"It is similar to what happens in countries like the Netherlands (or other nordic countries) where people *avoid* pay rises because sometimes having a rise of 10% they have to pay more taxes and end earning less than what they earned before the "raise"."
That's an urban myth for people who employ other people who don't understand tax brackets. You can never lose money by increasing your pay unless the higher bracket is taxed at greater than 100%. I seriously doubt that is the case, anywhere!
They attack this problem in Australia (and other places) by taxing the organiser of the lottery, all advertised prizes are for the "after tax" value, if it says "First prize: $1M" and you win, you get $1M. The taxman doesn't hassle you because he took his cut before you got your cheque. Not sure how you would go if you won a foriegn lottery?
OTOH: Get a $50K reward from Loyds of London for bravery (of the "are you insane" variety) that saved an oil tanker from sliming the costline near Perth and you will have to pay tax as if it was additional income for that year, ie: the taxman will take 30-50%.
And you are correct. I didn't intend to be argumentative, I was expressing what I think the law should be in light of the government's stated "values".
What someone chooses to put in their body should not be of any interest to a goverment that trumpets freedom as it's highest moral value. Off course that changes when it impacts other people, eg: drink driving, and this is where that other touted "moral standard" of personal responsibility comes into the picture.
"Science is by definition data. Data is independent of consensus."
Science: observation + theory => testable prediction, rinse and repeat. Data is a measurement of the "real world", the "real world" and how to "measure" it is defined by consensus. You are evading the point.
"Plato isn't an authority on anything, not even Platonism."
I didn't say Plato was an authority I said the Platonic concept has authority because of it's durability, re-read it.
"I talk to people who don't get their names in the papers."
I suppose that would include me. How about addressing what I said rather than posting a page full of non-sequiters.
"Reality is what happens whether you believe in it or not"
Yes and Plato is credited with the idea that what the consensus of human minds call reality, is what happens whether you believe in it or not.
Your initial claim that there is "no such thing as science by consensus" is bogus, science is by definiton an evolving consensus. Just ask Bucky Fuller, Linus Pauling and Hans Selye next time you bump into them.
"There is no such thing as science by consensus or by authority."
On the contrary, the philosophy that is the cornerstone of science is credited to Plato and has the "authority" of passing 2400+yrs of scrutiny. This philosophy was later sumed up nicely by Decartes with the simple statement, "I think therefore I am", in it's most recent incarnation the concept is known as "The matrix".
The founding concept of science litterally means that: not only is science "by consensus", but ANY discussion about "the real world" can only ever be "by consensus".
"Galileo was right, even though he stood virtually alone."
He was right about many things but it could be argued that publicly ridiculing the pope was not one of them. He also did not stand alone, as Newton said, he "stood on the shoulders of giants". He also had more concrete support in the form of the influenece and finances of the Medici family who were very gratefull for the acurate cannons and new fangled spy glasses that enabled them to spot merchant ships before any of their competitors.
"And I'm really not sure you understand my position at all in any case."
Probably not and sincerely don't mean to imply you have any ill intentions. However as I have shown you above your understanding of science and skeptcisim is not as solid as you think it is. Without trying to sound patronising I have held a BSc for ~20yrs and taught at university level, there is an excellent book by Carl Sagan that covers skepticisim and the scientific method in a readable and entertaining way.
"I happen to believe that [the universe is pointless] is the single most insightful thing I have ever said here. There would be a lot less needless human pain and suffering in this world if people would only bear that in mind, not more."
Yes that is a profound insight, but often it's used as a rationale for selfishness, waste and greed. I prefer another insight that says a pointless universe does not imply a meaningless life.
I don't vouch for any particular scheme, but I'm not swallowing the magic "sequestration" pill either.
"Without wrecking every economy in the world and more or less completely stopping third world development"
To malign climate models and then proffer far less robust economic models as justification to do nothing is bordering on religious dogma. Friedman's economic model has two major logical holes, it assumes resources are unlimited and polution is "someone else's problem", both assumptions are clearly false.
Oh and BTW, China and India are "developing" nations, the "third world" use most of thier energy wandering around the desert looking for food and water.
"But I try not to let my druthers make me stupid. I do not go assigning blame for things I don't like to bad things that are happening without some sort of evidence that they are actually causal."
"You may be the center of your universe, but that doesn't imply that you are the center of the universe."
There is no reason to behave like a jerk simply because everything is utimately pointless. If everone decided to "go bush" tommorow, the "bush" would be a desert filled with rotting corpses and starving people within three months.
Yes, yes, McDork, we've heard it from you before. My question to you is still the same: Why don't you put up or shut up? If you are so convinced your a genius who can spot a flaw that thousands of papers have missed, do the science yourself and grab that Nobel, what are you waiting for?
"Could it be..."
No it couldn't, the energy comes from outside the "blanket", ie: the sun. As you yourself are constantly reminding us!
Your constant drivel and contradictory posts put you in the same class as a rabid creationist.
This post was an anti-troll public service announcement.
I agree! Not only that, joe sixpack buys his PC at the department store pre-laden with free trials and nag screens for firewalls, virus scanners, extended warrantees, computer courses, ect, until the thing boot's up at the same speed as the space shuttle. When it does finally boot-up, shit pops up all over the place asking the to sign forms, ect. If they RTFM (and are lucky enough to have picked the correct one from the 10 available), it looks nothing like it. Yet these same people buy self-assembled furniture, pre-fab garden sheds, plug-n-play home theaters, and other such "puzzles" from the same store and have no on going problems.
I can't count the number of people I have helped just sign up for the "pre-installed" ISP and get them on the net in the first place. They aren't "content", they complain to the store, then to the ISP, then just leave it in a corner until someone like me "fixes it" and shows them around the net. Sometimes they live with adware because they don't know how to clean it off but this doesn't mean they are not fucked off that they can't trust the thing to do their banking (as adevertised).
Blaming average users because someone is screwing them over is arrogance of the highest order, it's amounts to condeming the victims - a very ugly attitude in my books.
The "opposite to complex" remark was tounge in cheek. You are free to disect the word simple and conclude Ocamm's razor is a whore, but most people recognise simplicity when they see it, just as most people recognise great art when they see it.
Simplicity is about form and function, it is an "art", and it's an art well worth learning.
"Also, circling is the vulture of impossibility.. where a prize is offered to accomplish an impossible task.. resulting in complete waste of resources."
"...those who take advantage of the opportunities presented to them in western society tend to reproduce at a much lower rate than those who get hammered and start breeding while the more capable are still in education"
I understand what you are saying and largely agree but I kind of object to the "more capable" tag, perhaps "more mature", "more fortunate", "more materialistic" or just plain "wiser".
Wisdom and comfort are the twin goals of many humans, and often the reason for desiring wisdom is that it's seen as a path to comfort. Evolution does not have goals, it has survivours called "genes" who's lineage goes back billions of years, these "genes" are actually just patterns of interacting atoms originally created in exploding stars. "Strong people", "loyal people", "pious people", "educated people", ect, are the result of conceptual tools that humans use for dealing with each other, the deep rooted tribal tendencies found in our genectic makeup appeared long before our particular species did.
"....but really stop running yourselves down, have a shower and go out and breed people!"
I did that while my "more capable" friends finished high school, some went all the way into thier thirties totally clueless about kids or the value of a buck. I am now 47, my youngest is 21 and is getting married next year. Having worn collars of both colurs for a minimum of 15yrs I can attest that a good education can buy you time via a healthy paypack, intellectual satisfaction via interesting work, and the comfort of not fighting the checkout-chick to the death over a 50 cent overcharge. Personally, formal education doesn't rate highly with me in a relationship - after all, even the most "retarded" red-neck can teach you something.
"Ottawa is the stupidest, most horrible, most backwards, most desolate, and most erroneously self-important shithole I've ever been to. Look at the layout of the city - tell me how it was possible to make every trip in this city so circuitous?"
Since when is pointing out a broken link a Troll? Did I miss a memo somewhere? Did the mod try the link? Are the details NOT missing? Is there another reference in TFA that shows where this work has been "published".
Not to put too fine a point on it but there IS a noticeable difference in credibility between an article in nature and an article in New Scientist, also "articles" are not the same as "peer-reviewed papers".
My guess is the mod is an anti-science freak who didn't like my oblique reference to AGW.
Experiments show that a car moves without an invisable pink elephant. Occam's razor says dump the elephant, even though IPE's may move cars, IPE's are not required to move any car known to science.
Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation between competing theories that give identical results, it does not gaurentee the chosen theory is the simplest explanation possible.
BTW The definition of "simple" is the opposite of complex, AFAIK complexity can be measured in complex ways.
From TFA: "In an article appearing in the journal Nature, Ehrlich describes..."
Click the nature link and you end up at NewScientist.
Even if this guy has a viable mechanisim for his "dimmer switch", I can't see that it has any implications for our current climate problems. Wake me up again iff someone finds an abstract.
It's like a kid I went to school with in the 60's who's natural measure of worth was "pairs of footy boots", (eg: a new bike was worth X pairs of footy boots). I think the ipod index says more about the guy who thought it up than it does about exchanges rates.
I'm in Victoria, it's quite likely NSW has different building codes. I rented for ~15yrs, the rental market sucks for renters now like it did in the mid eighties. The housing bubble is leaking if not popping, rents for decent accomodation should be more reasonable in a few years time. Negative gearing has a habit of becoming too negative when landlords price themselves out of the market and have to move back into their own place while the bank holds a morgagees auction on the other house.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is similar to what happens in countries like the Netherlands (or other nordic countries) where people *avoid* pay rises because sometimes having a rise of 10% they have to pay more taxes and end earning less than what they earned before the "raise"."
That's an urban myth for people who employ other people who don't understand tax brackets. You can never lose money by increasing your pay unless the higher bracket is taxed at greater than 100%. I seriously doubt that is the case, anywhere!
They attack this problem in Australia (and other places) by taxing the organiser of the lottery, all advertised prizes are for the "after tax" value, if it says "First prize: $1M" and you win, you get $1M. The taxman doesn't hassle you because he took his cut before you got your cheque. Not sure how you would go if you won a foriegn lottery?
OTOH: Get a $50K reward from Loyds of London for bravery (of the "are you insane" variety) that saved an oil tanker from sliming the costline near Perth and you will have to pay tax as if it was additional income for that year, ie: the taxman will take 30-50%.
And you are correct. I didn't intend to be argumentative, I was expressing what I think the law should be in light of the government's stated "values".
What someone chooses to put in their body should not be of any interest to a goverment that trumpets freedom as it's highest moral value. Off course that changes when it impacts other people, eg: drink driving, and this is where that other touted "moral standard" of personal responsibility comes into the picture.
"Science is by definition data. Data is independent of consensus."
Science: observation + theory => testable prediction, rinse and repeat. Data is a measurement of the "real world", the "real world" and how to "measure" it is defined by consensus. You are evading the point.
"Plato isn't an authority on anything, not even Platonism."
I didn't say Plato was an authority I said the Platonic concept has authority because of it's durability, re-read it.
"I talk to people who don't get their names in the papers."
I suppose that would include me. How about addressing what I said rather than posting a page full of non-sequiters.
"Reality is what happens whether you believe in it or not"
Yes and Plato is credited with the idea that what the consensus of human minds call reality, is what happens whether you believe in it or not.
Your initial claim that there is "no such thing as science by consensus" is bogus, science is by definiton an evolving consensus. Just ask Bucky Fuller, Linus Pauling and Hans Selye next time you bump into them.
"A busted theory is one that doesn't match reality."
I couldn't agree more. "The electric universe" has been busted, changing it's name to "the plasma universe" won't help.
Are you still stalking me Tina?
"The IPCC is not the horse."
I beg to differ, read on...
"There is no such thing as science by consensus or by authority."
On the contrary, the philosophy that is the cornerstone of science is credited to Plato and has the "authority" of passing 2400+yrs of scrutiny. This philosophy was later sumed up nicely by Decartes with the simple statement, "I think therefore I am", in it's most recent incarnation the concept is known as "The matrix".
The founding concept of science litterally means that: not only is science "by consensus", but ANY discussion about "the real world" can only ever be "by consensus".
"Galileo was right, even though he stood virtually alone."
He was right about many things but it could be argued that publicly ridiculing the pope was not one of them. He also did not stand alone, as Newton said, he "stood on the shoulders of giants". He also had more concrete support in the form of the influenece and finances of the Medici family who were very gratefull for the acurate cannons and new fangled spy glasses that enabled them to spot merchant ships before any of their competitors.
"And I'm really not sure you understand my position at all in any case."
Probably not and sincerely don't mean to imply you have any ill intentions. However as I have shown you above your understanding of science and skeptcisim is not as solid as you think it is. Without trying to sound patronising I have held a BSc for ~20yrs and taught at university level, there is an excellent book by Carl Sagan that covers skepticisim and the scientific method in a readable and entertaining way.
"I happen to believe that [the universe is pointless] is the single most insightful thing I have ever said here. There would be a lot less needless human pain and suffering in this world if people would only bear that in mind, not more."
Yes that is a profound insight, but often it's used as a rationale for selfishness, waste and greed. I prefer another insight that says a pointless universe does not imply a meaningless life.
I don't vouch for any particular scheme, but I'm not swallowing the magic "sequestration" pill either.
"Without wrecking every economy in the world and more or less completely stopping third world development"
To malign climate models and then proffer far less robust economic models as justification to do nothing is bordering on religious dogma. Friedman's economic model has two major logical holes, it assumes resources are unlimited and polution is "someone else's problem", both assumptions are clearly false.
Oh and BTW, China and India are "developing" nations, the "third world" use most of thier energy wandering around the desert looking for food and water.
"But I try not to let my druthers make me stupid. I do not go assigning blame for things I don't like to bad things that are happening without some sort of evidence that they are actually causal."
From the horse's mouth.
"You may be the center of your universe, but that doesn't imply that you are the center of the universe."
There is no reason to behave like a jerk simply because everything is utimately pointless. If everone decided to "go bush" tommorow, the "bush" would be a desert filled with rotting corpses and starving people within three months.
"I have a question for you global warmers... "
Yes, yes, McDork, we've heard it from you before. My question to you is still the same: Why don't you put up or shut up? If you are so convinced your a genius who can spot a flaw that thousands of papers have missed, do the science yourself and grab that Nobel, what are you waiting for?
"Could it be..."
No it couldn't, the energy comes from outside the "blanket", ie: the sun. As you yourself are constantly reminding us!
Your constant drivel and contradictory posts put you in the same class as a rabid creationist.
This post was an anti-troll public service announcement.
"For starters, I don't "want" anything"
Heh, my ex used to say that all the time.
If you belive popularity polls, Georgre is the dinosaur.
I agree! Not only that, joe sixpack buys his PC at the department store pre-laden with free trials and nag screens for firewalls, virus scanners, extended warrantees, computer courses, ect, until the thing boot's up at the same speed as the space shuttle. When it does finally boot-up, shit pops up all over the place asking the to sign forms, ect. If they RTFM (and are lucky enough to have picked the correct one from the 10 available), it looks nothing like it. Yet these same people buy self-assembled furniture, pre-fab garden sheds, plug-n-play home theaters, and other such "puzzles" from the same store and have no on going problems.
I can't count the number of people I have helped just sign up for the "pre-installed" ISP and get them on the net in the first place. They aren't "content", they complain to the store, then to the ISP, then just leave it in a corner until someone like me "fixes it" and shows them around the net. Sometimes they live with adware because they don't know how to clean it off but this doesn't mean they are not fucked off that they can't trust the thing to do their banking (as adevertised).
Blaming average users because someone is screwing them over is arrogance of the highest order, it's amounts to condeming the victims - a very ugly attitude in my books.
The "opposite to complex" remark was tounge in cheek. You are free to disect the word simple and conclude Ocamm's razor is a whore, but most people recognise simplicity when they see it, just as most people recognise great art when they see it.
Simplicity is about form and function, it is an "art", and it's an art well worth learning.
"Also, circling is the vulture of impossibility .. where a prize is offered to accomplish an impossible task .. resulting in complete waste of resources."
On the contrary, a prize is offered to accomplish an impossible task, can be of great educational value.
"...those who take advantage of the opportunities presented to them in western society tend to reproduce at a much lower rate than those who get hammered and start breeding while the more capable are still in education"
I understand what you are saying and largely agree but I kind of object to the "more capable" tag, perhaps "more mature", "more fortunate", "more materialistic" or just plain "wiser".
Wisdom and comfort are the twin goals of many humans, and often the reason for desiring wisdom is that it's seen as a path to comfort. Evolution does not have goals, it has survivours called "genes" who's lineage goes back billions of years, these "genes" are actually just patterns of interacting atoms originally created in exploding stars. "Strong people", "loyal people", "pious people", "educated people", ect, are the result of conceptual tools that humans use for dealing with each other, the deep rooted tribal tendencies found in our genectic makeup appeared long before our particular species did.
"....but really stop running yourselves down, have a shower and go out and breed people!"
I did that while my "more capable" friends finished high school, some went all the way into thier thirties totally clueless about kids or the value of a buck. I am now 47, my youngest is 21 and is getting married next year. Having worn collars of both colurs for a minimum of 15yrs I can attest that a good education can buy you time via a healthy paypack, intellectual satisfaction via interesting work, and the comfort of not fighting the checkout-chick to the death over a 50 cent overcharge. Personally, formal education doesn't rate highly with me in a relationship - after all, even the most "retarded" red-neck can teach you something.
"Ottawa is the stupidest, most horrible, most backwards, most desolate, and most erroneously self-important shithole I've ever been to. Look at the layout of the city - tell me how it was possible to make every trip in this city so circuitous?"
Obviously you have never been to Canberra
Since when is pointing out a broken link a Troll? Did I miss a memo somewhere? Did the mod try the link? Are the details NOT missing? Is there another reference in TFA that shows where this work has been "published".
Not to put too fine a point on it but there IS a noticeable difference in credibility between an article in nature and an article in New Scientist, also "articles" are not the same as "peer-reviewed papers".
My guess is the mod is an anti-science freak who didn't like my oblique reference to AGW.
Experiments show that a car moves without an invisable pink elephant. Occam's razor says dump the elephant, even though IPE's may move cars, IPE's are not required to move any car known to science.
Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation between competing theories that give identical results, it does not gaurentee the chosen theory is the simplest explanation possible.
BTW The definition of "simple" is the opposite of complex, AFAIK complexity can be measured in complex ways.
"Could it be..."
Who the hell knows...
From TFA: "In an article appearing in the journal Nature, Ehrlich describes..."
Click the nature link and you end up at NewScientist.
Even if this guy has a viable mechanisim for his "dimmer switch", I can't see that it has any implications for our current climate problems. Wake me up again iff someone finds an abstract.
It's like a kid I went to school with in the 60's who's natural measure of worth was "pairs of footy boots", (eg: a new bike was worth X pairs of footy boots). I think the ipod index says more about the guy who thought it up than it does about exchanges rates.
That's a good point, but either way, "accounting nazi's" vs "engineered simplicity", it's their headache. :)
I'm in Victoria, it's quite likely NSW has different building codes. I rented for ~15yrs, the rental market sucks for renters now like it did in the mid eighties. The housing bubble is leaking if not popping, rents for decent accomodation should be more reasonable in a few years time. Negative gearing has a habit of becoming too negative when landlords price themselves out of the market and have to move back into their own place while the bank holds a morgagees auction on the other house.