It would have been nice if the IPCC had simply relied on climate researchers. Yet, as Anthony Watts has found in examining the sources used in IPCC AR4, the IPCC has relied for multiple specific claims on such random, non-peer-reviewed sources as a mountain climbing magazine, and Greenpeace and WWF political papers.
The biggest failure yet discovered was the claim by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would all melt away by 2035. The source? A speculation from an interview by a climate scientist, quoted in news piece. The scientist interviewed stated that his comment was simple speculation, not peer reviewed, not based on new research or anything.
There does not necessarily have to be existing competition. Even the threat of competition - ie, a totally free market - should set them straight. Unfortunately city governments provide them with an enforced monopoly on internet services.
Is it just me, or do you sound exactly like the various evangelists who babble about a Day of Reckoning? The difference is, your idea has had many repeated "revolutions", and has failed every time. Learn from Sisyphus - put down the rock, forget about the hill, and go get a fucking job.
No, illusion is when perception does not accurately reflect reality.
And your very statement - "does not accurately reflect reality" - implies that reality can be accurately reflected, for how else would you know that someone had not accurately perceived reality?
Take the Hering Illusion for example. The red lines appear to be curved even though they are actually straight.
How do you know they are straight? I say that they are curved. Now, show me I have judged incorrectly, without affirming that I have the ability to judge.
If the penalty for stealing 10 million dollars from an endangered money tree is a fine of $100,000 and a year in white collar prison trading high-fives with my fellow inmates, and I get to keep the money, then I would be up $9,900,000.
As I said - and you ignored - you 1) can't pretend to know ahead of time that you'll definitely get away with such an action, 2) make yourself dependent on the failures of others, and 3) encourage others to violate your rights in the future.
As for your specific incident, 1) your money would be confiscated when you were caught, 2) your penalty would increase with repeated incidents, and 3) your ability to get a job or do any interaction with society would be completely destroyed. And what do you do with your money? Assuming people are acting rationally and unwilling to trade with someone who is well known for stealing from the money tree, you would be unable to buy from anyone. Thus you depend on the irrationality of others, and so are objectively acting contrary to your interests.
Those of us who do believe in determinism don't automatically rule out the phenomenon of apparent free will. We simply think it's likely a perception, rather than any true capriciousness of man's mind.
In other words, you believe choice is an illusion, no? Yet the very concept of "illusion" implies that I had a choice, and that I made the wrong choice - where I should have judged that I had no free will, I incorrectly judged that I didn't. The same goes for any other synonym, or even for words themselves. The very words you use, and the concepts in your mind which are represented by those words, imply free will. Anyone attempting to argue that we do not have free will is invalidated by his very attempt to argue.
It's really hard to -prove- that free will exists.
On the contrary, free will is self-evident. Show me an argument against free will, and it will be fallacious in some respect. Until then, the claim that we do not have free will is arbitrary and should be rejected as such.
It's no more settled than whether some guy 2000 years ago really died for our sins.
Well he could not have. There is no imaginable mechanism by which that could have happened, so the claim is (of course) arbitrary, and should simply be disregarded.
The only way you can claim they are not to blame is to say they had no choice in the matter, which is what the original poster was attempting to do by claiming that it is in everyone's "nature" to steal. In reality, what is in one's nature is the ability to choose how to act in every situation - to act rationally or not. So the simple fact that they have a choice means they are to blame.
Trying to use the word "blame" as the original poster does is simply dropping the context of what that word refers to.
You may be wrong about Y, but given the set of information you behaved rationally.
Reason doesn't occur in a vacuum, just as your actions don't occur in a vacuum. The rational choice is that which is objectively determined to be in the interest of your life. Thus, theft is always irrational, as it is never in the interest of your life to steal - you violate the rights of others, you make yourself dependent on the failures of others, you cannot pretend to know enough to properly assess the situation (Y), and you encourage others to violate your rights in the process.
That implies that stealing is the irrational choice. Is it always?
Yes. Irrational actions are contrary to your life as the fundamental standard of value. Theft is an act of force against another individual, and so violates their rights. Theft is irrational, because it is not in the long-term interest of your life. Not only can you not pretend to know that your theft will succeed, but you also make yourself dependent on the failures of others. In addition, you encourage a society of theft in the process, making it more likely to impact your own life in other situations.
For a more thorough explanation, I would check out Ayn Rand's essay Man's Rights.
The fact that there are examples of people stealing doesn't imply that it is human nature to steal - there are, after all, people who don't steal. Instead, humans have the *capacity* to act rationally or irrationally - to steal or not steal. *That* capacity to choose is in human nature.
So if someone does steal, they are to blame, because they had a choice in the matter. They chose to act irrationally - to steal. Claiming that they are not to blame because it is "in their nature" is an argument for determinism, which is easily falsified in this instance by the simple fact that not everyone acts in this way.
What a crazy state society is in when people believe it is "activism" to claim a person has an innate right to their lives and their values, free from force.
Milk provides only minuscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Guess what - the federal government is wrong. *gasp* I know, I'm shocked too!;)
Milk provides only miniscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
On the contrary: Milk and other fortified foods provide only minuscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If the bottle just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Milk provides only miniscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I think it is very, very important to note that the biggest failure found in the IPCC paper was a single wrong number on page 493 of Volume 2.
Nice job dropping the context of my post. Obviously, I was referring to the biggest such failure that relied on unreliable sources.
It would have been nice if the IPCC had simply relied on climate researchers. Yet, as Anthony Watts has found in examining the sources used in IPCC AR4, the IPCC has relied for multiple specific claims on such random, non-peer-reviewed sources as a mountain climbing magazine, and Greenpeace and WWF political papers.
The biggest failure yet discovered was the claim by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would all melt away by 2035. The source? A speculation from an interview by a climate scientist, quoted in news piece. The scientist interviewed stated that his comment was simple speculation, not peer reviewed, not based on new research or anything.
There does not necessarily have to be existing competition. Even the threat of competition - ie, a totally free market - should set them straight. Unfortunately city governments provide them with an enforced monopoly on internet services.
After the revolution
Is it just me, or do you sound exactly like the various evangelists who babble about a Day of Reckoning? The difference is, your idea has had many repeated "revolutions", and has failed every time. Learn from Sisyphus - put down the rock, forget about the hill, and go get a fucking job.
The amoeba has physical constituents which are determined completely by the laws of physics [snip]
Fallacy of composition.
But nobody has observed or measured one of those yet.
It is self-evident. And as I've already explained, your very use of words and communication asserts the truth of free will.
No, illusion is when perception does not accurately reflect reality.
And your very statement - "does not accurately reflect reality" - implies that reality can be accurately reflected, for how else would you know that someone had not accurately perceived reality?
Take the Hering Illusion for example. The red lines appear to be curved even though they are actually straight.
How do you know they are straight? I say that they are curved. Now, show me I have judged incorrectly, without affirming that I have the ability to judge.
Way to anthropomorphize. Do you really think your computer can read these words?
If the penalty for stealing 10 million dollars from an endangered money tree is a fine of $100,000 and a year in white collar prison trading high-fives with my fellow inmates, and I get to keep the money, then I would be up $9,900,000.
As I said - and you ignored - you 1) can't pretend to know ahead of time that you'll definitely get away with such an action, 2) make yourself dependent on the failures of others, and 3) encourage others to violate your rights in the future.
As for your specific incident, 1) your money would be confiscated when you were caught, 2) your penalty would increase with repeated incidents, and 3) your ability to get a job or do any interaction with society would be completely destroyed. And what do you do with your money? Assuming people are acting rationally and unwilling to trade with someone who is well known for stealing from the money tree, you would be unable to buy from anyone. Thus you depend on the irrationality of others, and so are objectively acting contrary to your interests.
Those of us who do believe in determinism don't automatically rule out the phenomenon of apparent free will. We simply think it's likely a perception, rather than any true capriciousness of man's mind.
In other words, you believe choice is an illusion, no? Yet the very concept of "illusion" implies that I had a choice, and that I made the wrong choice - where I should have judged that I had no free will, I incorrectly judged that I didn't. The same goes for any other synonym, or even for words themselves. The very words you use, and the concepts in your mind which are represented by those words, imply free will. Anyone attempting to argue that we do not have free will is invalidated by his very attempt to argue.
It's really hard to -prove- that free will exists.
On the contrary, free will is self-evident. Show me an argument against free will, and it will be fallacious in some respect. Until then, the claim that we do not have free will is arbitrary and should be rejected as such.
It's no more settled than whether some guy 2000 years ago really died for our sins.
Well he could not have. There is no imaginable mechanism by which that could have happened, so the claim is (of course) arbitrary, and should simply be disregarded.
The only way you can claim they are not to blame is to say they had no choice in the matter, which is what the original poster was attempting to do by claiming that it is in everyone's "nature" to steal. In reality, what is in one's nature is the ability to choose how to act in every situation - to act rationally or not. So the simple fact that they have a choice means they are to blame.
Trying to use the word "blame" as the original poster does is simply dropping the context of what that word refers to.
You may be wrong about Y, but given the set of information you behaved rationally.
Reason doesn't occur in a vacuum, just as your actions don't occur in a vacuum. The rational choice is that which is objectively determined to be in the interest of your life. Thus, theft is always irrational, as it is never in the interest of your life to steal - you violate the rights of others, you make yourself dependent on the failures of others, you cannot pretend to know enough to properly assess the situation (Y), and you encourage others to violate your rights in the process.
That implies that stealing is the irrational choice. Is it always?
Yes. Irrational actions are contrary to your life as the fundamental standard of value. Theft is an act of force against another individual, and so violates their rights. Theft is irrational, because it is not in the long-term interest of your life. Not only can you not pretend to know that your theft will succeed, but you also make yourself dependent on the failures of others. In addition, you encourage a society of theft in the process, making it more likely to impact your own life in other situations.
For a more thorough explanation, I would check out Ayn Rand's essay Man's Rights .
The fact that there are examples of people stealing doesn't imply that it is human nature to steal - there are, after all, people who don't steal. Instead, humans have the *capacity* to act rationally or irrationally - to steal or not steal. *That* capacity to choose is in human nature.
So if someone does steal, they are to blame, because they had a choice in the matter. They chose to act irrationally - to steal. Claiming that they are not to blame because it is "in their nature" is an argument for determinism, which is easily falsified in this instance by the simple fact that not everyone acts in this way.
Because phones are for TALKING. :P
Mark Twain, anyone?
For less money, you could get yourself one of these. I bet it's also more user-friendly than either the trackpad or a touchscreen.
I'm assuming we can escape the solar system, of course...
What a crazy state society is in when people believe it is "activism" to claim a person has an innate right to their lives and their values, free from force.
Fortunately, that quarter of a tank will still get us as far as we need to go and then some.
Yes, fortunately for us, maybe... but what about our children's children's children's ... (* 10^80) children? Won't someone please think of them?!?!
Yes, scientists have blogs too. *gasp* I know, I was shocked too! ZOMG LOL
Fucktard.
Milk provides only minuscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist
Guess what - the federal government is wrong. *gasp* I know, I'm shocked too! ;)
Milk provides only miniscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist
On the contrary: Milk and other fortified foods provide only minuscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If the bottle just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist
They're in agreement, for the same reasons, and based on the same rationale. I could have simply cited one of them.
Milk provides only miniscule amounts of vitamin D, and it is in the form that is less-readily absorbed by the human body - D2.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL, but even drinking several glasses of milk a day, you would barely go beyond the widespread, deficient level of around 25-30. In order to reach 60+, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist