No, you reduce "freedom" to a cynical buzzword if your "free speech" makes a case to exclude or discount people based on their background, sex or skin color.
Nothing I said made any reference to such speech.
Seriously, if mutual respect doesn't come into it, then you better get used to being verbally attacked in kind.
Two points. First, having and using the right to free speech is not dependent upon mutual respect, it is an inalienable right as pointed out (not created) by the Bill of Rights. I need not respect you to have the right to free speech, just as you need not respect me to have your own right to free speech. This is why the word "respect" was in scare quotes. When it is used (much as you have just demonstrated) as a reason to deny someone their right to free speech it is truly not respect in any real sense of the word. It becomes a buzzword.
Second, "verbally attacked in kind" is not the same as trying to strip the right of free speech from someone else, it is using one's own free speech rights.
Is that really what you've reduced yourself to here?
You've reduced yourself to noting a difference in language styles between casual conversation and formal writing, and jumped to the conclusion that the difference must be malicious and not simply because the media and audience are truly different and require different styles. I think "reducing" myself to a little humor in the face of such unfounded assumptions is better than assuming malice on your part. By referring to someone at a drive-thru, I was pointing out that communicating with a non-scientist will require a completely different style than when trying to communicate with peers in a formal, written medium.
You see the difference as proof of vanity or malice; I see it as the natural result of knowing the audience and writing appropriately.
It is also better to use a little humor than what you did here:
I assure you that you are correct. They are absolutely writing specifically to attempt to impress their peers...
I said nothing of the sort, so claiming that I am correct for saying that is pathetic. Yes, I assure you I am correct, but the following "attempt to impress their peers" is just your fantasy, or perhaps jealousy.
I assure you that you are correct. They are absolutely writing specifically to attempt to impress their peers
That is your claim, not mine. I, and they, understand the audience and the medium and accept that the form of writing differs from what you read and hear as you chat with them as you take their orders at the MickeyD's drive thru.
We tried holding it yesterday, but you called the cops when we got a bit noisy while setting it up. We tried.
I also wish both parties would quit fucking with the right to be free from warantless searches and seizures. Do any of our politicians even know what is in the bill of rights? It seems not.
Yes, it seems not, for the fourth amendment does not contain a prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures, but against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not define "reasonable" to mean "based upon a warrant", because that would be patently absurd. For example, if you point a gun at a cop, your gun will be seized and you will be searched prior to being put in jail. Neither requires a warrant (nor should they) but bother are reasonable.
I've had conversations and correspondence with many scientists; and they do not normally speak or write anything like what they submit for publication.
When they are conversing with you, they are not writing for publication in a forum intended for their peers. They understand their audience. They also understand the medium.
If you ever want to dispel the perception that scientists have become deceitful manipulators, you'll need to support the idea of communicating clearly.
What is clear for "the average person" would be needlessly redundant and boring for the scientists working in the same field. What is clear to the other scientists is, unfortunately, opaque to the average person.
"Good writing" considers not only good grammar and spelling and punctuation, but an appreciation for the intended audience and their shared backgrounds. That means that "good writing" for the New York Times Science page is a lot different than good writing for PhysRev A.
Complaining that articles in PhysRev A are not understandable to the average person is like complaining that your car doesn't understand the molecular formula for gasoline. They aren't written for the average person.
The hallmark of a good science journalist is the ability to take the things the scientists tells her and then write it in a way her intended audience can understand. Some scientists can write at that level. The example given in a previous comment using Einstein's paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES" fails. For example: "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good." If you don't know what is meant by "Newtonian mechanics" you are lost in the first sentence. If you think the "common people" know who Newton was or what "Newtonian mechanics" means, you're wrong.
Advocates citing scientific papers have been aggressively destroying what trust remains in scientific integrity.
Those advocates are most often NOT the people writing the papers. It is the advocates' fault that the arrogance reaches the common person, not the fault of the people writing the papers intended for other scientists to read.
How much text would it take to make a submission in a theoretical physics journal understandable to the average person.
Can't talk about physics specifically, but in the journals I read it would double the size of the article to just make every point explicit. I.e., there are a lot of things that are written that depend on the reader having a good enough background to understand the implications. To make it understandable to the "average person" would take an entire journal for each article. There have been times when I've had to reread one sentence several times and then look at the equations before I could get the full meaning.
Reading a scientific article is not like reading a newspaper or story in People. It takes work. Doing it any other way would make the articles too long and boring to the intended audience. Making it transparent to the "average person" would leave the average intended reader going "yes, that's obvious...".
Words only have the power we give them. The source is irrelevant.
What an amazingly utopian but completely unrealistic attitude, in the form of a meaningless sound-bite. Words do not have just the power "we" give them in reality, they have the power that other people give them, too. "Incitement to riot" is just a bunch of words. "We" may choose to give them no power ourselves, but when a large number of others accept their power, and they are used by someone who is well aware of the power that they will have using them, it becomes a crime and unacceptable.
On a perhaps more benign level, advertising has built an empire on the power of words to the masses. They become rallying cries for the political advertisers. Sometimes they're interesting sets of words, like "Bernie, because fuck this shit" (a campaign slogan currently in vogue.) If you don't believe that those words have power to some people, then you are naive.
The source becomes relevant when the source is being paid to say those words by people who do not agree with those words. Payment that is not voluntary, I might add.
I don't know your position on CU, and I don't care, but there are a lot of people who argue that it is unethical for corporations to use corporate money to make political speech. They claim that the money being used belongs to the shareholders who might not want that speech to happen. Well, as taxpayers, we are all involuntary shareholders in government, and when a government uses taxpayer money for political purposes the involuntary shareholders are footing the bill.
Government has no right to free speech. It is not censorship to limit the speech that government makes, because government speech is by default spoken from a position of authority. For all those who get it wrong by claiming that the people who form corporations give up their right to free speech, limiting government free speech should be an even higher priority because there is NO chance that a government was formed with the explicit purpose of making that speech, and NO chance that government will allow people to withhold from their taxes the amount that government spent on that speech.
What's the difference between a "personal" Facebook account and an "official" one?
As far as Facebook is concerned, there is none.
As far as who posts to the page, a considerable one. Who is paying the individual to post to a personal Facebook page? Nobody. Who is paying the person who posts to a school's official Facebook page? The school.
This is no different than the difference between personal communications via ham radio (ok) and communications made for pay via ham radio (prohibitied).
Oh my God! How can we dare censor government offices and officials from using tax dollars to make political endorsements?
I think you will find that the First Amendment applies to the people, not to the government. There are long-standing and justifiable limits on what someone acting as a government official can say.
But the bright side is now we can charge for every word we say.
If someone asks you for a political endorsement, you have always been able to charge them for every word you say.
Citizens United determined that money is speech. Therefore, speech must also be money.
No. Therefore, the money spent on the salary for the school employee who made the post to the school facebook site is money.
And CU said nothing more earth-shattering than it requires money to have effective free speech. Getting a message someplace where it has some chance of being seen takes money these days. Protesters made quite a deal of the attempts to corral them in "free speech zones" when they were protesting things, even though such restrictions did not prevent them from "speaking", only from speaking in a way that could be heard.
Why should I have to figure it out your position when you could just as easily state it?
Because my original comment wasn't intended to state a position, only correct your argument to exclude useless conditions and the confusion it displayed.
Just because something is relevant does not mean you interpret it the same way I do.
The Point was, and still is, that having a flag on a webpage is IRRELEVANT. Had I wanted to debate your conclusion I could have; you think it is so vitally important that I express complete agreement with it, not I.
This thread is about whether or not the school is a government entity.
I know what this thread is about.
Since you all you did was contest my argument...
Your "argument" was that a school that does A and B is a government entity. I told you that B was not relevant, but A was. (This is now the THIRD time I have told you that, and yet you still don't get it.) The "and B" part of your argument is a waste of time and a red herring. That's not "contesting your argument", it's correcting it to be more concise and correct. Notice that I disputed nothing about your A condition or the conclusion it leads to.
... I assumed...
Yeah.
How about you state your opinion at to whether or not the school is a government entity.
If you cannot figure it out from what I have written, further elucidation would be pointless.
I wrote that the flags on a webpage are not relevant, only the money is. What in that statement makes you think I'm saying they are not a government facility?
A school thet is 90% funded publicly and uses both US and Colorado flag on their home page is acting like a government entity.
The flags are irrelevant. Anyone can put a flag on their webpage without becoming an agent of the government that flag represents. The MONEY and the LAWS are the relevant parts.
This isn't nitroglycerin, and there are SO MANY layers of safety devices on these bombs this just not a possibility.
Yeah, that "narrowly averted" crap in the article is just anti-US propaganda.
Isn't it wonderful that Spain appreciates that we kept a certain person from waltzing through France and down the Iberian peninsula... is Francisco Franco still dead?
No. Sous vide is french for "under vacuum" according to at least one source. It is, indeed, a pretentious name, and apparently you need that 250 page book to explain it to you.
As for the rest, whoosh. It may not involve boiling in the bag, but it's still putting stuff in a bag and then into hot water to cook it. Just like all the "boil in bag" stuff that you don't actually have to boil, just bring up to temperature.
By the time you turn off the boiling kettle and move it to the tea kettle or mug, then pour it through the air, it is a point just below 100C.
But the water has already boiled. The tea leaves don't care if the water is boiling, it's boiling the water that is the mistake. And no, making tea does NOT require boiling water.
In car terms, it doesn't matter if you step on the brake after you see the cop, he's already clocked you at 10 over the speed limit and he can write you a ticket.
Also, it seems that a wifi control app would be ideal for a sous vide cooker. That shouldn't be much more complicated than a crockpot, why are they so damn expensive?
Because it has such a pretentious-sounding name.
Because it has to come with a 250 page book describing what "sous vide" is.
Because Gordon Ramsey doesn't do it, so nobody else wants to, except those who watch pretentious cooking shows with Michelin chefs. (Doesn't Michelin make tires?)
Because rich people wouldn't pay for it if it was called "boil in bag".
Absolutely not. Boiling water releases all the dissolved gasses and makes the tea taste flat. You do not boil water for tea, you heat it to a point just below.
The tea leaves don't care if the water is boiling.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you reduce "freedom" to a cynical buzzword if your "free speech" makes a case to exclude or discount people based on their background, sex or skin color.
Nothing I said made any reference to such speech.
Seriously, if mutual respect doesn't come into it, then you better get used to being verbally attacked in kind.
Two points. First, having and using the right to free speech is not dependent upon mutual respect, it is an inalienable right as pointed out (not created) by the Bill of Rights. I need not respect you to have the right to free speech, just as you need not respect me to have your own right to free speech. This is why the word "respect" was in scare quotes. When it is used (much as you have just demonstrated) as a reason to deny someone their right to free speech it is truly not respect in any real sense of the word. It becomes a buzzword.
Second, "verbally attacked in kind" is not the same as trying to strip the right of free speech from someone else, it is using one's own free speech rights.
Is that really what you've reduced yourself to here?
You've reduced yourself to noting a difference in language styles between casual conversation and formal writing, and jumped to the conclusion that the difference must be malicious and not simply because the media and audience are truly different and require different styles. I think "reducing" myself to a little humor in the face of such unfounded assumptions is better than assuming malice on your part. By referring to someone at a drive-thru, I was pointing out that communicating with a non-scientist will require a completely different style than when trying to communicate with peers in a formal, written medium. You see the difference as proof of vanity or malice; I see it as the natural result of knowing the audience and writing appropriately.
It is also better to use a little humor than what you did here:
I assure you that you are correct. They are absolutely writing specifically to attempt to impress their peers ...
I said nothing of the sort, so claiming that I am correct for saying that is pathetic. Yes, I assure you I am correct, but the following "attempt to impress their peers" is just your fantasy, or perhaps jealousy.
I assure you that you are correct. They are absolutely writing specifically to attempt to impress their peers
That is your claim, not mine. I, and they, understand the audience and the medium and accept that the form of writing differs from what you read and hear as you chat with them as you take their orders at the MickeyD's drive thru.
When your prediction comes true, will you claim triumph?
They're almost nothing but numbers and symbols!
Aren't ALL scientific papers nothing but numbers and symbols?
In fact, the quote "[African-AmericansÃ(TM)] entire culture just isnÃ(TM)t conducive to a life of success"
I get offended by people who try to claim trademarks on phrases like "African-AmericansÃ".
I wish there was a party for me.
We tried holding it yesterday, but you called the cops when we got a bit noisy while setting it up. We tried.
I also wish both parties would quit fucking with the right to be free from warantless searches and seizures. Do any of our politicians even know what is in the bill of rights? It seems not.
Yes, it seems not, for the fourth amendment does not contain a prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures, but against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not define "reasonable" to mean "based upon a warrant", because that would be patently absurd. For example, if you point a gun at a cop, your gun will be seized and you will be searched prior to being put in jail. Neither requires a warrant (nor should they) but bother are reasonable.
They are defining a false kind of freedom without respect or responsibility.
Two buzzwords often used in the arguments in favor of squelching speech that isn't "respectful" or "responsible".
I've had conversations and correspondence with many scientists; and they do not normally speak or write anything like what they submit for publication.
When they are conversing with you, they are not writing for publication in a forum intended for their peers. They understand their audience. They also understand the medium.
If you ever want to dispel the perception that scientists have become deceitful manipulators, you'll need to support the idea of communicating clearly.
What is clear for "the average person" would be needlessly redundant and boring for the scientists working in the same field. What is clear to the other scientists is, unfortunately, opaque to the average person. "Good writing" considers not only good grammar and spelling and punctuation, but an appreciation for the intended audience and their shared backgrounds. That means that "good writing" for the New York Times Science page is a lot different than good writing for PhysRev A.
Complaining that articles in PhysRev A are not understandable to the average person is like complaining that your car doesn't understand the molecular formula for gasoline. They aren't written for the average person.
The hallmark of a good science journalist is the ability to take the things the scientists tells her and then write it in a way her intended audience can understand. Some scientists can write at that level. The example given in a previous comment using Einstein's paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" fails. For example: "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good." If you don't know what is meant by "Newtonian mechanics" you are lost in the first sentence. If you think the "common people" know who Newton was or what "Newtonian mechanics" means, you're wrong.
Advocates citing scientific papers have been aggressively destroying what trust remains in scientific integrity.
Those advocates are most often NOT the people writing the papers. It is the advocates' fault that the arrogance reaches the common person, not the fault of the people writing the papers intended for other scientists to read.
How much text would it take to make a submission in a theoretical physics journal understandable to the average person.
Can't talk about physics specifically, but in the journals I read it would double the size of the article to just make every point explicit. I.e., there are a lot of things that are written that depend on the reader having a good enough background to understand the implications. To make it understandable to the "average person" would take an entire journal for each article. There have been times when I've had to reread one sentence several times and then look at the equations before I could get the full meaning.
Reading a scientific article is not like reading a newspaper or story in People. It takes work. Doing it any other way would make the articles too long and boring to the intended audience. Making it transparent to the "average person" would leave the average intended reader going "yes, that's obvious ...".
Words only have the power we give them. The source is irrelevant.
What an amazingly utopian but completely unrealistic attitude, in the form of a meaningless sound-bite. Words do not have just the power "we" give them in reality, they have the power that other people give them, too. "Incitement to riot" is just a bunch of words. "We" may choose to give them no power ourselves, but when a large number of others accept their power, and they are used by someone who is well aware of the power that they will have using them, it becomes a crime and unacceptable.
On a perhaps more benign level, advertising has built an empire on the power of words to the masses. They become rallying cries for the political advertisers. Sometimes they're interesting sets of words, like "Bernie, because fuck this shit" (a campaign slogan currently in vogue.) If you don't believe that those words have power to some people, then you are naive.
The source becomes relevant when the source is being paid to say those words by people who do not agree with those words. Payment that is not voluntary, I might add.
I don't know your position on CU, and I don't care, but there are a lot of people who argue that it is unethical for corporations to use corporate money to make political speech. They claim that the money being used belongs to the shareholders who might not want that speech to happen. Well, as taxpayers, we are all involuntary shareholders in government, and when a government uses taxpayer money for political purposes the involuntary shareholders are footing the bill.
Government has no right to free speech. It is not censorship to limit the speech that government makes, because government speech is by default spoken from a position of authority. For all those who get it wrong by claiming that the people who form corporations give up their right to free speech, limiting government free speech should be an even higher priority because there is NO chance that a government was formed with the explicit purpose of making that speech, and NO chance that government will allow people to withhold from their taxes the amount that government spent on that speech.
What's the difference between a "personal" Facebook account and an "official" one?
As far as Facebook is concerned, there is none.
As far as who posts to the page, a considerable one. Who is paying the individual to post to a personal Facebook page? Nobody. Who is paying the person who posts to a school's official Facebook page? The school.
This is no different than the difference between personal communications via ham radio (ok) and communications made for pay via ham radio (prohibitied).
Yep, this is a path to censorship.
Oh my God! How can we dare censor government offices and officials from using tax dollars to make political endorsements?
I think you will find that the First Amendment applies to the people, not to the government. There are long-standing and justifiable limits on what someone acting as a government official can say.
But the bright side is now we can charge for every word we say.
If someone asks you for a political endorsement, you have always been able to charge them for every word you say.
Citizens United determined that money is speech. Therefore, speech must also be money.
No. Therefore, the money spent on the salary for the school employee who made the post to the school facebook site is money.
And CU said nothing more earth-shattering than it requires money to have effective free speech. Getting a message someplace where it has some chance of being seen takes money these days. Protesters made quite a deal of the attempts to corral them in "free speech zones" when they were protesting things, even though such restrictions did not prevent them from "speaking", only from speaking in a way that could be heard.
Why should I have to figure it out your position when you could just as easily state it?
Because my original comment wasn't intended to state a position, only correct your argument to exclude useless conditions and the confusion it displayed.
Just because something is relevant does not mean you interpret it the same way I do.
The Point was, and still is, that having a flag on a webpage is IRRELEVANT. Had I wanted to debate your conclusion I could have; you think it is so vitally important that I express complete agreement with it, not I.
This thread is about whether or not the school is a government entity.
I know what this thread is about.
Since you all you did was contest my argument ...
Your "argument" was that a school that does A and B is a government entity. I told you that B was not relevant, but A was. (This is now the THIRD time I have told you that, and yet you still don't get it.) The "and B" part of your argument is a waste of time and a red herring. That's not "contesting your argument", it's correcting it to be more concise and correct. Notice that I disputed nothing about your A condition or the conclusion it leads to.
... I assumed ...
Yeah.
How about you state your opinion at to whether or not the school is a government entity.
If you cannot figure it out from what I have written, further elucidation would be pointless.
I wrote that the flags on a webpage are not relevant, only the money is. What in that statement makes you think I'm saying they are not a government facility?
A school thet is 90% funded publicly and uses both US and Colorado flag on their home page is acting like a government entity.
The flags are irrelevant. Anyone can put a flag on their webpage without becoming an agent of the government that flag represents. The MONEY and the LAWS are the relevant parts.
However, the explosives for the explosive lens can go off and distribute radioactive material over a relatively wide area.
That still would not be an explosion more powerful than etc., as the article claims it would have been. It's still nonsense and propaganda.
This isn't nitroglycerin, and there are SO MANY layers of safety devices on these bombs this just not a possibility.
Yeah, that "narrowly averted" crap in the article is just anti-US propaganda.
Isn't it wonderful that Spain appreciates that we kept a certain person from waltzing through France and down the Iberian peninsula ... is Francisco Franco still dead?
Sous Vide means under pressure.
No. Sous vide is french for "under vacuum" according to at least one source. It is, indeed, a pretentious name, and apparently you need that 250 page book to explain it to you.
As for the rest, whoosh. It may not involve boiling in the bag, but it's still putting stuff in a bag and then into hot water to cook it. Just like all the "boil in bag" stuff that you don't actually have to boil, just bring up to temperature.
By the time you turn off the boiling kettle and move it to the tea kettle or mug, then pour it through the air, it is a point just below 100C.
But the water has already boiled. The tea leaves don't care if the water is boiling, it's boiling the water that is the mistake. And no, making tea does NOT require boiling water.
In car terms, it doesn't matter if you step on the brake after you see the cop, he's already clocked you at 10 over the speed limit and he can write you a ticket.
Also, it seems that a wifi control app would be ideal for a sous vide cooker. That shouldn't be much more complicated than a crockpot, why are they so damn expensive?
Tea requires boiling water.
Absolutely not. Boiling water releases all the dissolved gasses and makes the tea taste flat. You do not boil water for tea, you heat it to a point just below.
The tea leaves don't care if the water is boiling.