Nowhere did he say what he wanted nor did he imply it.
Nor did I think they were.
OP said, in essence, why doesn't Obama require all the companies to comply.
The GP said that Obama is a President, not a King, by way of explaining why he can't do that.
I replied agreeing and saying this is something a lot of people (and in particular liberals) seem to forget when complaining about why Obama hasn't done certain things -- kinda like the OP.
Not every reply has to be an attempt to tear down the post replied to. Sometimes you can build off of their salient points to address other issues. Sorry if I wasn't clear.:)
I remember in lower elementary school doing an exercise called "Fact or Opinion", where the point was not to figure out which of the statements were true, but to figure out which could be determined to be objectively true, as opposed to which were subjective opinion. "The earth is a cube" was a fact even though it's not true, and "The earth is awesome" was an opinion.
Of course even at age 7 or whatever it was, I understood that words had multiple meanings in different context, and in this context was different than the one where "fact" means "truth".
I wonder how the GP deals with things like the "CIA Factbook" when, in fact, not all the facts in the Factbook are true facts. The "CIA Book of Statements Which Could Be Objectively Evaluated For Truth" doesn't have the same ring.
However, if taxes were decreased at a federal level and increased at the state level, the states would then be able to pay for their own roadwork without Federal involvement. But, how would that help Federal control?
How would that help the states that don't have enough populous, and therefore income, to maintain their own roads without federal assistance. It's not the state's citizens own money being taken and given back -- it's also the money of citizens in other states. Lots of states receive more money from the feds than they pay in federal taxes.
Wyoming is a huge state with a small population, and roads that get damaged in the winter. It would be a net loss for Wyoming if they had to rely solely on their own ability to raise funds. The interstate that runs past Cheyenne is one of the only reasons anyone knows Cheyenne exists.
My anecdote was to illustrate that there are situations where you can never solve a problem merely by chosing the correct words and to point out that you were overgeneralising to a point where your words appeared to be of no value.
Yeah but that illustration was obvious and unnecessary, and in fact my first post was premised upon it being true, and then showing how that doesn't account for all situations.
Talking about reality in the sense that includes real human actions, and talking about how the human-actions aspect of reality can be controlled by words, is not over-generalising. It's kinda specific, actually. Yet still important. It is obviously part of reality, no?
Anyway, it's a sore point with me due to the "we can define our own reality" quote from Rove and naturopaths etc pushing the same line.
Naturopaths are gigantic morons.
Karl Rove is not a moron. He is not talking about "define our own reality" in the same sense that the naturopaths are. He is talking about it in the sense I am, and he's right. It is dangerously naive not to realize this.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq is reality. And it was only reality because Rove et. al. "defined their own reality". They manipulated how people perceived the truth, so they supported going to war, and so that war became a reality. Of course the prosecution of that war involves many factors they couldn't control. Yet part of it -- like it beginning, and continuing -- could be, and that's what they needed.
Right now people are controlling how the reality of AGW is being perceived, and it is affecting the reality of what we do about it. Their techniques are working, and King Canute is not an answer, it's missing what they're doing entirely.
I strongly disagree. It's more about mathematics and physics while the words are merely used as tools to describe it.
Only some words are describing math.
"We should add an ISA extension so software vendors could instrument their critical sections. That'd let us optimize lock accesses." "I'm not sure the ISVs would get on board with that and there are a lot of current benchmarks we need to perform well on that aren't going to be re-written." "Hm, seems like too much risk for too little benefit. Okay, let's not include that in this product."
The switches involved in the machine are now different than they would have been, all because of words with only a faint connection to physics (as one of the many unquantified factors going into the word 'risk').
So, feel free to disagree. You're wrong. This is reality. And it's not going to change because you deny it with words. Sorry.
It appears you've also decided that you can change the definition of the word reality to try to make make it so we are not even speaking the same language so appear that your argument is more valid and ignored that I stated it as "physical reality" to avoid such childish games.
You misunderstand me. I'm not playing a trick with words. I expect that you can understand the different senses of "physical reality" I'm using in different contexts, because my whole point is what you're saying is completely true in one sense, but there's a broader context where there's more going on.
Of course you can't change the physical laws of nature or the state of the universe with thought, to once again explicitly agree with the concept.
But in a sense, "physical reality" contains the physical state of human brains. Which is relevant to predicting the future state of the universe -- or at least one tiny spec of it. And this can be influenced by words.
The physical reality of an atmosphere with excess carbon dioxide trapping excess heat is a perfect example of how this physical reality cannot be influenced by words, yet is a consequence of human action. In the sense of physical reality as in "what exists right now", coal plants and oversized SUVs are a physical reality and a consequence of human attitudes towards this issue. How many coal plants there are in the future also depends on human action, and how it is influenced.
That's what I was saying in my first post: Reality (in the "physical laws" sense) can't be changed, but some people's goals don't need to change reality in that sense. They only need to change what people do and the reality that affects how much money they make.
That works. And they don't even have to know anything about the actual physical reality they're trying to dissuade anyone from doing anything about! Because "relativity" is completely horse shit, but someone's opinion can still have far more influence than it does value. And in the future, when the world is hotter, that will have come about in part because of their influence. That will be reality. Thinking that because they're contradicting scientific observation that they must surely lose to reality is to misunderstand the game they are playing.
Then you responded with an anecdote about Canute, as if the idea that you can't change all of reality with words was a counterargument to my point. So I mangled that story to try to bring in the relevant context, which is that they don't have to and aren't trying to. Obviously a misguided effort when there was already such miscommunication. It was no effort, though. I just wrote what Heartland etc. are doing in terms of a Wizard, and re-wrote the King as those who believe that because reality always wins in one sense, it must win in every sense.
I think you've lost touch that the words you use to make machines do things are not words at all but simply a handy interface to a lot of very small switches.
Funny you say that. While the rules of quantum mechanics were already there as were the silicon atoms, words are what caused engineers to manipulate those things into a set of switches. Words can change what switches are put into the machine, what they do and how they're interfaced, or whether the machine is built at all (I had such conversations just today in fact).
So, yeah. There's a sense where you're completely correct (except for the part where I lost touch of that for a picosecond), and a sense where human words and thoughts influence physical reality heavily. It's the only reason we're exchanging these thoughts now.
My point is exactly as expressed - when those that think they can change things with words hit physical reality which will not listen to them then all of their "incantations" are useless.
Some parts of physical reality won't listen to them, but that doesn't matter because they aren't trying to change that part of reality. Other parts of reality -- specifically the reality of human actions -- will. And that is what they are trying to change. Their "incantations" are working perfectly but because you mistake what reality they're trying to change, you miss that they can in fact change reality. Have changed reality.
Or do you think you can deny that reality by saying "You can't change reality by talking about it"?
If you did, why go to the trouble to build such a strawman that is irrelevant to the example?
To demonstrate how irrelevant the story of King Canute is to the situation at hand. Your argument is that you can't change physical reality just by talking about it or denying it, right? Then I did not misrepresent your argument and that was not a strawman. Instead what I did was point out how your argument is either wrong or simply missing the point entirely, depending on what exactly we're saying by "reality".
The reality of AGW won't change because of people denying it exists. But guess what? They don't care! They only want to stop people from doing anything about it, and that reality they absolutely can affect just by sowing doubt. Just by talking about it. If King Canute would talk about tides (or any other "illustrative" example, which if you notice I did not demolish but slyly accepted) in this situation and deny the ability of words to alter reality, then King Canute is a damn fool who will utterly fail to accomplish anything.
I want a plasma emitter that somehow limits the plasma to a 3 foot long cylinder. And has a button to turn off the limiter so I can stab people across the room.
Uh many, many people predicted that it would turn out not to be true. An error was considered the most likely explanation from the beginning, even by the publishers.
And much like the XKCD author, everyone who predicted that it wouldn't be true would have been ecstatic to be wrong.
What I find much more amusing is all the people who instantly jumped on the result and assumed it was true and proof of whatever they wanted it to be proof of -- from 'science is all a lie' to 'my replacement for Relativity which The Man has stifled is now proven correct!'
Anyways, the part of the Tevatron that you are most likely to find reuse is the 4 miles of tunnel. The civil construction to dig a tunnel that big, complete with tunnel penetrations and service buildings is a significant portion of the cost of any project. You would be a fool to just fill in such a valuable commodity just because you don't have a use of it today.
What uses are there for 4 miles of tunnel that's in some random location not in an urban center? Not much. Just like there's not much use for the 14 mi of tunnel dug for the SSC, which lies unused in Texas.
It would be foolish to fill it in, that's true. Which is why they won't. They'll just leave the tunnel there. Maybe in the future someone will use it to build a new colllider (the LHC used pre-existing tunnels from a previous collider, but other than that...
Right. The point of "reduce, reuse, recycle" is to help people keep in mind it's better to recycle by using something than it is to recycle by throwing it in the recycle bin.
So in that context it makes sense to distinguish.
But that usage does not define the terms in all cases.
Um, no. Reality always wins. You can deny climate change all you want, but that won't circumvent the laws of thermodynamics.
I don't need to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics. I only need to deny that they exist until enough people are confused that nobody is willing to do anything so I can continue with the status quo. Change is scary, and for some less profitable.
Oh sure the laws of nature are the laws of nature and in the long term the warming either happens or doesn't according to such, but I don't care. I've convinced myself it's not going to happen, or I think getting as much for me and mine as I can is what's best in any case.
How ya like that reality? Have you noticed how denying reality has resulted in people being reluctant to do anything about reality? Clinging to "reality always wins" seems to be denying a particular aspect of reality, one where reality is losing.
P.S. Unfortunately, the earth won't always rotate around the sun. Even more unfortunate, I won't be around to see exactly what happens to it.
He then turned to the onlookers and said what could be translated into modern terms as "can you stupid fuckers see now that you can't do everything just by talking about it?"
But the audience didn't hear.
They had already turned their back on him and were listening to the Court Wizard, who told them that while the tide was obviously a fact of nature, the real crisis under discussion was a myth the King had created to control them, and that they needn't do anything and everything would be fine. The court smiled, and they all went back to their homes. The King was never again able to rally support to his cause.
The Wizard had accomplished his goal. He had changed reality, just by talking about it.
He just didn't change the same part of reality as the one he talked about.
Oops. Guess the King didn't think of that one when he came up with his "How stupid are you that you thought you could change reality by denying it?" speech.
The only way to directly change physical things is to do physical things.
Yes, and people decide what real physical things they're going to do, thus affecting the way real physical things change, based on how they perceive reality and the hypothetical futures that doing, or not doing, something will create.
So if you're happy just knowing that the laws of nature will not change on command, then great.
If you were hoping that people would stop denying reality and agree on what the facts are so we can deal with the problems facing us, then I think you may be missing the point.
Then when nominated I switch tactics and take a more moderate approach. Ie, I'd be Santorum or Gingrich during primaries and Romney during the general election.
McCain tried that and it ended up biting him in the ass. Sure his right-wing pandering during the primaries was a little more desperate since they were suspicious of him to begin with. So that may have cost him some votes in the general election. But the rapid right-wing shift he made in the primaries cost him independents. And you never win solely by appealing to your base.
Similarly if Santorum tries to switch into a moderate mode, it's going to be hard for people to forget all these sound bites -- especially with the Republican Primary playing out on TV like its a reality show.
Personally I predict Republicans are going to be very disappointed if they don't nominate Romney.
If a creationist says that the Oort Cloud is unscientific, people mock them. But the reality is, it doesn't follow a single tenet of the scientific method. It exists purely because without it, the presence of comets in the solar system would prove that the solar system is too young. So a theoretical "comet-holding" cloud is invented out of thin air because long ages require it, not because of any sort of observation or because the facts led anyone there.
Yes they would be correctly mocked. The Oort Cloud is scientific: It is a hypothesis proposed to explain observations, it is consistent with the available evidence, and is currently waiting for further observation to verify its predictions.
That's the scientific method right there.
The falsification of this hypothesis would be quite intriguing, but "prove the solar system is too young" is an unscientific conclusion. That is one possible explanation, but that hypothesis would have to contend with all the other observations that suggest an old solar system. You would also have to investigate modifying our models of solar system formation to account for old star/planets and young comets. Or a source of old comets that isn't the Oort Cloud. Each would have different implications, and you'd have to look at the data before saying you'd colloquial-sense-"proven" any of them.
They foolishly think that opinions can change reality.
No, they correctly think that if you can change opinions in your favor, then reality doesn't matter (or at least is someone else's problem).
The reality of AGW is irrelevant as long as they can sow enough doubt that they never have to take substantive action. Which has pretty much already worked. Reality loses.
What a fucking lunatic, I can't believe this is the best the GOP can come up with. Are they sitting this one out or something?
Yes. Statistically, the incumbent wins something like 75% of the time. It's not like that means it's an automatic Obama win... but if you're a Republican and want to gain the White House and want the best chance to do so, then assuming Obama will win and basing your strategy around running in 2016 against a new Democrat maximizes your chances.
That's why we have the crowd we do, including the stunt-candidacies like Terrible Toupe and Godfather's Pizza Man.
"but perfectly visible and functional regular license plates"
Seems like a non-issue to me. The FAQ you quote seems to agree by virtue of not mentioning the RFID in the list of things that constitute 'damage', or mentioning a requirement that the RFID chip work in the section on RFID. Seems like they mostly care about the printed components of the book.
(it's a joke, I know the difference between stealing and copying)
Octopuses don't. Just the other day one was telling me SOPA was essential to saving Hollywood from all those filthy movie thieves. I have no idea why everyone thinks they're so smart.
I do sparrow fishing as hobby
Sparrow fishing? Is that fishing for sparrows? Fishing with sparrows? Is this live bait fishing? Seems like casting would be difficult but oh-so satisfying if they're House Sparrows.
"The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget."
sounds like a pretty strong statement of veracity to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere did he say what he wanted nor did he imply it.
Nor did I think they were.
OP said, in essence, why doesn't Obama require all the companies to comply.
The GP said that Obama is a President, not a King, by way of explaining why he can't do that.
I replied agreeing and saying this is something a lot of people (and in particular liberals) seem to forget when complaining about why Obama hasn't done certain things -- kinda like the OP.
Not every reply has to be an attempt to tear down the post replied to. Sometimes you can build off of their salient points to address other issues. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :)
Obama is president, not king.
While I'm not surprised saying people who say that he is/wants to be, I'm hugely bothered by all the liberals who are upset that he's not.
I remember in lower elementary school doing an exercise called "Fact or Opinion", where the point was not to figure out which of the statements were true, but to figure out which could be determined to be objectively true, as opposed to which were subjective opinion. "The earth is a cube" was a fact even though it's not true, and "The earth is awesome" was an opinion.
Of course even at age 7 or whatever it was, I understood that words had multiple meanings in different context, and in this context was different than the one where "fact" means "truth".
I wonder how the GP deals with things like the "CIA Factbook" when, in fact, not all the facts in the Factbook are true facts. The "CIA Book of Statements Which Could Be Objectively Evaluated For Truth" doesn't have the same ring.
However, if taxes were decreased at a federal level and increased at the state level, the states would then be able to pay for their own roadwork without Federal involvement. But, how would that help Federal control?
How would that help the states that don't have enough populous, and therefore income, to maintain their own roads without federal assistance. It's not the state's citizens own money being taken and given back -- it's also the money of citizens in other states. Lots of states receive more money from the feds than they pay in federal taxes.
Wyoming is a huge state with a small population, and roads that get damaged in the winter. It would be a net loss for Wyoming if they had to rely solely on their own ability to raise funds. The interstate that runs past Cheyenne is one of the only reasons anyone knows Cheyenne exists.
My anecdote was to illustrate that there are situations where you can never solve a problem merely by chosing the correct words and to point out that you were overgeneralising to a point where your words appeared to be of no value.
Yeah but that illustration was obvious and unnecessary, and in fact my first post was premised upon it being true, and then showing how that doesn't account for all situations.
Talking about reality in the sense that includes real human actions, and talking about how the human-actions aspect of reality can be controlled by words, is not over-generalising. It's kinda specific, actually. Yet still important. It is obviously part of reality, no?
Anyway, it's a sore point with me due to the "we can define our own reality" quote from Rove and naturopaths etc pushing the same line.
Naturopaths are gigantic morons.
Karl Rove is not a moron. He is not talking about "define our own reality" in the same sense that the naturopaths are. He is talking about it in the sense I am, and he's right. It is dangerously naive not to realize this.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq is reality. And it was only reality because Rove et. al. "defined their own reality". They manipulated how people perceived the truth, so they supported going to war, and so that war became a reality. Of course the prosecution of that war involves many factors they couldn't control. Yet part of it -- like it beginning, and continuing -- could be, and that's what they needed.
Right now people are controlling how the reality of AGW is being perceived, and it is affecting the reality of what we do about it. Their techniques are working, and King Canute is not an answer, it's missing what they're doing entirely.
I strongly disagree. It's more about mathematics and physics while the words are merely used as tools to describe it.
Only some words are describing math.
"We should add an ISA extension so software vendors could instrument their critical sections. That'd let us optimize lock accesses."
"I'm not sure the ISVs would get on board with that and there are a lot of current benchmarks we need to perform well on that aren't going to be re-written."
"Hm, seems like too much risk for too little benefit. Okay, let's not include that in this product."
The switches involved in the machine are now different than they would have been, all because of words with only a faint connection to physics (as one of the many unquantified factors going into the word 'risk').
So, feel free to disagree. You're wrong. This is reality. And it's not going to change because you deny it with words. Sorry.
It appears you've also decided that you can change the definition of the word reality to try to make make it so we are not even speaking the same language so appear that your argument is more valid and ignored that I stated it as "physical reality" to avoid such childish games.
You misunderstand me. I'm not playing a trick with words. I expect that you can understand the different senses of "physical reality" I'm using in different contexts, because my whole point is what you're saying is completely true in one sense, but there's a broader context where there's more going on.
Of course you can't change the physical laws of nature or the state of the universe with thought, to once again explicitly agree with the concept.
But in a sense, "physical reality" contains the physical state of human brains. Which is relevant to predicting the future state of the universe -- or at least one tiny spec of it. And this can be influenced by words.
The physical reality of an atmosphere with excess carbon dioxide trapping excess heat is a perfect example of how this physical reality cannot be influenced by words, yet is a consequence of human action. In the sense of physical reality as in "what exists right now", coal plants and oversized SUVs are a physical reality and a consequence of human attitudes towards this issue. How many coal plants there are in the future also depends on human action, and how it is influenced.
That's what I was saying in my first post: Reality (in the "physical laws" sense) can't be changed, but some people's goals don't need to change reality in that sense. They only need to change what people do and the reality that affects how much money they make.
That works. And they don't even have to know anything about the actual physical reality they're trying to dissuade anyone from doing anything about! Because "relativity" is completely horse shit, but someone's opinion can still have far more influence than it does value. And in the future, when the world is hotter, that will have come about in part because of their influence. That will be reality. Thinking that because they're contradicting scientific observation that they must surely lose to reality is to misunderstand the game they are playing.
Then you responded with an anecdote about Canute, as if the idea that you can't change all of reality with words was a counterargument to my point. So I mangled that story to try to bring in the relevant context, which is that they don't have to and aren't trying to. Obviously a misguided effort when there was already such miscommunication. It was no effort, though. I just wrote what Heartland etc. are doing in terms of a Wizard, and re-wrote the King as those who believe that because reality always wins in one sense, it must win in every sense.
I think you've lost touch that the words you use to make machines do things are not words at all but simply a handy interface to a lot of very small switches.
Funny you say that. While the rules of quantum mechanics were already there as were the silicon atoms, words are what caused engineers to manipulate those things into a set of switches. Words can change what switches are put into the machine, what they do and how they're interfaced, or whether the machine is built at all (I had such conversations just today in fact).
So, yeah. There's a sense where you're completely correct (except for the part where I lost touch of that for a picosecond), and a sense where human words and thoughts influence physical reality heavily. It's the only reason we're exchanging these thoughts now.
Well the problem started when you kept asking to be moved to the Young Adult section. People were getting creeped out!
My point is exactly as expressed - when those that think they can change things with words hit physical reality which will not listen to them then all of their "incantations" are useless.
Some parts of physical reality won't listen to them, but that doesn't matter because they aren't trying to change that part of reality. Other parts of reality -- specifically the reality of human actions -- will. And that is what they are trying to change. Their "incantations" are working perfectly but because you mistake what reality they're trying to change, you miss that they can in fact change reality. Have changed reality.
Or do you think you can deny that reality by saying "You can't change reality by talking about it"?
If you did, why go to the trouble to build such a strawman that is irrelevant to the example?
To demonstrate how irrelevant the story of King Canute is to the situation at hand. Your argument is that you can't change physical reality just by talking about it or denying it, right? Then I did not misrepresent your argument and that was not a strawman. Instead what I did was point out how your argument is either wrong or simply missing the point entirely, depending on what exactly we're saying by "reality".
The reality of AGW won't change because of people denying it exists. But guess what? They don't care! They only want to stop people from doing anything about it, and that reality they absolutely can affect just by sowing doubt. Just by talking about it. If King Canute would talk about tides (or any other "illustrative" example, which if you notice I did not demolish but slyly accepted) in this situation and deny the ability of words to alter reality, then King Canute is a damn fool who will utterly fail to accomplish anything.
Get it now?
Good thing CERN never challenged relativity nor claimed FTL travel was possible, then, huh?
I want a plasma emitter that somehow limits the plasma to a 3 foot long cylinder. And has a button to turn off the limiter so I can stab people across the room.
drunk adults accounted for 83% of all drunk driving incidents in the US in 2008.
Oh, well, now that we have that straightened out, I feel great about flying cars!
Uh many, many people predicted that it would turn out not to be true. An error was considered the most likely explanation from the beginning, even by the publishers.
And much like the XKCD author, everyone who predicted that it wouldn't be true would have been ecstatic to be wrong.
What I find much more amusing is all the people who instantly jumped on the result and assumed it was true and proof of whatever they wanted it to be proof of -- from 'science is all a lie' to 'my replacement for Relativity which The Man has stifled is now proven correct!'
Anyways, the part of the Tevatron that you are most likely to find reuse is the 4 miles of tunnel. The civil construction to dig a tunnel that big, complete with tunnel penetrations and service buildings is a significant portion of the cost of any project. You would be a fool to just fill in such a valuable commodity just because you don't have a use of it today.
What uses are there for 4 miles of tunnel that's in some random location not in an urban center? Not much. Just like there's not much use for the 14 mi of tunnel dug for the SSC, which lies unused in Texas.
It would be foolish to fill it in, that's true. Which is why they won't. They'll just leave the tunnel there. Maybe in the future someone will use it to build a new colllider (the LHC used pre-existing tunnels from a previous collider, but other than that...
Right. The point of "reduce, reuse, recycle" is to help people keep in mind it's better to recycle by using something than it is to recycle by throwing it in the recycle bin.
So in that context it makes sense to distinguish.
But that usage does not define the terms in all cases.
Um, no. Reality always wins. You can deny climate change all you want, but that won't circumvent the laws of thermodynamics.
I don't need to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics. I only need to deny that they exist until enough people are confused that nobody is willing to do anything so I can continue with the status quo. Change is scary, and for some less profitable.
Oh sure the laws of nature are the laws of nature and in the long term the warming either happens or doesn't according to such, but I don't care. I've convinced myself it's not going to happen, or I think getting as much for me and mine as I can is what's best in any case.
How ya like that reality? Have you noticed how denying reality has resulted in people being reluctant to do anything about reality? Clinging to "reality always wins" seems to be denying a particular aspect of reality, one where reality is losing.
P.S. Unfortunately, the earth won't always rotate around the sun. Even more unfortunate, I won't be around to see exactly what happens to it.
He then turned to the onlookers and said what could be translated into modern terms as "can you stupid fuckers see now that you can't do everything just by talking about it?"
But the audience didn't hear.
They had already turned their back on him and were listening to the Court Wizard, who told them that while the tide was obviously a fact of nature, the real crisis under discussion was a myth the King had created to control them, and that they needn't do anything and everything would be fine. The court smiled, and they all went back to their homes. The King was never again able to rally support to his cause.
The Wizard had accomplished his goal. He had changed reality, just by talking about it.
He just didn't change the same part of reality as the one he talked about.
Oops. Guess the King didn't think of that one when he came up with his "How stupid are you that you thought you could change reality by denying it?" speech.
The only way to directly change physical things is to do physical things.
Yes, and people decide what real physical things they're going to do, thus affecting the way real physical things change, based on how they perceive reality and the hypothetical futures that doing, or not doing, something will create.
So if you're happy just knowing that the laws of nature will not change on command, then great.
If you were hoping that people would stop denying reality and agree on what the facts are so we can deal with the problems facing us, then I think you may be missing the point.
Then when nominated I switch tactics and take a more moderate approach. Ie, I'd be Santorum or Gingrich during primaries and Romney during the general election.
McCain tried that and it ended up biting him in the ass. Sure his right-wing pandering during the primaries was a little more desperate since they were suspicious of him to begin with. So that may have cost him some votes in the general election. But the rapid right-wing shift he made in the primaries cost him independents. And you never win solely by appealing to your base.
Similarly if Santorum tries to switch into a moderate mode, it's going to be hard for people to forget all these sound bites -- especially with the Republican Primary playing out on TV like its a reality show.
Personally I predict Republicans are going to be very disappointed if they don't nominate Romney.
If a creationist says that the Oort Cloud is unscientific, people mock them. But the reality is, it doesn't follow a single tenet of the scientific method. It exists purely because without it, the presence of comets in the solar system would prove that the solar system is too young. So a theoretical "comet-holding" cloud is invented out of thin air because long ages require it, not because of any sort of observation or because the facts led anyone there.
Yes they would be correctly mocked. The Oort Cloud is scientific: It is a hypothesis proposed to explain observations, it is consistent with the available evidence, and is currently waiting for further observation to verify its predictions.
That's the scientific method right there.
The falsification of this hypothesis would be quite intriguing, but "prove the solar system is too young" is an unscientific conclusion. That is one possible explanation, but that hypothesis would have to contend with all the other observations that suggest an old solar system. You would also have to investigate modifying our models of solar system formation to account for old star/planets and young comets. Or a source of old comets that isn't the Oort Cloud. Each would have different implications, and you'd have to look at the data before saying you'd colloquial-sense-"proven" any of them.
They foolishly think that opinions can change reality.
No, they correctly think that if you can change opinions in your favor, then reality doesn't matter (or at least is someone else's problem).
The reality of AGW is irrelevant as long as they can sow enough doubt that they never have to take substantive action. Which has pretty much already worked. Reality loses.
What a fucking lunatic, I can't believe this is the best the GOP can come up with. Are they sitting this one out or something?
Yes. Statistically, the incumbent wins something like 75% of the time. It's not like that means it's an automatic Obama win... but if you're a Republican and want to gain the White House and want the best chance to do so, then assuming Obama will win and basing your strategy around running in 2016 against a new Democrat maximizes your chances.
That's why we have the crowd we do, including the stunt-candidacies like Terrible Toupe and Godfather's Pizza Man.
Fair enough, I cannot say their parrot was from a rain forest, but I can still complain about "it's from Australia so not from a rain forest"
"but perfectly visible and functional regular license plates"
Seems like a non-issue to me. The FAQ you quote seems to agree by virtue of not mentioning the RFID in the list of things that constitute 'damage', or mentioning a requirement that the RFID chip work in the section on RFID. Seems like they mostly care about the printed components of the book.
You mean the original document alluded to in that very sentence?
Thanks for clarifying the clear!
(it's a joke, I know the difference between stealing and copying)
Octopuses don't. Just the other day one was telling me SOPA was essential to saving Hollywood from all those filthy movie thieves. I have no idea why everyone thinks they're so smart.
I do sparrow fishing as hobby
Sparrow fishing? Is that fishing for sparrows? Fishing with sparrows? Is this live bait fishing? Seems like casting would be difficult but oh-so satisfying if they're House Sparrows.
"The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget."
sounds like a pretty strong statement of veracity to me.