Why not? Because sociologically they could be as far away from us as gorillas or chimpanzees. We just don't know what their social dynamics were, and so it's silly to try to exaplain their remains (the fossils) in terms of their assumed social structures. It's ludicrous.
Well, I could propose that the little people were out there by aliens. Would that make you happy?
I could propose all sorts of random environmental vectors to explain why those fossils have the form that they do. If you want to propose something that falls outside existing theory, that's fine. Develop a model, form experiments, make hypotheses, and test them using observation. But tossing out baseless hypotheses and using that as reason the existing work is invalid is just...silly...
From that chapter: "This article includes observations informed by personal experiences of both practicing sociology in exile and studying an exilic community. Since 1991, I have been involved in fieldwork research in North America and Europe among Iranian exiles. "
You're trying to apply contemporary human sociology to a society that is at least 18000 years old... and possibly not human?
Maybe these tiny people have some kind of sickness (or just look tiny), and were therefore exiled from the main(is)land?
And this sickness also made their arms proportionately longer, created more prominent bone ridges above their eyes, gave them a sharply sloping forehead, and no chin? And it affected at least seven known individuals in the same way over a span of 30,000 of years, with no known fossil evidence of any "normal" hominids co-existing on the same island in that time?
No, not a neurological disorder, just a different set of priorities in the visual perception system. Some people just can't pull their attention away from bright moving objects. It makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, for motion to grab your attention immediately and strongly. It's how we used to get food.
I'm not saying I've found a fountain of youth, but I have noticed dropping out of the 9 to 5 world, running my own business on my own terms, and not letting meds fix everything in my body seems to have made a HUGE difference in how I feel...
Sounds like you're living life on your own terms. This has no doubt reduced your stress level. By that I don't mean you have no stress, but you're probably more able to deal with it. That doesn't mean you have to reject all medication. Just don't use it as an emotional crutch like you probably did before.
Let the pendulum swing back, grashopper. Then stop it in the middle.:) The placebo effect can only get you so far...
When I was a kid I used to watch Professor Julius Sumner Miller and his show "Why is it So?" Every episode was a short physics demonstration. I was fascinated by it (he had kind of a freaky voice) and watching his show introduced me to physics.
What this leads to is the ultimate destruction of the middle class. America will be 1% extremely rich with all power, and the rest will be just really, really poor.
Things will never get that bad. One word: revolution.
Those numbers simply aren't significant to an economy the size of America's.
But we're not dealing with the entire American economy. We're talking about just the tech sector, and a single job type within that. In that context 100,000 jobs is HUGE.
As for "everyone could lose," that is only true in a non-economic (i.e., environmental) sense.
I beg to differ. Everyone losing in an economic sense is called "depression."
Our increased reliance on military might is a dead giveaway.
It's also the reason why this trend will not stop. Our military might is needed (and dreaded) around the world. Both the need and the dread contribute to it's expansion.
See, as the economy gets worse, people get angry. Politicians don't want that anger turned on them, so they create a diversion: war. This further funnels resources into the defense sector, taking it away from domestic concerns. (Both public and private.) And then it feeds on itself: anger at the enemy increases, we can't stop fighting, (If we pulled out, the would be chaos!) and general anxiety increases at home because the economy worsens.
It may not be a zero sum game, but that doesn't mean that on certain time scales there aren't winners and losers. For example, opening up free trade could devastate an economy based on manufacturing for decades. When you measure in timescales of decades, that means people's lives are ruined. When you talk in abstract terms it's easy to forget that were talking about people's lives.
"Nonzero sum" also does not mean "everybody wins." It simply means there isn't just one winner and one loser. Everyone could win. Also, everyone could lose...
QUESTION: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.
BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big..... Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.
*******
Why does this apply? Consider those who respond to Bill's tactics and attitude, and those that respond to Bush's. This is a classic "blame everyone but me" tactic, which the president has been using successfully for a while. Some significant portion of the American public must respond positively to this tactic, otherwise neither of these men would be successful.
Typical approach, sate the demand rather than reduce it.
And that's a typical approach of environmentalists: bitch about the problem and propose an unrealistic solution.
We will always consume more power. Barring catastrophe, we have always consumed more power. The sooner the environmentalist movement comes to terms with that (I mean, really internalizes it) the better.
Any naturalist worth his salt should know you can't stop a charging bull by getting in it's way.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? Because sociologically they could be as far away from us as gorillas or chimpanzees. We just don't know what their social dynamics were, and so it's silly to try to exaplain their remains (the fossils) in terms of their assumed social structures. It's ludicrous.
Well, I could propose that the little people were out there by aliens. Would that make you happy?
I could propose all sorts of random environmental vectors to explain why those fossils have the form that they do. If you want to propose something that falls outside existing theory, that's fine. Develop a model, form experiments, make hypotheses, and test them using observation. But tossing out baseless hypotheses and using that as reason the existing work is invalid is just...silly...
Guess you missed that chapter in sociology.
From that chapter:
"This article includes observations informed by personal experiences of both practicing sociology in exile and studying an exilic community. Since 1991, I have been involved in fieldwork research in North America and Europe among Iranian exiles. "
You're trying to apply contemporary human sociology to a society that is at least 18000 years old... and possibly not human?
Riiight...
But normally, exilors wouldn't choose to live together with the exilees...
How many assumptions, based on zero evidence, will you make before you stop? That's the real quesiton here...
Maybe these tiny people have some kind of sickness (or just look tiny), and were therefore exiled from the main(is)land?
And this sickness also made their arms proportionately longer, created more prominent bone ridges above their eyes, gave them a sharply sloping forehead, and no chin? And it affected at least seven known individuals in the same way over a span of 30,000 of years, with no known fossil evidence of any "normal" hominids co-existing on the same island in that time?
Riiiight...
Imagine all of Medicare got their act together and would negotiate ONE price with the supplier?
That's be great, wouldn't it? Bush just outlawed it, though. Tough luck.
YOu think that's air you're breathing?
Hm.
AGAIN!
If it is, I wonder if it would have any use in creating an ultralight spaceship?
Ah, you mean a hull made from one single molecule which is transparent? linky
I sbmitted the story about an hour after the news hit, but it was rejected...
Yes, this makes truly proving anything in the physical world basically impossible.
And this is why theories are judged not just on the hypotheses (predictions) they create, but the testability of these hypotheses.
No, not a neurological disorder, just a different set of priorities in the visual perception system. Some people just can't pull their attention away from bright moving objects. It makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, for motion to grab your attention immediately and strongly. It's how we used to get food.
...but to say that it isn't "high risk" while marking something as "critical" stinks of spin.
Kinda sounds like, "We're raising the terror alert to ORANGE. You don't need to change your behavior, though..."
Whether Bush's lack of answer was active or passive is unknown...
It took you that long to say, "dunno, it matters what your biases are."
I, uh, already knew that.
I'm not saying I've found a fountain of youth, but I have noticed dropping out of the 9 to 5 world, running my own business on my own terms, and not letting meds fix everything in my body seems to have made a HUGE difference in how I feel...
:) The placebo effect can only get you so far...
Sounds like you're living life on your own terms. This has no doubt reduced your stress level. By that I don't mean you have no stress, but you're probably more able to deal with it. That doesn't mean you have to reject all medication. Just don't use it as an emotional crutch like you probably did before.
Let the pendulum swing back, grashopper. Then stop it in the middle.
I had Hefty bags stuffed full of these rolled-up pamphlets, and I'd cruise the designated neighborhoods, throwing these things out with both hands...
By gosh, it's just like a military leaflet psyop!
Get them while they're hot.
:)
And believe me, they're hot. 1.91TB of downloads since last night. 25315 total downloads. Amazing. Stewart has really hit a chord.
Make sure and host the file a bit when you're done. My outbound DSL line has been maxed out since last night.
his response was yes, because my professional comic career is more important than being a citizen.
His response was what we call in the entertainment industry, "sarcasm."
Methinks you need more irony in your diet.
When I was a kid I used to watch Professor Julius Sumner Miller and his show "Why is it So?" Every episode was a short physics demonstration. I was fascinated by it (he had kind of a freaky voice) and watching his show introduced me to physics.
What this leads to is the ultimate destruction of the middle class. America will be 1% extremely rich with all power, and the rest will be just really, really poor.
Things will never get that bad. One word: revolution.
I was refuting one of your statements, silly. I didn't say we were in a depression.
Those numbers simply aren't significant to an economy the size of America's.
But we're not dealing with the entire American economy. We're talking about just the tech sector, and a single job type within that. In that context 100,000 jobs is HUGE.
As for "everyone could lose," that is only true in a non-economic (i.e., environmental) sense.
I beg to differ. Everyone losing in an economic sense is called "depression."
Our increased reliance on military might is a dead giveaway.
It's also the reason why this trend will not stop. Our military might is needed (and dreaded) around the world. Both the need and the dread contribute to it's expansion.
See, as the economy gets worse, people get angry. Politicians don't want that anger turned on them, so they create a diversion: war. This further funnels resources into the defense sector, taking it away from domestic concerns. (Both public and private.) And then it feeds on itself: anger at the enemy increases, we can't stop fighting, (If we pulled out, the would be chaos!) and general anxiety increases at home because the economy worsens.
Does this sound familiar?
Economics is not a zero sum game...
It may not be a zero sum game, but that doesn't mean that on certain time scales there aren't winners and losers. For example, opening up free trade could devastate an economy based on manufacturing for decades. When you measure in timescales of decades, that means people's lives are ruined. When you talk in abstract terms it's easy to forget that were talking about people's lives.
"Nonzero sum" also does not mean "everybody wins." It simply means there isn't just one winner and one loser. Everyone could win. Also, everyone could lose...
From the second debate:
....
*******
QUESTION: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.
BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.
Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.
*******
Why does this apply? Consider those who respond to Bill's tactics and attitude, and those that respond to Bush's. This is a classic "blame everyone but me" tactic, which the president has been using successfully for a while. Some significant portion of the American public must respond positively to this tactic, otherwise neither of these men would be successful.
Typical approach, sate the demand rather than reduce it.
And that's a typical approach of environmentalists: bitch about the problem and propose an unrealistic solution.
We will always consume more power. Barring catastrophe, we have always consumed more power. The sooner the environmentalist movement comes to terms with that (I mean, really internalizes it) the better.
Any naturalist worth his salt should know you can't stop a charging bull by getting in it's way.