I don't have time to go into the full thing. But for vaccines the rate hypothesis has been studied. What you're looking at is the fact that antivaxxers started with one extreme hypothesis, then when that was thoroughly discredited in the public, they shifted the goalposts to another hypothesis, "too many". Your realistic concern has been studied but you seem to be holding onto the assumption that the truth is some sort of middle ground between the scientists and the antivaxxers, it isn't. If there's truth in the middle ground its the middle ground that exists between scientists, the truth doesn't shift when a new middle ground is created by a bunch of anti-vaxxination activists.
As for global warming, it is definitely not true that "It is presented that either we need a carbon tax, or that man is not responsible for climate change. Pollution and ecological damage is rarely discussed, only the basic claims themselves".
I'm only going to talk about the scientists (none of them are saying man is not responsible). A carbon tax isn't an extreme position, what the scientists are saying is you need to reduce carbon emissions or X, Y, and Z bad things will happen. These X, Y, and Z include the pollution, ecological damage, sea level changes, temperature change, large scale droughts, etc. You implied they're all buy studying a carbon tax when in fact they're all busy studying the things you claim they don't study. A carbon tax is just one things presented as a solution, it's studied as well, though generally those studies include economists because many climate scientists don't have the expertise to perform them.
I'm talking about actual scientific research and you keep talking about how the scientists are studying extreme hypothesis by bringing up NBC, Popular Science, and Discovery Channel. Don't you think you're looking at a form of science publication biased towards extremism if you're looking at news organizations?
Actually it's not in your favor. The reason BP was allowed to dump more and more Corexit is that they provided scientists to the Government that claimed it did no harm. Other scientists were in the Gulf telling news crews lies. As stated, you have to research a bit and not rely on hearsay or major news outlets for coverage.
I was talking about scientists from universities and independent research labs, they're the ones who are creating the scientific consensus for the questions we're talking about.
But we aren't hearing anything extreme from the scientists, they've said all along they're overwhelmingly safe with minor exceptions, that's not an extreme position, it's the scientific consensus. As for those middle ground positions, ie 'too many too quickly', those are heard, but the reason they're not well publicized isn't because they're censored, it's because they're not backed by evidence. And if you're someone who publicizes a position not backed by evidence you're generally going to take an extreme position.
Whether you are looking at Vaccines or Global Warming, this is false. The only thing being published are extremes which is why I go out of my way to find and read independent science. Try it yourself, it's pretty cool.
What do you consider 'independent science'? The guys studying global warming are about as independent as you can get. And I'm not sure where you get that view of the published literature, by its nature the literature tends to be very conservative, if you don't back up everything you say with evidence you're going to get torn to shreds. All the extreme stuff comes from media, politicians, and special interest groups.
I don't think the claim is that it's an absolute limit, but rather evidence towards a fuzzy limit.
I think the reasoning is thus. We evolved to increase fitness into our mid-twenties, hold it steadily until our mid-thirties, then we start gradually declining. Somewhere around the mid to late sixties we gain the potential to start going downhill really quickly.
To me that indicates that there's some evolutionary pressure keeping us functional until our mid to late sixties, but anything after that is a kind of happy accident. None of the systems are designed to go on indefinitely, the joints wear out, telomeres run out, arteries harden, nerves die, stem cells die, cancers spread, etc.
Basically everything is designed to last to 65, for most people a few critical things really break down by 85, but no one really seems to make it much past 115. It just seems that even with every component running at its best there's so many things that can't go any further. The blood cells might be one of those factors, but there could be dozens of others that wear out around the same time and are just as fatal.
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years."
So we don't get to live forever because God finds us really damn annoying.
I can clearly remember every funeral I've been to. Considering the number of people who attend funerals and the strong significance it holds for many of the people it seems like something that's worth spending a bit of money on.
There is a laundry list of issues with Corexit. They were told to limit use and used more, the Government paid them to use every drop used, even when it was reported to be killing everything in site it was used instead of alternatives which were recommended by numerous scientists, etc.. etc... As with most issues it's not a simple thing. The majority of American's don't know anything about it. Scientists were silenced and slandered who spoke out against the massive use, and economists that were pointing out that the Government was paying BP twice to clean up their own mess were also silenced and slandered.
I remember hearing about this at the time, the scientists were ignored but they could get their message out. Anyways, it seems like that's an argument in my favour. Despite heavy pressure from government and big business the scientists partiality was not compromised.
Who said anything about publishing every doctor? I said very clearly that we are only seeing reports of either end of the extreme and any other voice is silenced or slandered.
Get the trend yet?
Yes, there is ample evidence for manipulation but you obviously have to go look for information. Silence and slander is not something new as a tactic of manipulating and maintaining public opinion. The practice goes back at least 100 years.
But we aren't hearing anything extreme from the scientists, they've said all along they're overwhelmingly safe with minor exceptions, that's not an extreme position, it's the scientific consensus. As for those middle ground positions, ie 'too many too quickly', those are heard, but the reason they're not well publicized isn't because they're censored, it's because they're not backed by evidence. And if you're someone who publicizes a position not backed by evidence you're generally going to take an extreme position.
AFAIK the problem with Corexit wasn't the studies done, its the fact they used it in large scale without adequately studying it. That's not an indictment of the science as much as an indictment of BP and the EPA.
As for your manipulation point, that's a valid concern though I don't know if there's evidence of it happening, and to the extent that there is hard to trace money it generally comes from groups in opposition to the scientific consensus.
As for vaccines, there are a lot or random doctors, if you start publicizing every doctor who speaks up about something you're going to be inundated with crazy ideas. Any BS medical thing with public support is going to get a few random doctors because they're members of the public too, that doesn't make them credible voices to question the policy. We have effective means of studying vaccines, with a few minor exceptions we know they're generally safe, a random doctor without the ability to do a proper study doesn't really have anything to add to the conversation.
University science labs receive funding from private sources, investigate how it works before making claims which are false.
The point I was making is that the science ignores the root cause. I guess you could say profits, and that's a good way of putting it. It's cheaper for someone to strip mine and destroy millions of acres of land than it is to mine in a different fashion. Lobbyists, corrupt politics, etc.. have allowed companies to make massive profits and not be responsible for damaging the land. Investigate BP in the Gulf for prime examples, especially in their use and abuse of Corexit. This is easy to find data.
The rest is a rehash and not worth discussion because you continue to overlook or ignore the point, which is claiming something is correct is not the same thing as something being correct.
I'm not saying University science labs are incorruptible, but they are extremely vigilant about resisting bias and disclosing potential conflicts of interest. A researcher who fails to disclose a potential conflict of interest can seriously damage their career. They aren't perfect and subsections like drug research may be adversely affected, but in general they do all they can to avoid bias and I think that's worth something. Moreover that kind of corruption affects the science at the small scale, such as a specific drug that has one party heavily invested in the 'right' question being asked. For something like AGW the question is so widely studied, and each subcomponent lacking strong special interests, the corruption mechanism isn't strong enough to drive the consensus.
Of course this also ignores the fact that all the potentially corrupting money is against AGW. People claim the environmental lobbies are corrupting the science, but the environmental lobbies only care about AGW because the science thinks AGW is a problem, there's no intrinsic reason for environmental groups to be concerned about CO2 emissions.
Our world is within finite space, so we can surely take measurements accurately. Modelling the complexity is another issue which I would agree we don't have. We worked on those in the 70s when we focused on the root cause of what today we bicker over as Global warming. We had regulations being passed and consumer awareness about pollution and conservation. Today it has become all about the corporate profits and the argument no longer focuses on the root cause. Neither side of the global warming debate are being scientific, or logical and reasonable for that matter. They both have the same masters and neither really give a shit as long as they get a paycheck, which depends on their masters making lots of profits.
In other words, you don't seem to know the debate either and may have probably been played like a fiddle just like the majority of the public. More a question than accusation, which you don't have to answer. Just something for you to consider.
I'm not sure I understand your argument, all I hear from the scientists has to do with the root cause CO2, I don't really recall hearing anything from scientists about corporate profits. And the scientists generally work for universities or government labs, which carries some risk of government interference, but as a group scientists are one of the most aggressive about maintaining their independence.
What you claimed is that observation is what made science, and I claimed it was wrong. You get closer here, but not quite there yet. The whole definition of inductive reason includes the fact that some things can not be proven absolutely. It is a scientists job to question those theories and find weaknesses. If you claim a theory is proof and a person questioning is wrong, you are absolutely _not_ being scientific.
Not every question about a theory is bad, yet every question is treated as bad by people claiming to be intellectuals. Those same self proclaimed intellectuals close their ears to anything that threatens their belief in the theory, and loudly complain about those other guys ignoring 'science'. The hypocrisy is staggering if you care to look.
Nothing can be proven absolutely, even math proofs rely on a system of very basic assumptions we all just take to be obviously true, but we cannot prove formally. And all science outside of math relies on theories that are not proven. Even the theory that cigarettes cause cancer isn't proven and is likely wrong in some sense. Which part of the cigarettes cause how much cancer? The nicotine, carcinogen A, B, C, or D, simply the carbon smoke in the lungs? You tweak the cigarette formula to something like electronic cigarettes and it's suddenly unclear if these new cigarettes cause cancer.
And the reason 'self proclaimed intellectuals' get pissed off at certain questions is because those same question have been asked countless times and answered adequately each time, yet people keep asking them. And generally they ask it not because they want to know the answer, they ask it because they are trying to prove the scientist wrong.
Imagine a guy proclaims that if you went to the top of a cloud during a thunderstorm you'd see Zeus throwing thunderbolts down. So you put him in a plane and during a thunderstorm and fly above the clouds seeing the thunder and a distinct lack of Greek gods. So you land, he steps out of the plane, goes up to a crowd of his followers, and starts talking about how if you went to the top of a cloud during a thunderstorm you'd see Zeus throwing thunderbolts down.
This was a joke about him saying there was only one universe.
The atmosphere isn't some single indivisible thing anymore than the universe,
What??
Notwithstanding other planets the atmosphere consists of multiple layers of atmosphere, different regions of the planet, different aspects like storms, rainfall, temperature, etc.
For instance CO2 warming doesn't just explain the earth getting warmer right now, it also explains that different layers of the atmosphere will warm to a different degree, it also explains past warming events.
you aren't going to find a climate scientist who specializes in the atmosphere anymore than you find a physicist who specializes in the universe.
What???
I think you misunderstood what I meant, they don't specialize in 'the universe' because the universe is actually an insanely vast and complex thing, they instead specialize in some arcane aspect of inflation theory.
The reason that matters is because you can repeat observations.
What???? Seriously, I hope this is a troll?
There is no proof of a multiverse, the atmosphere is within confined known space and measurable, science does have specialists, and I can repeatedly watch lightning come out of the sky but that does not mean Zeus throwing thunder because he's angry.
If this was not a troll... well the world is already in trouble so what's one more.
Your issue with the multiverse and specialist thing was a misunderstanding, similarly with the atmosphere I wasn't saying it was infinite, I was saying it was way too big and complex to treat as a simple thing.
The theory that Zeus threw thunder, if the atmosphere was as simple as a thing that made thunder then the only thing we could repeat was the observation that thunder happens. But we can test the Zeus theory multiple ways, we can fly up to the top of the clouds and see if a giant is hanging out up there, we can look at multiple clouds in different parts of the globe and see if there's more simultaneous lightning strikes than Zeus has limbs, we can check to see if lightning strikes correlate with sacrifices, or if there are other cloud characteristics that predict lightning. There is only one atmosphere but I just named four ways to test the Zeus theory, its not as simple as one atmosphere means one observation and no way to double check your theory, that's why the observational vs narrative model is false.
We should be glad we are a country which does not take the word of "authority" at face value. Surely the best scientists and innovators come from that tradition. If a person does not understand a proof, they should not blindly accept it.
That sounds like anti-conformism for anti-conformisms sake. There's nothing wrong with questioning authority, the problem is with assuming the authority is wrong just because they're an authority. There are a ton of mathematical proofs I don't understand but I blindly accept because I understand the mathematicians don't have a motive to mislead me. And even when something catches my eye and I do decide to question I'll do so aggressively but that doesn't mean I stop believing it. Whatever happens you've got to believe something, if you don't believe the authority then what do you believe?
Similarly with AGW, I can read a blog or skim a paper as well as anybody, but I can't understand the entirety of climate research. I can however understand the researchers and the scientific institutions and not every force pushes them in the direction of the truth. But given what I understand of the science and the scientists I can't think of a group who would be closer to the truth than them.
I disagree about the 'narrative science' idea because I think that oversimplifies the topic. The atmosphere isn't some single indivisible thing anymore than the universe, you aren't going to find a climate scientist who specializes in the atmosphere anymore than you find a physicist who specializes in the universe.
The reason that matters is because you can repeat observations. If you make a theory explaining observation X about the atmosphere that has implications for the rest of the atmosphere, so you gain repeatability by testing your theory against these other parts of the atmosphere. Same thing for the universe, the big bang theory doesn't just say the universe stated and is expanding outwards, it explains countless other things about the universe. The background radiation we see that's consistent with the big bang is an example of the big bang theory being "repeated".
The article conflates two very different types of science. One is experimental: cigarettes cause cancer. That's a testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis. The scientific method can be used. Alternate explanations can be systematically disproven.
Then there's the science that says, "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true". Note that it does NOT say "therefore Z MUST be true", which is what the article is implying. Z is something like the story of the universe from Big Bang through inflation up to today, or the story of manmade global warming. "Science" can project itself in those directions and come up with some answers, but there is no scientific method on a narrative. There are no controlled experiments. Every alternate hypothesis cannot be evaluated. They are at best projections, models. They're not "truth" without faith.
That sounds a lot like Ken Ham's distinction of observational vs historical science.
How do you actually test that cigarettes cause cancer? A big observational study? Well maybe people smoke because they're stressed or not health conscious, and they have a natural per-disposition to lung cancer. Build it from theory? Sure the smoke causes these problems in the lungs that we would expect to cause cancer, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're causing the cancer.
Now how do we test the Big Bang theory? A big observational study? We can see things that look a lot like after effects of what a big bang would look like, but maybe we're misidentifying them. Theory? There's a lot of theory about the universe that suggests a big bang, but that could be a mistake.
Clearly the cigarette cancer link is a lot easier to demonstrate than the big bang theory, or AGW, but they're not really alternative types of science. At the end of the day all of science is a mixture of observe X, where X is either a constructed experiment or a data set collected from the universe, and develop a theory Y, where Y has to explain X and all the previous observations we've made.
Putting a bunch of cigarette smoke into a lung and expecting it to develop cancer requires "faith" in the same way that putting a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere and expecting it to develop warming does. The latter problem is a harder one no doubt, but it follows the same approach of incremental collection of data and development of theories to explain that data.
I know the water is fine, but if I lived in Portland and they hadn't emptied the reservoir I would have been looking at the tap water a little more suspiciously, and if I was someone who sometimes bought bottled water I probably would have been a little more likely to buy some. I have no doubt many of you are the same.
Someone peeing in the tap water is icky, it doesn't matter if it's irrational, we are irrational, and as costs of irrationality goes emptying a single reservoir is pretty damn cheap. There's times to stand on scientific principal, this isn't one of them. There's no point in grossing out an entire city, reducing confidence in the municipal water supply, and impacting human health and the environment by pushing people towards bottled drinks, just because it's irrational. Sometimes the most rational thing you can do is accommodate your irrationality.
Israel is actively occupying Palestine and stealing the Palestinian's land.
Yeah and that happened around the 6 day war (pre occupation) against a bunch of people who wanted to wipe out the jews. The Palestinians were on the wrong side of that war. ut that only happened because balh blah etc etc.
Basically pointing the finger at this point is a useless thing to do. Both sides have been colossal cunts and both sides have made some deeply unwise decitions. Pointing fingers is easy because for each act one has done, the other has done something worse.
But it makes for fun slashdotting.
You need to point the finger to understand why they're fighting.
The Palestinians in 1948 had a valid grievance, for decades while the British ruled Palestine they allowed European Jews to buy up huge chunks of the country with the goal of creating a friendly Jewish state in Palestine, then the UN partition made it official with a split they didn't agree to. The Palestinians (and sympathetic Arabs) also had a valid grievance in 1967, after the war in 1948 they fled or were expelled from huge portions of Israel and weren't allowed back in to their land or property. The current Palestinians in addition to those previous grievances are now also dealing with the occupation, an occupation stemming from a war they didn't actually start (Egypt was threatening war but Israel launched a sneak attack) in addition to active land thefts.
There's times when both sides are to blame but not so much in this one, the Palestinians are obviously doing bad things but the ones instigating the conflict are obviously Israel.
Seriously? Lay critical crucial infrastructure through North Korea to South Korea?
There's no way Pyongyang would manipulate those rails and pipes in a fit of political pique that seems to happen, oh, once every eight months. Absolutely now way.
Hmm, is it just me or does Pyongyang sound like the name of a Russian speaking city to me...
That's nice and all, but maybe you can get the palestinian's government to explain why they're so pro-genocide in their teachings. With the various terrorist organizations, which were elected actively supporting said teachings, and taking money from the countries in the region to wage a proxy war.
Absolutely.
Israel is actively occupying Palestine and stealing the Palestinian's land.
Look at the racism that occurs against Hispanics in the US due to them taking some crappy jobs. Is it a surprise that a nation that's been constantly losing it's land to self-identified Zionists for over 100 years is going to end up really antisemitic? Having Palestinians spontaneously turn into a nation of Ghandis isn't a realistic prerequisite for peace in the middle east.
The Israelis would use a nuclear bomb as a last resort to keep what they have, a tiny strip of land.
Their adversaries and a few other rogue states and groups are not above using a nuclear bomb to get what they want, a tiny strip of land or even the whole western world.
Which strip of land? Israel or the West Bank? I agree that Iran has said some worrying things and Israel seems a nice place to live filled with generally pleasant people. But they are without a doubt the aggressors in the current conflict and having nukes is one of the factors that has emboldened them to adopt such an extreme strategy. Now their enemies having nukes is a really scary proposition because Israel has adopted an extremely aggravating position predicated on the idea that their enemies are powerless to harm them.
But I don't think the competition of the official prize with the black market is relevant at all.
Right now a big proportion of exploits come from security researchers, partially because they're looking for exploits, but also because they do have a strong incentive to find and report vulnerabilities. I don't think a cash prize is going to change their calculation much.
The place a prize could make a difference is in ordinary developers. I suspect a lot of bugs are partially discovered multiple times before they're officially reported. Some developer is working with the software, notices some weird behaviour, but doesn't follow up because they lack the incentive. A cash prize increases the incentive and potentially turns some of those dev hunches into new bug reports.
The way the black market comes into play is the devs are competing against the black market. If the bug discovery rate goes up the price of zero-day exploits goes down (since they're shorter lasting) as does the incentive to discover them (since good devs are competing for the same bugs). So you can significantly impact the black hat market without approaching the black hat rate.
A lot of the comments comes from long established accounts that have commented on many other topics which doesn't really seem feasible for an astroturf network (unless they were 3rd party groups that get contracted by different entities). But moreso there's a lot of them who do engage in back and forths for quite a while, that's simply something that doesn't make sense for an astroturf because there's no point in a one-on-one with someone you clearly can't convince.
If _Europe_ had the balls to call Putin to task, the US would stand behind them. It gets a little hollow when all of Russia/Ukraine's neighbors are saying "lets negotiate" and the US comes in with bombers and gives them an attitude adjustment. We are working with the pieces that are on the table. Tell the EU to get their head out of their ass and start moving troops to match, if not exceed, what Russia has done. The,n we can see what Putin is made of. Until then (to return to the original Proverb) the US really does not have a dog in the fight because there is no fight; there is an antagonist whose victims are not giving an ounce of resistance.
If I wanted to describe how you would start WWIII I think this passage would be a good start. Remember Europe actually knows what a real war looks like, even if you could keep it conventional a military confrontation with Russia is going to result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths. Add nukes to the equation and you really want to get hesitant about calling Russia's bluffs.
Personally my vote is for UN peacekeeping troops in Eastern Ukraine, ideally made up of troops from anywhere except the US (and ideally Europe). It puts a neutral party with a good reputation in the crosshairs, it makes a military invasion by Russia extremely costly, but it doesn't embarrass Putin by being overly pro-West and in the worst case of an invasion it won't escalate into a major war.
What China does in surveillance of their own citizens isn't acceptable in my opinion but how is "they're even worse" a valid defence for the US which has constantly acted like it stands apart on these matters. Secondly, and something I think Americans really don't appreciate, as someone from outside both China and the US I know China would probably try and intercept my calls etc, but at least they don't pretend to be my friend while they are at it which America has been.
I don't think China and Russia being worse is a valid defence for the US. But I do think it's a valid point of criticism for Snowden. It is a bit hypocritical to criticize the US's surveillance activities, and then flee to the only two major powers that are demonstrably worse.
That being said I think he did have understandable motives, he wanted to go to somewhere that wouldn't extradite him to the US. That means a country that is a) not particularly friendly with the US, and b) powerful enough to resist US pressure, that pretty much means China and Russia. As the Evo Morales grounding incident demonstrates Europe was not an option. Maybe Ecuador was but they may not have been big enough and he still had to get there.
It's still unfortunate that he's in Russia, I think the Ukraine incident has revealed that Putin is a bit crazier than anyone anticipated and Snowden's position more tenuous. The Russians may have been threatening to send him back to the US as a concession to ease the sanctions unless he starts cooperating in their propaganda.
Everyone has noticed there are a lot of very pro-Russian people popping up on websites and I can't really understand them. The facts seem very apparent that Russia has done some extremely objectionable things, and threatens to do even more objectionable things, and the justifications for those actions seem extraordinarily weak.
Maybe some of the commenters are paid by Russia (I think that's been documented with some blogs), but a lot of them seem to be sincere westerners and I can't figure them out. Do they have Russian ancestry that makes them pro-Russia? Are they just really counter-cultural and suspicious of Western interference in the East?
Personally I'm fairly pro-West, anti-authoritarian, and have Ukrainian ancestry so I have strong feelings on the subject, but I still think I make a fairly impartial assessment of the situation. I just can't figure out the ideology that drives the Russian supporters.
I don't think Heartbleed says anything fundamental about open source security, but it might alter the discussion of how certain low level packages are managed. By any measure OpenSSL is a very important package, but it's also a bit generic. It has a very defined role that everyone needs, but I'm not sure how many people really have a motive to work on it in specific. It might be that the community needs to find a way to devote more resources to maintaining and auditing those packages.
Russia doesn't want to establish a moon base, but they're obligated to step up and protect all the Russian speakers on the moon. Moreover the moon is historically Russian, not only did a recent referendum establish that 98.3% of the moon wants to join Russia, but the moon is so close that on a clear night you can actually see it from Moscow!!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have time to go into the full thing. But for vaccines the rate hypothesis has been studied. What you're looking at is the fact that antivaxxers started with one extreme hypothesis, then when that was thoroughly discredited in the public, they shifted the goalposts to another hypothesis, "too many". Your realistic concern has been studied but you seem to be holding onto the assumption that the truth is some sort of middle ground between the scientists and the antivaxxers, it isn't. If there's truth in the middle ground its the middle ground that exists between scientists, the truth doesn't shift when a new middle ground is created by a bunch of anti-vaxxination activists.
As for global warming, it is definitely not true that "It is presented that either we need a carbon tax, or that man is not responsible for climate change. Pollution and ecological damage is rarely discussed, only the basic claims themselves".
I'm only going to talk about the scientists (none of them are saying man is not responsible). A carbon tax isn't an extreme position, what the scientists are saying is you need to reduce carbon emissions or X, Y, and Z bad things will happen. These X, Y, and Z include the pollution, ecological damage, sea level changes, temperature change, large scale droughts, etc. You implied they're all buy studying a carbon tax when in fact they're all busy studying the things you claim they don't study. A carbon tax is just one things presented as a solution, it's studied as well, though generally those studies include economists because many climate scientists don't have the expertise to perform them.
I'm talking about actual scientific research and you keep talking about how the scientists are studying extreme hypothesis by bringing up NBC, Popular Science, and Discovery Channel. Don't you think you're looking at a form of science publication biased towards extremism if you're looking at news organizations?
Actually it's not in your favor. The reason BP was allowed to dump more and more Corexit is that they provided scientists to the Government that claimed it did no harm. Other scientists were in the Gulf telling news crews lies. As stated, you have to research a bit and not rely on hearsay or major news outlets for coverage.
I was talking about scientists from universities and independent research labs, they're the ones who are creating the scientific consensus for the questions we're talking about.
But we aren't hearing anything extreme from the scientists, they've said all along they're overwhelmingly safe with minor exceptions, that's not an extreme position, it's the scientific consensus. As for those middle ground positions, ie 'too many too quickly', those are heard, but the reason they're not well publicized isn't because they're censored, it's because they're not backed by evidence. And if you're someone who publicizes a position not backed by evidence you're generally going to take an extreme position.
Whether you are looking at Vaccines or Global Warming, this is false. The only thing being published are extremes which is why I go out of my way to find and read independent science. Try it yourself, it's pretty cool.
What do you consider 'independent science'? The guys studying global warming are about as independent as you can get. And I'm not sure where you get that view of the published literature, by its nature the literature tends to be very conservative, if you don't back up everything you say with evidence you're going to get torn to shreds. All the extreme stuff comes from media, politicians, and special interest groups.
I don't think the claim is that it's an absolute limit, but rather evidence towards a fuzzy limit.
I think the reasoning is thus. We evolved to increase fitness into our mid-twenties, hold it steadily until our mid-thirties, then we start gradually declining. Somewhere around the mid to late sixties we gain the potential to start going downhill really quickly.
To me that indicates that there's some evolutionary pressure keeping us functional until our mid to late sixties, but anything after that is a kind of happy accident. None of the systems are designed to go on indefinitely, the joints wear out, telomeres run out, arteries harden, nerves die, stem cells die, cancers spread, etc.
Basically everything is designed to last to 65, for most people a few critical things really break down by 85, but no one really seems to make it much past 115. It just seems that even with every component running at its best there's so many things that can't go any further. The blood cells might be one of those factors, but there could be dozens of others that wear out around the same time and are just as fatal.
Genesis 6:3 says in the New Living Translation:
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years."
So we don't get to live forever because God finds us really damn annoying.
I can clearly remember every funeral I've been to. Considering the number of people who attend funerals and the strong significance it holds for many of the people it seems like something that's worth spending a bit of money on.
There is a laundry list of issues with Corexit. They were told to limit use and used more, the Government paid them to use every drop used, even when it was reported to be killing everything in site it was used instead of alternatives which were recommended by numerous scientists, etc.. etc... As with most issues it's not a simple thing. The majority of American's don't know anything about it. Scientists were silenced and slandered who spoke out against the massive use, and economists that were pointing out that the Government was paying BP twice to clean up their own mess were also silenced and slandered.
I remember hearing about this at the time, the scientists were ignored but they could get their message out. Anyways, it seems like that's an argument in my favour. Despite heavy pressure from government and big business the scientists partiality was not compromised.
Who said anything about publishing every doctor? I said very clearly that we are only seeing reports of either end of the extreme and any other voice is silenced or slandered.
Get the trend yet?
Yes, there is ample evidence for manipulation but you obviously have to go look for information. Silence and slander is not something new as a tactic of manipulating and maintaining public opinion. The practice goes back at least 100 years.
But we aren't hearing anything extreme from the scientists, they've said all along they're overwhelmingly safe with minor exceptions, that's not an extreme position, it's the scientific consensus. As for those middle ground positions, ie 'too many too quickly', those are heard, but the reason they're not well publicized isn't because they're censored, it's because they're not backed by evidence. And if you're someone who publicizes a position not backed by evidence you're generally going to take an extreme position.
AFAIK the problem with Corexit wasn't the studies done, its the fact they used it in large scale without adequately studying it. That's not an indictment of the science as much as an indictment of BP and the EPA.
As for your manipulation point, that's a valid concern though I don't know if there's evidence of it happening, and to the extent that there is hard to trace money it generally comes from groups in opposition to the scientific consensus.
As for vaccines, there are a lot or random doctors, if you start publicizing every doctor who speaks up about something you're going to be inundated with crazy ideas. Any BS medical thing with public support is going to get a few random doctors because they're members of the public too, that doesn't make them credible voices to question the policy. We have effective means of studying vaccines, with a few minor exceptions we know they're generally safe, a random doctor without the ability to do a proper study doesn't really have anything to add to the conversation.
University science labs receive funding from private sources, investigate how it works before making claims which are false.
The point I was making is that the science ignores the root cause. I guess you could say profits, and that's a good way of putting it. It's cheaper for someone to strip mine and destroy millions of acres of land than it is to mine in a different fashion. Lobbyists, corrupt politics, etc.. have allowed companies to make massive profits and not be responsible for damaging the land. Investigate BP in the Gulf for prime examples, especially in their use and abuse of Corexit. This is easy to find data.
The rest is a rehash and not worth discussion because you continue to overlook or ignore the point, which is claiming something is correct is not the same thing as something being correct.
I'm not saying University science labs are incorruptible, but they are extremely vigilant about resisting bias and disclosing potential conflicts of interest. A researcher who fails to disclose a potential conflict of interest can seriously damage their career. They aren't perfect and subsections like drug research may be adversely affected, but in general they do all they can to avoid bias and I think that's worth something. Moreover that kind of corruption affects the science at the small scale, such as a specific drug that has one party heavily invested in the 'right' question being asked. For something like AGW the question is so widely studied, and each subcomponent lacking strong special interests, the corruption mechanism isn't strong enough to drive the consensus.
Of course this also ignores the fact that all the potentially corrupting money is against AGW. People claim the environmental lobbies are corrupting the science, but the environmental lobbies only care about AGW because the science thinks AGW is a problem, there's no intrinsic reason for environmental groups to be concerned about CO2 emissions.
Our world is within finite space, so we can surely take measurements accurately. Modelling the complexity is another issue which I would agree we don't have. We worked on those in the 70s when we focused on the root cause of what today we bicker over as Global warming. We had regulations being passed and consumer awareness about pollution and conservation. Today it has become all about the corporate profits and the argument no longer focuses on the root cause. Neither side of the global warming debate are being scientific, or logical and reasonable for that matter. They both have the same masters and neither really give a shit as long as they get a paycheck, which depends on their masters making lots of profits.
In other words, you don't seem to know the debate either and may have probably been played like a fiddle just like the majority of the public. More a question than accusation, which you don't have to answer. Just something for you to consider.
I'm not sure I understand your argument, all I hear from the scientists has to do with the root cause CO2, I don't really recall hearing anything from scientists about corporate profits. And the scientists generally work for universities or government labs, which carries some risk of government interference, but as a group scientists are one of the most aggressive about maintaining their independence.
What you claimed is that observation is what made science, and I claimed it was wrong. You get closer here, but not quite there yet. The whole definition of inductive reason includes the fact that some things can not be proven absolutely. It is a scientists job to question those theories and find weaknesses. If you claim a theory is proof and a person questioning is wrong, you are absolutely _not_ being scientific.
Not every question about a theory is bad, yet every question is treated as bad by people claiming to be intellectuals. Those same self proclaimed intellectuals close their ears to anything that threatens their belief in the theory, and loudly complain about those other guys ignoring 'science'. The hypocrisy is staggering if you care to look.
Nothing can be proven absolutely, even math proofs rely on a system of very basic assumptions we all just take to be obviously true, but we cannot prove formally. And all science outside of math relies on theories that are not proven. Even the theory that cigarettes cause cancer isn't proven and is likely wrong in some sense. Which part of the cigarettes cause how much cancer? The nicotine, carcinogen A, B, C, or D, simply the carbon smoke in the lungs? You tweak the cigarette formula to something like electronic cigarettes and it's suddenly unclear if these new cigarettes cause cancer.
And the reason 'self proclaimed intellectuals' get pissed off at certain questions is because those same question have been asked countless times and answered adequately each time, yet people keep asking them. And generally they ask it not because they want to know the answer, they ask it because they are trying to prove the scientist wrong.
Imagine a guy proclaims that if you went to the top of a cloud during a thunderstorm you'd see Zeus throwing thunderbolts down. So you put him in a plane and during a thunderstorm and fly above the clouds seeing the thunder and a distinct lack of Greek gods. So you land, he steps out of the plane, goes up to a crowd of his followers, and starts talking about how if you went to the top of a cloud during a thunderstorm you'd see Zeus throwing thunderbolts down.
You'd probably get pissed off too.
What about the multiverse? :)
What?
This was a joke about him saying there was only one universe.
The atmosphere isn't some single indivisible thing anymore than the universe,
What??
Notwithstanding other planets the atmosphere consists of multiple layers of atmosphere, different regions of the planet, different aspects like storms, rainfall, temperature, etc.
For instance CO2 warming doesn't just explain the earth getting warmer right now, it also explains that different layers of the atmosphere will warm to a different degree, it also explains past warming events.
I think you misunderstood what I meant, they don't specialize in 'the universe' because the universe is actually an insanely vast and complex thing, they instead specialize in some arcane aspect of inflation theory.
Your issue with the multiverse and specialist thing was a misunderstanding, similarly with the atmosphere I wasn't saying it was infinite, I was saying it was way too big and complex to treat as a simple thing.
The theory that Zeus threw thunder, if the atmosphere was as simple as a thing that made thunder then the only thing we could repeat was the observation that thunder happens. But we can test the Zeus theory multiple ways, we can fly up to the top of the clouds and see if a giant is hanging out up there, we can look at multiple clouds in different parts of the globe and see if there's more simultaneous lightning strikes than Zeus has limbs, we can check to see if lightning strikes correlate with sacrifices, or if there are other cloud characteristics that predict lightning. There is only one atmosphere but I just named four ways to test the Zeus theory, its not as simple as one atmosphere means one observation and no way to double check your theory, that's why the observational vs narrative model is false.
We should be glad we are a country which does not take the word of "authority" at face value. Surely the best scientists and innovators come from that tradition. If a person does not understand a proof, they should not blindly accept it.
That sounds like anti-conformism for anti-conformisms sake. There's nothing wrong with questioning authority, the problem is with assuming the authority is wrong just because they're an authority. There are a ton of mathematical proofs I don't understand but I blindly accept because I understand the mathematicians don't have a motive to mislead me. And even when something catches my eye and I do decide to question I'll do so aggressively but that doesn't mean I stop believing it. Whatever happens you've got to believe something, if you don't believe the authority then what do you believe?
Similarly with AGW, I can read a blog or skim a paper as well as anybody, but I can't understand the entirety of climate research. I can however understand the researchers and the scientific institutions and not every force pushes them in the direction of the truth. But given what I understand of the science and the scientists I can't think of a group who would be closer to the truth than them.
What about the multiverse? :)
I disagree about the 'narrative science' idea because I think that oversimplifies the topic. The atmosphere isn't some single indivisible thing anymore than the universe, you aren't going to find a climate scientist who specializes in the atmosphere anymore than you find a physicist who specializes in the universe.
The reason that matters is because you can repeat observations. If you make a theory explaining observation X about the atmosphere that has implications for the rest of the atmosphere, so you gain repeatability by testing your theory against these other parts of the atmosphere. Same thing for the universe, the big bang theory doesn't just say the universe stated and is expanding outwards, it explains countless other things about the universe. The background radiation we see that's consistent with the big bang is an example of the big bang theory being "repeated".
The article conflates two very different types of science. One is experimental: cigarettes cause cancer. That's a testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis. The scientific method can be used. Alternate explanations can be systematically disproven.
Then there's the science that says, "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true". Note that it does NOT say "therefore Z MUST be true", which is what the article is implying. Z is something like the story of the universe from Big Bang through inflation up to today, or the story of manmade global warming. "Science" can project itself in those directions and come up with some answers, but there is no scientific method on a narrative. There are no controlled experiments. Every alternate hypothesis cannot be evaluated. They are at best projections, models. They're not "truth" without faith.
That sounds a lot like Ken Ham's distinction of observational vs historical science.
How do you actually test that cigarettes cause cancer? A big observational study? Well maybe people smoke because they're stressed or not health conscious, and they have a natural per-disposition to lung cancer. Build it from theory? Sure the smoke causes these problems in the lungs that we would expect to cause cancer, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're causing the cancer.
Now how do we test the Big Bang theory? A big observational study? We can see things that look a lot like after effects of what a big bang would look like, but maybe we're misidentifying them. Theory? There's a lot of theory about the universe that suggests a big bang, but that could be a mistake.
Clearly the cigarette cancer link is a lot easier to demonstrate than the big bang theory, or AGW, but they're not really alternative types of science. At the end of the day all of science is a mixture of observe X, where X is either a constructed experiment or a data set collected from the universe, and develop a theory Y, where Y has to explain X and all the previous observations we've made.
Putting a bunch of cigarette smoke into a lung and expecting it to develop cancer requires "faith" in the same way that putting a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere and expecting it to develop warming does. The latter problem is a harder one no doubt, but it follows the same approach of incremental collection of data and development of theories to explain that data.
I know the water is fine, but if I lived in Portland and they hadn't emptied the reservoir I would have been looking at the tap water a little more suspiciously, and if I was someone who sometimes bought bottled water I probably would have been a little more likely to buy some. I have no doubt many of you are the same.
Someone peeing in the tap water is icky, it doesn't matter if it's irrational, we are irrational, and as costs of irrationality goes emptying a single reservoir is pretty damn cheap. There's times to stand on scientific principal, this isn't one of them. There's no point in grossing out an entire city, reducing confidence in the municipal water supply, and impacting human health and the environment by pushing people towards bottled drinks, just because it's irrational. Sometimes the most rational thing you can do is accommodate your irrationality.
Israel is actively occupying Palestine and stealing the Palestinian's land.
Yeah and that happened around the 6 day war (pre occupation) against a bunch of people who wanted to wipe out the jews. The Palestinians were on the wrong side of that war. ut that only happened because balh blah etc etc.
Basically pointing the finger at this point is a useless thing to do. Both sides have been colossal cunts and both sides have made some deeply unwise decitions. Pointing fingers is easy because for each act one has done, the other has done something worse.
But it makes for fun slashdotting.
You need to point the finger to understand why they're fighting.
The Palestinians in 1948 had a valid grievance, for decades while the British ruled Palestine they allowed European Jews to buy up huge chunks of the country with the goal of creating a friendly Jewish state in Palestine, then the UN partition made it official with a split they didn't agree to. The Palestinians (and sympathetic Arabs) also had a valid grievance in 1967, after the war in 1948 they fled or were expelled from huge portions of Israel and weren't allowed back in to their land or property. The current Palestinians in addition to those previous grievances are now also dealing with the occupation, an occupation stemming from a war they didn't actually start (Egypt was threatening war but Israel launched a sneak attack) in addition to active land thefts.
There's times when both sides are to blame but not so much in this one, the Palestinians are obviously doing bad things but the ones instigating the conflict are obviously Israel.
Seriously? Lay critical crucial infrastructure through North Korea to South Korea?
There's no way Pyongyang would manipulate those rails and pipes in a fit of political pique that seems to happen, oh, once every eight months. Absolutely now way.
Hmm, is it just me or does Pyongyang sound like the name of a Russian speaking city to me...
That's nice and all, but maybe you can get the palestinian's government to explain why they're so pro-genocide in their teachings. With the various terrorist organizations, which were elected actively supporting said teachings, and taking money from the countries in the region to wage a proxy war.
Absolutely.
Israel is actively occupying Palestine and stealing the Palestinian's land.
Look at the racism that occurs against Hispanics in the US due to them taking some crappy jobs. Is it a surprise that a nation that's been constantly losing it's land to self-identified Zionists for over 100 years is going to end up really antisemitic? Having Palestinians spontaneously turn into a nation of Ghandis isn't a realistic prerequisite for peace in the middle east.
I would say there is a slight difference.
The Israelis would use a nuclear bomb as a last resort to keep what they have, a tiny strip of land.
Their adversaries and a few other rogue states and groups are not above using a nuclear bomb to get what they want, a tiny strip of land or even the whole western world.
Which strip of land? Israel or the West Bank? I agree that Iran has said some worrying things and Israel seems a nice place to live filled with generally pleasant people. But they are without a doubt the aggressors in the current conflict and having nukes is one of the factors that has emboldened them to adopt such an extreme strategy. Now their enemies having nukes is a really scary proposition because Israel has adopted an extremely aggravating position predicated on the idea that their enemies are powerless to harm them.
But I don't think the competition of the official prize with the black market is relevant at all.
Right now a big proportion of exploits come from security researchers, partially because they're looking for exploits, but also because they do have a strong incentive to find and report vulnerabilities. I don't think a cash prize is going to change their calculation much.
The place a prize could make a difference is in ordinary developers. I suspect a lot of bugs are partially discovered multiple times before they're officially reported. Some developer is working with the software, notices some weird behaviour, but doesn't follow up because they lack the incentive. A cash prize increases the incentive and potentially turns some of those dev hunches into new bug reports.
The way the black market comes into play is the devs are competing against the black market. If the bug discovery rate goes up the price of zero-day exploits goes down (since they're shorter lasting) as does the incentive to discover them (since good devs are competing for the same bugs). So you can significantly impact the black hat market without approaching the black hat rate.
A lot of the comments comes from long established accounts that have commented on many other topics which doesn't really seem feasible for an astroturf network (unless they were 3rd party groups that get contracted by different entities). But moreso there's a lot of them who do engage in back and forths for quite a while, that's simply something that doesn't make sense for an astroturf because there's no point in a one-on-one with someone you clearly can't convince.
If _Europe_ had the balls to call Putin to task, the US would stand behind them. It gets a little hollow when all of Russia/Ukraine's neighbors are saying "lets negotiate" and the US comes in with bombers and gives them an attitude adjustment. We are working with the pieces that are on the table. Tell the EU to get their head out of their ass and start moving troops to match, if not exceed, what Russia has done. The,n we can see what Putin is made of. Until then (to return to the original Proverb) the US really does not have a dog in the fight because there is no fight; there is an antagonist whose victims are not giving an ounce of resistance.
If I wanted to describe how you would start WWIII I think this passage would be a good start. Remember Europe actually knows what a real war looks like, even if you could keep it conventional a military confrontation with Russia is going to result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths. Add nukes to the equation and you really want to get hesitant about calling Russia's bluffs.
Personally my vote is for UN peacekeeping troops in Eastern Ukraine, ideally made up of troops from anywhere except the US (and ideally Europe). It puts a neutral party with a good reputation in the crosshairs, it makes a military invasion by Russia extremely costly, but it doesn't embarrass Putin by being overly pro-West and in the worst case of an invasion it won't escalate into a major war.
What China does in surveillance of their own citizens isn't acceptable in my opinion but how is "they're even worse" a valid defence for the US which has constantly acted like it stands apart on these matters. Secondly, and something I think Americans really don't appreciate, as someone from outside both China and the US I know China would probably try and intercept my calls etc, but at least they don't pretend to be my friend while they are at it which America has been.
I don't think China and Russia being worse is a valid defence for the US. But I do think it's a valid point of criticism for Snowden. It is a bit hypocritical to criticize the US's surveillance activities, and then flee to the only two major powers that are demonstrably worse.
That being said I think he did have understandable motives, he wanted to go to somewhere that wouldn't extradite him to the US. That means a country that is a) not particularly friendly with the US, and b) powerful enough to resist US pressure, that pretty much means China and Russia. As the Evo Morales grounding incident demonstrates Europe was not an option. Maybe Ecuador was but they may not have been big enough and he still had to get there.
It's still unfortunate that he's in Russia, I think the Ukraine incident has revealed that Putin is a bit crazier than anyone anticipated and Snowden's position more tenuous. The Russians may have been threatening to send him back to the US as a concession to ease the sanctions unless he starts cooperating in their propaganda.
Everyone has noticed there are a lot of very pro-Russian people popping up on websites and I can't really understand them. The facts seem very apparent that Russia has done some extremely objectionable things, and threatens to do even more objectionable things, and the justifications for those actions seem extraordinarily weak.
Maybe some of the commenters are paid by Russia (I think that's been documented with some blogs), but a lot of them seem to be sincere westerners and I can't figure them out. Do they have Russian ancestry that makes them pro-Russia? Are they just really counter-cultural and suspicious of Western interference in the East?
Personally I'm fairly pro-West, anti-authoritarian, and have Ukrainian ancestry so I have strong feelings on the subject, but I still think I make a fairly impartial assessment of the situation. I just can't figure out the ideology that drives the Russian supporters.
I don't think Heartbleed says anything fundamental about open source security, but it might alter the discussion of how certain low level packages are managed. By any measure OpenSSL is a very important package, but it's also a bit generic. It has a very defined role that everyone needs, but I'm not sure how many people really have a motive to work on it in specific. It might be that the community needs to find a way to devote more resources to maintaining and auditing those packages.
Russia doesn't want to establish a moon base, but they're obligated to step up and protect all the Russian speakers on the moon. Moreover the moon is historically Russian, not only did a recent referendum establish that 98.3% of the moon wants to join Russia, but the moon is so close that on a clear night you can actually see it from Moscow!!