The Bible says that one day God created x, and on one day God created y. It doesn't say how much time elapsed between those events, or how he did it. God could have created the cosmos with a "big bang".
Oh come on, we've been over this. Even if you let the timescale be loose enough that "one day" doesn't literally mean 24 Earth-standard hours, the order of things being created is still bad. The Earth gets created before the Sun, for goodness' sakes! That's just flat-out wrong.
There's just no way to get anything even remotely resembling the (real, established by science) history of the Earth from the Christian creation story, unless you let each "day" float freely in time as well - and at that point, it's not indicative of anything beyond the kind of story a bunch of superstitious shepherds would tell each other over the campfire.
If there are kill switches in US hardware sold internationally, why is the US so worried about the Iranian Air Force and its fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters?
Because if they weren't publicly worried about it, then people would suspect a kill-switch?
And also, right now we're trying to blow Iran up into a bigger threat at home, in order to twist their arm with the prospect of a war.
And you know what? I bet those people who only work a bit over half time will get just as much done as full-timers. It's not like people are normally getting things done for every single one of the 40+ hours in a standard workweek, and personally I find that I tend to take less breaks if I've had a long weekend or vacation recently.
Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
Okay, I agree with all that - but the original poster's point was that due to the Democrats' restriction of rights, he's supporting the Republicans.
As you say, all of those things were initiated by Republicans and expanded upon by Democrats; thus, none of those things are rights that Democrats are restricting and Republicans aren't.
I'm a libertarian at heart but I just can't stand the Democrats anymore - especially the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.
I'm curious - which rights are you referring to, specifically? I mean, surely you have some examples of them trying to do that?
Trader Joe's works because they are very focused on the quality of the goods from their suppliers - if the stuff gets too many complaints, it's gone and they look for a new supplier.
Except for their chocolate bars - oh god, except for the bars. If you buy anything that's not Ritter Sport at Trader Joe's, it's absolutely horrible. For some reason, all their store-brand chocolate seems to taste like bitter wax, even stuff that used to be good (like the Chocolate Truffle bars). The chocolate around their various chocolate-dipped candies is still good, but somehow they've managed to completely fuck up the solid chocolate products.
First off, I think that you've kinda proven my point - who was it that verified the bacterial origin of ulcers? A medical doctor. Who verified the meteorite theory of dinosaur extinction? Paleontologists. Who verified quantum mechanics? Physicists. It's always people from within the discipline that overturn consensus, not outsiders - because it's the scientists in the discipline who know how to prove it.
And as to your second point: when was global warming first theorized? Why, in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius! When did it begin to be widely accepted by climate scientists? The late 1950s! It's been far, far longer than 15 years, and yet somehow the field hasn't turned around. Either there's a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists ignoring evidence that's been around for hundreds of years - or maybe there's something to what they're saying.
Hey now, he's one of the most relevant signatories. If you want to poke fun, poke it at Burt Rutan, whose sole claim is that he makes rockets, or Roger Cohen, who is a "fellow of the American Physical Society" (which is kinda like saying "Roger Cohen, 340 combined GRE")
Yeah, actually, my wife (who is a climate scientist, though she mostly deals in ancient climates (she says that working in climate modelling is too depressing)) smacked me when she saw that I'd said that:)
However you must admit that if a field has gone astray one would hardly expect people from within the field to stand up and criticize it.
Actually, that's exactly what you would expect - people inside the field are exactly the ones who can poke holes in the theory and become famous for it. Scientists don't become famous for going along with the consensus; they become famous for overturning it.
Consider plate tectonics, for instance - it was not widely accepted until the 1950s, simply because earth scientists didn't think it was possible. Who led the revolution? Other earth scientists.
This is a theme you find in pretty much every field of science. Phlogiston? Overturned by early chemists. Luminiferous aether? Overturned by physicists. The plum pudding model of the atom? Overturned by nuclear physicists. All the people who "stood up and criticized" their fields when they'd gone astray are famous to this day; but there have always been people who will stand up and criticize a field even when it's doing fine.
I mean, what do you think would happen if you found real, solid evidence that global warming is not happening? You'd get a Nobel prize out of that at least (in a few decades, after your findings pan out), and if the amount of money and media support that's being poured into the anti-climate-change side of things is any indication, a ton of sinecures would open up almost immediately. You'd be famous, simply because if the evidence undeniable, it will eventually be accepted.
Which witchhunt, pray tell? The one person on that list who is actually a climate scientist is currently the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was the lead author on chapter 7 of the IPCC's third assessment report.
If there's a witchhunt going on, you'd kinda expect him to lose his job, wouldn't you?
Well, let's look at the sixteen climate scientists who signed this, shall we?
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris: Sounds reasonable, though it looks like the proper name for the "University of Paris" is the "Paris VI University", or "Pierre and Marie Curie University". Unfortunately, it looks like the man is kind of a crank, and he hasn't been the director of that Institute since 1986, which makes it weird that it's the one thing they list about him.
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting: That's pretty reasonable, but forecasting and climate science aren't exactly the same thing; forecasting is the study of what's going to happen tomorrow or next week in any topic, while climate science is trying to figure out what will happen in the next year or the the next ten years with the weather. Also, Armstrong's professional background seems to be primarily in advertising, not forecasting, and he hasn't actually published any papers on climatology that I can see.
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University: I'm not exactly sure what he's doing on this list, since presumably it's a list of climate scientists? I mean, just because he's a researcher in one field doesn't automatically qualify him in others; it's like taking your car to ten mechanics and ignoring what they say, then asking your doctor about it and following his advice.
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society: This dude seems to be a writer for the NY Times, and I can't seem to find anyone by that name on the list of Fellows of the American Physical Society. Maybe he received his fellowship before 1990? In any case, it doesn't signify much in terms of his ability to evaluate any kind of science; those fellowships are kinda prestigious, but they're handed out for all sorts of things.
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences: What can I say? He's an electrical engineer. Would you trust him to diagnose a heart condition? An expert in one subject is not automatically an expert in all subjects.
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton: What can I say? Damnit Jim, he's a physicist, not a climatologist! Sure, they're related - but would you trust this guy if he was talking on the way that chemists all over the world are trying to fool us about the mind control properties of fluorine? (as a side note, he's also a Fellow of the American Physical Society - why didn't they mention that?)
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.: This dude is kinda hard to Google because he shares a name with a fairly famous guitar company and a well-respected journalist (who died in 2003); however, it looks like he's done some pretty awesome work on semi-conductors. Unfortunately, that doesn't have anything to do with climate research.
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology: Well, for one thing, he hasn't been the head of the ABM since 1998 (this seems to be a theme, you know?); for another, he's trained as a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. Just because they both deal with the weather doesn't necessarily mean that his word carries extra weight, but I do have to admit that he's one of the better signatories of this list.
Because Valve has made it as simple as "whip out CC, push button, get game"...
Did you know that Steam will store your CC info if you let it? It becomes literally "push button, check box, get game" then. It requires terrifying amount of willpower to not buy everything that goes on sale at that point.
Hmm, I sense the possibility of a science fiction story here. Some alternate future where "even footing" is not accomplished by removing impediments from those who are limited, but by adding impediments to those who are unfairly gifted.
I'm not sure if you realize it, but that science fiction story already exists. It's a short story named Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut. The full text is pretty easy to find if you google for it.
No, you don't need a government to punish someone who harms you. You have the right to do that yourself. Practically speaking, most would choose to establish their claim through arbitration before turning to direct action, and would probably hire out the actual enforcement rather than doing it themselves, but so long as you're truly in the right, and willing to accept the full responsibility for your actions, there is nothing wrong with seeking restitution and even retribution on your own.
So how exactly does this help when (for example) I go to a restaurant and my kid dies from eating tainted food? No amount of private arbitration will bring someone back from the dead; you have to take preventative measures in the first place, which would definitely not happen if the only system of redress was private arbitration.
... so people will be punished for fraud and environmental damage more...
Wait wait wait - we're talking about a libertarian economy here, right? By what mechanism will this "punishment" be allocated? Will that be the sole responsibility of the government? If so, what resources will the government have to investigate and enforce those punishments? If it's going to be some sort of "invisible hand" mechanism, where do you find support for the theory that it will actually, you know, work?
As far as I can tell, Libertarianism would lead to corporations running the world even more thoroughly than they do now; the idea seems to be to create a power vacuum and then pretend nothing will fill it.
And yes, I know that most of these items are obscure. I've worked with a machine instruction language that was particular to only one manufacture of one particular machine used in probably only my industry, and yet I've seen my company put out job requirements that somehow expect someone with 2 or less years of programming experience to somehow have experience with it.... Essentially they're trying to hire people who they already fired or quit. And the job itself was easy once you get past that learning barrier.
You do realize that the obscure requirements are the first move in the salary bargaining process, right?
Here's how it works: you see that you're mostly a good match for the position, except for one or two things like "must have at least three years experience in Foobar Widget Factory" or something. You think, heck, I could pick that up in a few weeks, a month tops so you submit your resume.
The company decides to interview you out of the goodness of their hearts despite your blatant deficiencies, and you do well enough on the interview to start discussing salary. They bring up a number that's a lot lower than you were expecting, but preface it with "Well, since you don't have the required experience in FWF...", then end with "But once you pick it up, your salary will go up of course".
If you sign on at a lower salary, then score! They get a programmer for much cheaper than projected*, and you pick up FWF in a month or so and are fully productive. If you don't sign on and nobody else does either, then they get to tell the INS "Hey can we get an H1-B worker? We couldn't find any qualified employees."
*You didn't believe that bit about "your salary will go up", did you? If it's not written down as part of the employment contract, it's not going to happen.
Like with Iraq, there is no direct evidence of a reason for war and we have already seen the political posturing and powers that be, who already have Iraqi blood on their hands are still lying to us...
At the very beginning of the current Iraq war, there was a pretty scary time when politicians would be talking about the war in Iraq in one breath, and then move on to Iran as if, clearly, the next thing we were going to do was be at war with Iran.
I think some circles have been planning a war with Iran for quite a while.
What do you mean? At least Mission Impossible, Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks told original-ish stories, even if they were sequels. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an American remake of a Swedish film that came out in 2009 which was based on a book that came out in 2004 - and incidentally, the books were pretty popular when the Swedish film came out, so a lot of people have read them and seen the first film.
As for Tintin, I don't know; it probably has to do with the fact that Americans think that animated, cartoony movies are just for kids, combined with the fact that the modern generation of children has probably never heard of Tintin. If the kids aren't begging to go see it, why would their parents take them?
People aren't going to watch new things just because they're new and different; the new things have to actually be good, and unfortunately the studios aren't putting much effort into good movies.
So remember slashdot, national militaries use these games as both training and propaganda, but actually there's no relation between video games and violent acts.
Well, it's not like these are two mutually contradictory positions, is it?
I mean, does playing Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane make you more likely to fly airplanes? Does playing Angry Birds make you more likely to throw birds at pigs? Does playing Deus Ex make you more likely to get implants? Does playing World of Warcraft make you more likely to do the Safety Dance?
Even if a video game can train you in skills transferable to real life (and honestly, if you've played MW3 or BF3, you'd know that they're not at all realistic except maybe in the graphics department), that doesn't mean that it somehow forces you to use those skills.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on, we've been over this. Even if you let the timescale be loose enough that "one day" doesn't literally mean 24 Earth-standard hours, the order of things being created is still bad. The Earth gets created before the Sun, for goodness' sakes! That's just flat-out wrong.
There's just no way to get anything even remotely resembling the (real, established by science) history of the Earth from the Christian creation story, unless you let each "day" float freely in time as well - and at that point, it's not indicative of anything beyond the kind of story a bunch of superstitious shepherds would tell each other over the campfire.
Because if they weren't publicly worried about it, then people would suspect a kill-switch?
And also, right now we're trying to blow Iran up into a bigger threat at home, in order to twist their arm with the prospect of a war.
And you know what? I bet those people who only work a bit over half time will get just as much done as full-timers. It's not like people are normally getting things done for every single one of the 40+ hours in a standard workweek, and personally I find that I tend to take less breaks if I've had a long weekend or vacation recently.
Okay, I agree with all that - but the original poster's point was that due to the Democrats' restriction of rights, he's supporting the Republicans.
As you say, all of those things were initiated by Republicans and expanded upon by Democrats; thus, none of those things are rights that Democrats are restricting and Republicans aren't.
I'm curious - which rights are you referring to, specifically? I mean, surely you have some examples of them trying to do that?
Exactly! If this is failure, then I don't think I want to succeed!
Except for their chocolate bars - oh god, except for the bars. If you buy anything that's not Ritter Sport at Trader Joe's, it's absolutely horrible. For some reason, all their store-brand chocolate seems to taste like bitter wax, even stuff that used to be good (like the Chocolate Truffle bars). The chocolate around their various chocolate-dipped candies is still good, but somehow they've managed to completely fuck up the solid chocolate products.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
First off, I think that you've kinda proven my point - who was it that verified the bacterial origin of ulcers? A medical doctor. Who verified the meteorite theory of dinosaur extinction? Paleontologists. Who verified quantum mechanics? Physicists. It's always people from within the discipline that overturn consensus, not outsiders - because it's the scientists in the discipline who know how to prove it.
And as to your second point: when was global warming first theorized? Why, in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius! When did it begin to be widely accepted by climate scientists? The late 1950s! It's been far, far longer than 15 years, and yet somehow the field hasn't turned around. Either there's a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists ignoring evidence that's been around for hundreds of years - or maybe there's something to what they're saying.
Hey now, he's one of the most relevant signatories. If you want to poke fun, poke it at Burt Rutan, whose sole claim is that he makes rockets, or Roger Cohen, who is a "fellow of the American Physical Society" (which is kinda like saying "Roger Cohen, 340 combined GRE")
Yeah, actually, my wife (who is a climate scientist, though she mostly deals in ancient climates (she says that working in climate modelling is too depressing)) smacked me when she saw that I'd said that :)
Actually, that's exactly what you would expect - people inside the field are exactly the ones who can poke holes in the theory and become famous for it. Scientists don't become famous for going along with the consensus; they become famous for overturning it.
Consider plate tectonics, for instance - it was not widely accepted until the 1950s, simply because earth scientists didn't think it was possible. Who led the revolution? Other earth scientists.
This is a theme you find in pretty much every field of science. Phlogiston? Overturned by early chemists. Luminiferous aether? Overturned by physicists. The plum pudding model of the atom? Overturned by nuclear physicists. All the people who "stood up and criticized" their fields when they'd gone astray are famous to this day; but there have always been people who will stand up and criticize a field even when it's doing fine.
I mean, what do you think would happen if you found real, solid evidence that global warming is not happening? You'd get a Nobel prize out of that at least (in a few decades, after your findings pan out), and if the amount of money and media support that's being poured into the anti-climate-change side of things is any indication, a ton of sinecures would open up almost immediately. You'd be famous, simply because if the evidence undeniable, it will eventually be accepted.
Which witchhunt, pray tell? The one person on that list who is actually a climate scientist is currently the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was the lead author on chapter 7 of the IPCC's third assessment report.
If there's a witchhunt going on, you'd kinda expect him to lose his job, wouldn't you?
Well, let's look at the sixteen climate scientists who signed this, shall we?
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris: Sounds reasonable, though it looks like the proper name for the "University of Paris" is the "Paris VI University", or "Pierre and Marie Curie University". Unfortunately, it looks like the man is kind of a crank, and he hasn't been the director of that Institute since 1986, which makes it weird that it's the one thing they list about him.
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting: That's pretty reasonable, but forecasting and climate science aren't exactly the same thing; forecasting is the study of what's going to happen tomorrow or next week in any topic, while climate science is trying to figure out what will happen in the next year or the the next ten years with the weather. Also, Armstrong's professional background seems to be primarily in advertising, not forecasting, and he hasn't actually published any papers on climatology that I can see.
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University: I'm not exactly sure what he's doing on this list, since presumably it's a list of climate scientists? I mean, just because he's a researcher in one field doesn't automatically qualify him in others; it's like taking your car to ten mechanics and ignoring what they say, then asking your doctor about it and following his advice.
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society: This dude seems to be a writer for the NY Times, and I can't seem to find anyone by that name on the list of Fellows of the American Physical Society. Maybe he received his fellowship before 1990? In any case, it doesn't signify much in terms of his ability to evaluate any kind of science; those fellowships are kinda prestigious, but they're handed out for all sorts of things.
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences: What can I say? He's an electrical engineer. Would you trust him to diagnose a heart condition? An expert in one subject is not automatically an expert in all subjects.
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton: What can I say? Damnit Jim, he's a physicist, not a climatologist! Sure, they're related - but would you trust this guy if he was talking on the way that chemists all over the world are trying to fool us about the mind control properties of fluorine? (as a side note, he's also a Fellow of the American Physical Society - why didn't they mention that?)
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.: This dude is kinda hard to Google because he shares a name with a fairly famous guitar company and a well-respected journalist (who died in 2003); however, it looks like he's done some pretty awesome work on semi-conductors. Unfortunately, that doesn't have anything to do with climate research.
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology: Well, for one thing, he hasn't been the head of the ABM since 1998 (this seems to be a theme, you know?); for another, he's trained as a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. Just because they both deal with the weather doesn't necessarily mean that his word carries extra weight, but I do have to admit that he's one of the better signatories of this list.
Ric
Slippery slope? I was going to go with "they don't have the money or political power to care".
Not if you're Michael Jackson!
Did you know that Steam will store your CC info if you let it? It becomes literally "push button, check box, get game" then. It requires terrifying amount of willpower to not buy everything that goes on sale at that point.
Wow, like three people had already posted it. Damn birdshot bags must be slowing me down :(
I'm not sure if you realize it, but that science fiction story already exists. It's a short story named Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut. The full text is pretty easy to find if you google for it.
So how exactly does this help when (for example) I go to a restaurant and my kid dies from eating tainted food? No amount of private arbitration will bring someone back from the dead; you have to take preventative measures in the first place, which would definitely not happen if the only system of redress was private arbitration.
Wait wait wait - we're talking about a libertarian economy here, right? By what mechanism will this "punishment" be allocated? Will that be the sole responsibility of the government? If so, what resources will the government have to investigate and enforce those punishments? If it's going to be some sort of "invisible hand" mechanism, where do you find support for the theory that it will actually, you know, work?
As far as I can tell, Libertarianism would lead to corporations running the world even more thoroughly than they do now; the idea seems to be to create a power vacuum and then pretend nothing will fill it.
You do realize that the obscure requirements are the first move in the salary bargaining process, right?
Here's how it works: you see that you're mostly a good match for the position, except for one or two things like "must have at least three years experience in Foobar Widget Factory" or something. You think, heck, I could pick that up in a few weeks, a month tops so you submit your resume.
The company decides to interview you out of the goodness of their hearts despite your blatant deficiencies, and you do well enough on the interview to start discussing salary. They bring up a number that's a lot lower than you were expecting, but preface it with "Well, since you don't have the required experience in FWF...", then end with "But once you pick it up, your salary will go up of course".
If you sign on at a lower salary, then score! They get a programmer for much cheaper than projected*, and you pick up FWF in a month or so and are fully productive. If you don't sign on and nobody else does either, then they get to tell the INS "Hey can we get an H1-B worker? We couldn't find any qualified employees."
*You didn't believe that bit about "your salary will go up", did you? If it's not written down as part of the employment contract, it's not going to happen.
At the very beginning of the current Iraq war, there was a pretty scary time when politicians would be talking about the war in Iraq in one breath, and then move on to Iran as if, clearly, the next thing we were going to do was be at war with Iran.
I think some circles have been planning a war with Iran for quite a while.
We only support Israel as hard as we do because we want to be on the right side of things during the end of days.
I'm not even kidding, that's pretty much 90% of the reason for America's hardcore support of Israel. It just makes no sense at all otherwise.
What do you mean? At least Mission Impossible, Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks told original-ish stories, even if they were sequels. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an American remake of a Swedish film that came out in 2009 which was based on a book that came out in 2004 - and incidentally, the books were pretty popular when the Swedish film came out, so a lot of people have read them and seen the first film.
As for Tintin, I don't know; it probably has to do with the fact that Americans think that animated, cartoony movies are just for kids, combined with the fact that the modern generation of children has probably never heard of Tintin. If the kids aren't begging to go see it, why would their parents take them?
People aren't going to watch new things just because they're new and different; the new things have to actually be good, and unfortunately the studios aren't putting much effort into good movies.
Well, it's not like these are two mutually contradictory positions, is it?
I mean, does playing Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane make you more likely to fly airplanes? Does playing Angry Birds make you more likely to throw birds at pigs? Does playing Deus Ex make you more likely to get implants? Does playing World of Warcraft make you more likely to do the Safety Dance?
Even if a video game can train you in skills transferable to real life (and honestly, if you've played MW3 or BF3, you'd know that they're not at all realistic except maybe in the graphics department), that doesn't mean that it somehow forces you to use those skills.