To everyone in the western world other than republicans, Obama is a moderate conservative. Bachman and Perry scare the shit out of me from 10,000 miles away because a large chunk of the US is seriously considering voting for them. To me it's like the US is on the edge of cliff and the GOP has been taken over by people shouting jump!
Extremists from both sides accuse each other of dirty politics, moderates agree with both camps on that point.
A specific example of the "reversible argument" from the far left would be greenpeace (correctly) accusing the heartland institute of peddling anti-science propaganda about AGW, while GP themselves are busy peddling anti-science propaganda about chlorinated water. But I do agree, for me, examples of the "reversible argument" are much easier to spot on the far right.
Disclaimer - I've been a moderate green lefty since the 70's, but in the US I would probably be considered a tool of the devil by the Christian right.
The defining characteristics of a psychopath are lack of empathy and remorse, they see other people as objects put there for their personal gratification. In psychology the "reversible argument" is called projection, ie: a person projects their own thoughts/behaviour onto others. All psychopaths project, but so do a lot of non-psychopaths. Most successful psychopaths have above average IQ, the moronic ones are usually violent criminals who haven't learnt how to mask their behaviour.
Technically a psychopath is at the extreme end of what's called "antisocial personality disorder" (ASPD), so maybe the researcher who said they are hard to find meant they are hard to distinguish from (say) sociopaths.
Same thing can be said about alcoholics and I don't see anyone picking up the tab for their existence, in fact most governments put a high tax on alcohol.
I will grant that prohibition may reduce the death rate of users but my post was about the danger of addicts to society compared to the dangers of prohibition to society. Also I have know t lest one heroin addict who had no difficulty holding down a job that paid well enough to feed his habit, but I realise personal anecdotes are not statistics.
I'm also surprised by attitude towards law enforcement
The US has 300M people and 500K drug prisoners, the EU has 500M people and 600K total prisoners. Since the EU is not falling apart due to drug problems I'd say there is a problem with US laws rather than US law enforcement.
I'm in my 50's and have known my fair share of junkies, even had my junkie nephew living with me and my family for a while. Junkies will always exist regardless of what laws and punishments you make. Making it legal for them to dribble all over themselves at an affordable price is far less dangerous than making it ridiculously profitable for others to feed their habits by any means necessary. Prohibition on alcohol proved this beyond doubt, but still there are plenty of people like yourself who cling to the fantasy that, given enough jack boots you can stamp out the undesirable aspects of human nature.
Nine of ten people can not afford an illegal addiction without resorting to theft. - FTFY
Moon shots and Hubble had similar financial overruns. I watched Armstrong live, but was just as awestruck by Hubble's deep field pics and Sagan's blue dot.
And a suggestion; You can believe any one of the thousands of different creation myths and nobody will give a rat's arse, but please stop trying to use science to support your anti-science, it makes you look foolish and it annoys the hell out of people who have even the foggiest idea what they are talking about..
If you follow the link to the EPA's "Responsible Appliance Disposal program", (at the end of the second paragraph), it says...
Using best practices, RAD partners ensure that:
- Refrigerant is recovered and reclaimed or destroyed
- Foam is recovered and destroyed, or the blowing agent is recovered and reclaimed
- Metals, plastic, and glass are recycled
- PCBs, mercury, and used oil are recovered and properly disposed
There was no twisting of facts, you don't have to name someone to harass them. The intent was clearly to inflict grief on the living relatives. Again, if you can't see the difference between parody and harassment then maybe you should take an ethics class or something before you find out the hard way.
There is a difference between being right in the abstract (yes, you are) and being a part of society. You can be right while society will have nothing to do with you.
Excellent post, most nerds have no idea why they are frequently ostracised.
There's a vast difference between the parody of a long dead religious figure and personal harassment of the living, if you can't see it then I feel sorry for you.
Your comment offends me. Please pay me restitution.
You my be surprised to learn that until recently that was the way it worked in both the UK and the US.
Does the UK not have an equivalent of the first amendment or something?
From WP - Lord Justice Sedley, in his decision regarding Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999), described Speakers' Corner as demonstrating "the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear." The ruling famously established in English case law that freedom of speech could not be limited to the inoffensive but extended also to "the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome, and the provocative, as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence", and that the right to free speech accorded by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights also accorded the right to be offensive.
[With] patent encumbrance, those people need to get the IP from the university or industrial partner before they can start their new company.
Zhengrong Shi is a perfect example, he invented something to do with solar tech while at Sydney university. He wanted to use the tech to spin of a company in Oz but the university sold the patent to a German company. Disheartened by the lack of support he returned to China to start his own company. 10yrs later he is now the richest man in mainland China, but still cannot use his own invention. He does not blame the university, he blames short-sighted politicians, to drive the point home he has donated to the university because in his words "it's under-funded".
Slashdot Mirror
Obama is religious, it's not about religion, it's about common sense.
Also checkout the atmospheric lensing of the stars in the background.
To everyone in the western world other than republicans, Obama is a moderate conservative. Bachman and Perry scare the shit out of me from 10,000 miles away because a large chunk of the US is seriously considering voting for them. To me it's like the US is on the edge of cliff and the GOP has been taken over by people shouting jump!
You're not wrong about that TED talk. :)
Extremists from both sides accuse each other of dirty politics, moderates agree with both camps on that point.
A specific example of the "reversible argument" from the far left would be greenpeace (correctly) accusing the heartland institute of peddling anti-science propaganda about AGW, while GP themselves are busy peddling anti-science propaganda about chlorinated water. But I do agree, for me, examples of the "reversible argument" are much easier to spot on the far right.
Disclaimer - I've been a moderate green lefty since the 70's, but in the US I would probably be considered a tool of the devil by the Christian right.
The defining characteristics of a psychopath are lack of empathy and remorse, they see other people as objects put there for their personal gratification. In psychology the "reversible argument" is called projection, ie: a person projects their own thoughts/behaviour onto others. All psychopaths project, but so do a lot of non-psychopaths. Most successful psychopaths have above average IQ, the moronic ones are usually violent criminals who haven't learnt how to mask their behaviour.
Technically a psychopath is at the extreme end of what's called "antisocial personality disorder" (ASPD), so maybe the researcher who said they are hard to find meant they are hard to distinguish from (say) sociopaths.
where the 'black swans' live
Same place as me? - All swans are black around here.
Same thing can be said about alcoholics and I don't see anyone picking up the tab for their existence, in fact most governments put a high tax on alcohol.
I'm also surprised by attitude towards law enforcement
The US has 300M people and 500K drug prisoners, the EU has 500M people and 600K total prisoners. Since the EU is not falling apart due to drug problems I'd say there is a problem with US laws rather than US law enforcement.
Sounds like the perfect organisation to examine Senator Inhofe's misuse of government resources to conduct his personal witch hunts.
Have you ever even seen a real heroin addict?
I'm in my 50's and have known my fair share of junkies, even had my junkie nephew living with me and my family for a while. Junkies will always exist regardless of what laws and punishments you make. Making it legal for them to dribble all over themselves at an affordable price is far less dangerous than making it ridiculously profitable for others to feed their habits by any means necessary. Prohibition on alcohol proved this beyond doubt, but still there are plenty of people like yourself who cling to the fantasy that, given enough jack boots you can stamp out the undesirable aspects of human nature.
Nine of ten people can not afford an illegal addiction without resorting to theft. - FTFY
Moon shots and Hubble had similar financial overruns. I watched Armstrong live, but was just as awestruck by Hubble's deep field pics and Sagan's blue dot.
Two points.
1. The first living cells were nowhere near as complex as modern cells.
2. ATP is an evolutionary adaptation it was not a feature of the first cells.
And a suggestion; You can believe any one of the thousands of different creation myths and nobody will give a rat's arse, but please stop trying to use science to support your anti-science, it makes you look foolish and it annoys the hell out of people who have even the foggiest idea what they are talking about..
You are not getting out of this easily, because he really chased you into the corner with this one.
Oh please, grow up.
Mohammed cartoons were exactly the same as the youtube videos about a dead girl.
Agreed, but I was talking about the crap he posted on the memorial site - that is harassment.
If you follow the link to the EPA's "Responsible Appliance Disposal program", (at the end of the second paragraph), it says...
Using best practices, RAD partners ensure that:
- Refrigerant is recovered and reclaimed or destroyed
- Foam is recovered and destroyed, or the blowing agent is recovered and reclaimed
- Metals, plastic, and glass are recycled
- PCBs, mercury, and used oil are recovered and properly disposed
There was no twisting of facts, you don't have to name someone to harass them. The intent was clearly to inflict grief on the living relatives. Again, if you can't see the difference between parody and harassment then maybe you should take an ethics class or something before you find out the hard way.
There is a difference between being right in the abstract (yes, you are) and being a part of society. You can be right while society will have nothing to do with you.
Excellent post, most nerds have no idea why they are frequently ostracised.
No, I meant arseholes, and I am not a useless bit of waste iron. :P
There's a vast difference between the parody of a long dead religious figure and personal harassment of the living, if you can't see it then I feel sorry for you.
I'm always surprised that in these discussion someone always turns up to find excuses for twits like Sean Duffy.
Sadly, I'm no longer surprised that people will defend the indefensible.
Your comment offends me. Please pay me restitution.
You my be surprised to learn that until recently that was the way it worked in both the UK and the US.
Does the UK not have an equivalent of the first amendment or something?
From WP - Lord Justice Sedley, in his decision regarding Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999), described Speakers' Corner as demonstrating "the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear." The ruling famously established in English case law that freedom of speech could not be limited to the inoffensive but extended also to "the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome, and the provocative, as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence", and that the right to free speech accorded by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights also accorded the right to be offensive.
OTOH, the right to be offensive in the US was not properly established until 1988, and it's unclear (to me) if that right extends beyond the parody of public figures. There's an excellent documentary about Flynt called The right to be left alone, I recommend it to anyone interested in the recent history of free speech in the US.
that's an unreasonable expectation
No, respect for the dead is not an unreasonable expectation, but in a world full of arseholes it is a naive one.
[With] patent encumbrance, those people need to get the IP from the university or industrial partner before they can start their new company.
Zhengrong Shi is a perfect example, he invented something to do with solar tech while at Sydney university. He wanted to use the tech to spin of a company in Oz but the university sold the patent to a German company. Disheartened by the lack of support he returned to China to start his own company. 10yrs later he is now the richest man in mainland China, but still cannot use his own invention. He does not blame the university, he blames short-sighted politicians, to drive the point home he has donated to the university because in his words "it's under-funded".
So...Climate Science is political or not political?
The science itself is not political, the choice of subject is influenced by the scientists interests which may or may not be part of their politics.
A scientists can't claim to be apolitical in their work and then be political in their private life.
Why not? All it takes is intellectual honesty, which is a common trait in scientists but very rare in politicians.
Haven't you guys learned anything from your statements on how a scientist can't be skeptical of evolution and a be a good scientist at the same time?
I have no idea who "you guys" is referring to, but unlike creationists and AGW-deniers, all good scientists practice self-scepticisim.
Or is it just a "witch hunt" to say so?
No, it's just wrong. Over time scales that are relevant to humans; weather is chaotic, climate is not.
Sometimes the scientific consensus is wrong.
But most of the time, laymen are simply ignorant.