they are ALL bullshit artists. pushing bones and joints around will accomplish NOTHING for any disorder, except a dislocated joint..and I'd really recommend going to a REAL doctor for one of those.
That's not true. They're scientifically proven to be effective at pain relief, at a minimum. I'm not willing to take it so far as the other claims, but if you're out of whack and in pain, they can certainly help you. "NOTHING" is proven false. Look it up.
I would love it if the Tea Party kept themselves out of government.
I have no doubt you, and many others, would. This is tragic, though. You could, as an alternative, take an interest in what their issues are and see if there is any progress to be made. Instead you ridicule, because that's easy. Partisanship makes people do some really stupid things, doesn't it?
More seriously, the Constitution specifies an Army and a Navy. By the same logic used above, does that make the Air Force unconstitutional?
I don't know, maybe. If so, is there any particular way in which things would be worse if the Air Force was merely part of the Army? Probably not.
Yeah, I'm aware. Again, we're not talking about some hypothetical abstract here. We're discussing IPv6. Assuming you could innovate something incredible that gave you a competitive advantage, what, then, would still be compatible with that innovation? For if it is still covered by the spec, how could it possibly be new?
Also... we may have the worlds largest and most expensive military (though China may have us beat on numbers), but if powerful means "able to reliably win wars", I'm not convinced that's us anymore.
Now, now, let's be fair. When's the last time we actually fought in a war? As far as I know we've only been conducting piddly police-style crap for at least the last thirty years. And yes, it is quite clear that soldiers make exceptionally poor policemen, but we've known this for quite some time.
This. In fact, it is likely only because Obama is black that this even offends anyone, as amazing as that is. Further if those who disagree would just ignore it, it would probably go away all on it's own. Or do you still hear people grousing about Barry Goldwater today? No?
So it couldn't possibly be that this is an extremely short-sighted solution that would probably cause a whole new slough of problems? Of course not, it's the environmentalists with their hidden agenda.
Even if it were, would any scientist of good conscience prohibit research into it??
Yet if you went to the doctor would you want the medicine that treats the cause of the problem or just the symptoms?
Evidence based medicine is a rarity. They're more likely than not going to give you pills and send you home. And for the wide majority, it does work, and is in the long run probably less of a drain on the economy overall. Look it up.
The agenda of the greens is *sustainable* economies -- as in not mortaging our children's future, either in direct monetary debt, or indirect economies that draw down on our natural resources without factoring in the true long term costs.
Where do the 'Carbon Credits' fit in to that? Wealthy entities get to just buy their way out of trouble, and somehow this is "*sustainable*"? You may well be representing the ideal, but I call bull on the implementation, sir.
There is nothing wrong with that sentiement.
Unless it is being utilized to prop things up that run contrary to the nature of the sentiment. Then, that would be an issue, wouldn't it?
Interference may be an issue, but existing accounting practices can already mitigate most of what you're talking about. And privacy, as far as I know, doesn't really exist with the electrical company. Give me your address, and I can tell you what you paid a month ago. I may have to be pretending to buy the property to get them to tell me, but that's not exactly difficult.
But folks have been talking about IPv6 for years now.
And many of those folks such as myself have been quietly deploying... I strongly urge my competitors to take your stance and bury their heads in the sand. I love it. Please make more/. posts encouraging my competitors to not innovate. The more people left behind, the further ahead I'll be.
In which exact ways are you innovating a published standard? Are you genuinely seeking to take credit for the whole of IPv6? Al Gore, is that you??
They're doing Archimedes solar ray AGAIN? Aren't we up to three already (the original myth and two revisits)? Obviously I think it is fun that Obama will be on the show but frankly aside from that I really don't want to see that same tired Myth for a third time...
Yeah, the whole event screams 'PR stunt' more than anything else. I hope it doesn't spell the beginning of the end for Mythbusters, but this feels like a really weak excuse to have the President on TV, and it damages the integrity of both bodies. Mythbusters is clearly, undeniably now more 'show' than 'science', and that's too bad, and the Pres has clearly never watched the program...
And the critique goes directly to his credibility as a change agent. It was valid before he was elected as doubt, and is valid now as outright criticism. He was 'Hope', he was 'Change', but what did he really bring to the table?
So I'd grant you 'snarky', but the other two labels are only fitting if you're predisposed to disagree with the criticism.
Indeed. We could likewise have built the LHC in space. And yet, the risk of creating blackholes is deemed less than that of moving a solar screen out of the way should something go wrong.
No, the primary concern of many (but not all) environmental groups is to further their own interests and increase their influence. Any simple solution to environmental problems will be rejected out of hand if it makes their cause obsolete.
Note: environmentalists are not alone in this behaviour; many large organisations shift from pursuing their ideals to self-serving behaviour.
I do agree, on both counts. As I said to another poster, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this behavior. It is very normal. But let's call it what it is, shall we?
Altering the chemistry of our one and only planet is foolish. Your attacks on the green community are misguided.
And altering the world economy is less foolish?
And I'm not 'attacking' anyone. I'm merely underscoring their own position. I didn't malign them. They're perfectly free, as we all are, to lobby for whatever platform they wish. We can still call it what it is, though. There should likewise be nothing wrong with that.
It has nothing to do with money, or some insane desire for everyone to live in mud huts; It's a desire for everyone to CONTINUE living.
You might be correct, and probably are, in certain cases, but not in every case. You simply cannot deny that there are many seeking to profit off of this agenda.
Take for example, Al Gore. His own 'footprint' is disgustingly selfish, but he buys carbon credits to offset it. He buys them from his own company. The one he created just before releasing a gigantic advertisement for it called "An Inconvenient Truth", or what have you.
The Catholics have used this same scheme it the past to great success, so I'm not terribly shocked to see it arise again. What does worry me, though is the impact it will have on our policies.
So if you're genuinely concerned, take note. Those who are not, but pretend to be, are set to screw us both. And barring the kind of research needed to determine whether or not your dire predictions will ever come true is against both of our best interests.
I'll tell that to all the kids and adults who will now get Polio as a result of your faith.
That's pretty close to impossible now, isn't it? Is there Polio in the wild, just waiting to infect the non-vaccinated? I'm genuinely asking. Take, say, Tulsa, OK. How many cases of Polio in the last three years?
But others, such as the ETC group, an environmental and social advocacy group, fear simply blocking the sun is a bandage, meant to cover up the problem, and allow humans to continue using fossils fuels.
I think this should lay to rest any doubts as to the motives of some of our friends in the Green community. Their primary concern is to cause humans to stop using fossil fuels. The actual need to do so isn't strictly relevant. They'd rather there not be any conflict of interests, so rather than mitigating the issue in any other way, they'll continue to press their agenda.
This should be seen as problematic. If for no other reason than it illustrates that the actual problem (dead humans) is secondary to their agenda.
While I'm not overly concerned about a link between Autism and vaccination, I'm sympathetic to parents who are.
And further, not being vaccinated is genuinely only a risk to the non-vaccinated. Everyone who receives the vaccine is safe. So that's really rather a non-starter, unless you work for a drug company or other outfit that profits from the sale of vaccines.
So the whole argument really just falls flat for me.
Hey, you'll get no disagreement there - if you want to drive your corporation into the ground, that's your call. You're still a fucking idiot, though.
If you're completely wrong, why should it matter who you think is an idiot? Indeed, it could well be an indication of going the right direction - being the opposite of what you advise.
I'm not shocked at all. If you doubt that there is any semblance of trust left in modern science, I invite you to openly doubt AGW. Try it on slashdot the next time a news topic comes around. Make a sockpuppet so your Karma survives, but give it a try. Challenge people to cite their sources, show you the data, and eliminate any competing conclusions. You'll be burned as a heretic. The actual scientists, as opposed to we amateurs here, do the exact same thing in the exact same way.
Slashdot Mirror
Good call... might also have to ban them from cell phones, radios, microwaves, and just about anything else that requires electricity.
Let's not forget that this is a school. How many are presently allowed to haul a microwave up onto their desk and pop some corn in class?
they are ALL bullshit artists. pushing bones and joints around will accomplish NOTHING for any disorder, except a dislocated joint..and I'd really recommend going to a REAL doctor for one of those.
That's not true. They're scientifically proven to be effective at pain relief, at a minimum. I'm not willing to take it so far as the other claims, but if you're out of whack and in pain, they can certainly help you. "NOTHING" is proven false. Look it up.
I would love it if the Tea Party kept themselves out of government.
I have no doubt you, and many others, would. This is tragic, though. You could, as an alternative, take an interest in what their issues are and see if there is any progress to be made. Instead you ridicule, because that's easy. Partisanship makes people do some really stupid things, doesn't it?
More seriously, the Constitution specifies an Army and a Navy. By the same logic used above, does that make the Air Force unconstitutional?
I don't know, maybe. If so, is there any particular way in which things would be worse if the Air Force was merely part of the Army? Probably not.
See how easy constitutionality can be?
Now you try!
Yeah, I'm aware. Again, we're not talking about some hypothetical abstract here. We're discussing IPv6. Assuming you could innovate something incredible that gave you a competitive advantage, what, then, would still be compatible with that innovation? For if it is still covered by the spec, how could it possibly be new?
Also... we may have the worlds largest and most expensive military (though China may have us beat on numbers), but if powerful means "able to reliably win wars", I'm not convinced that's us anymore.
Now, now, let's be fair. When's the last time we actually fought in a war? As far as I know we've only been conducting piddly police-style crap for at least the last thirty years. And yes, it is quite clear that soldiers make exceptionally poor policemen, but we've known this for quite some time.
Tea isn't mentioned anywhere, either. OMG, the Tea Party is unconstitutional!
And if the Tea Party were a function of the government, you'd be absolutely right to point that out.
This. In fact, it is likely only because Obama is black that this even offends anyone, as amazing as that is. Further if those who disagree would just ignore it, it would probably go away all on it's own. Or do you still hear people grousing about Barry Goldwater today? No?
And she is unable to mention one magazine she reads. How they could be proud of such a moron I will never understand.
This is the internet age. Who the hell still reads dead-tree publications? And who, likewise, considers this to be ANY kind of status symbol.
Now, she's definitely a moron, but you appear to be more so...
So it couldn't possibly be that this is an extremely short-sighted solution that would probably cause a whole new slough of problems? Of course not, it's the environmentalists with their hidden agenda.
Even if it were, would any scientist of good conscience prohibit research into it??
Vis-a-vis 'lobbiest'?
Therein lies your answer.
Yet if you went to the doctor would you want the medicine that treats the cause of the problem or just the symptoms?
Evidence based medicine is a rarity. They're more likely than not going to give you pills and send you home. And for the wide majority, it does work, and is in the long run probably less of a drain on the economy overall. Look it up.
The agenda of the greens is *sustainable* economies -- as in not mortaging our children's future, either in direct monetary debt, or indirect economies that draw down on our natural resources without factoring in the true long term costs.
Where do the 'Carbon Credits' fit in to that? Wealthy entities get to just buy their way out of trouble, and somehow this is "*sustainable*"? You may well be representing the ideal, but I call bull on the implementation, sir.
There is nothing wrong with that sentiement.
Unless it is being utilized to prop things up that run contrary to the nature of the sentiment. Then, that would be an issue, wouldn't it?
Oh, I see, so rather than an infallible 'air wall', we get to rely on their hubris to protect us. Excellent!
Interference may be an issue, but existing accounting practices can already mitigate most of what you're talking about. And privacy, as far as I know, doesn't really exist with the electrical company. Give me your address, and I can tell you what you paid a month ago. I may have to be pretending to buy the property to get them to tell me, but that's not exactly difficult.
Just wondering if these new standards comply with Net Neutrality? Or we are to assume they will?
Well, if they don't, then they'll be just one more competitive option to use during the selection process, won't they?
But folks have been talking about IPv6 for years now.
And many of those folks such as myself have been quietly deploying... I strongly urge my competitors to take your stance and bury their heads in the sand. I love it. Please make more /. posts encouraging my competitors to not innovate. The more people left behind, the further ahead I'll be.
In which exact ways are you innovating a published standard? Are you genuinely seeking to take credit for the whole of IPv6? Al Gore, is that you??
They're doing Archimedes solar ray AGAIN? Aren't we up to three already (the original myth and two revisits)? Obviously I think it is fun that Obama will be on the show but frankly aside from that I really don't want to see that same tired Myth for a third time...
Yeah, the whole event screams 'PR stunt' more than anything else. I hope it doesn't spell the beginning of the end for Mythbusters, but this feels like a really weak excuse to have the President on TV, and it damages the integrity of both bodies. Mythbusters is clearly, undeniably now more 'show' than 'science', and that's too bad, and the Pres has clearly never watched the program...
Hyperbole is supposed to be ridiculous, FYI.
And the critique goes directly to his credibility as a change agent. It was valid before he was elected as doubt, and is valid now as outright criticism. He was 'Hope', he was 'Change', but what did he really bring to the table?
So I'd grant you 'snarky', but the other two labels are only fitting if you're predisposed to disagree with the criticism.
Indeed. We could likewise have built the LHC in space. And yet, the risk of creating blackholes is deemed less than that of moving a solar screen out of the way should something go wrong.
There's no logic here. Only politics.
No, the primary concern of many (but not all) environmental groups is to further their own interests and increase their influence. Any simple solution to environmental problems will be rejected out of hand if it makes their cause obsolete.
Note: environmentalists are not alone in this behaviour; many large organisations shift from pursuing their ideals to self-serving behaviour.
I do agree, on both counts. As I said to another poster, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this behavior. It is very normal. But let's call it what it is, shall we?
Altering the chemistry of our one and only planet is foolish. Your attacks on the green community are misguided.
And altering the world economy is less foolish?
And I'm not 'attacking' anyone. I'm merely underscoring their own position. I didn't malign them. They're perfectly free, as we all are, to lobby for whatever platform they wish. We can still call it what it is, though. There should likewise be nothing wrong with that.
It has nothing to do with money, or some insane desire for everyone to live in mud huts; It's a desire for everyone to CONTINUE living.
You might be correct, and probably are, in certain cases, but not in every case. You simply cannot deny that there are many seeking to profit off of this agenda.
Take for example, Al Gore. His own 'footprint' is disgustingly selfish, but he buys carbon credits to offset it. He buys them from his own company. The one he created just before releasing a gigantic advertisement for it called "An Inconvenient Truth", or what have you.
The Catholics have used this same scheme it the past to great success, so I'm not terribly shocked to see it arise again. What does worry me, though is the impact it will have on our policies.
So if you're genuinely concerned, take note. Those who are not, but pretend to be, are set to screw us both. And barring the kind of research needed to determine whether or not your dire predictions will ever come true is against both of our best interests.
I'll tell that to all the kids and adults who will now get Polio as a result of your faith.
That's pretty close to impossible now, isn't it? Is there Polio in the wild, just waiting to infect the non-vaccinated? I'm genuinely asking. Take, say, Tulsa, OK. How many cases of Polio in the last three years?
But others, such as the ETC group, an environmental and social advocacy group, fear simply blocking the sun is a bandage, meant to cover up the problem, and allow humans to continue using fossils fuels.
I think this should lay to rest any doubts as to the motives of some of our friends in the Green community. Their primary concern is to cause humans to stop using fossil fuels. The actual need to do so isn't strictly relevant. They'd rather there not be any conflict of interests, so rather than mitigating the issue in any other way, they'll continue to press their agenda.
This should be seen as problematic. If for no other reason than it illustrates that the actual problem (dead humans) is secondary to their agenda.
Food for thought.
While I'm not overly concerned about a link between Autism and vaccination, I'm sympathetic to parents who are.
And further, not being vaccinated is genuinely only a risk to the non-vaccinated. Everyone who receives the vaccine is safe. So that's really rather a non-starter, unless you work for a drug company or other outfit that profits from the sale of vaccines.
So the whole argument really just falls flat for me.
Hey, you'll get no disagreement there - if you want to drive your corporation into the ground, that's your call. You're still a fucking idiot, though.
If you're completely wrong, why should it matter who you think is an idiot? Indeed, it could well be an indication of going the right direction - being the opposite of what you advise.
Food for thought.
I'm not shocked at all. If you doubt that there is any semblance of trust left in modern science, I invite you to openly doubt AGW. Try it on slashdot the next time a news topic comes around. Make a sockpuppet so your Karma survives, but give it a try. Challenge people to cite their sources, show you the data, and eliminate any competing conclusions. You'll be burned as a heretic. The actual scientists, as opposed to we amateurs here, do the exact same thing in the exact same way.
People are as people are, scientists or not.