrality on a subject matter. after all, you are posting anonymously and you obviously have a flawed bias
"experts" making encyclopedias in the traditional manner have a bill of goods they need to sell us. plenty of "facts" in this world are nothing more than statements of indoctrination into a given agenda. "experts" in a field of study are often champions of indoctrination, not education
true propaganda in this world never tells a single lie. it merely omitts certain unmentioned facts here and there in such a way to color people's perceptions. that's why they are called half-truths. meanwhile, a wide open encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to is the only way to illuminate those corners of propaganda that someone with an agenda doesn't want you to see
even a subconscious agenda a contributor is not aware of: their own biases they are blind to, such that they have no intent to lie to you, this is a threat to real truth
and so what you see as wikipedia's greatest weakness is in fact its greatest strength
you need to come to understand this
money is really just an abstract expression of human interest and value. pick the most idealistic human endeavour you can think of. it has value to other human beings. therefore, it is monetized. sure, it needn't be expressed in actual dollars, but a conversion to that occurs at some point for anyone who interacts with that human endeavour. the church? marriage and love? science? they all involve cash transations at some point
why do you think you achieve some sort of higher moral ground or purpose by shunning money? all you do is hobble your own ability to properly understand how the world you live in actually functions. i'm not asking you to worship money. and money certainly leads people to do evil things. but again, money is just an abstract expression of human desires. the real evil is aspects of human nature itself, not a piece of green paper with alexander hamilton's face on it
all i'm asking you to do is grant money the proper respect it deserves for quantifying abstract human interest in such a way that it makes the world we live in a better place. yes, money is a great invention, like the wheel or the semiconductor. it makes your world a better place. bartering chickens for school books gets kind of old after awhile. thus the glorious invention of money. and no, i'm not gordon gecko. i'm just a realist. realism trumps cotton candy idealism any day. and the most sober realistic consideration of money in this world is that it makes your life better
cotton candy headed idealists can be so stupid
it ruins the impartiality, it ruins the experience, it compromises the purpose, blah, blah, blah, zzz...
you have to pay the bills. idealism doesn't pay the bills. a "compromised" wikipedia is better than no wikipedia
there really isn't anything you can say that is more illuminating on the subject. either you can run the site financially or you can't. it really is that cut and dry
ebooks are an example of technophilia overwhelming common sense. they haven't yet succeeded, and they will never succeed. ebooks are NOT, repeat are NOT superior to wood pulp. sure you can use them in low light situations, but they aren't as durable and they require batteries
every new technology satisfies a need that was not satisfied before. there is no need to improve upon wood pulp when it comes to book. a paperback book beats an ebook in any way, any day. technophilia informs some people that they are an improvement, but they aren't thinking like a consumer does. a consumer looks at a paperback and an ebook and he or she chooses a paperback, every time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literati_(game)
no, i'm not joking
however, cat poop drink is very expensive
no, i'm not joking
well, not really a cat, a civet cat. hmmm. the same civet cat that gave us SARS
ok, stop it. the fringe information overload and my hypochondria is giving me a headache
i have a headache! that damned cat!
as such they are lesser beings that are suitable for food and pets. it is entirely reasonable to kill them for food and speak of them as property. no one should be cruel to them simply because cruelty to animals is a preface to cruelty to other human beings
to think of animals as equal to people, such as the woman i walked by in manhattam wearing the "animals are people too!" t shirt, or to think of animals as superior to people (more noble, because they don't commit various crimes you see somepeople engaged in), is an error in your ability to see a proper persepctive on the world
we humans matter more than animals. we just do. the moral basis for this is simply that we can do more, we are more powerful, due to our brains and our ability you communicate dense meaning. this is a burden we must carry, and one of our responsilibities is that we make sure the planet and the animals in our care are not treated cruelty or abused
but in no way does that equate to animals deserving anything of equal consideration or import as a human being
animals are property. nothing wrong with that concept at all
there are some luminous exceptions. carl sagan. stephen jay gould
but most are, frankly, asocial. they would rather exercise their minds in the pursuit of science. actually explaining what they do to other people is a drag and a waste of time. not that you can blame them. this ability to tune out the rest of the world and engage their mind in silence is actually a very valuable skill for a scientist, and it is a mindset that probably led them to science in the first place as a life pursuit
the result is that those with a malicious antiscience agenda or those who simply mean well but are woefully misinformed are the ones who represent science. because the information that gets out there in general circulation is not the information that is most true, but the information that is most communicated. the antidote to this unfortunate status quo is to get some scientists out of the ivory tower and up on a soap box
the monklike state of existence of many scientists, to investigate and research in silence, and then the looking down disdainfully upon the common man and his mispercetions: this is part of the problem. this anti-populist attitude of many scientists is part of the problem. an arrogance, a classism, an us-versus-them way of looking at the world. it is the lack of communication efforts of scientists themselves that leads to the dangerous and stupid ideas many common people swallow in the first place
so who do i blame for bad science journalism? scientists themselves. for generally not making themselves available. the ultimate antidote would be for some of you brilliant but silent minds to clear your throat for once, and finally speak up
stephen jay gould and carl sagan have left us. some luminous mind out there: please open your mouth and fill their shoes
is to equip every home's septic system with an incinerator
that's not happening
luckily, this whole issue isn't really a problem. we all have radon in our homes too. that competes with any of these substances on a scale of worry. however, if the concentrations are low enough, the concentrations shouldn't worry you. this whole issue is nothing but sensationalism
why is there a kneejerk attitude towards a national in the usa?. a national id seems rather prudent, a cost and effort saving initiative. most every other modern western democracy has one. it's just a good, modest idea. really
and yet you encounter this sort of hysteria like it iss satan himself doling out the mark of the beast and we will all be under the boot of fascism if we have a national id. it really doesn't make any sense. we already have drivers licenses
the issue is not that a national id is some major encroachment on privacy rights. the issue is just the idea of a national id has become a lightning rod for immediate kneejerk rejection, regardless of any sane rational thought on the issue
for those who go into rabid frothing at the mouth over a national id, just calm the f*** down, really. it isn't a big deal
OH MY GOD I'M A JACKBOOTED THUG. PAPERS PLEASE
pfffffft. irrational hysteria
reveal yourself ac, i embrace you ;-)
i am attacking the pop science interpretation of the big bang
you deplore the pop science interpretation of the big bang
therefore, you need to censure me, the guy who is attacking the pop science interpretation
how does that follow?
aren't we actually naturally in agreement?
when i attack the pop science interpretation, and you say the pop science interpretation is wrong and in reality the theory makes room for my interpretation, doesn't that mean you are actually supporting my assertions?
beginning, middle, end
not anthropocentric: endless in time and space
with arrogance. science is not an aristocracy, a class system. science is egalitarian, a plurality of ideas in competition to arrive at the fittest theory. you cannot seal yourself in an ivory tower, take a piece of chalk and write "pop science journalism" and look with disdain at what lies beyond that line. because science isn't structured like that. but your approach towards me is structured like that
;-) you in essence agree with me, but continue on with your argument with me in the spirit of an entirely different argument against an entirely different foe
if you agree with me that the big bang might not necessarily talk about a beginning, then why are we even arguing?
you understand me to be the uneducated fool of pop science. but watch that your kneejerk rejection of pop science crap doesn't become a kneejerk rejection of different ideas. for i have one, a different idea, and it is an idea that is possible, according to your depictions of the big bang, and i am using my idea to stand in opposition to pop science interpretations of the big bang
in which case, how is that me, a foe of the pop science interpretation, become in your mind the essence of it?
why must the big band describe the totality of the universe? why isn't it just a localized effect?
you ask for data. this has to be the 4th time in this thread i've told you i have none. and yet you think you can disregard me by simply stating i have no data. well then disregard me already and move on!
dude: i'm not in the realm of hard data. i'm extrapolating simply from the history of science. hunches and gut instinct. i am freely admitting to you what i am saying to you is not hard science, i'm thinking that 2 centuries from now, the big bang theory will be discarded, because it smells temporary to me, as many other anthropocentric theories have been so before
if you wish me to present to you a compendium of hard science disproving the big bang theory, then you're wasting your time, obviously. to me at least. and yet you still try to engage me on that point. point engaged. move on dude
but if you wish to talk to me on my level, which is freely admitted as a hunch, then do so
i concede i have no data, and you still press me on that. bizarre
1. we don't know everything, and there is a lot more to discover
agree or disagree?
2. as we discover more, our theories may radically change
agree or disagree?
3. we pick the theories that best match of the evidence. given partial evidence, and therefore a range of possible theories and therefore a large gray area, then a subtle bias towards anthropocentric theories can easily manifest itself
that's the history of science. really. including all of the science that led up to the discovery of the hall effect
but the big bang theory clearly indicates that it started with an infinite state of density and temperature
that's a beginning. do you wish to represent that part of the theory as not saying it is a beginning?
again, i freely admit i don't have much going for what i am saying. but at least i am not misrepresenting anything. meanwhile, you wish to say that an instrinsic concept of the big bang theory that i am reacting to: that it had a beginning, is just the pop science representation of the theory
uh huh. got it. you don't have to defeat me by misrepresenting things friend. i don't actually require being defeated. i'm the one telling you i don't have anything but a hunch
i've freely admitted that
the history of science is a story of moving away from anthropocentric theories of reality, and the big bang is rather anthropocentric
that's all i got for you. make of it what you will
meanwhile saying "Big Bang cosmology just says that the universe was once small, hot, and dense, and subsequently expanded and cooled" is a backtrack and understatement of what the big bang theory encompasses. it talks of a beginning friend: an infinite state of density and temperature
i'm glad you can say that it is not talking about a beginning there!
i freely admit i don't have much going for what i am saying. but at least i am not misrepresenting things like you do
i've freely admitted that
no reason to fear some weird intent on my part
all i am saying is that the history of science is a story of moving away from anthropocentric theories of reality, and the big bang is rather anthropocentric
that's all i got for you. make of it what you will
i know the jains of india consider the universe endless in time and space, but is that the ancient greek's belief as well?
is pretty much a story of moving away from anthropocentirc theories of reality
that's an entirely valid concept to consider when considering cosmology and its theories
it's not facile at all
asking me to consider the preponderance of the evidence before me. i am not disregarding it
i am merely extrapolating from anthropocentric theories of science in previous ages, and asking you to simply consider that cosmology is young, and we have yet a lot more to discover, some of which may overthrown theoretical convention
the transit of the sun around the earth was once considered obvious by serious scientists. i am merely asking you to consider the anthropocentric nature of the big bang theory. that is the only reason for suspicion. i am in no way representing to you a preponderence of evidence in my direction, nor asserting that the evidence you have for the big bang is in any way false
i'm just going on instinct and an anti-anthropocentric bias of my own. if a scientific theory seems anthropocentric, history has shown it to be eventually uprooted. that's all i got going for me
the defenders of the status quo
i don't have any of the superiority of knowledge you seek. you have more knowledge on the subject than me
happy?
now all i ask of you, in intellectual honesty, is to admit to me that the big bang theory has an anthropocentric bias to it
i have an anti-anthropocentirc bias. i freely admit to my own bias
but as us simple humans grasp around for the best theory to match all of the evidence, we often wind up reaching for the most anthropocentric theory. is cosmology still not eyet a young science? is there not yet more to discover that could uproot theoretical convention?
just ask the astronomers of old who scientificially studied the transit of the sun around the earth if you disagree with my points
ok, start here:
http://google.com/
(snicker)
you've got a great rhetorical approach: prove the obvious with copious links or what you say is wrong
darling, i don't need to cite the obvious
it isn't obvious to you that more america bashing than china or russia bashing goes on in the world?
okkkayyyy
darling: it's not beholden on to me to hold your delicate hand with copious links just because you are sheltered from obvious observations of the world we live in