these people actions were and are roundly condemned by the bulk of the muslim world
That's a hard case to make. Arafat was known for saying one thing in English and the opposite in Arabic. Since all warfare is based on deception, it would make perfect sense that those attempting to lull the West into complacency would utter the empty words of condemnation.
The fact still remains that Kaczynski and McVeigh were mentally unbalanced. Whereas Islamic terror acts against the West received material and logistical support from well-established institutions in the Muslim world. In addition, Hamas (a terrorist organization) won an election in Palestine. Furthermore, Muslim Brotherhood won majority of seats in the Egyptian parliament. These are all indications of what is a baseline norm from the viewpoint of the Muslim world. Are there voices of reason within the Muslim world? Sure. Do they have an impact? Absolutely. But not enough of an impact to suppress the idea of mass murder as a way of making a political statement. This behavior is far too common to be considered marginal just yet.
So where you want to paint two situations on opposite ends of the spectrum
It's not that I want to aint them as opposite in so far as their frequency of occurrence and wide acceptance is concerned, but rather that is what the facts suggest.
Referring to other human beings as 'flies' who must be swatted is offensive to me
Then you shall remain offended. Terrorism's goal is to pester (it has no actual effect war-like effect -- it only makes life generally more unpleasant -- it does not significantly reduce chances of any one individual to remain unharmed). I could have chosen rats, cockroaches, etc. But it seemed more appropriate to go with the flies for the purposes of the analogy of using a sword to swat them.
Both Kaczynski and McVeigh were mentally unbalanced. In addition, they acted contrary to the norms of their surrounding society. Islamic terrorists' acts are supported by the norms of some parts the Islamic world. You are trying to draw an equivalence between an aberration and a behavior which is normative to movements which would view US as an enemy. Since these movements generate more followers than aberrations, your comparison is inadequate.
No it does not.
That is questionable. Russia periodically deported natives of the Caucuses region in order to stop terrorist attacks from Chechens. Granted, profiling is a broad sword which can easily miss a few flies. But when the flies cannot persist without a support network of other flies, it might significantly weaken their ability to pester. The argument against profiling cannot be that it is not effective. The argument must remain that it is too high a price to pay for a small increase in security.
And two people mod'ed up that post. Why?
For the same reason that your argument was modded up. It was inaccurate, but it touched on enough nerves.
Well, I am sorry, but since your friend could have been just as easily probing TSA for weakness, it makes sense to take an extra step in looking at her a bit more. That's just effective counter-intelligence.
Well, in this case, you don't have to go the broader definition. The story's summary says he was "detained". That would most certainly seem to fit the stricter definition of "arrest".
Usually, I wouldn't see how this is different from Coke not telling you what's in their secret recipe is. Ie, trade secrets are trade secrets. But if you listen to the interview, she makes, what I see, a compelling point: these devices have WiFi connections.
So they can be potentially controlled by a 3rd party after the fact of installing them in the recipients. Certainly, there are some people who don't understand the full implications of a medical device having a WiFi connection. So no one can claim that a layman would have an informed consent unless independent experts have reviewed the code.
I hate to put it to you in the terms you hate, but the logistical problems you name are only difficult if they must be solved through central planning. These solutions emerge ad hoc quite often and these problems resolve themselves through trade. If there is going to be money to be made in shipping food from Africa, plenty of competent people will want to make that money.
Ok, it could be a browser thing. The last time I clicked on that link, it didn't take me to the article. It took me to the front page of that site. I see what you are referring to now. The question about methodology and the conclusion stands. Here's some of the figures:
"3,146 earth scientists surveyed"... how many physicists? Heat flow is a phenomenon studied in physics. How many evolutionary biologists? Changes in uptake and release of carbon are effected by evolutionary trends.
"climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Great" and yet "47 percent of petroleum geologists believing in human involvement." Seems to me like grant motivation plays larger role than direct connection to an oil industry in this case.
I still have to take issue with your tone, btw. You are acting like a bona fide religious fanatic. And you are trying to exercise this fanaticism in a setting of a discussion about a scientific issue. This is quite bizarre.
The link you provided did not quote that figure. Do you have a more accurate link to a verifiable source of information?
with shills for the oil industry being the biggest doubters.
Is there any reason to doubt oil-industry's scientific research? They do quite good chemistry (turning oil into gas and all), incredible logistics (transporting oil all over the world, etc.). Most of the message of supporters of pro-AGW position doesn't come from the scientific community. It comes from politicians. If you insist on attributing motivation to oil-industry-employed scientists, then why do you skip over attributing motivation to government-grant-supported researchers (so willingly agreeing with politicians)?
By the way, do you have any evidence to support the claim that all skeptics are sponsored by the oil industry? It would seem to me that the very-politically connected oil industry (governor and then senator Rockefeller of the Standard Oil money was a Democrat) would be more interested in consolidating energy production in the hands of politicians.
Do you have any evidence to back up your position or are you just parroting the opinions which made you the most angry when you read them? It is, after all, known that rage, marked by high levels of adrenaline, is conducive to formation of new memories. So do you think it just might be possible that you remember the evidence of the pro-AGW camp better because it's presented in the baiting and angry "it's the end of the world" fashion and that you don't remember the gist of the anti-AGW camp's position because their position is much less emotional and much more leveled?
No, mocking someone is not the same as slandering them. But the fact that someone was mocking an individual does not, in itself, constitute a defense against slander. Some mocking is slanderous. I actually gave examples of which types of mocking would not be slanderous. The type of mocking that the post accused "Bull Shit" of would have been slanderous if "Bull Shit" were as fake as the post claimed.
Calling it a "libertarian propaganda" gave enough of indication of the post's bias. I clearly stated a reason that "Bull Shit" could not be as fake as the post claimed. And if it's not fake, then it is not biased -- at least not in the way in which the post claimed. Reality has no bias -- only opinions do.
My point is that the anti-scientists exploit these popular science issues, if they really had a point about the lack of rigor in science
Calling them anti-scientists is misleading and inflammatory. It is certainly deceptive. The questions raised by the skeptical camp generally go unanswered and ignored. I don't see how idiotic statements like "99% of the scientists believe in AGW" is an argument at all outside of a school yard. And yet, it's the only argument offered to the skeptics. This is dogma. I have no use for it.
But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist,
In science, it is more important to understand why the 3% is wrong that to know that 97% agrees with you. If you don't understand the counter-argument, then your opinion doesn't have much weight.
The pro-AGW is the most dogmatic crowd I've come across. I have across religious crowds who make absurd arguments for pro-life position and anti-evolution position. They are not even close to the level of crazy that you get out of the foam-at-the-mouth pro-AGW crowd. If you can't name prominent skeptics of AGW position (or think that none exist), then you don't even know what the either side's counter argument is. And you definitely have no basis for claiming that the counter argument is weak.
climate scientists have done a reasonable job of getting the public to understand at least the basic points of the argument
this could not be further from the truth. Most people parrot opinions they hear in the media. Most people could NOT name a single scientist on the pro or on the against side of the argument. Which means that the debate is drive purely by the media and the politicians. This isn't "understanding". This is dogmatic belief.
It's only the ignorant who continue to deny man made climate change.
Not at all. The only ones completely convinced of it are either unintelligent or dogmatic.
A massive MAJORITY of world governments, corporations, scientists, leaders, and intellectuals in the world recognize that man made climate change is the number one challenge the human species faces this century.
This statement itself shows how bizarre your view of scientific research is. Political opinions does not amount to scientific certainty. Most dogma-drive drivel (such as what you espoused) comes from people who cannot name one skeptical opinion. They only argue with straw men in order to make themselves feel better about belonging to their perceived "correct" opinion. This is how religions are born.
Uhm... no. Your bias is showing. There is no significant extrapolation.
No, no. While I openly acknowledge that I think Obama is an abysmal President (as was Bush), this has nothing to do with the fact the post to which I responded was extrapolating. My point was that they tried to compare Obama's gaffe to Bush's gaffe as a way of showing that speech cannot be perfect. I also pointed out that (as you probably agree) Bush made a lot of speech errors. I was not saying that Obama understands as little as Bush. I was pointing out that there is no reason to believe that Bush didn't understand what Internet was and that Obama's gaffes or lack thereof notwithstanding. People, who perfectly understand the words, often connect two words into one, mix-up endings, etc. when they make unprepared statements. It's not an indication of ignorance. It doesn't need excusing. It's just a sign that the person is thinking on his feet rather than making a prepared statement. I don't think there is a bias in this view.
it would be a first acknowledged war between Israelis and Palestinians, and maybe Israel would be allowed to win for once without international condemnation for winning a defensive war.
take it you never realized that "Bullshit" is carefully crafted libertarian propaganda rather than independent investigative reporting for entertainment.
Wow. You must really be surrounded by a cluster fuck of people who think any conservative label (like "libertarian") automatically dismisses trumps every argument. The method that you accuse Penn and Teller of using would amount to slander. And they would have been sued for it numerous times (since they have deep pockets). This kind of method can only be used in a fiction setting (like "Borat") or in a setting where you don't intend to mock the person. But it can't be used in an interview setting. Once you start publicly mocking people for what they say, you better not slander, or you are might as well be writing them a check.
Oh, and comparing skepticism of highly-dubious, highly-politicized research to creationism may seem like you are attacking the same targets, but you are not. Libertarianism is neutral on the god debate. There is a cross-section between libertarians and creationists, but that cross-section is as large as the number of pro-choice libertarians. So it's a useless data point.
Is there any reason to think that Bush did not misspeak? I mean, we are talking about a patently trivial fact. So is there any reason to think that he did not misspeak? Especially, since he had a history of misspeaking -- a well-documented history. This isn't an excuse. This doesn't need excusing. You extrapolate a complete lack of knowledge from a speech pattern. Don't you think you are reaching?
Slashdot Mirror
Religion can complicate violent struggles, but it doesnt actually tend to cause them.
No, but it does perpetuate them past the point in time when the original grievances were the important issues of the day.
these people actions were and are roundly condemned by the bulk of the muslim world
That's a hard case to make. Arafat was known for saying one thing in English and the opposite in Arabic. Since all warfare is based on deception, it would make perfect sense that those attempting to lull the West into complacency would utter the empty words of condemnation.
The fact still remains that Kaczynski and McVeigh were mentally unbalanced. Whereas Islamic terror acts against the West received material and logistical support from well-established institutions in the Muslim world. In addition, Hamas (a terrorist organization) won an election in Palestine. Furthermore, Muslim Brotherhood won majority of seats in the Egyptian parliament. These are all indications of what is a baseline norm from the viewpoint of the Muslim world. Are there voices of reason within the Muslim world? Sure. Do they have an impact? Absolutely. But not enough of an impact to suppress the idea of mass murder as a way of making a political statement. This behavior is far too common to be considered marginal just yet.
So where you want to paint two situations on opposite ends of the spectrum
It's not that I want to aint them as opposite in so far as their frequency of occurrence and wide acceptance is concerned, but rather that is what the facts suggest.
Referring to other human beings as 'flies' who must be swatted is offensive to me
Then you shall remain offended. Terrorism's goal is to pester (it has no actual effect war-like effect -- it only makes life generally more unpleasant -- it does not significantly reduce chances of any one individual to remain unharmed). I could have chosen rats, cockroaches, etc. But it seemed more appropriate to go with the flies for the purposes of the analogy of using a sword to swat them.
No it does not.
That is questionable. Russia periodically deported natives of the Caucuses region in order to stop terrorist attacks from Chechens. Granted, profiling is a broad sword which can easily miss a few flies. But when the flies cannot persist without a support network of other flies, it might significantly weaken their ability to pester. The argument against profiling cannot be that it is not effective. The argument must remain that it is too high a price to pay for a small increase in security.
And two people mod'ed up that post. Why?
For the same reason that your argument was modded up. It was inaccurate, but it touched on enough nerves.
Well, I am sorry, but since your friend could have been just as easily probing TSA for weakness, it makes sense to take an extra step in looking at her a bit more. That's just effective counter-intelligence.
Well, in this case, you don't have to go the broader definition. The story's summary says he was "detained". That would most certainly seem to fit the stricter definition of "arrest".
Coke is also incorporated into people... it's taken internally, you know.
She has an engineering degree from Cooper Union.
Usually, I wouldn't see how this is different from Coke not telling you what's in their secret recipe is. Ie, trade secrets are trade secrets. But if you listen to the interview, she makes, what I see, a compelling point: these devices have WiFi connections.
So they can be potentially controlled by a 3rd party after the fact of installing them in the recipients. Certainly, there are some people who don't understand the full implications of a medical device having a WiFi connection. So no one can claim that a layman would have an informed consent unless independent experts have reviewed the code.
I hate to put it to you in the terms you hate, but the logistical problems you name are only difficult if they must be solved through central planning. These solutions emerge ad hoc quite often and these problems resolve themselves through trade. If there is going to be money to be made in shipping food from Africa, plenty of competent people will want to make that money.
Ok, it could be a browser thing. The last time I clicked on that link, it didn't take me to the article. It took me to the front page of that site. I see what you are referring to now. The question about methodology and the conclusion stands. Here's some of the figures:
"3,146 earth scientists surveyed"... how many physicists? Heat flow is a phenomenon studied in physics. How many evolutionary biologists? Changes in uptake and release of carbon are effected by evolutionary trends.
"climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Great" and yet "47 percent of petroleum geologists believing in human involvement." Seems to me like grant motivation plays larger role than direct connection to an oil industry in this case.
I still have to take issue with your tone, btw. You are acting like a bona fide religious fanatic. And you are trying to exercise this fanaticism in a setting of a discussion about a scientific issue. This is quite bizarre.
I have a PhD in math, btw. So the rudeness of your comment is more than uncalled for.
I don't know where you are quoting from. This was not in the link you provided.
Ok, so it's only 90% [sciencedaily.com]
The link you provided did not quote that figure. Do you have a more accurate link to a verifiable source of information?
with shills for the oil industry being the biggest doubters.
Is there any reason to doubt oil-industry's scientific research? They do quite good chemistry (turning oil into gas and all), incredible logistics (transporting oil all over the world, etc.). Most of the message of supporters of pro-AGW position doesn't come from the scientific community. It comes from politicians. If you insist on attributing motivation to oil-industry-employed scientists, then why do you skip over attributing motivation to government-grant-supported researchers (so willingly agreeing with politicians)?
By the way, do you have any evidence to support the claim that all skeptics are sponsored by the oil industry? It would seem to me that the very-politically connected oil industry (governor and then senator Rockefeller of the Standard Oil money was a Democrat) would be more interested in consolidating energy production in the hands of politicians.
Do you have any evidence to back up your position or are you just parroting the opinions which made you the most angry when you read them? It is, after all, known that rage, marked by high levels of adrenaline, is conducive to formation of new memories. So do you think it just might be possible that you remember the evidence of the pro-AGW camp better because it's presented in the baiting and angry "it's the end of the world" fashion and that you don't remember the gist of the anti-AGW camp's position because their position is much less emotional and much more leveled?
No, mocking someone is not the same as slandering them. But the fact that someone was mocking an individual does not, in itself, constitute a defense against slander. Some mocking is slanderous. I actually gave examples of which types of mocking would not be slanderous. The type of mocking that the post accused "Bull Shit" of would have been slanderous if "Bull Shit" were as fake as the post claimed.
Calling it a "libertarian propaganda" gave enough of indication of the post's bias. I clearly stated a reason that "Bull Shit" could not be as fake as the post claimed. And if it's not fake, then it is not biased -- at least not in the way in which the post claimed. Reality has no bias -- only opinions do.
99% of scientists?
What methodology did you use to come with this figure?
My point is that the anti-scientists exploit these popular science issues, if they really had a point about the lack of rigor in science
Calling them anti-scientists is misleading and inflammatory. It is certainly deceptive. The questions raised by the skeptical camp generally go unanswered and ignored. I don't see how idiotic statements like "99% of the scientists believe in AGW" is an argument at all outside of a school yard. And yet, it's the only argument offered to the skeptics. This is dogma. I have no use for it.
But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist,
In science, it is more important to understand why the 3% is wrong that to know that 97% agrees with you. If you don't understand the counter-argument, then your opinion doesn't have much weight.
The pro-AGW is the most dogmatic crowd I've come across. I have across religious crowds who make absurd arguments for pro-life position and anti-evolution position. They are not even close to the level of crazy that you get out of the foam-at-the-mouth pro-AGW crowd. If you can't name prominent skeptics of AGW position (or think that none exist), then you don't even know what the either side's counter argument is. And you definitely have no basis for claiming that the counter argument is weak.
climate scientists have done a reasonable job of getting the public to understand at least the basic points of the argument
this could not be further from the truth. Most people parrot opinions they hear in the media. Most people could NOT name a single scientist on the pro or on the against side of the argument. Which means that the debate is drive purely by the media and the politicians. This isn't "understanding". This is dogmatic belief.
It's only the ignorant who continue to deny man made climate change.
Not at all. The only ones completely convinced of it are either unintelligent or dogmatic.
A massive MAJORITY of world governments, corporations, scientists, leaders, and intellectuals in the world recognize that man made climate change is the number one challenge the human species faces this century.
This statement itself shows how bizarre your view of scientific research is. Political opinions does not amount to scientific certainty. Most dogma-drive drivel (such as what you espoused) comes from people who cannot name one skeptical opinion. They only argue with straw men in order to make themselves feel better about belonging to their perceived "correct" opinion. This is how religions are born.
Uhm... no. Your bias is showing. There is no significant extrapolation.
No, no. While I openly acknowledge that I think Obama is an abysmal President (as was Bush), this has nothing to do with the fact the post to which I responded was extrapolating. My point was that they tried to compare Obama's gaffe to Bush's gaffe as a way of showing that speech cannot be perfect. I also pointed out that (as you probably agree) Bush made a lot of speech errors. I was not saying that Obama understands as little as Bush. I was pointing out that there is no reason to believe that Bush didn't understand what Internet was and that Obama's gaffes or lack thereof notwithstanding. People, who perfectly understand the words, often connect two words into one, mix-up endings, etc. when they make unprepared statements. It's not an indication of ignorance. It doesn't need excusing. It's just a sign that the person is thinking on his feet rather than making a prepared statement. I don't think there is a bias in this view.
it would be a first acknowledged war between Israelis and Palestinians, and maybe Israel would be allowed to win for once without international condemnation for winning a defensive war.
take it you never realized that "Bullshit" is carefully crafted libertarian propaganda rather than independent investigative reporting for entertainment.
Wow. You must really be surrounded by a cluster fuck of people who think any conservative label (like "libertarian") automatically dismisses trumps every argument. The method that you accuse Penn and Teller of using would amount to slander. And they would have been sued for it numerous times (since they have deep pockets). This kind of method can only be used in a fiction setting (like "Borat") or in a setting where you don't intend to mock the person. But it can't be used in an interview setting. Once you start publicly mocking people for what they say, you better not slander, or you are might as well be writing them a check.
Oh, and comparing skepticism of highly-dubious, highly-politicized research to creationism may seem like you are attacking the same targets, but you are not. Libertarianism is neutral on the god debate. There is a cross-section between libertarians and creationists, but that cross-section is as large as the number of pro-choice libertarians. So it's a useless data point.
Is there any reason to think that Bush did not misspeak? I mean, we are talking about a patently trivial fact. So is there any reason to think that he did not misspeak? Especially, since he had a history of misspeaking -- a well-documented history. This isn't an excuse. This doesn't need excusing. You extrapolate a complete lack of knowledge from a speech pattern. Don't you think you are reaching?