Re:Ah, the era of homepages
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 1
No Slashdot either. Natalie Portman wasn't legal yet. And goatse was just a tiny hemorrhoid, still unseen by millions. How did we ever survive on 133 Mhz Pentiums?
And this article? It's the libertarian wet-dream of someone who never went to law school. It's not like having ONE MORE silly interpretation of the law is going to make it any easier for the cops to arrest you. Not when a cop already has a thousand possibilities for that already.
But hasn't the scientific method been tested and found to be superior to all other methods of attaining knowledge? I mean, we tried unscientific methods for thousands of years, and scientific methods have far surpassed them all.
But you're mixing up things a little. The scientific method is a *process* of obtaining knowledge, not knowledge itself. Knowledge is acquired through processes. Knowledge is discovered, processes are invented. The test of knowledge is the hypothesis, the experiment, and the replication. And the test of an invention is simply does it work, or does it not? And certainly that simple level of testing required has been done over and over again since the beginning of the scientific era.
If you want to criticize science on a philosophical level, you need to get recursive. You should be asking if we can really know if science is all that great, just because science tells us that science is terrific. I mean, why should we believe science when science confirms the efficacy of science?
Researcher bias -- It obviously exists, but that's not the point. Bias in science gets discovered and corrected. Work is checked, publications are peer reviewed, parallel studies are performed.
Error in science exists, but science is unique in that there are procedures in place to discover and correct the error. That's why it's called science, and any other fields which have incorporated these kinds of error detection and discovery through peer review have borrowed them from scientific methodologies.
Check my other posts. If we put up a hundred progressives against a hundred that we'd like to replace, we won't lose them all. OK, so Feinstein is safe. Is everybody safe?
Concept? Reality. It's called outsourcing or privatization, and the trend has been going on for years. We're all getting screwed by it three different ways all at once. Sounds like sexy fun, but it's not.
I shuddered a bit when I realized that these people discovered a way to make ordinary object invisible - a cloaking device. They just abandoned it when all it needed was a few small changes to make it practical.
It's not completely useless. Radars that can easily track bullets already exist, even in cluttered environments. Computers watch for the small fast-moving object. That's how you distinguish it from a building.
The guy you're talking to is a know-nothing who just likes to be contrary. He's an ass at parties, harassing anybody who goes near his hangout--- the punch bowl. When there's no party to ruin, he hangs out here. You're the smart one in this conversation. Everyone here knows it. You can safely ignore his idiocy and maintain your reputation.
Ah, YOU are THAT guy. Every thread has THAT guy, and you're it. You know, THAT guy. The guy who does THAT on every thread. If you're ever posting on a thread and you notice that THAT guy hasn't posted on the thread yet, that means that you are quite possibly THAT guy.
That makes no sense. Political parties are neither good, nor evil. They are organizations though which groups can channel and direct political power. For good and evil you have to look at what the political power is used for.
And by replacing our bad Democrats with good Democrats, we will make our party a better party, and our country a better country.
But this is a frakking boring thread now. Do you have something actually insightful to add?
Why won't it work? Are you saying that a hundred challenges will all fail? Are you saying that Democrats should pursue a strategy of ceding territory without a fight?
I bet if 10% of a hundred challenges in the next election succeed, it'll be considered a gain for progressives.
It may not work. But, do you suppose that a HUNDRED progressive Democrats put up against a HUNDRED conservative Democrats would have no victories at all?
Who cares about Feinstein. We run progressives against conservatives everywhere. We cede no territory without a fight.
Why should it have you laughing? The point is not necessarily to oust them, although if we can, we will. The point is to put them on notice with something stronger than a "strongly worded letter" and to make them spend more money than they would otherwise to hold their seat. It makes them uncomfortable enough to maybe change, and it lets people know that there's an alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
No Slashdot either.
Natalie Portman wasn't legal yet.
And goatse was just a tiny hemorrhoid, still unseen by millions.
How did we ever survive on 133 Mhz Pentiums?
It's a computerized terror phone.
And this article? It's the libertarian wet-dream of someone who never went to law school. It's not like having ONE MORE silly interpretation of the law is going to make it any easier for the cops to arrest you. Not when a cop already has a thousand possibilities for that already.
You are FOED for being a Gentoo loser. What a wanker.
As in, a dozen men stand around a woman and QQ all over her face.
Anal Hot Dog catcher. On my website.
Hell, it fucking KILLED him.
But hasn't the scientific method been tested and found to be superior to all other methods of attaining knowledge? I mean, we tried unscientific methods for thousands of years, and scientific methods have far surpassed them all.
But you're mixing up things a little. The scientific method is a *process* of obtaining knowledge, not knowledge itself. Knowledge is acquired through processes. Knowledge is discovered, processes are invented. The test of knowledge is the hypothesis, the experiment, and the replication. And the test of an invention is simply does it work, or does it not? And certainly that simple level of testing required has been done over and over again since the beginning of the scientific era.
If you want to criticize science on a philosophical level, you need to get recursive. You should be asking if we can really know if science is all that great, just because science tells us that science is terrific. I mean, why should we believe science when science confirms the efficacy of science?
Researcher bias -- It obviously exists, but that's not the point. Bias in science gets discovered and corrected. Work is checked, publications are peer reviewed, parallel studies are performed.
Error in science exists, but science is unique in that there are procedures in place to discover and correct the error. That's why it's called science, and any other fields which have incorporated these kinds of error detection and discovery through peer review have borrowed them from scientific methodologies.
Check my other posts. If we put up a hundred progressives against a hundred that we'd like to replace, we won't lose them all. OK, so Feinstein is safe. Is everybody safe?
Concept? Reality. It's called outsourcing or privatization, and the trend has been going on for years. We're all getting screwed by it three different ways all at once. Sounds like sexy fun, but it's not.
I shuddered a bit when I realized that these people discovered a way to make ordinary object invisible - a cloaking device. They just abandoned it when all it needed was a few small changes to make it practical.
It's not completely useless. Radars that can easily track bullets already exist, even in cluttered environments. Computers watch for the small fast-moving object. That's how you distinguish it from a building.
The guy you're talking to is a know-nothing who just likes to be contrary. He's an ass at parties, harassing anybody who goes near his hangout--- the punch bowl. When there's no party to ruin, he hangs out here. You're the smart one in this conversation. Everyone here knows it. You can safely ignore his idiocy and maintain your reputation.
Who cares. Her vag is TIGHT.
Ah, YOU are THAT guy. Every thread has THAT guy, and you're it. You know, THAT guy. The guy who does THAT on every thread. If you're ever posting on a thread and you notice that THAT guy hasn't posted on the thread yet, that means that you are quite possibly THAT guy.
She's the Ouroboros who just couldn't quite connect.
And opponents of vaccinations should note that we didn't stop smallpox vaccinations because it was ineffective or dangerous...
That makes no sense. Political parties are neither good, nor evil. They are organizations though which groups can channel and direct political power. For good and evil you have to look at what the political power is used for.
And by replacing our bad Democrats with good Democrats, we will make our party a better party, and our country a better country.
But this is a frakking boring thread now. Do you have something actually insightful to add?
Why don't you tell me? And then tell me why that means that Senators can't lose primaries? Is it impossible?
Are you saying that territory should be ceded without a fight?
Far left, Far right. Can you even define them?
So what is your point?
You don't know anything about liberalism, it's clear.
Why won't it work? Are you saying that a hundred challenges will all fail? Are you saying that Democrats should pursue a strategy of ceding territory without a fight?
I bet if 10% of a hundred challenges in the next election succeed, it'll be considered a gain for progressives.
It may not work. But, do you suppose that a HUNDRED progressive Democrats put up against a HUNDRED conservative Democrats would have no victories at all?
Who cares about Feinstein. We run progressives against conservatives everywhere. We cede no territory without a fight.
See the strategy? Do you now think it's stupid?
Don't be sorry, she does two things - blog, and fuck. I can't stand her blog but she's just as batshit crazy when she fucks too.
Why should it have you laughing? The point is not necessarily to oust them, although if we can, we will. The point is to put them on notice with something stronger than a "strongly worded letter" and to make them spend more money than they would otherwise to hold their seat. It makes them uncomfortable enough to maybe change, and it lets people know that there's an alternative.