Italy has nukes. I don't remember the last time Italy's opinion on anything counted for anything. Germany doesn't have nukes. And the keeps wondering if the German's will keep EU alive if they have to lend money to Italy. Power to build is the power to sustain life. Power to build increases whenever it is used because it increases sustainability of life. Power to kill ends as soon as it is used.
That's the point. It's a soap box for all of world's dictatorships. It's not in any sense a democracy by design or by mandate. It's designed to reduce necessity for war. And dictatorships, as they must by definition, try to use any political tool to suppress opposition.
But... the same quarter that WoW lost 1.5 million subscribers, the US Budget deficit dropped roughly 3-fold. Maybe hyper-aggressive mercantile-minded individuals joining the rest of civilization actually produces actual economic activity.
This company can literally make more on merchandising by making the tickets free... Movie-themed in-game mounts, movie-themes in-game pets, movie-themed in-game rare drops... movie-themed in-game.. oh, whatever. As long as the great grind continues.
You can go back as far as Free Masons. They were demonized for being a "secret society." Of course, they only became secret because they were opposing the inquisition and hegemony of the Catholic Church. Sure, they were accused of "trying to control the world in secret" by the power which was controlling the world in the open.
Ever wonder why the Fox News is vehemently demonized even for telling the truth? Not, it's not for all the vitriolic reasons you are used to spewing. It's because as every new-comer they had to do something other than the established centralized media. So they assumed a right-of-center position until the actual political power turned too far left (so that Fox could shift further towards the center). But the point is that they had to be demonized because they didn't fall in line with the centralized news media hegemony.
Remember the attack on the short-wave radio around 10 years ago? Why? If they were so far right, why wasn't there a market for a far-left short-wave radios?
Because the left-of-center market was held by the centralized media hegemony. Why was it impossible to have a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party? Because that's where most of the people's preferences actually lie. But then the centralized media would have no fire to pour oil on if such a party came power. They needed a fight to cover or they were out of business.
Except when the Internet came and all the independent news sources and small-time reporters decided not play by the rules. Some went full-on left. Some went full-on right. And some went reasonable. Hegemony doesn't like a true marketplace of ideas. It likes to be caught advocating for a true marketplace of ideas. Twitter is too free to be controlled. The wave of opinion can catch on like fire, go viral, and destroy months, if not years, of general conditioning. Of course, the hegemony will call it demonic. It's exactly how they fought the ideas spread by Free Masons.
It's also ridiculous that thanks to Dick Cheney, companies don't have to tell the EPA or state environmental departments what the ingredients of their fracking fluids are.
It is no more ridiculous than that Coke doesn't have to reveal its secret formula. This is a trade secret. And making it public would give away the competitive advantage we have over other oil and gas producing nations. Forcing these companies to reveal their production secrets would be nothing short of industrial espionage.
There is 0 proven incidents of fraking causing water to be set on fire. Yes, there are well-stated claims of such incidents. However, not only is the link between fraking and water being set on fire not true, but a stronger statement is actually justified: it has been definitively proven that fraking does not cause release of methane into drinking water (the methane in drinking water is what created the water-on-fire incidents).
But hey, almost all american bashing is premised on awful misunderstanding of science. The water that is pumped in during fraking is pumped at very different ground levels (orders of magnitude different) than the levels where accessible underground water reserves are. "Environmental" attacks on fraking are nothing but an attempt to saw confusion around an industry by oil and gas producing nations which don't have the technology. Oh, and no, the process is not simple and releasing it would be an outrageous act of industrial espionage.
If Bloomberg wants to provide technology for this industry, the customers are guaranteed to hate it. Bloomberg is in business of providing overpriced services to clients after monopolizing the data streams they need through exclusive contracts. He loses money on everything else (TV, websites, etc.) If he gets into competition with anyone, it's a good bet his competition will only look better by comparison.
The first thing that Communists do is restrict speech. They have to make sure that their brand of insanity is all that people hear. Right, I forgot. Obama is not a Communist. He is Christian Capitalist. Too zealously Christian actually. In fact, a right winger if you listen to other Communists.
No, it is part of the argument. There are other parts to it. For instance, the one I brought up. You want to argue you part. But I don't want to sidestep the point I am arguing. The argument that property can only be used to profit from( and not to deny others access to it) is an argument that is so often made, that I wanted to explore opposition to it. Again, that is a very narrow aspect of the larger argument. As almost every other argument, the argument about property rights and intellectual property rights has multiple components to it. You want to explore one component and pretend that others don't exist. I want to explore another component, but I am willing to acknowledge that others exist.
But now you are arguing intellectual property vs tangible property. And that is not an argument I care to get into. Not right now anyway. And in case you think otherwise, that was not the point of the Slashdot post. Copyright is a law. The right to copy is protected by laws. As long as that is the case, the holder of the copyright has a right to not only to profit from further copies, but also to deny the right to making further copies to others. The length of reasonable copyright terms, the terms of other IP regimes, etc. are all not the subject of the debate here. You may wish to make them the subject of the debate, but I do not. I was making a point on a very narrow aspect of the larger debate. Namely a point on what make ownership an ownership vs a right to profit. In the context in which my point was made, my analogies stand.
You are effectively challenging the whole concept of ownership as an extension of a body. If I lent my neighbor a car for a joy ride, I don't have control of it while he is riding, but if I call him on the phone and ask to bring the car back, he doesn't have the right to refuse because I lent him the car but did not transfer ownership. Your argument is tantamount to saying that possession is equivalent to ownership. But it's not. A car thief also comes into possession of a car. But that doesn't make him the owner. Much like a rapist is in a temporary possession of a woman's body, but that doesn't give him the right to that use. Ability and right are not the same concepts. A right is an ability which can be enjoyed without violating the law.
The counter argument does not hold water. Just because a woman let you touch her boob, doesn't mean she forfeited the right to say "no" to sex. And if she says stops after half an hour of sex, and you refuse to stop, then it is still rape. The right to deny use can be invoked even after expressly allowing use.
Ownership (all ownership) is the right to deny use. This is as true of intellectual property ownership as it is of tangible item ownership. And it's not a bad thing as many will knee jerk to scream. Ownership is a right to treat that which we earn as extensions of our body. If we have a right to deny the use of our bodies, then, by extension, we have a right to deny use of that which we own.
No, that's a myth. There was never a consensus of flat-earthers amongst scholars, even religious ones, let alone a consensus of scientists.
After reading the link and some of the references I have to agree with the conclusion. There was no flat earth consensus. I take issue with the presentation (it speculates nonsensically about the brain as a device for producing dichotomies and makes other unsupported claims). I also take issue with your characterization. Until Renaissance there was no concept of a scientist. There were philosophers (some of whom concentrated in natural philosophy), but all philosophy was studied as an attempt to gain understanding of the divine. One could argue, in fact, that before Thomas Aquinas' argument no separation between philosophy and clergy was even conceptually possible.
The sin of belief without data is yours, superwiz.
I'll let that go under poetic license because I feel generous. You did give me an interesting read.
If you'd actually read the paper you link to, you'd know why 33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW. It's because to get their corpus they simply searched for papers with certain key terms such as "global warming". Now that doesn't necessarily get you a paper that is aimed at the question of AGW, simply one that mentions it. It's unsurprising that papers that are not intended to answer the question of whether there is AGW do not do so. They have to be manually filtered down to those that address that question.
Yes, if only I read the paper from which I posted a direct quote... If only. Both your claim and the claim made by comrade soulskill overstated the conclusions which can be made from the paper. That was the argument I was making. Your attempt to attribute to me a different argument will not stand. The methodology of the paper did not support that far over-reaching conclusion. Also your argument contains a factual error in the claim that
33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW
In fact 66.4% of the papers didn't express a conclusion on AGW. Simply because they didn't make take any position on it. However, it is still hugely misleading to claim that 97% of the papers express a pro-AGW position. AGW is a hypothesis. And the most accurate statement one can make is that 97% of the papers examining the hypothesis find evidence in support of this hypothesis. This does not rise to the level of a proved assertion as far as scientific method is concerned however. It also produces wild speculations such as "97% of the scientists agree with AGW claim." The reporters (whose job is to produce accurate communications) are, in fact, responsible for wild speculations that come out of their claims. This is because if they report inaccurately, they stoke the flames of those speculations.
This just reveals your wooly thinking. TFA doesn't say "97% of scientists believe in AGW". It's 97% of scientific papers. i.e. 97% of the ways of examining the question scientifically resulted in a conclusion that AGW is real. Scientific method, not belief.
First, scientific method relies on reason rather than consensus. "Earth is flat" was a consensus opinion. Oh, and TFA DOES NOT say what comrade soulskill put up there. 97% of the papers DID NOT claim AGW. Only 32.6% of the papers did. Here's a direct quote from the article's abstract:
"...We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW..."
97% of skeptics believe that 97% of proponents don't understand a damn thing about science and only agree with other proponents for the reason Paris Hilton is popular.
Why would claim any kind of allegiance to the scientific method? Scientific method doesn't rely on consensus-drive arguments. The best argument is discovered through introspection and experiments testing hypothesis. Taking a survey of articles unconnected to each by anything other than their subject matter is hardly even in the same ball park as the scientific method.
To be on the side of consensus. AMS ran a whole article on its front page clearly endorsing AGW in the abstract. The problem is that it didn't offer any justification for its endorsement in the article itself. All it did was list the mathematical physics that can be used to talk about the physics of climate. People are declaring allegiance to the subject because there is money in such allegiance. The worst of people join the party in power because they are the worst of people. It has always been this way. It will always be this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Italy has nukes. I don't remember the last time Italy's opinion on anything counted for anything. Germany doesn't have nukes. And the keeps wondering if the German's will keep EU alive if they have to lend money to Italy. Power to build is the power to sustain life. Power to build increases whenever it is used because it increases sustainability of life. Power to kill ends as soon as it is used.
That's the point. It's a soap box for all of world's dictatorships. It's not in any sense a democracy by design or by mandate. It's designed to reduce necessity for war. And dictatorships, as they must by definition, try to use any political tool to suppress opposition.
But... the same quarter that WoW lost 1.5 million subscribers, the US Budget deficit dropped roughly 3-fold. Maybe hyper-aggressive mercantile-minded individuals joining the rest of civilization actually produces actual economic activity.
This company can literally make more on merchandising by making the tickets free... Movie-themed in-game mounts, movie-themes in-game pets, movie-themed in-game rare drops... movie-themed in-game.. oh, whatever. As long as the great grind continues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKfndgrqHJ4
I hope you sarcastic. Otherwise, you'd be simply insane. No news organization, however biased, could ever stay in business if it NEVER told the truth.
You can go back as far as Free Masons. They were demonized for being a "secret society." Of course, they only became secret because they were opposing the inquisition and hegemony of the Catholic Church. Sure, they were accused of "trying to control the world in secret" by the power which was controlling the world in the open.
Ever wonder why the Fox News is vehemently demonized even for telling the truth? Not, it's not for all the vitriolic reasons you are used to spewing. It's because as every new-comer they had to do something other than the established centralized media. So they assumed a right-of-center position until the actual political power turned too far left (so that Fox could shift further towards the center). But the point is that they had to be demonized because they didn't fall in line with the centralized news media hegemony.
Remember the attack on the short-wave radio around 10 years ago? Why? If they were so far right, why wasn't there a market for a far-left short-wave radios?
Because the left-of-center market was held by the centralized media hegemony. Why was it impossible to have a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party? Because that's where most of the people's preferences actually lie. But then the centralized media would have no fire to pour oil on if such a party came power. They needed a fight to cover or they were out of business.
Except when the Internet came and all the independent news sources and small-time reporters decided not play by the rules. Some went full-on left. Some went full-on right. And some went reasonable. Hegemony doesn't like a true marketplace of ideas. It likes to be caught advocating for a true marketplace of ideas. Twitter is too free to be controlled. The wave of opinion can catch on like fire, go viral, and destroy months, if not years, of general conditioning. Of course, the hegemony will call it demonic. It's exactly how they fought the ideas spread by Free Masons.
By following the news from all the scientific research in Hollywood, of course.
It's also ridiculous that thanks to Dick Cheney, companies don't have to tell the EPA or state environmental departments what the ingredients of their fracking fluids are.
It is no more ridiculous than that Coke doesn't have to reveal its secret formula. This is a trade secret. And making it public would give away the competitive advantage we have over other oil and gas producing nations. Forcing these companies to reveal their production secrets would be nothing short of industrial espionage.
There is 0 proven incidents of fraking causing water to be set on fire. Yes, there are well-stated claims of such incidents. However, not only is the link between fraking and water being set on fire not true, but a stronger statement is actually justified: it has been definitively proven that fraking does not cause release of methane into drinking water (the methane in drinking water is what created the water-on-fire incidents).
But hey, almost all american bashing is premised on awful misunderstanding of science. The water that is pumped in during fraking is pumped at very different ground levels (orders of magnitude different) than the levels where accessible underground water reserves are. "Environmental" attacks on fraking are nothing but an attempt to saw confusion around an industry by oil and gas producing nations which don't have the technology. Oh, and no, the process is not simple and releasing it would be an outrageous act of industrial espionage.
Not going to happen in NYC traffic. If there is more than 2 car lengths between you and the car in front of you, someone will cut in pretty quickly.
If Bloomberg wants to provide technology for this industry, the customers are guaranteed to hate it. Bloomberg is in business of providing overpriced services to clients after monopolizing the data streams they need through exclusive contracts. He loses money on everything else (TV, websites, etc.) If he gets into competition with anyone, it's a good bet his competition will only look better by comparison.
The first thing that Communists do is restrict speech. They have to make sure that their brand of insanity is all that people hear. Right, I forgot. Obama is not a Communist. He is Christian Capitalist. Too zealously Christian actually. In fact, a right winger if you listen to other Communists.
But that is the argument.
No, it is part of the argument. There are other parts to it. For instance, the one I brought up. You want to argue you part. But I don't want to sidestep the point I am arguing. The argument that property can only be used to profit from( and not to deny others access to it) is an argument that is so often made, that I wanted to explore opposition to it. Again, that is a very narrow aspect of the larger argument. As almost every other argument, the argument about property rights and intellectual property rights has multiple components to it. You want to explore one component and pretend that others don't exist. I want to explore another component, but I am willing to acknowledge that others exist.
But now you are arguing intellectual property vs tangible property. And that is not an argument I care to get into. Not right now anyway. And in case you think otherwise, that was not the point of the Slashdot post. Copyright is a law. The right to copy is protected by laws. As long as that is the case, the holder of the copyright has a right to not only to profit from further copies, but also to deny the right to making further copies to others. The length of reasonable copyright terms, the terms of other IP regimes, etc. are all not the subject of the debate here. You may wish to make them the subject of the debate, but I do not. I was making a point on a very narrow aspect of the larger debate. Namely a point on what make ownership an ownership vs a right to profit. In the context in which my point was made, my analogies stand.
You are effectively challenging the whole concept of ownership as an extension of a body. If I lent my neighbor a car for a joy ride, I don't have control of it while he is riding, but if I call him on the phone and ask to bring the car back, he doesn't have the right to refuse because I lent him the car but did not transfer ownership. Your argument is tantamount to saying that possession is equivalent to ownership. But it's not. A car thief also comes into possession of a car. But that doesn't make him the owner. Much like a rapist is in a temporary possession of a woman's body, but that doesn't give him the right to that use. Ability and right are not the same concepts. A right is an ability which can be enjoyed without violating the law.
The counter argument does not hold water. Just because a woman let you touch her boob, doesn't mean she forfeited the right to say "no" to sex. And if she says stops after half an hour of sex, and you refuse to stop, then it is still rape. The right to deny use can be invoked even after expressly allowing use.
Ownership (all ownership) is the right to deny use. This is as true of intellectual property ownership as it is of tangible item ownership. And it's not a bad thing as many will knee jerk to scream. Ownership is a right to treat that which we earn as extensions of our body. If we have a right to deny the use of our bodies, then, by extension, we have a right to deny use of that which we own.
Back to the topic in hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the paper covered the 66% that didn't express an opinion.
I don't have an issue with the paper itself. I take an issue with how it's being reported.
No, that's a myth. There was never a consensus of flat-earthers amongst scholars, even religious ones, let alone a consensus of scientists.
After reading the link and some of the references I have to agree with the conclusion. There was no flat earth consensus. I take issue with the presentation (it speculates nonsensically about the brain as a device for producing dichotomies and makes other unsupported claims). I also take issue with your characterization. Until Renaissance there was no concept of a scientist. There were philosophers (some of whom concentrated in natural philosophy), but all philosophy was studied as an attempt to gain understanding of the divine. One could argue, in fact, that before Thomas Aquinas' argument no separation between philosophy and clergy was even conceptually possible.
The sin of belief without data is yours, superwiz.
I'll let that go under poetic license because I feel generous. You did give me an interesting read.
If you'd actually read the paper you link to, you'd know why 33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW. It's because to get their corpus they simply searched for papers with certain key terms such as "global warming". Now that doesn't necessarily get you a paper that is aimed at the question of AGW, simply one that mentions it. It's unsurprising that papers that are not intended to answer the question of whether there is AGW do not do so. They have to be manually filtered down to those that address that question.
Yes, if only I read the paper from which I posted a direct quote... If only. Both your claim and the claim made by comrade soulskill overstated the conclusions which can be made from the paper. That was the argument I was making. Your attempt to attribute to me a different argument will not stand. The methodology of the paper did not support that far over-reaching conclusion. Also your argument contains a factual error in the claim that
33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW
In fact 66.4% of the papers didn't express a conclusion on AGW. Simply because they didn't make take any position on it. However, it is still hugely misleading to claim that 97% of the papers express a pro-AGW position. AGW is a hypothesis. And the most accurate statement one can make is that 97% of the papers examining the hypothesis find evidence in support of this hypothesis. This does not rise to the level of a proved assertion as far as scientific method is concerned however. It also produces wild speculations such as "97% of the scientists agree with AGW claim." The reporters (whose job is to produce accurate communications) are, in fact, responsible for wild speculations that come out of their claims. This is because if they report inaccurately, they stoke the flames of those speculations.
This just reveals your wooly thinking. TFA doesn't say "97% of scientists believe in AGW". It's 97% of scientific papers. i.e. 97% of the ways of examining the question scientifically resulted in a conclusion that AGW is real. Scientific method, not belief.
First, scientific method relies on reason rather than consensus. "Earth is flat" was a consensus opinion. Oh, and TFA DOES NOT say what comrade soulskill put up there. 97% of the papers DID NOT claim AGW. Only 32.6% of the papers did. Here's a direct quote from the article's abstract:
"...We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW..."
Here's the link to the actual paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
97% of skeptics believe that 97% of proponents don't understand a damn thing about science and only agree with other proponents for the reason Paris Hilton is popular.
Why would claim any kind of allegiance to the scientific method? Scientific method doesn't rely on consensus-drive arguments. The best argument is discovered through introspection and experiments testing hypothesis. Taking a survey of articles unconnected to each by anything other than their subject matter is hardly even in the same ball park as the scientific method.
To be on the side of consensus. AMS ran a whole article on its front page clearly endorsing AGW in the abstract. The problem is that it didn't offer any justification for its endorsement in the article itself. All it did was list the mathematical physics that can be used to talk about the physics of climate. People are declaring allegiance to the subject because there is money in such allegiance. The worst of people join the party in power because they are the worst of people. It has always been this way. It will always be this way.