The problem is, when homeopathic remedies are created, there is no dose of the natural substance left, just water. When that water is used to "dose" sugar pills, those pills are just sugar. So yes, homeopathy is just sugar and water.
Not at all. I pay money hand-over-fist to see bands live. I buy their albums at the venue to help with their touring costs. No-one is saying that every concert has to be free, just that copying someone's music for personal use is clearly not hurting that, but helping, as without hearing the music first I wouldn't go see a band live. An album is the perfect advertisement for the live gig. As soon as the advertising was turned into the commodity, everything went to hell, and that was a decision made by the record companies.
You can't compare a copy of a CD to a train ticket, as a train ticket is a limited commodity (each train can only hold so many passengers), whereas a stream of 1s and 0s clearly is something quite different, as it can be (theoretically) copied ad infinitum.
If we were to use trains in this music discussion, it would be far more fitting to compare an album to a photograph or video of a train, as the photograph can be copied with as much ease as the album, and has precisely the same cost to the producer: 0.
If we are to compare trains to the music industry, they are far more comparable to a live gig: limited occupancy, a value derived from being used at a certain time to perform a function, and a rather large outlay for each person participating.
Musicians used to make their money from live performances before the record industry decided to turn their part of the industry (the actual record) into the commodity. Albums used to be advertisements for their live gigs. Artists who did not tour didn't make money, and those who did tour did make money.
Comparing albums to trains is pretty silly, as copying train tickets or trains is actively depriving someone of something. U2 or the small band I saw last night won't notice if I copy one of their albums, but if people start abusing trains and train tickets the operators and other passengers notice immediately. Live gigs -> trains is not a perfect analogy, but it's a lot better than albums -> trains:)
It's strange hearing you praising education, when you continue to labour under the false impression that fundamentalists of a certain flavour represent the moderates of the same flavour, even though that's been pointed out to you time and time and time again. I guess you're happy with that nonsense as it makes you feel in control somehow, so you let it slide. You are either a lazy human being, a scared human being, or an ignorant human being. Pick at least one, please.
The BBC is not a news agency, it is a public broadcaster which has a charter it must abide by. It is not owned by the British Government. According to its charter, it has 6 public purposes:
1. Sustaining citizenship and civil society
2. Promoting education and learning
3. Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence
4. Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities
5. Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK
6. Delivering to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services
This initiative falls squarely under #2 (and arguably under #6), similar to how the BBC helped popularise home computers in the 1980s, which as a nice side-benefit created the ARM processor and raked in all sorts of money for the UK government.
You might want to understand what's being discussed before getting all internet-outrage-y and demonstrating your ignorance on the topic;)
You seem to be mistaking your ignorance for being correct. That's pretty dangerous. If you really cared to begin with, you'd have fixed that. Either you don't know how to teach yourself, or you are proud of your ignorance. Pick one - neither is flattering.
He's a cynic in sceptic's clothing. He might use all the right words to sound like he's engaged in a noble quest for knowledge, but using newspaper articles as an argument against AGW shows he's already made his mind up and is clutching at any straws he can in order to defend his position, and the only straws left are in newspapers. I guess there could be other explanations, but that is the most polite explanation there is... I mean, seriously - he uses quotes from tourist boards and Al Gore as evidence, and expects to be taken seriously. Baffling.
So you get the vast, vast majority of your understanding of climate change from the daily press. If you're not embarrassed by that, I think we found the root of the problem.
They succeeded, but you have already made your mind up and simply will not accept them. You shift your goalposts or claim to find some flaw which the peer-review process did not, and sit back and exultantly throw your arms up in the air proclaiming "see! see! I'm still right!" even when it's plainly obvious to anyone who did remotely well in science classes at school that you are not only wrong, but not interested in learning. It's quite easy to illustrate this - you spend a large amount of time on Slashdot complaining about how AGW isn't real and how the models haven't predicted anything, when there is lots of evidence a mere click or two away to quench any thirst for knowledge you might have.
I'm sure you've found this link but found some errors with it that the rest of the scientific community magically didn't notice. It will show that your faux outrage against the scientific method is based on a toxic mix of hubris and ignorance, fuelled by relying on getting your scientific information from the daily press instead of the scientific journals you should be reading.
Go on - shift those goalposts. We're still waiting. You're not a troll, but you do seem to be some poor human being caught up trying to maintain a cognitive dissonance which threatens to make you realise you're being incredibly selfish and stubborn at the expense of everyone else to follow you. If you're not, you are indistinguishable from one. I feel sorry for you, I really do.
All you did with that post is tell everyone "I don't know about climate change, but I'm going to assume I do, and repeat what someone I trust told me about this, instead of acting like a rational adult and finding out for myself". Good jerb! You're so clever!
You don't have to justify yourself as it is your right. It's also everyone else's right to laugh at your paranoia and perverse belief that, contrary to available statistics, having a gun makes you safer.
So she has to stay sober and ready, gun-in-hand, 24/7 in case someone breaks in. If she gets ill or has to sleep, she needs some sort of backup to guard her while she sleeps. She could - and I'm just guessing here - actually secure her house against being broken into, and then she could do whatever she wanted and never have to worry about this nonsense. It sounds like she lives in a failed state.
Not an apartheid state, really. Wow. Gaza doesn't exist, then? A massive ghetto, cut off from the outside world, where collective punishment is used by Israel to coerce the people into self-destruction as they fight for their survival.
If you are seriously asking that, you should probably read far, far more about the UK as you seem to be under the impression it is exactly as the Daily Mail says it is, which is about as far from the truth as one can comfortably get in the same planetary system. Please don't go there as another uninformed American tourist - there are already enough of them to make life uncomfortable in quite a few places:)
You are over-reaching somewhat. The people here who are complaining are doing so because they didn't want to read the article. That's it. They like their 5 minutes of outrage getting all upset with the world. They need it. It's like coffee. If there is a headline claiming a story claiming someone they don't like is saying something they don't like, they will roundly accept it as true and complain. Complain, complain, complain, complain. They won't actually do anything, but the furious mashing of keys might make you believe they will, but their righteous streak will dry up long before they have to actually make any changes or do anything.
Of course the police putting in cameras in everyone's houses is far-fetched. It's illegal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence"), prohibitively expensive, and entirely toxic to anyone's career who gets too close.
But whatever - spin people doing what people have done for aeons into some condemnation of society. So original. I'm surprised you didn't trot out the "instruction manual" line - that would have fit right in.
Did you even bother to read the article, or do you specifically enjoy getting confused and sharing it with everyone? He's saying that if you have a CCTV camera set up in your premises (home, business, etc.) that it makes sense to have it at eye-level in order for you to get better footage from your own camera. That's it. You should probably take a deep breath, work on your reading comprehension, and rejoin society.
I've never heard that before! Not an instruction manual he says, with such panache and informed condemnation! Wow! I feel like I'm in the presence of a true, modern-day genius freedom-fighter! I'm so honoured! It's incredible! Farrrrrt!
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, when homeopathic remedies are created, there is no dose of the natural substance left, just water. When that water is used to "dose" sugar pills, those pills are just sugar. So yes, homeopathy is just sugar and water.
Quinine is not homeopathic.
Not at all. I pay money hand-over-fist to see bands live. I buy their albums at the venue to help with their touring costs. No-one is saying that every concert has to be free, just that copying someone's music for personal use is clearly not hurting that, but helping, as without hearing the music first I wouldn't go see a band live. An album is the perfect advertisement for the live gig. As soon as the advertising was turned into the commodity, everything went to hell, and that was a decision made by the record companies.
Some thoughts on the matter:
You can't compare a copy of a CD to a train ticket, as a train ticket is a limited commodity (each train can only hold so many passengers), whereas a stream of 1s and 0s clearly is something quite different, as it can be (theoretically) copied ad infinitum.
If we were to use trains in this music discussion, it would be far more fitting to compare an album to a photograph or video of a train, as the photograph can be copied with as much ease as the album, and has precisely the same cost to the producer: 0.
If we are to compare trains to the music industry, they are far more comparable to a live gig: limited occupancy, a value derived from being used at a certain time to perform a function, and a rather large outlay for each person participating.
Musicians used to make their money from live performances before the record industry decided to turn their part of the industry (the actual record) into the commodity. Albums used to be advertisements for their live gigs. Artists who did not tour didn't make money, and those who did tour did make money.
Comparing albums to trains is pretty silly, as copying train tickets or trains is actively depriving someone of something. U2 or the small band I saw last night won't notice if I copy one of their albums, but if people start abusing trains and train tickets the operators and other passengers notice immediately. Live gigs -> trains is not a perfect analogy, but it's a lot better than albums -> trains :)
It's strange hearing you praising education, when you continue to labour under the false impression that fundamentalists of a certain flavour represent the moderates of the same flavour, even though that's been pointed out to you time and time and time again. I guess you're happy with that nonsense as it makes you feel in control somehow, so you let it slide. You are either a lazy human being, a scared human being, or an ignorant human being. Pick at least one, please.
The BBC is not a news agency, it is a public broadcaster which has a charter it must abide by. It is not owned by the British Government. According to its charter, it has 6 public purposes:
This initiative falls squarely under #2 (and arguably under #6), similar to how the BBC helped popularise home computers in the 1980s, which as a nice side-benefit created the ARM processor and raked in all sorts of money for the UK government.
You might want to understand what's being discussed before getting all internet-outrage-y and demonstrating your ignorance on the topic ;)
More British than the already-British Raspberry Pi?
You seem to be mistaking your ignorance for being correct. That's pretty dangerous. If you really cared to begin with, you'd have fixed that. Either you don't know how to teach yourself, or you are proud of your ignorance. Pick one - neither is flattering.
He's a cynic in sceptic's clothing. He might use all the right words to sound like he's engaged in a noble quest for knowledge, but using newspaper articles as an argument against AGW shows he's already made his mind up and is clutching at any straws he can in order to defend his position, and the only straws left are in newspapers. I guess there could be other explanations, but that is the most polite explanation there is... I mean, seriously - he uses quotes from tourist boards and Al Gore as evidence, and expects to be taken seriously. Baffling.
So you get the vast, vast majority of your understanding of climate change from the daily press. If you're not embarrassed by that, I think we found the root of the problem.
They succeeded, but you have already made your mind up and simply will not accept them. You shift your goalposts or claim to find some flaw which the peer-review process did not, and sit back and exultantly throw your arms up in the air proclaiming "see! see! I'm still right!" even when it's plainly obvious to anyone who did remotely well in science classes at school that you are not only wrong, but not interested in learning. It's quite easy to illustrate this - you spend a large amount of time on Slashdot complaining about how AGW isn't real and how the models haven't predicted anything, when there is lots of evidence a mere click or two away to quench any thirst for knowledge you might have.
I'm sure you've found this link but found some errors with it that the rest of the scientific community magically didn't notice. It will show that your faux outrage against the scientific method is based on a toxic mix of hubris and ignorance, fuelled by relying on getting your scientific information from the daily press instead of the scientific journals you should be reading.
Go on - shift those goalposts. We're still waiting. You're not a troll, but you do seem to be some poor human being caught up trying to maintain a cognitive dissonance which threatens to make you realise you're being incredibly selfish and stubborn at the expense of everyone else to follow you. If you're not, you are indistinguishable from one. I feel sorry for you, I really do.
All you did with that post is tell everyone "I don't know about climate change, but I'm going to assume I do, and repeat what someone I trust told me about this, instead of acting like a rational adult and finding out for myself". Good jerb! You're so clever!
You don't have to justify yourself as it is your right. It's also everyone else's right to laugh at your paranoia and perverse belief that, contrary to available statistics, having a gun makes you safer.
So she has to stay sober and ready, gun-in-hand, 24/7 in case someone breaks in. If she gets ill or has to sleep, she needs some sort of backup to guard her while she sleeps. She could - and I'm just guessing here - actually secure her house against being broken into, and then she could do whatever she wanted and never have to worry about this nonsense. It sounds like she lives in a failed state.
But I thought guns made people safe from government overstepping its authority...
No, but it's an arm.
So you are attempting to excuse a massive generalisation based on nothing but some base hatred or distrust? Brilliant.
Not an apartheid state, really. Wow. Gaza doesn't exist, then? A massive ghetto, cut off from the outside world, where collective punishment is used by Israel to coerce the people into self-destruction as they fight for their survival.
You think wrong. It's not owned by the DoD.
So you really don't care about learning, just complaining. Gotcha. Good jerb. You are a credit to your family.
There you go again. Any excuse to show the world you are scared of the world. Pathetic.
If you are seriously asking that, you should probably read far, far more about the UK as you seem to be under the impression it is exactly as the Daily Mail says it is, which is about as far from the truth as one can comfortably get in the same planetary system. Please don't go there as another uninformed American tourist - there are already enough of them to make life uncomfortable in quite a few places :)
You are over-reaching somewhat. The people here who are complaining are doing so because they didn't want to read the article. That's it. They like their 5 minutes of outrage getting all upset with the world. They need it. It's like coffee. If there is a headline claiming a story claiming someone they don't like is saying something they don't like, they will roundly accept it as true and complain. Complain, complain, complain, complain. They won't actually do anything, but the furious mashing of keys might make you believe they will, but their righteous streak will dry up long before they have to actually make any changes or do anything.
Of course the police putting in cameras in everyone's houses is far-fetched. It's illegal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence"), prohibitively expensive, and entirely toxic to anyone's career who gets too close.
But whatever - spin people doing what people have done for aeons into some condemnation of society. So original. I'm surprised you didn't trot out the "instruction manual" line - that would have fit right in.
Your brain just slippery-sloped itself clear out of your head with that one.
Did you even bother to read the article, or do you specifically enjoy getting confused and sharing it with everyone? He's saying that if you have a CCTV camera set up in your premises (home, business, etc.) that it makes sense to have it at eye-level in order for you to get better footage from your own camera. That's it. You should probably take a deep breath, work on your reading comprehension, and rejoin society.
I've never heard that before! Not an instruction manual he says, with such panache and informed condemnation! Wow! I feel like I'm in the presence of a true, modern-day genius freedom-fighter! I'm so honoured! It's incredible! Farrrrrt!