I think Mr. Galileo might take issue with bowing to scientific "consensus." Nowadays you only need follow the money - and I know that you have an erection right now thinking I'm getting ready to hand you the "Big Oil" funding climate "deniers." I'm talking about the BILLIONS tied to producing research that supports the manmade global warming hoax.
There is no single scientific issue today where the scientific process is so thoroughly ignored than so-called climate research. Just think of the word YOU people use: denier. Science today is a manufactured product; funded by special interest groups that take GREAT pains to hide themselves, or paint themselves as non-partisan. You know who has things to hide? Liars do.
When you're right, you don't need to lie. You don't need to ignore the scientific process. If you have (accurate) science on your side, you don't need to suppress contrary opinion, try to destroy the credibility of opponents. The science *should* take care of itself - unless it is a false god that cannot show it's true face.
That's why you are wrong. The climate people can never show their true face: the marxist/socialist face that is only interested in wresting power from the citizens of the world - so that a benevolent government can control things. The biggest polluters in the world are marxist / socialist governments. This includes the USA. I'm not talking about the regulations foisted upon businesses - I'm talking about the toxic messes made by our sanctimonious government.
But that's classic liberalism, isn't it. When a conservative see something that needs fixing, he puts his efforts and his money towards it. When a liberal sees something that needs fixing - he ises that ill to gain power over his peers - then forces others to put their money and efforts towards the problem. Why is that bad? The evil person'd power is tied to the problem. So what the fuck is his motivation to really permanently fix said problem?
Liberals have been "helping" the black man so well since the 60's that the entire black culture is now destroyed. How do we fix it? More liberalism of course.
I don't need to know the science as to why the sky is blue. I can look up and know it's so. But autistic fucks like yourself need the science behind it - then you assume that whatever you have arrived at is God's word and that anyone who doesn't agree is evil and should be treated as such.
Guess what, normally people are a hell of a lot smarter than the scientists. Normal people have hundreds of thousand years of evolution shaping their perceptions, instincts, and sensibilities. But autistic people have neurological defects that make them blind to things which are plainly obvious to normal people - this makes the autistic person incredibly easy to bias - after all, they are truly blind to many things and depend on "science" to define the world for them. And they are as effective in that as a blind person trying to intellectually visualize the color red. So by controlling "science," you control this segment of the population.
I'll start paying more attention to the biased autistic fucks feathering their own nests with the money for climate science, just as soon as they start respecting the scientific process. And the last I checked, following the scientific process does not include: conspiring amongst peers to suppress research that is contrary to the "consensus," trying to get people fired for not agreeing, trying to prevent a professor from getting tenure for disagreeing, or impuning scientists who produce research when some of the funding for it came from energy companies. Who gives a fuck where the money came from? If you are following the scientific process - bad research will be shown as such. There is no reason to try to destroy the man behind it - unless you are in the wrong and you simply cannot refute their research using science.
Fuck you asshole - it is you and the people like you that are fucking everything up. And without conspiracy and lies, you have no power at all.
As a student of science history, I have seen the term "scientific consensus" many many times throughout history. Usually it is followed immediately by something like "and then blah blah happened."
>> your intellectual dishonesty is bad enough without it
Uh, what intellectual dishonesty? Do you dispute my characterization of how the scientific method should work?
You would be better off simply not replying when you have no comeback. By retorting with a zero-content post, you only confirmed that in this battle you are completely unarmed.
It's pretty arrogant to reflexively interpret disagreement with ignorance of the subject. I bet this is a constant issue with you. Of course you may be the exception, but it is hard for me to find a global warming supporter that has anything more than paper-thin knowledge in the form of talking points when I try to discuss it.
Of course arguing with autistic spectrum people is always a trying thing. You people are just so unpleasant in just about every way. And due to AS issues they are unable to understand or care why this is.
My only wish is that the scientific political weapons of the liberal/marxist were subjected to the same sort of scientific method as any other part of science. The fact that you have the reflexive knee-jerk orthodoxy is complete proof that this is not a valid scientific process.
In any valid scientific process, when another scientist points out a possible flaw in your data or conclusions, the reaction is not a demonization process and a concerted group effort to have that person destroyed professionally. The reaction is more like, Hmm, that's interesting. Let me look at this again. A real man of science invites debate and scrutiny; this is because they are either right and welcome the discussion to prove it, or they REALLY want to know if they themselves are in error.
But that is when you are really interested in science, not simply the appearance of science to hide your agenda.
But this is not how you people are, is it? The reaction from people such as yourself is immediate demonization, no different than how the catholic church dealt with Galileo. Your arguments (in the macro sense) are no more provable than the church's was.
That's a good try, but I'm pretty sure that at some point during his presidency, that George * Bush mentioned the existence of the sun. So any issues with solar output can and will be blamed on him.
That's how it works; it's so easy only a child can understand it.
As a student of science *history* I can tell you that scientists deserved to be mocked *far* more than they currently are. And if you disagree; please do so in the form of explaining why an entire generation of scientists have to die off before fundamental (game changing) discoveries are accepted as fact.
The answer? Because the scientific community is comprised of human beings and as such display every folly that any other groups of humans have.
Is that bad? Yes, because they are pretty much the only large group out there that self-assures themselves that they are *not* acting in folly and simple animal selfishness. Thus their self-deception compounds itself.
I 100% believe that you were associated with wikipedia (based on what passes as civilized debate over there). I also believe that you were labeled "autistic". I'm sure it continues to happen.
As for the rest of this screed, you *may* be insane or have a personality disorder. You should get that looked at.
I barely got out of High School, had bad grades in english overall. I have very real deficits that keep me from properly observing the more esotaric rules of the written word.
So, you have seen all thirteen of those people deliver a MEMORIZED speech in front of millions of people? A speech that their mortal enemies will be parcing for any malaprops or propagandizable snippets?
If no to the above, crawl back in your hole AC. You are adding NOTHING to the conversation.
That is certainly possible. If true it would be the ultimate way of showing your superiority - getting over on people while they bash you for being stupid.
I think that this should be a new slashdot meme: someone types a post riddled with errors= you must be a MENSA member!
Yeah, I knew someone would do that - but you did it in a more interesting way than usual. If you could see me write without chrome's spellcheck - you'd really have grist for the mill.
And no, I am not a member of MENSA - but getting in would not be a problem. I was able to deduce what they are about from the outside, and it was clearly not worth the effort or money.
It's no different than a muscle head watching himself in the mirror while he does curls with a barbell - pure narcissism.
This is not a dig, but several of the people relating their experiences with MENSA seem to have some real difficulties with spelling, context, syntax, and the lot.
I really mean it when I say that I'm not fucking with you. It's just interesting.
And by the way, maybe this might make some of you self-appointed geniuses understand that many of the people portrayed by the media as idiots - aren't.
That is simply propaganda; and of course some public figures make it easier than others to stick them with that tag. But anyone with a track record of success has intelligence. Denying it because you don't agree with them politically is simply being completely intellectually dishonest.
And while you cannot control what people think or do - you can control your own actions. So, maybe not repeating or reinforcing obviously incorrect things might be something you can do to move public discourse forward.
Because if you are one of the ones out there that like to hold on to the fiction that George W. Bush or Sarah Palin are unintelligent; that is just stupid on the face of it. Arguing that they're stupid because it's an easy way to propagandize people is not helping *anything*.
I remember when W. was running the first time and I had a very intelligent friend (and actual former MENSA member) who believed this hook, line, and sinker.
All it took for me to completely convince him how intellectually dishonest he (and the media) was being was for two weeks to point out every time he misspoke. That's all it takes. Speaking like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan in public is a inborn talent that VERY few people have. It is NOT simply a function of high intelligence.
And if you are being completely fair about it; for a national level politician, George W. Bush is at least a better than average speaker.
And before you knee-jerk your reply - how many "smart" people do YOU know that could do as well as he did, under the kind of scrutiny and digging for flaws that was going on?
Context is nice; for some anyways. Know your history or be someone's puppet. And before you read three lines and then search dailykos for the rebuttal: I was there and saw this firsthand:
You disagree. Fine, but I doubt you can back that up. Bear in mind whilst you scramble to justify your comment so as to never have to backtrack, that I was specifically speaking to his complaint that Microsoft astroturfers were in any way responsible for a drop in readership. That is stupid and was clearly (as I accurately pointed out) his attempt to steer the conversation into an area of one of his pet peeves.
>> You mentioned autism in your first "real comment"
Yes, because it applies to slashdot (both in how the articles are chosen and spun, and the commenters) in general. I did not call him autistic in that reply; I only mentioned it to allow him to see a pattern in himself (if present). His reply to mine verified both that he *is* in the ASD spectrum and that he cannot see how he is acting in a manner that confirms it.
>> So you were also in fact bringing up a pet topic
I never said I wasn't. But it was completely on-topic as a reply to his ridiculous post.
>> Haters gonna hate, as they say. It's just a human trait, not an autistic one.
This has nothing to do with anything that I have posted on slashdot; so I am going to conclude that this is *your* pet topic, and one that you have artificially inserted into the conversation in order to arrange an airing of your views.
I was not speaking about complaining in general, I was pointing out that his comment was off-base, inaccurate, unsupportable, and entirely arrived at through a defective cognitive process - one which completely fits a specific kind of defect that I continuously see in ASD individuals who have little insight into their behavior.
Of course none of this was in any way unclear - except to those who cognitive processes are susceptible to poisoning by their own internal issues.
I was doing him a favor, but I don't expect you to understand.
As someone who is free of the vast majority of human biases, it is completely obvious to me when I see them. Of course, this lack of biases on my part is an accident of nature; not the result of a lifetime of deductive reason.
And before you knee-jerk out your reaction to that last statement, consider this additional one:
"Everyone is the same, all known variations of human intellect and makeup are known and have been studied. Because of this, I feel comfortable telling people that their self-described abilities are impossible when I cannot reconcile them with accepted science or my own experience."
Clearly this last statement is patently absurd; but you would have to believe it in order to say that I cannot be correct about my lack of biases.
Also bear in mind that "bias" does not mean the same things as "opinion." You might want to look up cognitive bias and then examine the full (known) list before replying (if replying in an informed manner is important for you).
That sounds like a cute comment, but the person I was responding to was clearly off-point, and I was only pointing out that fact. When he persisted in a way that showed that he did not understand - and just continued to make a point that had nothing to do with the subject, then the pattern was clear.
That I presupposed a reason for his actions is beside the point.
So, your snarky comment was misapplied. But on slashdot, that might still get you upvotes; so the actual reason you made your comment might be validated.
No personal issues; just a really clear pattern where the autistic person takes any news of the day and tries to use it to steer things towards one of his pet issues. Neurological issue, clear and plain.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft does not control what news is posted. You are autistic; please let the adult deal with all the bad people. You work on that eye contact thing.
Ok, here's my real reply. The content on the front page is what dictates traffic to the site. There is a demand for interesting tech news, and if slashdot is unwilling or unable to supply that in a timely manner - well, someone else will.
Your teachers had it wrong - it's not supply and demand. It's demand and supply. That is an important difference that autistic spectrum people can't understand - or they understand but never think to apply it.
>> So, what exactly makes US so different that it is impossible to achieve what other countries can?
You are making an assumption. Other countries dragging themselves down into the cesspool provides great real-world examples of what not to do. Every time a country destroys itself because they decided they could re-invent the governmental wheel, it provides example that the sane can use against the insane in this country.
Ridiculous theories that remain not fully tested, can still influence the weak-minded. I fully support any governmental changes in other countries that do not reconcile *actual* human nature, as opposed to what they think it is (based on their own neurological disorders).
Slashdot Mirror
Your suggestions have been noted and will be ignored in the order received.
I think Mr. Galileo might take issue with bowing to scientific "consensus." Nowadays you only need follow the money - and I know that you have an erection right now thinking I'm getting ready to hand you the "Big Oil" funding climate "deniers." I'm talking about the BILLIONS tied to producing research that supports the manmade global warming hoax.
There is no single scientific issue today where the scientific process is so thoroughly ignored than so-called climate research. Just think of the word YOU people use: denier. Science today is a manufactured product; funded by special interest groups that take GREAT pains to hide themselves, or paint themselves as non-partisan. You know who has things to hide? Liars do.
When you're right, you don't need to lie. You don't need to ignore the scientific process. If you have (accurate) science on your side, you don't need to suppress contrary opinion, try to destroy the credibility of opponents. The science *should* take care of itself - unless it is a false god that cannot show it's true face.
That's why you are wrong. The climate people can never show their true face: the marxist/socialist face that is only interested in wresting power from the citizens of the world - so that a benevolent government can control things. The biggest polluters in the world are marxist / socialist governments. This includes the USA. I'm not talking about the regulations foisted upon businesses - I'm talking about the toxic messes made by our sanctimonious government.
But that's classic liberalism, isn't it. When a conservative see something that needs fixing, he puts his efforts and his money towards it. When a liberal sees something that needs fixing - he ises that ill to gain power over his peers - then forces others to put their money and efforts towards the problem. Why is that bad? The evil person'd power is tied to the problem. So what the fuck is his motivation to really permanently fix said problem?
Liberals have been "helping" the black man so well since the 60's that the entire black culture is now destroyed. How do we fix it? More liberalism of course.
I don't need to know the science as to why the sky is blue. I can look up and know it's so. But autistic fucks like yourself need the science behind it - then you assume that whatever you have arrived at is God's word and that anyone who doesn't agree is evil and should be treated as such.
Guess what, normally people are a hell of a lot smarter than the scientists. Normal people have hundreds of thousand years of evolution shaping their perceptions, instincts, and sensibilities. But autistic people have neurological defects that make them blind to things which are plainly obvious to normal people - this makes the autistic person incredibly easy to bias - after all, they are truly blind to many things and depend on "science" to define the world for them. And they are as effective in that as a blind person trying to intellectually visualize the color red. So by controlling "science," you control this segment of the population.
I'll start paying more attention to the biased autistic fucks feathering their own nests with the money for climate science, just as soon as they start respecting the scientific process. And the last I checked, following the scientific process does not include: conspiring amongst peers to suppress research that is contrary to the "consensus," trying to get people fired for not agreeing, trying to prevent a professor from getting tenure for disagreeing, or impuning scientists who produce research when some of the funding for it came from energy companies. Who gives a fuck where the money came from? If you are following the scientific process - bad research will be shown as such. There is no reason to try to destroy the man behind it - unless you are in the wrong and you simply cannot refute their research using science.
Fuck you asshole - it is you and the people like you that are fucking everything up. And without conspiracy and lies, you have no power at all.
Of course everyone should still reflexively support and promote any study supporting your political beliefs.
Yet another zero content post. I guess you're not used to being challenged. Kind of pathetic really.
As a student of science history, I have seen the term "scientific consensus" many many times throughout history. Usually it is followed immediately by something like "and then blah blah happened."
>> your intellectual dishonesty is bad enough without it
Uh, what intellectual dishonesty? Do you dispute my characterization of how the scientific method should work?
You would be better off simply not replying when you have no comeback. By retorting with a zero-content post, you only confirmed that in this battle you are completely unarmed.
It's pretty arrogant to reflexively interpret disagreement with ignorance of the subject. I bet this is a constant issue with you. Of course you may be the exception, but it is hard for me to find a global warming supporter that has anything more than paper-thin knowledge in the form of talking points when I try to discuss it.
Of course arguing with autistic spectrum people is always a trying thing. You people are just so unpleasant in just about every way. And due to AS issues they are unable to understand or care why this is.
My only wish is that the scientific political weapons of the liberal/marxist were subjected to the same sort of scientific method as any other part of science. The fact that you have the reflexive knee-jerk orthodoxy is complete proof that this is not a valid scientific process.
In any valid scientific process, when another scientist points out a possible flaw in your data or conclusions, the reaction is not a demonization process and a concerted group effort to have that person destroyed professionally. The reaction is more like, Hmm, that's interesting. Let me look at this again. A real man of science invites debate and scrutiny; this is because they are either right and welcome the discussion to prove it, or they REALLY want to know if they themselves are in error.
But that is when you are really interested in science, not simply the appearance of science to hide your agenda.
But this is not how you people are, is it? The reaction from people such as yourself is immediate demonization, no different than how the catholic church dealt with Galileo. Your arguments (in the macro sense) are no more provable than the church's was.
That's a good try, but I'm pretty sure that at some point during his presidency, that George * Bush mentioned the existence of the sun. So any issues with solar output can and will be blamed on him.
That's how it works; it's so easy only a child can understand it.
So, what sort of weather cannot be somehow linked to capitalism - whoops, sorry. I mean global warming? I'm try to keep score at home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premenstrual_syndrome#History
There's a lot more; but there's a start.
As you say, no one bothers to point out the obvious.
As a student of science *history* I can tell you that scientists deserved to be mocked *far* more than they currently are. And if you disagree; please do so in the form of explaining why an entire generation of scientists have to die off before fundamental (game changing) discoveries are accepted as fact.
The answer? Because the scientific community is comprised of human beings and as such display every folly that any other groups of humans have.
Is that bad? Yes, because they are pretty much the only large group out there that self-assures themselves that they are *not* acting in folly and simple animal selfishness. Thus their self-deception compounds itself.
Not that engineers are without their own folly. This short story by Isaac Asimov covers both nicely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Billiard_Ball
I 100% believe that you were associated with wikipedia (based on what passes as civilized debate over there). I also believe that you were labeled "autistic". I'm sure it continues to happen.
As for the rest of this screed, you *may* be insane or have a personality disorder. You should get that looked at.
I barely got out of High School, had bad grades in english overall. I have very real deficits that keep me from properly observing the more esotaric rules of the written word.
That, and a aphasia event a few years back.
So, you have seen all thirteen of those people deliver a MEMORIZED speech in front of millions of people? A speech that their mortal enemies will be parcing for any malaprops or propagandizable snippets?
If no to the above, crawl back in your hole AC. You are adding NOTHING to the conversation.
That is certainly possible. If true it would be the ultimate way of showing your superiority - getting over on people while they bash you for being stupid.
I think that this should be a new slashdot meme: someone types a post riddled with errors= you must be a MENSA member!
Yeah, I knew someone would do that - but you did it in a more interesting way than usual. If you could see me write without chrome's spellcheck - you'd really have grist for the mill.
And no, I am not a member of MENSA - but getting in would not be a problem. I was able to deduce what they are about from the outside, and it was clearly not worth the effort or money.
It's no different than a muscle head watching himself in the mirror while he does curls with a barbell - pure narcissism.
This is not a dig, but several of the people relating their experiences with MENSA seem to have some real difficulties with spelling, context, syntax, and the lot.
I really mean it when I say that I'm not fucking with you. It's just interesting.
And by the way, maybe this might make some of you self-appointed geniuses understand that many of the people portrayed by the media as idiots - aren't.
That is simply propaganda; and of course some public figures make it easier than others to stick them with that tag. But anyone with a track record of success has intelligence. Denying it because you don't agree with them politically is simply being completely intellectually dishonest.
And while you cannot control what people think or do - you can control your own actions. So, maybe not repeating or reinforcing obviously incorrect things might be something you can do to move public discourse forward.
Because if you are one of the ones out there that like to hold on to the fiction that George W. Bush or Sarah Palin are unintelligent; that is just stupid on the face of it. Arguing that they're stupid because it's an easy way to propagandize people is not helping *anything*.
I remember when W. was running the first time and I had a very intelligent friend (and actual former MENSA member) who believed this hook, line, and sinker.
All it took for me to completely convince him how intellectually dishonest he (and the media) was being was for two weeks to point out every time he misspoke. That's all it takes. Speaking like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan in public is a inborn talent that VERY few people have. It is NOT simply a function of high intelligence.
And if you are being completely fair about it; for a national level politician, George W. Bush is at least a better than average speaker.
And before you knee-jerk your reply - how many "smart" people do YOU know that could do as well as he did, under the kind of scrutiny and digging for flaws that was going on?
Context is nice; for some anyways. Know your history or be someone's puppet. And before you read three lines and then search dailykos for the rebuttal: I was there and saw this firsthand:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/liberal-policies-are-to-blame-for-todays-mass-shooting-in-newtown-ct/
>> I don't consider it misapplied.
You disagree. Fine, but I doubt you can back that up. Bear in mind whilst you scramble to justify your comment so as to never have to backtrack, that I was specifically speaking to his complaint that Microsoft astroturfers were in any way responsible for a drop in readership. That is stupid and was clearly (as I accurately pointed out) his attempt to steer the conversation into an area of one of his pet peeves.
>> You mentioned autism in your first "real comment"
Yes, because it applies to slashdot (both in how the articles are chosen and spun, and the commenters) in general. I did not call him autistic in that reply; I only mentioned it to allow him to see a pattern in himself (if present). His reply to mine verified both that he *is* in the ASD spectrum and that he cannot see how he is acting in a manner that confirms it.
>> So you were also in fact bringing up a pet topic
I never said I wasn't. But it was completely on-topic as a reply to his ridiculous post.
>> Haters gonna hate, as they say. It's just a human trait, not an autistic one.
This has nothing to do with anything that I have posted on slashdot; so I am going to conclude that this is *your* pet topic, and one that you have artificially inserted into the conversation in order to arrange an airing of your views.
I was not speaking about complaining in general, I was pointing out that his comment was off-base, inaccurate, unsupportable, and entirely arrived at through a defective cognitive process - one which completely fits a specific kind of defect that I continuously see in ASD individuals who have little insight into their behavior.
Of course none of this was in any way unclear - except to those who cognitive processes are susceptible to poisoning by their own internal issues.
I was doing him a favor, but I don't expect you to understand.
As someone who is free of the vast majority of human biases, it is completely obvious to me when I see them. Of course, this lack of biases on my part is an accident of nature; not the result of a lifetime of deductive reason.
And before you knee-jerk out your reaction to that last statement, consider this additional one:
"Everyone is the same, all known variations of human intellect and makeup are known and have been studied. Because of this, I feel comfortable telling people that their self-described abilities are impossible when I cannot reconcile them with accepted science or my own experience."
Clearly this last statement is patently absurd; but you would have to believe it in order to say that I cannot be correct about my lack of biases.
Also bear in mind that "bias" does not mean the same things as "opinion." You might want to look up cognitive bias and then examine the full (known) list before replying (if replying in an informed manner is important for you).
That sounds like a cute comment, but the person I was responding to was clearly off-point, and I was only pointing out that fact. When he persisted in a way that showed that he did not understand - and just continued to make a point that had nothing to do with the subject, then the pattern was clear.
That I presupposed a reason for his actions is beside the point.
So, your snarky comment was misapplied. But on slashdot, that might still get you upvotes; so the actual reason you made your comment might be validated.
No personal issues; just a really clear pattern where the autistic person takes any news of the day and tries to use it to steer things towards one of his pet issues. Neurological issue, clear and plain.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft does not control what news is posted. You are autistic; please let the adult deal with all the bad people. You work on that eye contact thing.
Ok, here's my real reply. The content on the front page is what dictates traffic to the site. There is a demand for interesting tech news, and if slashdot is unwilling or unable to supply that in a timely manner - well, someone else will.
Your teachers had it wrong - it's not supply and demand. It's demand and supply. That is an important difference that autistic spectrum people can't understand - or they understand but never think to apply it.
But, have you tried it? It's much faster than XP.
>> So, what exactly makes US so different that it is impossible to achieve what other countries can?
You are making an assumption. Other countries dragging themselves down into the cesspool provides great real-world examples of what not to do. Every time a country destroys itself because they decided they could re-invent the governmental wheel, it provides example that the sane can use against the insane in this country.
Ridiculous theories that remain not fully tested, can still influence the weak-minded. I fully support any governmental changes in other countries that do not reconcile *actual* human nature, as opposed to what they think it is (based on their own neurological disorders).
So, go for it. I wish you luck in your quest.