You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW).
I have not. I previously said people who do X are SJW. I did not say that all SJW do X. There is no contradiction between what I said earlier and now, and there has been no change in definition because the previous statement was not a definition at all.
I see you have also completely ignored all of my questions in favor of incompetently criticizing a single point as a "gotcha!". Answer the questions.
I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist".
You don't know if the people exist. I do know they exist - I've observed them and identified them by their actions.
You can dismiss the label all you want - people use words to describe the world as they see it. Your inability to adopt a different perspective does not make that perspective wrong or nonexistent.
As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.
Organized effort is not part of the definition. Irrelevant objection. Is there a concept of "Social Justice"? Yes/No. Are there people who fight for that concept of Social Justice? Yes/No. An individual fighting for Social Justice is a Social Justice Warrior. He doesn't have to be part of a group to be an SJW. Whether all SJWs are perfectly agreed on every ideological point is also irrelevant. There's a general trend that can be described.
Recently, a scientist was called out for being sexist because he wore a shirt covered with sexually dressed women. Regardless of whether you think that is a good/bad thing - there was action by a group of people to police his behavior, and an effect where he publicly apologized for wearing the shirt.
The people who think that calling for an apology on sexism is more important than landing a spaceship on a comet are most definitely SJWs by action and belief - they value Social Justice over scientific achievement, and they act accordingly.
I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.
Liberal and progressive are not meaningless labels - do you think "conservative talking head" is a meaningless label? Why would you use that term at all if you think liberal/progressive have become meaningless labels? Only conservative talking heads have preserved meaning?
You yourself criticize groups for being "called on attitude" and "believing... conspiracy". You certainly believe that groups worth criticizing exist - just not the ones you don't criticize. Why the bias?
You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.
By this standard, any label is a "projection".
But if I label the group of people who steal property, "thieves", is this mere projection? Have the actions not fulfilled the very definition of "thief"?
This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.
Are there or are there not a group of people who go around using "misogyny", "sexist", "racist", and other charged adjectives to police public behavior? Are those words related to the concept of "Social Justice", or not? Labeling the people who fight for "Social Justice", Social Justice Warriors, seems quite apt. If you don't like the label, what would you replace it with?
Or do you wish to say that no word is allowed to label the group, since it's all "personal definitions" and "projections"?
You're welcome to come up with a better label - but in the meantime many people have settled for "SJW". Change the name to anything else, people will still hate the group, because they hate the actions of the group, not the label of the group.
Regulating interstate commerce still does not give the Federal government the authority to force somebody in one state to enforce the laws of another. A "use" tax is a STATE law. The Feds have no legal way to enforce state laws across borders, interstate commerce clause or not.
If the Feds regulate interstate commerce, they will not be "enforcing" one state's law over another. They would be enforcing a federal law that collects sales tax on inter-state commerce.
How that sales tax is then used is up to Federal law, not state law. The federal government could distribute that sales tax revenue to the states, or pocket all of it, or some combination thereof. This is within the Federal government's constitutional scope of authority.
This has all been done before, when mail-order purchases became common.
The cases back then dealt with states, they do not limit federal authority on the matter.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.
No projection is needed. SJWs are defined by their actions, not their identities.
Casually and inaccurately use "misogynist" and "racist" to browbeat people while pushing an agenda? SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.
I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.
General self-reporting reflects it. Caveat is that this is the Twitter GamerGate population - but it does refute the Twitter accusations of right-wing conservatives being behind #GamerGate.
It also makes sense in that gamers tend to be more socially introverted and thus more "go your own way" in attitude.
Not all plants thrive with higher CO2, especially when the CO2 causes increases in temperature at the plant's location which allows pests to attack it.
That does not address the argument. Someone argued that greenhouse gas == pollutant.
I point out that H20 is considered a greenhouse gas.
You seem to agree that CO2 == greenhouse gas => CO2 == pollutant.
Do you agree that H20 == greenhouse gas => H20 == pollutant? Because that's absurd.
You can educate yourself here so you stop making yourself look quite so foolish. Fat chance, right?
What on earth is an "encyclopedic definition" of a word? Have they not heard of word definition lists called "dictionaries"?
Not safe or suitable to use? CO2 could be considered unsafe at elevated levels... but at the planet level, it's a key part of the Oxygen Cycle. that is essential to life. Defining a necessary part of life as a pollutant is nonsense.
(Legal definition ignored because it does not change the science)
The graph on your article that claims runaway CO2 levels is invalid - it overlaps 3 different methods over 10,000 years, and the last method showing the worst numbers uses a single location's sample to represent the entire earth's atmosphere. By that standard, the whole earth must have Hawaii weather. Except it doesn't.
Bring a better source. Yours sucks and mal-educates.
But since it sounds like a sales tax, acts like a sales tax, and talks like a sales tax, you're right that it's a sales tax in all but name - and that makes it unconstitutional.
Parallels could be drawn to RADAR or SONAR, because it is SONAR. And RADAR is just SONAR with radio waves instead of sound. It's nothing like Synthetic Aperture RARAR, which relies of phase correlations between many hundreds (or thousands) of separate radar pings.
The important bit of SAR is not that there are hundreds/thousands of separate radar pings, it's that the effective aperture is increased by moving the antenna around to collect signal returns from multiple locations serially.
Note how the ability to move the head/torso (and thus ears) was important to successful navigating. That means the brain is collecting extra information from the movement. Would be interesting to measure how much freedom of motion is needed.
It's a greenhouse gas that is proven to cause global warming. There is no doubt there, and it doesn't matter whether you want to call it a pollutant or not.
CO2 is a literal greenhouse gas because plants LOVE it and grow best when they are in an environment with an abundant amount of it.
It also unfairly penalizes local merchants over internet merchants that thrive (partly) because of the tax evasion by their customers.
States with sales taxes are the ones "penalizing" local merchants with their sales taxes. Not all states are penalizing their local merchants, so put the blame where it belongs.
It is not tax evasion by the consumer to buy cheaper products - by that measure, it's tax evasion to buy US-made products over foreign ones that are subject to tariffs.
Why are you evading tariffs by buying US products? For that matter, have you maximized your income? Because if you're not, you've evaded income taxes by the same standard.
Instead, the entire body, neck, and head are key to 'seeing' with sound
The way this is written up, it makes it sound like the body/head are part of the sensors.
When you read the article, you find the significance is that in one scenario, the blindfolded participants "couldnâ(TM)t move their heads or torsos" and were unable to navigate a virtual corridor. So it's not that the body/head are part of the listening, it's that the person wasn't able to move their ears to listen from different locations. By the same logic, your body/head are key to "seeing" with your eyes... which is stretching it.
Parallels can undoubtedly be drawn with SAR. Amazing how this capability is built into the human brain (and other animals).
When you add all these things up, the inescapable conclusion is that an internet sales tax is unconstitutional, since it is de facto an absurd tax on transactions made in other states. (Except, of course, when the company has a presence in your own state.)
A small nitpick - a state enacted Internet sales tax is unconstitutional.
However, it is within the federal government's constitutional scope of authority to regulate interstate transactions, such as collecting an internet sales tax.
For example, when I drive through a green light without looking I have "faith" that others are not going to drive through the red light and hit me. This is based off of experience and is one defintion of faith, which is a trust based on experience.
Religious faith is different. It is a belief that is not based on proof.
Uh, your past experience is not proof. So your belief that it is safe to drive through a green light is not based on proof either. (Fact: People get in car accidents from bad drivers violating right of way)
By your very own definitions, you possess a "religious faith" by having beliefs not based on proof.
Note that most any religious faith is based on experience, much like your faith in the safety of green lights. People had "Come to Jesus" moments which overcame addictions, or suicidal thoughts, or various other personal crises, and came to believe that religion X was true based on that experience. Or, for the less dramatic, they saw how religious faith in their community was effective, and believed based on that experience.
So to say that "religious faith" is specially wrong and anti-proof is flat out untrue. A reasonable amount of evidence leads to reasonable belief. Proof is a higher level of evidence that should lead to total belief, but proof is not required for reasonable belief.
Sort of - Ignore isn't quite what I had in mind. Something stronger than that. Refusing to publish the paper of a quack, for example, isn't just ignoring - it's removing that opinion from the public sphere. Or maybe something like not hiring a professor of evolution who believes in creationism for example. Something with consequences beyond just being ignored but not quite censorship. I'm not sure English has a word for it.
You want censorship without the stigma of censorship. Ignore is inaction. Actions to suppress instead of refute are forms of censorship. Have the courage to boldly state what you are asking for instead of hiding it behind politically correct labels that obscure your meaning.
No - it is that *science* is a better tool for producing facts about the world than any other discipline. Did you miss where I said "the data is what matters?" I'm not claiming science is better or that other disciplines are bad. But if you want to know something about world then the best tool for the job is a scientific approach.
Science doesn't produce facts. Science is a process to eliminate incorrect theories about how the world works, based off of factual observations. Factual observations are not the unique domain of science.
Of course, it may be that you're not using "science" in the sense of "scientific method" science, but "knowledge" - but that doesn't fit with the claim that "science is best method".
It doesn't at all - that's why I said the *data* is what matters and not *people*.... The repeatability issues you mention are *exactly* what makes science great at what it does! They're exposing the flaws in the individuals!
There's no such thing as scientific data that did not come from people. People collected it, people interpreted it. You're claiming an independence that objectively does not exist. That is my problem here - claims of science that go beyond what it actually does.
The repeatability issues completely undermine the concept of using "scientific consensus" as an unassailable objective standard. It's okay to point out scientific consensus exists and that it has a certain position - it's utterly useless to use that as a proof that someone is wrong and must be censored.
Think about it. How many scientific consensuses have been overturned in the history of science? Why would you treat any particular consensus as the final word on the matter, when the very nature of the scientific method provides contingent results? (We have not yet proved X to be false vs. We proved X to be true)
You're tending towards extreme philosophical skepticism here a bit. "How can we know anything at all?"
No I am not. I am pointing out a fundamental attribute of scientific knowledge that you don't seem to know exists. Furthermore, the fact that scientific consensus has changed over time makes the desire to make dogma out of the current scientific consensus silly.
Talk about damning with faint praise. "You can't disprove me" is the battle-cry of those with no evidence to support their claim.
I reject your claim though that Creationism can't be dis-proven. Certain components of Creationism can certainly be tested. 6,000 year old Earth? False. No common ancestry? False. The human race began with 2 people created from dust? Do I really need to tell you this is false? And if the "theory" depends on these components then, well, the theory fails.
You failed to understand the point. You cannot disprove it with science, period. Creationism is a historical claim that some time in the past, a creation event happened. History is NOT the domain of science. Science cannot perform controlled experiments on the past to tell you what happened. Science can provide useful clues to deduce what did actually happen in the past, but that's not science, nor is i
Which is a meaningless comparison because they are the same thing.... (Which is why we have different terms for smart phones and not smart phones - they aren't the same thing.)
An iPhone is not an Android. They have different labels, which as you note is used to differentiate between different things. However, they are the same type of thing.
Exploring engineering limits is different than exploring physical locations, but both activities are exploration. Exploration is done by explorers.
If you want to say the test pilots are not physical region explorers, no one is going to disagree with you.
Calling these pilots "explorers" is placing them on the same plane as Amundsen, or Aldrin, or Magellan
So you'll call the pilot who made the flight to the Moon an explorer. What about every test pilot before Aldrin who proved out all the designs that led up to the actual Apollo missions?
They're explorers because they take the risk, not because they happen to be successful, or are famous after the fact.
Again, this is are test pilots trying unproven designs to push spaceflight innovation. They're exploring the unknown to make it possible for new things to be done.
Their work may not be as famous or impactful as the explorers you mentioned, but the risks and the objectives squarely qualify them as explorers.
Are you out of your friggin mind? No disrespect to them, but these guys weren't explorers. They were testing a commercial craft, no different conceptually from the guys Boeing hires to give an aircraft fresh off the assembly line a quick spin around the sky. They should be mourned, but for what they were - brave individuals doing a difficult job, not for something they weren't.
Test pilots explore human engineering capabilities. This isn't a routine flight of a tried and true existing design. They are testing out completely new designs and finding out what works, and in this case, unfortunately, what does not work.
It's not the same as discovering new locations and physical things, but it still a type of exploration.
I do not "attack" profits. I am just stating what this whole thing is about. Profits can also be made from doing actually useful things. Travel in suborbital space for the wealthiers accomplish nothing.
You disdained this business seeking profit by building new spaceships. As opposed to those profit-seeking businesses who sell food, or consumer tech, or cars?
Since you're have set yourself up as a judge that things need to be about making the planet better - what have you done to make this planet better? Slashdot posts don't count.
BTW, what achievements are you talking about? We have already send people to the Moon and we are routinely sending people in low orbit of the Earth. There is nothing to see here.
I guess you're not an engineer. Even a failed prototype is an achievement. Do you think successes are picked off trees or something? What do you think successful achievements are built upon? The lessons from the failures.
The test pilots were testing a new type of space vehicle. There was an immense amount of work going into a challenging problem. You are familiar with the term, "it's not rocket science", yes? They are tackling rocket science.
Please do elaborate on how you're part of the "we" who sent people to the moon or who send people into low orbit.
Damn, you're right...a quick and easy solution for the colleges to continue business as usual, and the students who would've had a hard time finding a job before as graduates may have an even harder time finding one as dropouts.
Those higher standards would make the college degree mean something, and dissuade people from spending time in college if they weren't going to finish.
Commercial manned spaceflights add nothing here. The ultimate goal being profit for shareholders and find a new way to waste money for the wealthier in exchange of something nobody else can buy, do. But at the end, it does not contribute anything to make this planet better.
Do those space ship designs look anything like what was previously used? Why is exploring new spaceship designs and launch mechanisms useless?
When you attack "profits", realize that it is profits that drove the creation of the computers and networks that you're typing this on, right? It is hypocritical for you to enjoy the benefits while disdaining the means.
No, I am not ready to die for my neighbor to live in space or elsewhere.
No one asked you to. On the other hand, how hard is to not shit on other people's achievements?
But, you still have health insurance, so by the metrics of the article, you were not harmed.
On the other hand, now other people also have access to the same crappy health insurance you have, but subsidized by your higher premiums, so they've been helped, at no cost to you.
Yes - I believe we agree here. I think, perhaps, we've been using the verb "silence" a bit differently which may be the cause of some confusion. I'm using it with a perhaps more "liberal" meaning. Not to actively silence (censor) but to not allow a voice (refusing to acknowledge). Depending on ones POV either can be considered to be "silencing." I'm more against the former than the latter.
There exists a word for what you want to communicate: "ignore". There is no reason to use "silence" to mean "ignore" except to confuse.
Science is not simply "opinions offered by smart people." They are hypotheses supported by data. It doesn't even matter if the people doing it are smart or not - the data is what matters. Sometimes data contradicts one's personal beliefs and you get "pseudoscience" - a discipline that accepts what it has already decided is true first and then seeks to prove it with the data. Typically this involves cherry picking data and other poor practices.
Your argument is that scientific experts are special and better than experts in any other field of knowledge.
That completely ignores that scientists are human, are subject to the same corrupting influences of other fields, and that not even peer review is sufficient to remove bias and guarantee truth. (See studies on repeatability of peer reviewed studies)
Think about it. How many scientific consensuses have been overturned in the history of science? Why would you treat any particular consensus as the final word on the matter, when the very nature of the scientific method provides contingent results? (We have not yet proved X to be false vs. We proved X to be true)
The list goes on. All of these are demonstrably false.
You cannot possibly prove creationism false with science. Creationism is fundamentally a historical claim, which is outside the realm of the scientific method.
The best you can do is say it unlikely by logic and cumulative evidence - but that is not a scientific result, however true it may be.
Slashdot Mirror
You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW).
I have not. I previously said people who do X are SJW. I did not say that all SJW do X. There is no contradiction between what I said earlier and now, and there has been no change in definition because the previous statement was not a definition at all.
I see you have also completely ignored all of my questions in favor of incompetently criticizing a single point as a "gotcha!". Answer the questions.
I love chilled chicken embryo with all of the embryo's nutrients for my benefit, fried or scrambled.
Do you actually go to the trouble of buying/acquiring fertilized chicken eggs? Because until fertilization, they're not embryos, they're just eggs.
I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist".
You don't know if the people exist. I do know they exist - I've observed them and identified them by their actions.
You can dismiss the label all you want - people use words to describe the world as they see it. Your inability to adopt a different perspective does not make that perspective wrong or nonexistent.
As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.
Organized effort is not part of the definition. Irrelevant objection. Is there a concept of "Social Justice"? Yes/No. Are there people who fight for that concept of Social Justice? Yes/No. An individual fighting for Social Justice is a Social Justice Warrior. He doesn't have to be part of a group to be an SJW. Whether all SJWs are perfectly agreed on every ideological point is also irrelevant. There's a general trend that can be described.
Recently, a scientist was called out for being sexist because he wore a shirt covered with sexually dressed women. Regardless of whether you think that is a good/bad thing - there was action by a group of people to police his behavior, and an effect where he publicly apologized for wearing the shirt.
The people who think that calling for an apology on sexism is more important than landing a spaceship on a comet are most definitely SJWs by action and belief - they value Social Justice over scientific achievement, and they act accordingly.
I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.
Liberal and progressive are not meaningless labels - do you think "conservative talking head" is a meaningless label? Why would you use that term at all if you think liberal/progressive have become meaningless labels? Only conservative talking heads have preserved meaning?
You yourself criticize groups for being "called on attitude" and "believing ... conspiracy". You certainly believe that groups worth criticizing exist - just not the ones you don't criticize. Why the bias?
You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.
By this standard, any label is a "projection".
But if I label the group of people who steal property, "thieves", is this mere projection? Have the actions not fulfilled the very definition of "thief"?
This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.
Are there or are there not a group of people who go around using "misogyny", "sexist", "racist", and other charged adjectives to police public behavior? Are those words related to the concept of "Social Justice", or not? Labeling the people who fight for "Social Justice", Social Justice Warriors, seems quite apt. If you don't like the label, what would you replace it with?
Or do you wish to say that no word is allowed to label the group, since it's all "personal definitions" and "projections"?
You're welcome to come up with a better label - but in the meantime many people have settled for "SJW". Change the name to anything else, people will still hate the group, because they hate the actions of the group, not the label of the group.
Regulating interstate commerce still does not give the Federal government the authority to force somebody in one state to enforce the laws of another. A "use" tax is a STATE law. The Feds have no legal way to enforce state laws across borders, interstate commerce clause or not.
If the Feds regulate interstate commerce, they will not be "enforcing" one state's law over another. They would be enforcing a federal law that collects sales tax on inter-state commerce.
How that sales tax is then used is up to Federal law, not state law. The federal government could distribute that sales tax revenue to the states, or pocket all of it, or some combination thereof. This is within the Federal government's constitutional scope of authority.
This has all been done before, when mail-order purchases became common.
The cases back then dealt with states, they do not limit federal authority on the matter.
Someone who uses SJW as a silencing pejorative? There's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
Not at all. But since reading or quoting the entire thought is too difficult for you, there's nothing else for me to add.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.
No projection is needed. SJWs are defined by their actions, not their identities.
Casually and inaccurately use "misogynist" and "racist" to browbeat people while pushing an agenda? SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.
I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.
General self-reporting reflects it. Caveat is that this is the Twitter GamerGate population - but it does refute the Twitter accusations of right-wing conservatives being behind #GamerGate.
It also makes sense in that gamers tend to be more socially introverted and thus more "go your own way" in attitude.
Not all plants thrive with higher CO2, especially when the CO2 causes increases in temperature at the plant's location which allows pests to attack it.
That does not address the argument. Someone argued that greenhouse gas == pollutant.
I point out that H20 is considered a greenhouse gas.
You seem to agree that CO2 == greenhouse gas => CO2 == pollutant.
Do you agree that H20 == greenhouse gas => H20 == pollutant? Because that's absurd.
You can educate yourself here so you stop making yourself look quite so foolish. Fat chance, right?
What on earth is an "encyclopedic definition" of a word? Have they not heard of word definition lists called "dictionaries"?
Pollutant: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use
Not safe or suitable to use? CO2 could be considered unsafe at elevated levels ... but at the planet level, it's a key part of the Oxygen Cycle. that is essential to life. Defining a necessary part of life as a pollutant is nonsense.
(Legal definition ignored because it does not change the science)
The graph on your article that claims runaway CO2 levels is invalid - it overlaps 3 different methods over 10,000 years, and the last method showing the worst numbers uses a single location's sample to represent the entire earth's atmosphere. By that standard, the whole earth must have Hawaii weather. Except it doesn't.
Bring a better source. Yours sucks and mal-educates.
If it's a "use tax", then it's not a sales tax.
But since it sounds like a sales tax, acts like a sales tax, and talks like a sales tax, you're right that it's a sales tax in all but name - and that makes it unconstitutional.
Parallels could be drawn to RADAR or SONAR, because it is SONAR. And RADAR is just SONAR with radio waves instead of sound. It's nothing like Synthetic Aperture RARAR, which relies of phase correlations between many hundreds (or thousands) of separate radar pings.
The important bit of SAR is not that there are hundreds/thousands of separate radar pings, it's that the effective aperture is increased by moving the antenna around to collect signal returns from multiple locations serially.
Note how the ability to move the head/torso (and thus ears) was important to successful navigating. That means the brain is collecting extra information from the movement. Would be interesting to measure how much freedom of motion is needed.
It's a greenhouse gas that is proven to cause global warming. There is no doubt there, and it doesn't matter whether you want to call it a pollutant or not.
CO2 is a literal greenhouse gas because plants LOVE it and grow best when they are in an environment with an abundant amount of it.
Greenhouse gas does not make it a pollutant. "The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone."
Is H2O a pollutant? The one molecule completely essential your continued existence?
It also unfairly penalizes local merchants over internet merchants that thrive (partly) because of the tax evasion by their customers.
States with sales taxes are the ones "penalizing" local merchants with their sales taxes. Not all states are penalizing their local merchants, so put the blame where it belongs.
It is not tax evasion by the consumer to buy cheaper products - by that measure, it's tax evasion to buy US-made products over foreign ones that are subject to tariffs.
Why are you evading tariffs by buying US products? For that matter, have you maximized your income? Because if you're not, you've evaded income taxes by the same standard.
Instead, the entire body, neck, and head are key to 'seeing' with sound
The way this is written up, it makes it sound like the body/head are part of the sensors.
When you read the article, you find the significance is that in one scenario, the blindfolded participants "couldnâ(TM)t move their heads or torsos" and were unable to navigate a virtual corridor. So it's not that the body/head are part of the listening, it's that the person wasn't able to move their ears to listen from different locations. By the same logic, your body/head are key to "seeing" with your eyes ... which is stretching it.
Parallels can undoubtedly be drawn with SAR. Amazing how this capability is built into the human brain (and other animals).
When you add all these things up, the inescapable conclusion is that an internet sales tax is unconstitutional, since it is de facto an absurd tax on transactions made in other states. (Except, of course, when the company has a presence in your own state.)
A small nitpick - a state enacted Internet sales tax is unconstitutional.
However, it is within the federal government's constitutional scope of authority to regulate interstate transactions, such as collecting an internet sales tax.
For example, when I drive through a green light without looking I have "faith" that others are not going to drive through the red light and hit me. This is based off of experience and is one defintion of faith, which is a trust based on experience.
Religious faith is different. It is a belief that is not based on proof.
Uh, your past experience is not proof. So your belief that it is safe to drive through a green light is not based on proof either. (Fact: People get in car accidents from bad drivers violating right of way)
By your very own definitions, you possess a "religious faith" by having beliefs not based on proof.
Note that most any religious faith is based on experience, much like your faith in the safety of green lights. People had "Come to Jesus" moments which overcame addictions, or suicidal thoughts, or various other personal crises, and came to believe that religion X was true based on that experience. Or, for the less dramatic, they saw how religious faith in their community was effective, and believed based on that experience.
So to say that "religious faith" is specially wrong and anti-proof is flat out untrue. A reasonable amount of evidence leads to reasonable belief. Proof is a higher level of evidence that should lead to total belief, but proof is not required for reasonable belief.
Sort of - Ignore isn't quite what I had in mind. Something stronger than that. Refusing to publish the paper of a quack, for example, isn't just ignoring - it's removing that opinion from the public sphere. Or maybe something like not hiring a professor of evolution who believes in creationism for example. Something with consequences beyond just being ignored but not quite censorship. I'm not sure English has a word for it.
You want censorship without the stigma of censorship. Ignore is inaction. Actions to suppress instead of refute are forms of censorship. Have the courage to boldly state what you are asking for instead of hiding it behind politically correct labels that obscure your meaning.
No - it is that *science* is a better tool for producing facts about the world than any other discipline. Did you miss where I said "the data is what matters?" I'm not claiming science is better or that other disciplines are bad. But if you want to know something about world then the best tool for the job is a scientific approach.
Science doesn't produce facts. Science is a process to eliminate incorrect theories about how the world works, based off of factual observations. Factual observations are not the unique domain of science.
Of course, it may be that you're not using "science" in the sense of "scientific method" science, but "knowledge" - but that doesn't fit with the claim that "science is best method".
It doesn't at all - that's why I said the *data* is what matters and not *people*. ... The repeatability issues you mention are *exactly* what makes science great at what it does! They're exposing the flaws in the individuals!
There's no such thing as scientific data that did not come from people. People collected it, people interpreted it. You're claiming an independence that objectively does not exist. That is my problem here - claims of science that go beyond what it actually does.
The repeatability issues completely undermine the concept of using "scientific consensus" as an unassailable objective standard. It's okay to point out scientific consensus exists and that it has a certain position - it's utterly useless to use that as a proof that someone is wrong and must be censored.
Think about it. How many scientific consensuses have been overturned in the history of science? Why would you treat any particular consensus as the final word on the matter, when the very nature of the scientific method provides contingent results? (We have not yet proved X to be false vs. We proved X to be true)
You're tending towards extreme philosophical skepticism here a bit. "How can we know anything at all?"
No I am not. I am pointing out a fundamental attribute of scientific knowledge that you don't seem to know exists. Furthermore, the fact that scientific consensus has changed over time makes the desire to make dogma out of the current scientific consensus silly.
Talk about damning with faint praise. "You can't disprove me" is the battle-cry of those with no evidence to support their claim.
I reject your claim though that Creationism can't be dis-proven. Certain components of Creationism can certainly be tested. 6,000 year old Earth? False. No common ancestry? False. The human race began with 2 people created from dust? Do I really need to tell you this is false? And if the "theory" depends on these components then, well, the theory fails.
You failed to understand the point. You cannot disprove it with science, period. Creationism is a historical claim that some time in the past, a creation event happened. History is NOT the domain of science. Science cannot perform controlled experiments on the past to tell you what happened. Science can provide useful clues to deduce what did actually happen in the past, but that's not science, nor is i
Which is a meaningless comparison because they are the same thing. ... (Which is why we have different terms for smart phones and not smart phones - they aren't the same thing.)
An iPhone is not an Android. They have different labels, which as you note is used to differentiate between different things. However, they are the same type of thing.
Exploring engineering limits is different than exploring physical locations, but both activities are exploration. Exploration is done by explorers.
If you want to say the test pilots are not physical region explorers, no one is going to disagree with you.
Calling these pilots "explorers" is placing them on the same plane as Amundsen, or Aldrin, or Magellan
So you'll call the pilot who made the flight to the Moon an explorer. What about every test pilot before Aldrin who proved out all the designs that led up to the actual Apollo missions?
They're explorers because they take the risk, not because they happen to be successful, or are famous after the fact.
Again, this is are test pilots trying unproven designs to push spaceflight innovation. They're exploring the unknown to make it possible for new things to be done.
Their work may not be as famous or impactful as the explorers you mentioned, but the risks and the objectives squarely qualify them as explorers.
If it's not the same, then why use the same term and implicitly put them on the same plane? That's just debasing the term into meaninglessness.
What part of "type of exploration" was difficult to understand?
An iPhone is not the same as an Android, but it is still a type of smartphone.
Are you out of your friggin mind? No disrespect to them, but these guys weren't explorers. They were testing a commercial craft, no different conceptually from the guys Boeing hires to give an aircraft fresh off the assembly line a quick spin around the sky. They should be mourned, but for what they were - brave individuals doing a difficult job, not for something they weren't.
Test pilots explore human engineering capabilities. This isn't a routine flight of a tried and true existing design. They are testing out completely new designs and finding out what works, and in this case, unfortunately, what does not work.
It's not the same as discovering new locations and physical things, but it still a type of exploration.
I do not "attack" profits. I am just stating what this whole thing is about. Profits can also be made from doing actually useful things. Travel in suborbital space for the wealthiers accomplish nothing.
You disdained this business seeking profit by building new spaceships. As opposed to those profit-seeking businesses who sell food, or consumer tech, or cars?
Since you're have set yourself up as a judge that things need to be about making the planet better - what have you done to make this planet better? Slashdot posts don't count.
BTW, what achievements are you talking about? We have already send people to the Moon and we are routinely sending people in low orbit of the Earth. There is nothing to see here.
I guess you're not an engineer. Even a failed prototype is an achievement. Do you think successes are picked off trees or something? What do you think successful achievements are built upon? The lessons from the failures.
The test pilots were testing a new type of space vehicle. There was an immense amount of work going into a challenging problem. You are familiar with the term, "it's not rocket science", yes? They are tackling rocket science.
Please do elaborate on how you're part of the "we" who sent people to the moon or who send people into low orbit.
Damn, you're right...a quick and easy solution for the colleges to continue business as usual, and the students who would've had a hard time finding a job before as graduates may have an even harder time finding one as dropouts.
Those higher standards would make the college degree mean something, and dissuade people from spending time in college if they weren't going to finish.
Objective still accomplished.
Commercial manned spaceflights add nothing here. The ultimate goal being profit for shareholders and find a new way to waste money for the wealthier in exchange of something nobody else can buy, do. But at the end, it does not contribute anything to make this planet better.
Do those space ship designs look anything like what was previously used? Why is exploring new spaceship designs and launch mechanisms useless?
When you attack "profits", realize that it is profits that drove the creation of the computers and networks that you're typing this on, right? It is hypocritical for you to enjoy the benefits while disdaining the means.
No, I am not ready to die for my neighbor to live in space or elsewhere.
No one asked you to. On the other hand, how hard is to not shit on other people's achievements?
But, you still have health insurance, so by the metrics of the article, you were not harmed.
On the other hand, now other people also have access to the same crappy health insurance you have, but subsidized by your higher premiums, so they've been helped, at no cost to you.
Net gain!
/sarc
Yes - I believe we agree here. I think, perhaps, we've been using the verb "silence" a bit differently which may be the cause of some confusion. I'm using it with a perhaps more "liberal" meaning. Not to actively silence (censor) but to not allow a voice (refusing to acknowledge). Depending on ones POV either can be considered to be "silencing." I'm more against the former than the latter.
There exists a word for what you want to communicate: "ignore". There is no reason to use "silence" to mean "ignore" except to confuse.
Science is not simply "opinions offered by smart people." They are hypotheses supported by data. It doesn't even matter if the people doing it are smart or not - the data is what matters. Sometimes data contradicts one's personal beliefs and you get "pseudoscience" - a discipline that accepts what it has already decided is true first and then seeks to prove it with the data. Typically this involves cherry picking data and other poor practices.
Your argument is that scientific experts are special and better than experts in any other field of knowledge.
That completely ignores that scientists are human, are subject to the same corrupting influences of other fields, and that not even peer review is sufficient to remove bias and guarantee truth. (See studies on repeatability of peer reviewed studies)
Think about it. How many scientific consensuses have been overturned in the history of science? Why would you treat any particular consensus as the final word on the matter, when the very nature of the scientific method provides contingent results? (We have not yet proved X to be false vs. We proved X to be true)
The list goes on. All of these are demonstrably false.
You cannot possibly prove creationism false with science. Creationism is fundamentally a historical claim, which is outside the realm of the scientific method.
The best you can do is say it unlikely by logic and cumulative evidence - but that is not a scientific result, however true it may be.
The main problem with using the bible here is that it has no predictive power at all.
Why are you looking for scientific predictions from a history book?
On the flip side, if the history book is accurate with regards to science, what does that tell you about the history it describes?