Agreed, the last single I bought was over 30yrs ago, Leo Sayer - "Long Tall Glasses".
These days I prefer DVD's of live concerts. "Rattle and Hum" is a favorite of mine, during a rendition of "Sunday bloody Sunday" at a Boston concert Bono makes a short speech aimed at the Irish of Boston "who have not been home in 20yrs" and have asked him "how the revolution is going". His impassioned little speech ends with the words "fuck the revolution". At the time it was an incredibly brave thing for an Irish singer to publicly denounce the IRA and it's Bostonian backers, it's also the type of thing that will never be found on a "top ten" single.
All animals experience fear and pain, a calm cow is easy to handle and still just as tasty. I saw a doco once about a middle aged, mildly autistic woman who has made a fortune designing livestock yards and runs. She had spent time on a relatives farm and noticed a similarity between the things that scare her and calm her down and things that scare/calm cows.
Her talent was spotted when a company was thinking of scrapping it's yard and building a new one because the cows were constanly panicking. He thought the animals could sense their impending death, she overheard this and said "it's too dark", opened a roller door and the cows walked in calmly. Since then she has consulted to abitors and yards all over the US, one of her inventions is the "stairway to heaven", aparently cows prefer cow sized steps to the traditonal human centric ramps.
My point being, apart from the moral aspect of fear and pain there are also some sound economic reasons to pursue humane treatment.
On the subject of chimps, IMHO they deserve to be left in relative peace but for many that also means being left in captivity.
"Regulating breathing", interesting meme you have there but I don't think you thought it through from both sides. Oxygen makes up ~1/4 of the atmosphere, hypothetically if we somehow raised that figure significantly we would be in danger of incinerating the surface of the planet.
"Normally we think of pollution as something that poisons people in some way"
The word pollutant has lots of meanings to lots of people but it basically boils down to mean "something that is not supposed to be in a particular environment", for example water and sugar are both "pollutants" in your petrol tank.
Water vapour: You should read your link again, if you pump huge amounts of water vapour into the air it will simply rain a bit harder somewhere else (we sure would appreciate that here in Australia). Air at a specific presure and temprature holds a specific amount of water vapour. Water vapour takes ~10 days to cycle through the atmosphere and fall out as rain. The stability of the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere at any particular time certainly keeps us from freezing, however this stability means it cannot by itself change the climate, in other words, global humidity is determined by global climate.
Your post describes the traditional role of the "public service", the "service" they are supposed to provide to the "public" is to answer the quesetions of elected policy makers, "to report the facts without fear or favour". A "good" politician simply knows which questions to ask and which answers to advertise, a "bad" politician will repeatedly shoot the messengers until the "correct" answer arrives. SCOTUS is forcing the EPA to adhear to that tradition.
"If you were interested in the real world...Unfortunatly, scientists are more worried about getting an easy federal grant than they are about the long term future of science."
Every researcer knows that the "tooth fairy" is the one who funds the bulk of scientific research, the government is well down the list, below the "easter bunny", "santa" and "the back of a truck". The equation is brutally competitive, no sponsor = no science = no job, I am sure you will recognise the concept from your occasional trips to the "real world"./sarcasm
Come on mods, RTFA! SCOTUS is not so senile as to attempt to tell the EPA how to conduct science, they told them to do their fucking job and have given the states the legal standing to force them, (and one would assume all other federal agencies), to do so.
This decision emphatically supports the quaint little notion that "science informs politics". Regardless of what appears to be your own "dangerous" ignorance on the subject of climate science, arguing against the core message in this verdict is nothing short of anti-science drivel.
And WTF is with the abortion anaology, abortion is all about the individual, climate is all about our species.
"Ten years from now people will still be talking about Star Wars, Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes, and pretty much everything else on the list. Serenity won't even be a foot note."
I second that! I am a middle-aged geek who has enjoyed SF for the best part of five decades, my mental list of "favorites" is long, I estimate my "forgotten" list is at least an order or two of magnitude longer. "Serenity", vaugely I've heard of it but before RTFA I thought it was a phyco-drama, it's been available for what? - A year or so?
In fairness to the slashvertisement I will give it a go.
I think the point Gore was trying to make is that the tobbaco companies spent decades obfuscating and falsifying the science that "connected the dots" between tabacco and cancer, but there came a point for his farther when he could no longer (in good conscience) accept the innane arguments of the tabacco lobbyists.
Now in the above sentence substitute "fossil fuel" for "tabacco" and "climate change" for "cancer", it still makes sense.
The second hand smoke "connection" (I don't know of a quote) could be a somewhat obscure reference to a prominent tabacco lobbyists. A certain Fred Singer, who after loosing the good fight to preserve our freedom to blow smoke in someone else's face, went on to perform similar "scientific" duties for the fossil fuel industry in thier global war on common sense. It's also worth noting that in the 90's Gore fought hard for envronmental laws regulating second hand smoke, laws that have now become a part of common courtesy in western culture.
From my vanatge point on the other side of the Pacific, Gore strikes me as a nerd in a suit trying to educate a bunch of rednecks who are busy flinging turds at him and his slide show.
**Me: Removes tin foil hat***
OTOH: As you pointed out, there is also a fitting analogy where climate science is viewed as a medical diagnosis/prognosis.
"Or his ludicrous suggestion that we only have 10 years to turn things around, or it will be too late"
This "ludicrous suggestion" can also be attributed to James Hansen, Hansen is a world renown scientist who is the head of a government department you may have come across while checking Gore's facts. Naturally this kind of "minor" political interference has nothing to do with the funding for monitoring the biosphere being redirected to putting a couple of daiper wearing adults onto the surface of Mars.
The senario you "paraphrased" for sea level rise - It was made clear by Gore he was refering to the "worst case" senario, I suggest you have not watched the presentation or maybe the cavetes somehow eluded you.
I am not so sure it is a joke, sometime during the last couple of weeks I saw a "slashdot it" link alongside a "digg it" link on some site I was visiting. Not knowing or caring much about digg I thought both logo's were peculiar to the site. When I saw the same/similar logo on the summary I thought to myself "oh, so it is slashdot's logo after all", yet I read the comments and find people implying the logo is a dig at digg (so to speak).
So basically I'm confused, is "slashdot it" a genuine logo? I have tried to find the "prior art" again to check the spelling but have had no luck.
Judging by your lack of empathy, you are quite possibly Autistic. It's quite simple really, "no man is an island", however your post lends weight to the argument that you are "no man".
"Where's my government check for not being a burden on the rest of the country?"
On the contrary, the illogical, whinny, callous expressions of greed and selfishness so eloquently portrayed in your post is definitely a burden, not only for your fellow contrymen but for humanity as a whole.
Pity you were moderated as a troll, I belive your post is a genuine reflection of your opinion, (actually it's someone else's opinion but that discussion is best left for another post). I do agree with one point in your post, it is futile to attempt to (dis)prove god's existance, the question is irrelevant on all but a personal scale.
"Evolution has been forced on and indoctrinated into youth today and yet these figures seem to show that young adults are growing up with a faith in a higher power. Interesting that no matter how much science you push on somebody, people still see the beauty and power that surrounds everything in the scientific world that is not definable by any empirical means."
Try reading Unweaving the rainbow by Richard Dawkins (a rabid Atheist), the title comes from Keats accusation that Newton had somehow destroyed the poetic beauty of the rainbow with his prisims. Contrary to what Keats wrote, Newton's insights into the nature of light have inspired wonder for centuries and have given the poets more (not less) to write about. Like myself Dawkins despises this condesending attitude (held by many religious people) that posits it is the sole preserve of the faithfull to see, (and feel), awe inspiring beauty in the world that surrounds them.
Similarly I despise the notion that science is out to crush the thrill of life by "looking behind the curtain". Science does not dampen the sense of "religious awe" you are eluding to, if this is your experience of science then you have missed the point. Science relies on, promotes and extends that feeling of wonder to other worlds that we didn't even know existed, it strips away unimaginative superstitions and confronts arrogant minds that cling to the false notion that: given a sufficent measure of "faith" philosphy can somehow define reality.
"There is only one truth and being "open" to other ideas is completely contrary to having faith."
An unwavering belief in one particular interpretation of one chapter in the Bible that runs contrary to the evidence of one's "god given" perceptions and logic is refered to as "dogma". It should not be confused with "faith in a higher power". Dogma is neither science nor faith, it is a cancer that attacks the mind and soul, robing it's victims of their "god given" curiosity to explore, delight in, and worship the mircale that we mere mortals call "the Universe".
"Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst."
That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?
BTW: Don't get me wrong, I agree that all politcians use and abuse dogma but the current US Administration has had way too many public spats with their own scientific advisers to ignore (and I live on the other side of the pacific ocean!!!).
Yes, but one of them came first. A company that has LAN problems does not get much done and if it happens regularly you will find your users wandering off on "LAN breaks", managers will attempt to charge the IT dept for down time, ect, frustration levels rise, experienced sysadmins are like rats on a sinking ship, and morale suffers.
Like it or not the GP is correct, IT policy is a matter of coporate "self preservation". LAN policy must be enforced from the top down with the same rigour as financial policy.
I think the part about controling fits is very vaugue, I read "sponsor bait" or to be more polite speculation. Overall I think TFA gave the impression they are planning to use it to non-invasively investigate "circuits" in the hope of creating a device that can predict and prevent a fit with the minimum of intervention.
The news (to me) in the story is a non-invasive tool that can "flip" individual neurons into a binary on/off state in a controlled manner. I don't know what current "tools" are capable of, nor their level of invasiveness, but it seems to me a wetware debbuging tool such as this could lead to an explosion of knowlage that would make it worthy of a Nobel prize in the not too distant future.
Having said that, AFAIK indivdual neurons are not binary, their activity level is mesured as a "frequency". It would be interesting to know if the neuron's firing frequency can be controlled with more resolution than the simple on/off implied in TFA.
"the government is becoming more and more socialist"
I think the word you are looking for is fascist, I also think the behaviour is restricted to a powerfull minority that has fallen out of favour with the US public in the last year or so. We have seen similar political mood changes here in Australia.
"What you are confusing is atheism and what we might call 'anti-theism'. The first is absense of a belief, the second is positive belief or faith in an absense. They are certainly not the same thing."
Hmmm, I looked it up with a google "define: atheism" and got this from princeton (top of the list)...
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. (your "anti-theism")
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (your "atheisim")
While I agree they are not the "same thing", I think it's fairly clear there are two sub-categories of atheist, I think I can safely say my comment implies type #1, at the very least the word "know" should have given the reader a strong clue.
"This is unclear thinking, and philosophically empty."
I see your insult and raise you a snarky remark about your comprehension skills and Horatio.;)
Philosophy is more than a bad car analogy my freind.
Put another way it requires faith to "know" god does or does not exist, "I don't know but I believe XYZ" is the only intellectually honest answer anyone can give to the question of god's existance.
In the everyday world this boils down to a redundant god (or gods) since the expression "the Universe just is" is functionally identical to "god just is".
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, the last single I bought was over 30yrs ago, Leo Sayer - "Long Tall Glasses".
These days I prefer DVD's of live concerts. "Rattle and Hum" is a favorite of mine, during a rendition of "Sunday bloody Sunday" at a Boston concert Bono makes a short speech aimed at the Irish of Boston "who have not been home in 20yrs" and have asked him "how the revolution is going". His impassioned little speech ends with the words "fuck the revolution". At the time it was an incredibly brave thing for an Irish singer to publicly denounce the IRA and it's Bostonian backers, it's also the type of thing that will never be found on a "top ten" single.
All animals experience fear and pain, a calm cow is easy to handle and still just as tasty. I saw a doco once about a middle aged, mildly autistic woman who has made a fortune designing livestock yards and runs. She had spent time on a relatives farm and noticed a similarity between the things that scare her and calm her down and things that scare/calm cows.
Her talent was spotted when a company was thinking of scrapping it's yard and building a new one because the cows were constanly panicking. He thought the animals could sense their impending death, she overheard this and said "it's too dark", opened a roller door and the cows walked in calmly. Since then she has consulted to abitors and yards all over the US, one of her inventions is the "stairway to heaven", aparently cows prefer cow sized steps to the traditonal human centric ramps.
My point being, apart from the moral aspect of fear and pain there are also some sound economic reasons to pursue humane treatment.
On the subject of chimps, IMHO they deserve to be left in relative peace but for many that also means being left in captivity.
"Regulating breathing", interesting meme you have there but I don't think you thought it through from both sides. Oxygen makes up ~1/4 of the atmosphere, hypothetically if we somehow raised that figure significantly we would be in danger of incinerating the surface of the planet.
"Normally we think of pollution as something that poisons people in some way"
The word pollutant has lots of meanings to lots of people but it basically boils down to mean "something that is not supposed to be in a particular environment", for example water and sugar are both "pollutants" in your petrol tank.
Water vapour: You should read your link again, if you pump huge amounts of water vapour into the air it will simply rain a bit harder somewhere else (we sure would appreciate that here in Australia). Air at a specific presure and temprature holds a specific amount of water vapour. Water vapour takes ~10 days to cycle through the atmosphere and fall out as rain. The stability of the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere at any particular time certainly keeps us from freezing, however this stability means it cannot by itself change the climate, in other words, global humidity is determined by global climate.
Your post describes the traditional role of the "public service", the "service" they are supposed to provide to the "public" is to answer the quesetions of elected policy makers, "to report the facts without fear or favour". A "good" politician simply knows which questions to ask and which answers to advertise, a "bad" politician will repeatedly shoot the messengers until the "correct" answer arrives. SCOTUS is forcing the EPA to adhear to that tradition.
/sarcasm
"If you were interested in the real world...Unfortunatly, scientists are more worried about getting an easy federal grant than they are about the long term future of science."
Every researcer knows that the "tooth fairy" is the one who funds the bulk of scientific research, the government is well down the list, below the "easter bunny", "santa" and "the back of a truck". The equation is brutally competitive, no sponsor = no science = no job, I am sure you will recognise the concept from your occasional trips to the "real world".
Half the devices on the list use solid state drives and/or USB, neither are mentioned but for some odd reason zip drives are in there.
You mentioned lock-stock, now I have to watch it!
Come on mods, RTFA! SCOTUS is not so senile as to attempt to tell the EPA how to conduct science, they told them to do their fucking job and have given the states the legal standing to force them, (and one would assume all other federal agencies), to do so.
This decision emphatically supports the quaint little notion that "science informs politics". Regardless of what appears to be your own "dangerous" ignorance on the subject of climate science, arguing against the core message in this verdict is nothing short of anti-science drivel.
And WTF is with the abortion anaology, abortion is all about the individual, climate is all about our species.
"Ten years from now people will still be talking about Star Wars, Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes, and pretty much everything else on the list. Serenity won't even be a foot note."
I second that! I am a middle-aged geek who has enjoyed SF for the best part of five decades, my mental list of "favorites" is long, I estimate my "forgotten" list is at least an order or two of magnitude longer. "Serenity", vaugely I've heard of it but before RTFA I thought it was a phyco-drama, it's been available for what? - A year or so?
In fairness to the slashvertisement I will give it a go.
Ahmen brother! :)
**Me: Adjusts tin foil hat***
I think the point Gore was trying to make is that the tobbaco companies spent decades obfuscating and falsifying the science that "connected the dots" between tabacco and cancer, but there came a point for his farther when he could no longer (in good conscience) accept the innane arguments of the tabacco lobbyists.
Now in the above sentence substitute "fossil fuel" for "tabacco" and "climate change" for "cancer", it still makes sense.
The second hand smoke "connection" (I don't know of a quote) could be a somewhat obscure reference to a prominent tabacco lobbyists. A certain Fred Singer, who after loosing the good fight to preserve our freedom to blow smoke in someone else's face, went on to perform similar "scientific" duties for the fossil fuel industry in thier global war on common sense. It's also worth noting that in the 90's Gore fought hard for envronmental laws regulating second hand smoke, laws that have now become a part of common courtesy in western culture.
From my vanatge point on the other side of the Pacific, Gore strikes me as a nerd in a suit trying to educate a bunch of rednecks who are busy flinging turds at him and his slide show.
**Me: Removes tin foil hat***
OTOH: As you pointed out, there is also a fitting analogy where climate science is viewed as a medical diagnosis/prognosis.
"Or his ludicrous suggestion that we only have 10 years to turn things around, or it will be too late"
This "ludicrous suggestion" can also be attributed to James Hansen, Hansen is a world renown scientist who is the head of a government department you may have come across while checking Gore's facts. Naturally this kind of "minor" political interference has nothing to do with the funding for monitoring the biosphere being redirected to putting a couple of daiper wearing adults onto the surface of Mars.
The senario you "paraphrased" for sea level rise - It was made clear by Gore he was refering to the "worst case" senario, I suggest you have not watched the presentation or maybe the cavetes somehow eluded you.
Al Gore has science firmly on his side even if some of his speculation proves incorrect.
I am not so sure it is a joke, sometime during the last couple of weeks I saw a "slashdot it" link alongside a "digg it" link on some site I was visiting. Not knowing or caring much about digg I thought both logo's were peculiar to the site. When I saw the same/similar logo on the summary I thought to myself "oh, so it is slashdot's logo after all", yet I read the comments and find people implying the logo is a dig at digg (so to speak).
So basically I'm confused, is "slashdot it" a genuine logo? I have tried to find the "prior art" again to check the spelling but have had no luck.
"I don't understand..."
Judging by your lack of empathy, you are quite possibly Autistic. It's quite simple really, "no man is an island", however your post lends weight to the argument that you are "no man".
"Where's my government check for not being a burden on the rest of the country?"
On the contrary, the illogical, whinny, callous expressions of greed and selfishness so eloquently portrayed in your post is definitely a burden, not only for your fellow contrymen but for humanity as a whole.
Pity you were moderated as a troll, I belive your post is a genuine reflection of your opinion, (actually it's someone else's opinion but that discussion is best left for another post). I do agree with one point in your post, it is futile to attempt to (dis)prove god's existance, the question is irrelevant on all but a personal scale.
"Evolution has been forced on and indoctrinated into youth today and yet these figures seem to show that young adults are growing up with a faith in a higher power. Interesting that no matter how much science you push on somebody, people still see the beauty and power that surrounds everything in the scientific world that is not definable by any empirical means."
Try reading Unweaving the rainbow by Richard Dawkins (a rabid Atheist), the title comes from Keats accusation that Newton had somehow destroyed the poetic beauty of the rainbow with his prisims. Contrary to what Keats wrote, Newton's insights into the nature of light have inspired wonder for centuries and have given the poets more (not less) to write about. Like myself Dawkins despises this condesending attitude (held by many religious people) that posits it is the sole preserve of the faithfull to see, (and feel), awe inspiring beauty in the world that surrounds them.
Similarly I despise the notion that science is out to crush the thrill of life by "looking behind the curtain". Science does not dampen the sense of "religious awe" you are eluding to, if this is your experience of science then you have missed the point. Science relies on, promotes and extends that feeling of wonder to other worlds that we didn't even know existed, it strips away unimaginative superstitions and confronts arrogant minds that cling to the false notion that: given a sufficent measure of "faith" philosphy can somehow define reality.
"There is only one truth and being "open" to other ideas is completely contrary to having faith."
An unwavering belief in one particular interpretation of one chapter in the Bible that runs contrary to the evidence of one's "god given" perceptions and logic is refered to as "dogma". It should not be confused with "faith in a higher power". Dogma is neither science nor faith, it is a cancer that attacks the mind and soul, robing it's victims of their "god given" curiosity to explore, delight in, and worship the mircale that we mere mortals call "the Universe".
"Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst."
That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?
BTW: Don't get me wrong, I agree that all politcians use and abuse dogma but the current US Administration has had way too many public spats with their own scientific advisers to ignore (and I live on the other side of the pacific ocean!!!).
"No morale = no security."
Yes, but one of them came first. A company that has LAN problems does not get much done and if it happens regularly you will find your users wandering off on "LAN breaks", managers will attempt to charge the IT dept for down time, ect, frustration levels rise, experienced sysadmins are like rats on a sinking ship, and morale suffers.
Like it or not the GP is correct, IT policy is a matter of coporate "self preservation". LAN policy must be enforced from the top down with the same rigour as financial policy.
Have you heard the term "cheap labour capitalists", or in their case "slave" labour capitialists.
I think the part about controling fits is very vaugue, I read "sponsor bait" or to be more polite speculation. Overall I think TFA gave the impression they are planning to use it to non-invasively investigate "circuits" in the hope of creating a device that can predict and prevent a fit with the minimum of intervention.
The news (to me) in the story is a non-invasive tool that can "flip" individual neurons into a binary on/off state in a controlled manner. I don't know what current "tools" are capable of, nor their level of invasiveness, but it seems to me a wetware debbuging tool such as this could lead to an explosion of knowlage that would make it worthy of a Nobel prize in the not too distant future.
Having said that, AFAIK indivdual neurons are not binary, their activity level is mesured as a "frequency". It would be interesting to know if the neuron's firing frequency can be controlled with more resolution than the simple on/off implied in TFA.
"I was really not trying to insult - I was trying to point out that some arguments in this area don't achieve anything and lead nowhere."
Insult is the wrong word. And I agree that arguments about god's existance are, as another post put it, "mental masterbation".
"the government is becoming more and more socialist"
I think the word you are looking for is fascist, I also think the behaviour is restricted to a powerfull minority that has fallen out of favour with the US public in the last year or so. We have seen similar political mood changes here in Australia.
"What you are confusing is atheism and what we might call 'anti-theism'. The first is absense of a belief, the second is positive belief or faith in an absense. They are certainly not the same thing."
;)
Hmmm, I looked it up with a google "define: atheism" and got this from princeton (top of the list)...
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. (your "anti-theism")
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (your "atheisim")
While I agree they are not the "same thing", I think it's fairly clear there are two sub-categories of atheist, I think I can safely say my comment implies type #1, at the very least the word "know" should have given the reader a strong clue.
"This is unclear thinking, and philosophically empty."
I see your insult and raise you a snarky remark about your comprehension skills and Horatio.
If space junk doesn't get his attention, tell him the sky is falling!
Commandments hung in the robot church...
10 SIN
20 GOTO HELL
Philosophy is more than a bad car analogy my freind.
Put another way it requires faith to "know" god does or does not exist, "I don't know but I believe XYZ" is the only intellectually honest answer anyone can give to the question of god's existance.
In the everyday world this boils down to a redundant god (or gods) since the expression "the Universe just is" is functionally identical to "god just is".