"That's one of the reasons I'm against the government paying for my health care. Once they are the ones paying for it, they are the ones controlling it."
Sorry but that's BS. Unlike private insurance companies UHC does not need to keep (or even see) your record to pay your bill - a reciept exchangable for cash is sufficient, bulk billing is less hassle and cheaper. In many countries that have UHC the records belong either to the patient or the doctor (who is under oath/regulation not allowed to reveal it).
Premptive reply: Yeah, it's your money/health and your overpriced/under-performing system.
As for the rest of your post, I agree - civilization exists because of trust that those in charge know what they are doing. The problem is most recent politicians in the US appear to be clueless and/or corrupt to the casual observer. Taking a closer look doesn't improve matters either.
"I hardly think the US would do this if there was a real proliferation risk."
Personally I don't put that much faith in US foriegn policy. The way I see it the US, Australia and a few others want to monopolise nuclear fuel production because they think it will be a big part of 'clean' energy over the next 50-100yrs. They claim that they are doing this because they are 'responsible' nations but how this "responsibility' is determined is beyond my understanding.
These kind of patronising schemes have everything to do with money and nothing to do with slowing proliferation or carbon emmisions. With the blessing of the US, Australia is now planning to sell fuel to India (a non-signatory of the NPT) and Russia - Russia supplies Iran (who have signed the NPT) with fuel for the Iranian recator built by Russia.
Iran also has commercially viable deposits of uranium ore and want to make thier own fuel (as agreed under the NPT), thus the centrifuges and the associated crocodile tears from the US Administration.
You do realise that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all belive in the SAME God, don't you? Hindus won't argue with any of them, they just add Abraham's God to their vast collection of gods.
Islam does not have a monopoly on evil shit anymore or less than Christianity does. To belive otherwise is to fall for the religious propoganda that encourages said evil shit.
Yes but you missed the point, it's also irrational to belive the opposite.
I have nothing against someone claiming that the existance of god is irrelevant by use of occams razor but to state "there is no god" is a belief that is outside the realm of science.
"[lots of bad stuff done in the name of religion]...If that is your god, I don't want any of it."
Sorry I don't have any use for a god so I don't have one. However I don't deny others their gods, nor do I blame religion for the misdeeds of humans anymore than I blame science for nuking Hiroshima.
"Bring out the chestnut that it's our fault for having free will (we stole it from god?!)."
Actually I agree with Eienstien (about free will not god), to paraphrase: "Man cannot have free will because man cannot will what he wills".
"You prove things exist, you don't prove they don't exist. It's stupid and poor understanding of science to say otherwise."
Sorry but your the one with a misunderstanding of science. Science does not and never will 'prove' anything, what science gives you is the most consistent explaination.
The only honest answer to the question 'does god exist' is 'I don't know', the question is irrelevant to science and Atheists are barking up the wrong tree using science to prove their belief. Having said that other dogmatic statements such as 'the earth is 4kyr old' can be disproven by (say) demonstrating that the pyramids are 5ky old.
"To claim something you must have evidence, the bigger the claim, the more evidence." - Fixed.
Stalin tried to appear godlike to the people, he usurped religion by putting his own image in place of religious images, his picture replaced that of Jesus, Mary, FSM, etc, above the family mantlepiece. This propoganda worked so well that many people who died in the camps belived Stalin knew nothing of the camps and would come and rescue them.
"But many ills simply would not exist without fervent religious beliefs driving them."
People rationalise the horrors they commit and endure, religion is a very flexible excuse. Take away religion and people won't change their behaviour, they will simply find a different but equally flawed rationale for it.
Speaking of rationality, it is no more irrational to belive there is a god than it is to belive there isn't, neither stance can be disproven. Specific beliefs that can be tested (such as a 4ky old Earth, predictive power of the stars, etc) can be disproven, these things are called dogma and are not essential for a belief in god.
"How on earth can you conclude that something was not an attack on YATE by searching on Asterix?"
Well obviously if someone is claiming the editor is corrupt and deleted YATE because he had an interest in promoting Asterix, I would expect to see a page promoting Asterix. Otherwise how is the editor corrupt?
Anyway, as the AC below has pointed out the competing product is called Asterisk. Asterisk does indeed have a page on WP and this lends credibility to your story.
It wasn't flamebait it was deliberate hyperbole to get a response, like this...
"It got deleted by an editor who is tied with Asterix....it got downright deleted by someone with a very biased opinion."
Reading that I would expect a search of WP to turn up an elaborate page for Asterix (telephony), but it doesn't. I can only conclude the deletion was not a corrupt attack on your article, nor is WP biased against YATE in particular. Worst of all you have wasted my time with a wild goose chase.
BTW: This says nothing about the usefullness of a page on either product, or your wasted efforts in producing content.
Don't get me wrong, education is no cure for a crappy personality, there are plenty of sloths and sycophants in academia. There are also the 'Ian Paisley" type reviewers who will put up rediculous objections that make it obvious to all they only skimmed the conclusion. Having said that, a half-hearted review by a semi-literate proffessor is still better than no review at all.
"I think there's room for improvement. Have people really ask questions and punch holes, note the questions and the defense and attach them to the theory, so people can see what questions have been asked and answered."
Yes, I agree that citations could be organised in a more usefull way. For a more fluid argument, sites moderated by practising scientists like this and this are becoming more common. Relating this back to the original point, if a degree only teaches you how to reseach a question it was worth the effort.
rant/
There is also the phenomena that when one has deep knowledge/insight/enthusiasim for a subject or procedure they tend to see others around them as incompetent, flippant or just plain crazy, others may see them as idealistic, pedantic or arrogant, neither 'side' is 100% correct.
No matter what the question, observation, or methodology, it is all ultimately based on one or more articles of faith. Once you realise that bit of philosophical trivia the question becomes: "What do I belive and why?". I belive in the philosophy of science because it's social implementation (the Frankenstien industrial revolution) has so far been usefull. Ironically I think the only way we can stop Frankenstien's shit from killing our garden is by the application of more science. On a more personal level accepting that the Universe 'just is' is a more elegant answer than 'God did it', neither POV is more liberating or correct than the other./rant
I'm not from the UK but we have a similar system here in Oz. The ID cards are mainly to keep an eye on the providers, under the system the guy would not be refused treatment but the screw-up with records could be lethal. The only way to avoid such screw-ups with ANY medical records system is to talk to the patient, that's not always possible.
Your anecdote mearly shows doctors are humans that have a greater opportunity to cause harm by behaving like arrogant fucks.
Yes and peer-review of the standard practiced by Nature, Science, etc, will group people into those who have a deep knowlede the subject. Try this experiment, type a couple of words (eg: earth crystals) into google and then google scholar, note the different content.
Now tell me which list is more closely 'observing the real world'.
"Just because someone has a degree does not elevate him above the rest of the people around him. It tells me just that he learned something. Whether that something is 'right' is up for debate."
Agreed!
"I agree that in a perfect world with perfect peers, a peer review would be the perfect way to discriminate between good and bad research."
It's a strawman to talk of perfection, since science specifically does not recognise that state of affairs (that's the 'up for debate' part). I don't think you are trying to mislead but it does appear that you have made this argument because of a lack of understanding of what science is and how it progresses. OTOH: If you have something better than peer-review, I'm all ears.
What do scientific credentials tell?
Would you prefer a mechanic or a lawyer to fix the cracked head on your car? If someone has a degree they are more likely to be up to date with what is considered 'right' and therefore more usefull to disprove. They could also be expected to understand why peer-review is important to the scientific method. (This of course only applies to science degrees)
"Most of the time, though, it just means that he agrees with the results"
You claim to have spent time at uni (implying scientific credentials) so I shouldn't need to tell you this: the whole point of the review is to (dis)agree with the results by examining the methodology.
"Could you tell me the difference between peer review and the moderation system that we have in, say,/.?"
In a few words, quality, reliability, track record. Just compare the scientific debate on AGW to the slashdot debate since 2000. I think it's fair to say the slash crowd were a bit slow to catch on.
However I do agree they are both good examples of how the 'peer-review' concept can work.
"If you are over 30 and no breakthroughs has surfaced so far then likely they never will."
I have heard that argument before, and indeed it does seem that revolutionary ideas usually come at an early age, still there are plenty of exceptions such as Newton who wrote the principa at ~40.
I really don't think money aimed at 'picking winners' will have any effect on the rate of revolutionary ideas, they are 'once in a lifetime' bursts of inspiration. That's not to say that spending a bit of cash to encourage 'out of the box' thinking is a complete waste, but the money could also be spent helping the older 'second rate' scientists investigate the intersesting ideas that already pop up from unpredictable and diverse sources.
IIRC Maxwell's equations were largely ignored for ~80yrs, so if the aim is to distinguish revolutionary ideas from trivia and crackpots then spend the bulk of the money collecting and collating data and give it away to everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
"From the moment I could talk, I was ordered to listen." - More recently the author of 'Peace train' was branded a terrorist by King George's minions.
Indeed, that's the whole point of a Turing test.
"That's one of the reasons I'm against the government paying for my health care. Once they are the ones paying for it, they are the ones controlling it."
Sorry but that's BS. Unlike private insurance companies UHC does not need to keep (or even see) your record to pay your bill - a reciept exchangable for cash is sufficient, bulk billing is less hassle and cheaper. In many countries that have UHC the records belong either to the patient or the doctor (who is under oath/regulation not allowed to reveal it).
Premptive reply: Yeah, it's your money/health and your overpriced/under-performing system.
As for the rest of your post, I agree - civilization exists because of trust that those in charge know what they are doing. The problem is most recent politicians in the US appear to be clueless and/or corrupt to the casual observer. Taking a closer look doesn't improve matters either.
"I hardly think the US would do this if there was a real proliferation risk."
Personally I don't put that much faith in US foriegn policy. The way I see it the US, Australia and a few others want to monopolise nuclear fuel production because they think it will be a big part of 'clean' energy over the next 50-100yrs. They claim that they are doing this because they are 'responsible' nations but how this "responsibility' is determined is beyond my understanding.
These kind of patronising schemes have everything to do with money and nothing to do with slowing proliferation or carbon emmisions. With the blessing of the US, Australia is now planning to sell fuel to India (a non-signatory of the NPT) and Russia - Russia supplies Iran (who have signed the NPT) with fuel for the Iranian recator built by Russia.
Iran also has commercially viable deposits of uranium ore and want to make thier own fuel (as agreed under the NPT), thus the centrifuges and the associated crocodile tears from the US Administration.
"I'd want solid evidence"
Yeah, Science will print any crackpot theory...oh wait...dammit...I've conflated Slashdot and Science, again! Second time this week...
You do realise that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all belive in the SAME God, don't you? Hindus won't argue with any of them, they just add Abraham's God to their vast collection of gods.
Islam does not have a monopoly on evil shit anymore or less than Christianity does. To belive otherwise is to fall for the religious propoganda that encourages said evil shit.
"Of course it is irrational to believe in god."
Yes but you missed the point, it's also irrational to belive the opposite.
I have nothing against someone claiming that the existance of god is irrelevant by use of occams razor but to state "there is no god" is a belief that is outside the realm of science.
"[lots of bad stuff done in the name of religion]...If that is your god, I don't want any of it."
Sorry I don't have any use for a god so I don't have one. However I don't deny others their gods, nor do I blame religion for the misdeeds of humans anymore than I blame science for nuking Hiroshima.
"Bring out the chestnut that it's our fault for having free will (we stole it from god?!)."
Actually I agree with Eienstien (about free will not god), to paraphrase: "Man cannot have free will because man cannot will what he wills".
"You prove things exist, you don't prove they don't exist. It's stupid and poor understanding of science to say otherwise."
Sorry but your the one with a misunderstanding of science. Science does not and never will 'prove' anything, what science gives you is the most consistent explaination.
The only honest answer to the question 'does god exist' is 'I don't know', the question is irrelevant to science and Atheists are barking up the wrong tree using science to prove their belief. Having said that other dogmatic statements such as 'the earth is 4kyr old' can be disproven by (say) demonstrating that the pyramids are 5ky old.
"To claim something you must have evidence, the bigger the claim, the more evidence." - Fixed.
Woosh!
Stalin tried to appear godlike to the people, he usurped religion by putting his own image in place of religious images, his picture replaced that of Jesus, Mary, FSM, etc, above the family mantlepiece. This propoganda worked so well that many people who died in the camps belived Stalin knew nothing of the camps and would come and rescue them.
"But many ills simply would not exist without fervent religious beliefs driving them."
People rationalise the horrors they commit and endure, religion is a very flexible excuse. Take away religion and people won't change their behaviour, they will simply find a different but equally flawed rationale for it.
Speaking of rationality, it is no more irrational to belive there is a god than it is to belive there isn't, neither stance can be disproven. Specific beliefs that can be tested (such as a 4ky old Earth, predictive power of the stars, etc) can be disproven, these things are called dogma and are not essential for a belief in god.
"How on earth can you conclude that something was not an attack on YATE by searching on Asterix?"
Well obviously if someone is claiming the editor is corrupt and deleted YATE because he had an interest in promoting Asterix, I would expect to see a page promoting Asterix. Otherwise how is the editor corrupt?
Anyway, as the AC below has pointed out the competing product is called Asterisk. Asterisk does indeed have a page on WP and this lends credibility to your story.
It wasn't flamebait it was deliberate hyperbole to get a response, like this...
"It got deleted by an editor who is tied with Asterix....it got downright deleted by someone with a very biased opinion."
Reading that I would expect a search of WP to turn up an elaborate page for Asterix (telephony), but it doesn't. I can only conclude the deletion was not a corrupt attack on your article, nor is WP biased against YATE in particular. Worst of all you have wasted my time with a wild goose chase.
BTW: This says nothing about the usefullness of a page on either product, or your wasted efforts in producing content.
A software package that rates 3 google hits? And you say your not just doing it for free adverstising?
Hear, hear, loose change we can belive in.
Don't get me wrong, education is no cure for a crappy personality, there are plenty of sloths and sycophants in academia. There are also the 'Ian Paisley" type reviewers who will put up rediculous objections that make it obvious to all they only skimmed the conclusion. Having said that, a half-hearted review by a semi-literate proffessor is still better than no review at all.
/rant
"I think there's room for improvement. Have people really ask questions and punch holes, note the questions and the defense and attach them to the theory, so people can see what questions have been asked and answered."
Yes, I agree that citations could be organised in a more usefull way. For a more fluid argument, sites moderated by practising scientists like this and this are becoming more common. Relating this back to the original point, if a degree only teaches you how to reseach a question it was worth the effort.
rant/
There is also the phenomena that when one has deep knowledge/insight/enthusiasim for a subject or procedure they tend to see others around them as incompetent, flippant or just plain crazy, others may see them as idealistic, pedantic or arrogant, neither 'side' is 100% correct.
No matter what the question, observation, or methodology, it is all ultimately based on one or more articles of faith. Once you realise that bit of philosophical trivia the question becomes: "What do I belive and why?". I belive in the philosophy of science because it's social implementation (the Frankenstien industrial revolution) has so far been usefull. Ironically I think the only way we can stop Frankenstien's shit from killing our garden is by the application of more science. On a more personal level accepting that the Universe 'just is' is a more elegant answer than 'God did it', neither POV is more liberating or correct than the other.
"Some beings are simply programs being executed, and some, the self aware, are programmers."
The self aware are simply subroutines with illusions of grandure, embrace the horror.
No, IIRC all the noble gasses are monoatomic.
I'm not from the UK but we have a similar system here in Oz. The ID cards are mainly to keep an eye on the providers, under the system the guy would not be refused treatment but the screw-up with records could be lethal. The only way to avoid such screw-ups with ANY medical records system is to talk to the patient, that's not always possible.
Your anecdote mearly shows doctors are humans that have a greater opportunity to cause harm by behaving like arrogant fucks.
Yes and peer-review of the standard practiced by Nature, Science, etc, will group people into those who have a deep knowlede the subject. Try this experiment, type a couple of words (eg: earth crystals) into google and then google scholar, note the different content.
Now tell me which list is more closely 'observing the real world'.
"And of course peer review is an infallible system. Newsflash, peer review is also a broken, sometimes works, often doesn't system."
Please stop putting words in my mouth to support your anti-science sentiments. I did not imply it was infallible, I implied it was the best we have.
Now here is a newsflash for you: Real life is messy.
"Just because someone has a degree does not elevate him above the rest of the people around him. It tells me just that he learned something. Whether that something is 'right' is up for debate."
Agreed!
"I agree that in a perfect world with perfect peers, a peer review would be the perfect way to discriminate between good and bad research."
It's a strawman to talk of perfection, since science specifically does not recognise that state of affairs (that's the 'up for debate' part). I don't think you are trying to mislead but it does appear that you have made this argument because of a lack of understanding of what science is and how it progresses. OTOH: If you have something better than peer-review, I'm all ears.
What do scientific credentials tell?
Would you prefer a mechanic or a lawyer to fix the cracked head on your car? If someone has a degree they are more likely to be up to date with what is considered 'right' and therefore more usefull to disprove. They could also be expected to understand why peer-review is important to the scientific method. (This of course only applies to science degrees)
"Most of the time, though, it just means that he agrees with the results"
You claim to have spent time at uni (implying scientific credentials) so I shouldn't need to tell you this: the whole point of the review is to (dis)agree with the results by examining the methodology.
"Could you tell me the difference between peer review and the moderation system that we have in, say, /.?"
In a few words, quality, reliability, track record. Just compare the scientific debate on AGW to the slashdot debate since 2000. I think it's fair to say the slash crowd were a bit slow to catch on.
However I do agree they are both good examples of how the 'peer-review' concept can work.
I agree, I don't think WP needs 'fixing'.
WP & scientific journals are two different tools that work together, attempting to take WP and turn it into a journal doesn't make a lot of sense.
"If you are over 30 and no breakthroughs has surfaced so far then likely they never will."
I have heard that argument before, and indeed it does seem that revolutionary ideas usually come at an early age, still there are plenty of exceptions such as Newton who wrote the principa at ~40.
I really don't think money aimed at 'picking winners' will have any effect on the rate of revolutionary ideas, they are 'once in a lifetime' bursts of inspiration. That's not to say that spending a bit of cash to encourage 'out of the box' thinking is a complete waste, but the money could also be spent helping the older 'second rate' scientists investigate the intersesting ideas that already pop up from unpredictable and diverse sources.
IIRC Maxwell's equations were largely ignored for ~80yrs, so if the aim is to distinguish revolutionary ideas from trivia and crackpots then spend the bulk of the money collecting and collating data and give it away to everyone.
The only thing 'better' is peer-review, but scince WP is an encylopedia and not a journal, I don't see the point.