These could be considered as a form of echo question. Consider the example:
"I ate an entire bowl of thumbtacks." "You ate an entire bowl of thumbtacks?" "Yes."
Here the repair that's typically assumed to be part of echo questions is the entire sentence (which would likely be seen a semantically aberrant). There's no structural change to the sentence with the question mark (modulo some theory about hidden movement which I don't feel like working out). You'd probably hear an intonational change in speech.
At least one person has killer herself because she went into an irrational panic, and did something stupid and rash. That's often a sign of psychological problems.
Yeah, the media coverage has been sensationalist and dumb. But it didn't kill anyone.
Yes. And then that was it. He didn't own the rights to the music, and didn't get royalties. He made his living writing more music, on commission, and being organist in a church.
To be honest, an actually talented songwriter would share his creations with the world even if he wasn't able to profit off of it. It turns out that human beings had a pretty rich musical culture for the several thousands of years we lived before the advent of recording and copyright.
I wasn't actually referring to people with legitimate skeptical opinions. There are in fact a few scientists who potentially know what they're talking about (given education, etc) that don't buy the consensus opinion. I think they're wrong, as do most climate scientists around the world, but that's how science works - people have theories they try to test and poke holes in.
I'm talking about denialists, people whose response to the (fairly overwhelming) consensus that exists is to say stuff like "the geocentric universe and flat earth views were also scientific consensus, once upon a time." That's true as far as it goes, but it utterly fails as a critique of the science, the theories, or the models. It's not skepticism, it's just ignoring and refusing to discuss. Similarly, when people latch on to localized variations in temperature as proof that global warming doesn't exist. That's shutting down debate before it begins - it's not the presentation of an argument, or evidence, or meaningful flaws in existing theories - it's ignoring the issue, declaring victory, and plugging one's ears.
This latter category of person is primarily who you find here, and in most places on the intertubes.
I'm sure whomever modded the grandparent "troll," knew to what the post was referring. In case you hadn't noticed, there's not a small population of vocal anthropogenic global warming skeptics and denialists here at Slashdot.
Yes, I sort of meant what happens during the Obama administration, with a particular emphasis on the time shortly after the inauguration, and was using "January" in that context as a metonym.
I believe the director of DARPA typically leaves with a change in administration, and it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case in other such agencies. Then there's the whole change in funding thing that may happen.
I know a lot of people in the defense research community are a bit nervous now. Be interesting to see what happens after January.
Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.
It's an interesting commentary on how skewed the politics in America have gotten that the idea of a graduated income tax is controversial, or that the idea of raising taxes on those best able to afford it in times of fiscal crisis is somehow a socialist plot.
If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical. Likely you've never actually read Marx (or anything beyond the Communist Manifesto). Pity. Marx actually has a lot of very interesting, insightful commentary about history, economics, and society. You may not agree with all his conclusions, but the man was a very careful, educated scholar.
Slashdot Mirror
Before we talk about computers, let's talk about ourselves. Do humans have souls?
I don't the answer is clear, and I personally lean towards saying that we don't.
These could be considered as a form of echo question. Consider the example:
"I ate an entire bowl of thumbtacks."
"You ate an entire bowl of thumbtacks?"
"Yes."
Here the repair that's typically assumed to be part of echo questions is the entire sentence (which would likely be seen a semantically aberrant). There's no structural change to the sentence with the question mark (modulo some theory about hidden movement which I don't feel like working out). You'd probably hear an intonational change in speech.
Eh, whatever. Mostly it was about using the word antediluvian.
Your thinking and opinions are positively antediluvian.
For what it's worth, I don't think scientists deny the possibility of a global flood. They just don't see much evidence for it.
At least one person has killer herself because she went into an irrational panic, and did something stupid and rash. That's often a sign of psychological problems.
Yeah, the media coverage has been sensationalist and dumb. But it didn't kill anyone.
Yes. And then that was it. He didn't own the rights to the music, and didn't get royalties. He made his living writing more music, on commission, and being organist in a church.
What's the point you're trying to make, exactly?
To be honest, an actually talented songwriter would share his creations with the world even if he wasn't able to profit off of it. It turns out that human beings had a pretty rich musical culture for the several thousands of years we lived before the advent of recording and copyright.
Man, you're taking the results of the election pretty hard, aren't you?
You're assuming that the context will be presented, or matter. Clearly, you've not paid attention the last few years.
/b/ hasn't been funny for over 9000 years.
sage
I wasn't actually referring to people with legitimate skeptical opinions. There are in fact a few scientists who potentially know what they're talking about (given education, etc) that don't buy the consensus opinion. I think they're wrong, as do most climate scientists around the world, but that's how science works - people have theories they try to test and poke holes in.
I'm talking about denialists, people whose response to the (fairly overwhelming) consensus that exists is to say stuff like "the geocentric universe and flat earth views were also scientific consensus, once upon a time." That's true as far as it goes, but it utterly fails as a critique of the science, the theories, or the models. It's not skepticism, it's just ignoring and refusing to discuss. Similarly, when people latch on to localized variations in temperature as proof that global warming doesn't exist. That's shutting down debate before it begins - it's not the presentation of an argument, or evidence, or meaningful flaws in existing theories - it's ignoring the issue, declaring victory, and plugging one's ears.
This latter category of person is primarily who you find here, and in most places on the intertubes.
I'm sure whomever modded the grandparent "troll," knew to what the post was referring. In case you hadn't noticed, there's not a small population of vocal anthropogenic global warming skeptics and denialists here at Slashdot.
Maybe his work isn't bad for reading that you don't have to think about, but the man was barely a cut above John Grisham as a fiction writer.
Yes, I sort of meant what happens during the Obama administration, with a particular emphasis on the time shortly after the inauguration, and was using "January" in that context as a metonym.
I believe the director of DARPA typically leaves with a change in administration, and it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case in other such agencies. Then there's the whole change in funding thing that may happen.
I know a lot of people in the defense research community are a bit nervous now. Be interesting to see what happens after January.
Yes, I'm aware that anecdote is not the singular of data.
What's with you people getting all nuts about Idle curiosity?
Ha.
I love how completely distorted the placement of the Overton window in the US really is.
Or maybe I just wanted to know how old he is, cause I'm curious about trends in political attitudes for various age cohorts.
That you read what you did into it speaks volumes about you, however, and some apparent feelings of inadequacy.
How old are you?
It's a serious question, I'm not trolling, and I'm not gonna mock you for it - just curious.
Sounds great, I think. Finally, no more lunatic right wing ideology running the country.
You'll feel better after we impose Sharia and make you get a gay Mexican socialist abortion.
Enjoy the re-education camp.
Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.
It's an interesting commentary on how skewed the politics in America have gotten that the idea of a graduated income tax is controversial, or that the idea of raising taxes on those best able to afford it in times of fiscal crisis is somehow a socialist plot.
If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical. Likely you've never actually read Marx (or anything beyond the Communist Manifesto). Pity. Marx actually has a lot of very interesting, insightful commentary about history, economics, and society. You may not agree with all his conclusions, but the man was a very careful, educated scholar.
You won't really be missed.