I did not argue that in this specific instance, his free speech rights were being violated. The poster to whom I was responding asked how, in principle, someone's free speech rights could possible be violated if the government wasn't involved. What I was pointing out is that the question is backward; rights are prior to the constitution according to the American conception of rights. It is therefore possible, in principle, to violate free speech rights even if you are not violating the first amendment.
And you appear to have misunderstood the GP's post, because that is exactly what he said. That is, this is not a government action in violation of the 1st amendment; this is the action of a private corp., which can therefor not be considered "running afoul of the 1st amendment".
No, the post asked how it could be a violation of free speech rights, not of the first amendment. I was pointing out that a violation of the first amendment is not a necessary condition for a violation of free speech rights. The poster to whom I was responding had things exactly backwards. I suggest you read the post again.
To all the people claiming that this violates this church's right to free speech, please inform me of how this is a government action. Because that is what is protected under the First Amendment. Hell, it's the first three words of the fucking amendment...
You misunderstand the point of the first amendment, and the founders' conception of rights. The first amendment does not GRANT rights; it merely acknowledges that the right to free speech exists, and constrains the federal government (and by the 14th amendment, state governments) from violating the right. Individuals, and corporations, can violate people's right to free speech without running afoul of the first amendment, because the rights are PRIOR to the constitution, and are inalienable.
You are thus conflating the "first amendment" as the source of free speech rights. It is not, at least under the American view of rights. Sadly, you've been modded informative, which means many Slashdot readers are ignorant of the basic Enlightenment philosophy underlying American law.
Actually, data isn't a collective noun like Aerosmith. Aerosmith isn't the plural of anything, but data is the plural of datum.
This made sense when we could only talk about "pieces" of data, like samples from a population, or individual measurements. Since the early 20th century, "data" has changed in meaning, due to information technology. Consider, for example, a streaming video. We agree that the 0s and 1s are data; but what piece of this would we call a "datum"? An individual 0 or 1? A single frame? A single TCP packet? The metaphor of the collective noun, water, is much more apt for what we consider data today. Hence, we think of data as a "stream" carried by "pipes" (tubes, if you will) than pieces which have independent meaning. The word "datum" doesn't have much of a role in modern times.
This is a dialectical thing about American English. We use singular verb inflections with collective nouns.
Queen's English: "Aerosmith are playing Wembley Stadium."
U.S. English: "Aerosmith is playing the Verizon Center."
My English: "What? Aerosmith? They're still alive?"
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that the variations in radiation from a superheated ball of gas at 5505C (9941F) might, just possibly, have some bearing on the situation ?
Oh, so that's what the climate scientists have been missing all this time! They forgot about the sun! Silly them! When is your schedule free, so we can give you your Nobel Prize?
Well, I found her voice interesting. Having an interesting voice to me is more important than being amazingly technical (though being in tune is nice), depending on the type of music.
You found the post-processing interesting. You never get to hear Britney's voice on her albums.
Except that the person I was replying to was talking about defending himself. The amendment gives the right to bear arms, and ALSO gives the reason why you have the right to bear arms. This circumscribes their use. Notice that NONE of the other rights in the bill of rights have any reason attached to them. The right to bear arms does not give citizens to use the firearms in whatever way they please.
Like I said, it is easy to argue that the ninth amendment gives the right to defend oneself; just don't pretend that the interpretation of the second amendment is easy and obvious, and that the ACLU is being silly. The second amendment is hardly obvious in its meaning, thanks to the founders' adding a reason.
So, we can drop F-bomb all day long, but I don't have the right to self defense?
Ok, here's the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now, you tell me where in that sentence you see the right to protect yourself. That's not to say you don't have it (see ninth amendment) but the way the second amendment is worded, it has to do with the security of the STATE, not individuals. You criticize the ACLU for not interpreting the second amendment the way you'd like, but your reading completely fails to capture the plain meaning of the words in the second amendment. On the other hand, read the first amendment, and you can immediately see why profanity should be protected. There may be reasons to criticize the ACLU, but your reason isn't very good. They are entirely consistent.
Source required. Never mind, you're just trolling. Even us uneducated Canadians can figure that much out.
You know, you could Google it before you accuse someone of trolling. The true number is ~80%, and so the GP's point - that Tea Party supporters will mostly not be impacted by this law, because they are overwhelmingly white - is a reasonable one. Gallup poll here...
Seriously, they need to hide their source code better, so random incompetent people off the street don't mess with it. What, do they just let ANYONE see it?
"p < 0.05" does not mean there is a 95% chance of your result being "true"; it just means that someone else rolling dice has a 5% chance of achieving the same result through chance alone.
Even this is not quite correct - it is wrong in a critical way. A p value includes the probability of obtaining not just the data you obtained, but all data which is "more extreme" than the data you obtained. For continuous distributions like the Normal distribution, the probability of achieving the "same result through chance alone" is literally 0, because the area under the normal curve at a point is 0. Misunderstanding this fact causes all sorts of problems.
Um...pi is relevant to a lot of things, including ellipses. And besides, the orbit of the Earth has very low eccentricity, meaning it is very close to a circle. Who modded the parent "informative"?
You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?
You seem to be implying that the small donations that the Obama campaign claims were from individual Americans was actually from media conglomerates, and that there is intentional deception going on. This is a claim that requires evidence.
Pointless? Multiply that by 200, not thousands, not millions, but by just two hundred and you have 100% of our budget.
Yes, but nobody's talking about cutting the WHOLE NASA budget. Let's say you made a big cut - like 10%. You've saved 1/2000 of the budget. Now you ARE talking about multiplying that by thousands. The GPs point was that the big savings are to be found elsewhere
When a politician is not serious about really saving money, what they do is they fixate on some insignificant issue, like, say, "earmarks" or NASA, to save money. This is a distraction. Where money is really being wasted, it is being wasted in ways that benefit the Congresspeople, like defense contractors and the medicare prescription drug benefit.
Now, since this seems to come up every time an AGW news item gets posted, the anti-AGW accuse the AGW people of trying to silence or censor them by downmodding anti-AGW posts (like, for instance, here. Just for fun, scroll up and see what proportion of the most highly ranked posts above are anti-AGW. It's a lot of them; at the time I'm posting right now, it is MOST of them.
Will you please stop complaining of downmodding and "censorship"? It's ridiculous.
No, it sounds like he has said there is no warming trend in the past 14 or 15 years. "Almost significant" means "not significant."
Yes, it sounds like "no warming trend" to you because you must have been asleep in intro stat. Non-significance cannot be used to argue that there is no effect. The sample size is small, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A DECADE AND A HALF. You need to look at larger trends, as he points out.
Think about it this way. If we did a significance test on a large sample of women and men to see if their mean heights differed, we'd get a significant effect. Men are taller than women. But then, you come along and say, "Hey, when you break the sample into smaller groups of 2 men and 2 women each, NONE of the results are significant! There is no height difference between men and women!" Yeah, well, that's just because you don't understand significance tests.
What's particularly ironic here is that you suggest that there is may be no evidence that convinces AGW supporters that AGW is not happening, when you seem to be quite willing to accept garbage statistical arguments as "evidence" against AGW. Wow.
You missed the point. The neat thing is that water was liquid, and then they WARMED it, and it froze. It is just a gimmick, but it's not just that they managed to get it to freeze at a temperature below 0C. It's that, due to the interaction between temperature, charge, and the freezing point, they reversed the normal COLD-WARM SOLID-LIQUID order.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not argue that in this specific instance, his free speech rights were being violated. The poster to whom I was responding asked how, in principle, someone's free speech rights could possible be violated if the government wasn't involved. What I was pointing out is that the question is backward; rights are prior to the constitution according to the American conception of rights. It is therefore possible, in principle, to violate free speech rights even if you are not violating the first amendment.
And you appear to have misunderstood the GP's post, because that is exactly what he said. That is, this is not a government action in violation of the 1st amendment; this is the action of a private corp., which can therefor not be considered "running afoul of the 1st amendment".
No, the post asked how it could be a violation of free speech rights, not of the first amendment. I was pointing out that a violation of the first amendment is not a necessary condition for a violation of free speech rights. The poster to whom I was responding had things exactly backwards. I suggest you read the post again.
To all the people claiming that this violates this church's right to free speech, please inform me of how this is a government action. Because that is what is protected under the First Amendment. Hell, it's the first three words of the fucking amendment...
You misunderstand the point of the first amendment, and the founders' conception of rights. The first amendment does not GRANT rights; it merely acknowledges that the right to free speech exists, and constrains the federal government (and by the 14th amendment, state governments) from violating the right. Individuals, and corporations, can violate people's right to free speech without running afoul of the first amendment, because the rights are PRIOR to the constitution, and are inalienable.
You are thus conflating the "first amendment" as the source of free speech rights. It is not, at least under the American view of rights. Sadly, you've been modded informative, which means many Slashdot readers are ignorant of the basic Enlightenment philosophy underlying American law.
It's amazing that can happen over the span of just 6,000 years.
That's okay. I've still got my DVD copies of the original unaltered trilogy
Wow, that's pretty amazing. You have a version of SW on DVD which they stopped selling well before DVD's were invented.
Wow, that's pretty amazing. You've never heard of DVD burners.
Actually, data isn't a collective noun like Aerosmith. Aerosmith isn't the plural of anything, but data is the plural of datum.
This made sense when we could only talk about "pieces" of data, like samples from a population, or individual measurements. Since the early 20th century, "data" has changed in meaning, due to information technology. Consider, for example, a streaming video. We agree that the 0s and 1s are data; but what piece of this would we call a "datum"? An individual 0 or 1? A single frame? A single TCP packet? The metaphor of the collective noun, water, is much more apt for what we consider data today. Hence, we think of data as a "stream" carried by "pipes" (tubes, if you will) than pieces which have independent meaning. The word "datum" doesn't have much of a role in modern times.
This is a dialectical thing about American English. We use singular verb inflections with collective nouns.
Queen's English: "Aerosmith are playing Wembley Stadium."
U.S. English: "Aerosmith is playing the Verizon Center."
My English: "What? Aerosmith? They're still alive?"
Has Geert Wilders made a press release about how the Klingons are trying to undermine human culture with their evil traditions yet?
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that the variations in radiation from a superheated ball of gas at 5505C (9941F) might, just possibly, have some bearing on the situation ?
Oh, so that's what the climate scientists have been missing all this time! They forgot about the sun! Silly them! When is your schedule free, so we can give you your Nobel Prize?
Well, I found her voice interesting. Having an interesting voice to me is more important than being amazingly technical (though being in tune is nice), depending on the type of music.
You found the post-processing interesting. You never get to hear Britney's voice on her albums.
I really want one for my HP mini 311, but the screen is 11.6" compared to this DIU kit. I've searched for details, but couldn't find any.
I save my mod points exclusively for people like you, and you just missed being "off-topic" by about 4 hours because that's when they expire.
Yeah, well, I save my mod points for people who post responses to offtopic posts, too. People like you suck. I would NEVER do such a thing.
Like I said, it is easy to argue that the ninth amendment gives the right to defend oneself; just don't pretend that the interpretation of the second amendment is easy and obvious, and that the ACLU is being silly. The second amendment is hardly obvious in its meaning, thanks to the founders' adding a reason.
So, we can drop F-bomb all day long, but I don't have the right to self defense?
Ok, here's the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now, you tell me where in that sentence you see the right to protect yourself. That's not to say you don't have it (see ninth amendment) but the way the second amendment is worded, it has to do with the security of the STATE, not individuals. You criticize the ACLU for not interpreting the second amendment the way you'd like, but your reading completely fails to capture the plain meaning of the words in the second amendment. On the other hand, read the first amendment, and you can immediately see why profanity should be protected. There may be reasons to criticize the ACLU, but your reason isn't very good. They are entirely consistent.
Source required. Never mind, you're just trolling. Even us uneducated Canadians can figure that much out.
You know, you could Google it before you accuse someone of trolling. The true number is ~80%, and so the GP's point - that Tea Party supporters will mostly not be impacted by this law, because they are overwhelmingly white - is a reasonable one. Gallup poll here...
Seriously, they need to hide their source code better, so random incompetent people off the street don't mess with it. What, do they just let ANYONE see it?
"p < 0.05" does not mean there is a 95% chance of your result being "true"; it just means that someone else rolling dice has a 5% chance of achieving the same result through chance alone.
Even this is not quite correct - it is wrong in a critical way. A p value includes the probability of obtaining not just the data you obtained, but all data which is "more extreme" than the data you obtained. For continuous distributions like the Normal distribution, the probability of achieving the "same result through chance alone" is literally 0, because the area under the normal curve at a point is 0. Misunderstanding this fact causes all sorts of problems.
Pi is relevant to the circumference of circles. The earth has an elliptical orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumference
Um...pi is relevant to a lot of things, including ellipses. And besides, the orbit of the Earth has very low eccentricity, meaning it is very close to a circle. Who modded the parent "informative"?
You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?
You seem to be implying that the small donations that the Obama campaign claims were from individual Americans was actually from media conglomerates, and that there is intentional deception going on. This is a claim that requires evidence.
Pointless? Multiply that by 200, not thousands, not millions, but by just two hundred and you have 100% of our budget.
Yes, but nobody's talking about cutting the WHOLE NASA budget. Let's say you made a big cut - like 10%. You've saved 1/2000 of the budget. Now you ARE talking about multiplying that by thousands. The GPs point was that the big savings are to be found elsewhere
When a politician is not serious about really saving money, what they do is they fixate on some insignificant issue, like, say, "earmarks" or NASA, to save money. This is a distraction. Where money is really being wasted, it is being wasted in ways that benefit the Congresspeople, like defense contractors and the medicare prescription drug benefit.
This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.
BZZZZTTTT! Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.
Sorry. Try again.
Glen Beck goes around quoting "progressives." Does that make him a progressive?
Heh, someone modded me "troll" for pointing out an error in a poster's statistical reasoning that directly bears on the issue being discussed. Nice.
Will you please stop complaining of downmodding and "censorship"? It's ridiculous.
No, it sounds like he has said there is no warming trend in the past 14 or 15 years. "Almost significant" means "not significant."
Yes, it sounds like "no warming trend" to you because you must have been asleep in intro stat. Non-significance cannot be used to argue that there is no effect. The sample size is small, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A DECADE AND A HALF. You need to look at larger trends, as he points out.
Think about it this way. If we did a significance test on a large sample of women and men to see if their mean heights differed, we'd get a significant effect. Men are taller than women. But then, you come along and say, "Hey, when you break the sample into smaller groups of 2 men and 2 women each, NONE of the results are significant! There is no height difference between men and women!" Yeah, well, that's just because you don't understand significance tests.
What's particularly ironic here is that you suggest that there is may be no evidence that convinces AGW supporters that AGW is not happening, when you seem to be quite willing to accept garbage statistical arguments as "evidence" against AGW. Wow.
You missed the point. The neat thing is that water was liquid, and then they WARMED it, and it froze. It is just a gimmick, but it's not just that they managed to get it to freeze at a temperature below 0C. It's that, due to the interaction between temperature, charge, and the freezing point, they reversed the normal COLD-WARM SOLID-LIQUID order.