People who inveigh against a vice in others are often themselves fixated on it, and more likely to succumb to its allure. And, the research suggests, virtuous deeds are often a form of penance for thoughts a person is ashamed of.
This just popped into my head reading this thread, but I'm wondering how much child porn goes on these days. I have to say, I've been around some fucking weird corners of the net, but the only time I hear about kiddie porn is when politicians talk about it. Paging Dr. Freud?
Put another way, I'd love to hear someone ask these guys "can you prove that this is a social problem and not some weird fixation on your part?"
There's just something inherently distasteful about a middle aged man, not involved with law enforcement, getting worked into a lather over naked children. It's creepy.
We have far too little research to know if marijuana is harmless or not - the associated mental problems might be very dangerous.
While I'm only going to say that this statement is an example of willful ignorance, I'd really like to point out that we have plenty of legal drugs available that have proven to be fantastically dangerous. Health of the user is not a concern, and never has been.
All they have to do is get your fingerprint from something
like your finger? Look, if "they" want your fingerprint, they're going to come get it from you. If you're a suspect you will be fingerprinted. This time clock is not connected to a federal black-helicopter database, no matter how exciting that might be.
making a stink about something trivial like this makes legitimate privacy concerns look bad
A pedant is a person who is overly concerned with formalism and precision.
The English language word "pedant" comes from the French pédant (used in 1566 in Darme & Hatzfeldster's Dictionnaire général de la langue française) or its older mid-15th century Italian source pedante, "teacher, schoolmaster". (Compare the Spanish pedante.) The origin of the Italian pedante is uncertain, but multiple dictionaries suggest that it was a contraction of the mediaeval Latin pædagogans, present participle of pædagogare, "to act as pedagogue, to teach"
No, I don't have to accept that. I can reject it, on the grounds these redefinitions are an attempt to make people look racist and therefore put them on the defensive.
This assumes that people care about what you think, which is demonstrably not true. Redefinition is a method used by individuals and cultures to take control over their own lives and images. It's not directed at you.
As far as I know, "Oriental" was banished by the PC crowd for no reason at all...
From what I can tell, the asian community basically came up with that one on their own. Not sure why it offends, but it does.
Look, guys, I can (sort of) appreciate all this carping about "correctness" and "having to learn something new", but you need to accept that people have a right to define themselves. They also have a right to resist definition by others. Nobody cares if you think it's stupid, you just come across as a little bit racist.
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Hearing from someone who knows better than to say "for a theory to be science it must be falsifiable".
You're not really making a distinction between people who are surfing the tubes for recreation and people who are working or studying. If you're just kicking around, then youtube and co. are certainly optional stops. But it's also the prime gathering point for stuff like TED talks, "man on the street" video reporting, Sagan mashups, HOWTO videos, out of circulation educational films, and so forth. It's not really that important to have all of this hosted by YouGoogly, but it is nice to have one place to start your searching.
As far as "life changing" is concerned, I think would depend on if you're in the "funny cat" camp or the "last lecture" camp. You may, in fact, be doing it wrong.
The problem isn't whether companies will make smart business decisions (e.g. moving to friendlier tax areas), it's that this is a highly visible example of "he who has the gold makes the rules".
Everybody knows that wealthy people receive preferential treatment in our society, but nobody likes having their nose rubbed in it. A situation like this one with MS, coming at tax time, just feels like a big middle finger.
Unfortunately it seems that a great deal of the current scientific community holds your view.
Yes, for the last half-century. Even Popper understood that it is impossible to logically falsify a theory (1980:41-42), he just didn't think it was that big of a point. Google 'Duhem-Quine'.
The flip side was pointed out by Thagard (1978) using astrology as an example. Since astrology makes predictions about people's personalities, you could compare predictions to individuals. If these turned out to be wrong, you would have falsified astrology.
One little nit to pick with your rant... Falsification is not the defining aspect of "science".
One of the large problems we have right now is that, at best, most of us barely remember high school classes, yet we're being asked to formulate opinions on things we have no background in.
Slashdot Mirror
People who inveigh against a vice in others are often themselves fixated on it, and more likely to succumb to its allure. And, the research suggests, virtuous deeds are often a form of penance for thoughts a person is ashamed of.
Thanks, that was an interesting article.
This just popped into my head reading this thread, but I'm wondering how much child porn goes on these days. I have to say, I've been around some fucking weird corners of the net, but the only time I hear about kiddie porn is when politicians talk about it. Paging Dr. Freud?
Put another way, I'd love to hear someone ask these guys "can you prove that this is a social problem and not some weird fixation on your part?"
There's just something inherently distasteful about a middle aged man, not involved with law enforcement, getting worked into a lather over naked children. It's creepy.
I guess this hasn't been posted in this thread yet, but here you go:
http://tqft.net/wiki/Maneki_Neko
All you can do to fight them is drop the gift on the ground and impoverish yourself in the process.
This whole post is pretty much gold.
We have far too little research to know if marijuana is harmless or not - the associated mental problems might be very dangerous.
While I'm only going to say that this statement is an example of willful ignorance, I'd really like to point out that we have plenty of legal drugs available that have proven to be fantastically dangerous. Health of the user is not a concern, and never has been.
That's pretty much the whole point of the Taliban.
Meanwhile the people whipping these poor plebes into a lather continue to make money.
((side note: I'm supposed to feel bad about an airplane owner's money problems? Sell the fucking plane, Einstein))
All they have to do is get your fingerprint from something
like your finger? Look, if "they" want your fingerprint, they're going to come get it from you. If you're a suspect you will be fingerprinted. This time clock is not connected to a federal black-helicopter database, no matter how exciting that might be.
making a stink about something trivial like this makes legitimate privacy concerns look bad
Wait, what were we talking about again?
So as much as it sucks, guess what, the sensor is accurately recording that the phone's been outside of operational specs.
And yet they continue to sell such devices in said area. You don't see any disconnect here?
Read that statement back to yourself a few times and I think you'll spot the problem.
No, I don't have to accept that. I can reject it, on the grounds these redefinitions are an attempt to make people look racist and therefore put them on the defensive.
This assumes that people care about what you think, which is demonstrably not true. Redefinition is a method used by individuals and cultures to take control over their own lives and images. It's not directed at you.
I was once young enough to work 16 hour days. Now I know better. That is the entirety of the "problem".
As far as I know, "Oriental" was banished by the PC crowd for no reason at all...
From what I can tell, the asian community basically came up with that one on their own. Not sure why it offends, but it does.
Look, guys, I can (sort of) appreciate all this carping about "correctness" and "having to learn something new", but you need to accept that people have a right to define themselves. They also have a right to resist definition by others. Nobody cares if you think it's stupid, you just come across as a little bit racist.
Here in the States the word 'oriental' is seen as a slur and isn't used anymore.
or god forbid a FALSIFIABLE hypothesis
science fail.
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Hearing from someone who knows better than to say "for a theory to be science it must be falsifiable".
Soon someone will show a "theory" which shows this is because AGW.
Ahh, a fellow scientist.
A witch hunt implies looking for something that's not there.
You're thinking of a snipe hunt.
You're not really making a distinction between people who are surfing the tubes for recreation and people who are working or studying. If you're just kicking around, then youtube and co. are certainly optional stops. But it's also the prime gathering point for stuff like TED talks, "man on the street" video reporting, Sagan mashups, HOWTO videos, out of circulation educational films, and so forth. It's not really that important to have all of this hosted by YouGoogly, but it is nice to have one place to start your searching.
As far as "life changing" is concerned, I think would depend on if you're in the "funny cat" camp or the "last lecture" camp. You may, in fact, be doing it wrong.
The problem isn't whether companies will make smart business decisions (e.g. moving to friendlier tax areas), it's that this is a highly visible example of "he who has the gold makes the rules".
Everybody knows that wealthy people receive preferential treatment in our society, but nobody likes having their nose rubbed in it. A situation like this one with MS, coming at tax time, just feels like a big middle finger.
Unfortunately it seems that a great deal of the current scientific community holds your view.
Yes, for the last half-century. Even Popper understood that it is impossible to logically falsify a theory (1980:41-42), he just didn't think it was that big of a point. Google 'Duhem-Quine'.
The flip side was pointed out by Thagard (1978) using astrology as an example. Since astrology makes predictions about people's personalities, you could compare predictions to individuals. If these turned out to be wrong, you would have falsified astrology.
One little nit to pick with your rant... Falsification is not the defining aspect of "science".
One of the large problems we have right now is that, at best, most of us barely remember high school classes, yet we're being asked to formulate opinions on things we have no background in.
I think that's the definition of being an employee, not a genius.
Man, always when I run out of mod points.
Nothing like being handed a steaming plate of spaghetti and hearing about how much of a "genius" its creator was.