It's called moral relativism. Many people believe that something is wrong when someone else does it, but OK whey they do it (because they are doing it for a good reason or what the fuck ever). It stems from a lack of desire to think rationally and accept truth. The best example is when people say that it okay to be intolerant intolerant views. I'm not sure how it works, but I am told this is a totally rational, non-hypocritical viewpoint. I say it's bullshit.
He was a thief. Other people who actually work for a living do not take from those around them.
That said, it would be better if people didn't take more than they need. And our society often does marginalize people and make them poor (I'm not totally sure why). This achieved through government action, mandated by the middle class. I'm sure the wealthy would do it if they had the political power.
Bill Gates was successful at holding back the software industry and costing us all billions of dollars though needlessly aggressive tactics and the inability of his business model to produce usable software. I wouldn't consider that a success. I suppose it depends what you're trying to accomplish.
How about if we are all just totally honest about everything. Why should an employer hire you if you drink, and they don't think a drinker is the best fit for the job? And if everyone is honest about stuff, maybe it will help people have reasonable expectations.
Looking a publicly available information and using it to make hiring decisions is not "snooping". You put that information up there so that people can know about you.
Your "economic programme" and "school of politico-philosophical thought" are actually every bit as relevant/irrelevant at the iPhone. You think they're special because they're all scholarly, but they don't really accomplish anything more than the iPhone does. At least the things accomplished by the iPhone can be stated in concrete terms without a bunch of hand-waving and excuse-making.
I apologize if this is a bit over-the-top. I'm a recovering academic.
You've missed my entire point. Students are compelled by law to be in school. They don't "choose to accept rules" and they can't "choose to leave". They have to be there. This is not something we require of adults (in this country, anyway), so it's not reasonable to say that you are treating her as an adult. You are giving her all the consequences and none of the choice. That isn't accountability. And it will not, under any circumstances, solve her problem. This is just an absurd overreaction to something that doesn't really matter at all. She will understand it as such, and it will only serve to reinforce her distrust of adults and authority.
"where do you get "years of abuse and neglect?"
As a general rule, students that act out and get into trouble have that background. I work with kids regularly, and I have never seen a situation where this is not the case.
"if your college has rules regarding cell phone usage"
I'm not in college. I don't need their bizarre rules and retarded grading schemes. Thankfully, that is my choice since I'm an adult, which is exactly my point.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't exactness the whole point of science? Doesn't science rely on controlled experimentation to conclusively disprove or fail to disprove a hypothesis? Has "pop science" become the new science? Is it now considered acceptable to reach a conclusion without the support of controlled experimentation, but still call it a scientific conclusion? How is this new breed of science any different than guessing?
I think the true scientists among us need to find a new word to describe what they do.
Or rather, numerous studies have failed to show a link between autism and vaccines. The doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one. But you should have some kind of positive proof of harm, in my opinion, before you go sue someone over it.
This is not the kind of love and support this young woman needs. You can't solve the problems that have been brought by years of abuse and neglect arresting someone and calling it "accountability". In point of fact, this young person was being held against her will, and there is no law saying she has to do everything her teacher says.
"Treat teenagers like adults they act like adults."
I never see people calling the cops on my friends when they are texting during their compulsory education process. That's because we don't write laws to compel adults to sit on their ass 8 hours a day (yet), and last time I checked, texting was not illegal. You have a strange idea of what constitutes freedom and accountability, sir. There's more to life than keeping your head down and doing what you are told. You advocate teaching her the opposite of accountability.
The term "producer" does not specify what you do with what you produce. The point of this statement is that the he will give you something, but get something in return. In this context, claiming to be a producer does not convey the same meaning.
You can establish the existence of gravity through a program if controlled experimentation, so that is an extremely poor example. A better example may be homeopathic medicine, or medicine in general, where procedures are often performed that are poorly understood and have not been proven to be effective through rigorous controlled experimentation.
"installing smoke scrubbers to reduce the pollution outputted by a factory"
This is not the same as eliminating CO2 emissions. Also, people are suggesting that we stop all oil drilling and burning, or nearly all of it. Regardless, mandatory caps are an extremely poor choice, because they make no effort at all to establish the merit of CO2 generating activities, but rather aim only to put an arbitrary limit on emissions. Also, I get the impression that you did not read the last paragraph of my comment, so you should go back and read it.
"every single life-support task can be completely automated"
No, you would probably be surprised how much work is and must be done by hand. People have the impression that these things are or can be automated but it is not true. Automation is only used in certain specific situations where the cost of automation is lower than the cost of manual labor. Watch "how it's made" and look at how much hand work is done to make everything we use. Try to think of a way to automate it and you will see that it is harder than simply performing the task by hand.
It's not good science to say that it is very likely that one action causes another effect when "the precise details are not clear yet". It would be another matter if a controlled experiment could reach this conclusion, but we have only one earth, so it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty that increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 have contributed to changes in the climate, or that they will cause changes.
The claim that CO2 has lead to changes in the climate is a hypotheses that has not been proven (or tested). More experimentation is necessary to draw a meaningful scientific conclusion.
Here are the facts:
1) CO2 is a known greenhouse gas which exists in extremely low concentrations in our atmosphere, so the hypothesis that increases in CO2 concentrations will lead to climate change is reasonable.
2) The climate has shown small changes over the last several decades, but these changes are poorly understood and have only limited effects on the earth's population.
3) CO2 concentrations are rising because of the combustion of fossil fuels. This process is the fundamental power-source for all modern technology, and without it billions of humans will face extreme adversity.
I think given the facts, it is pretty clear that we should not stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone who would suggest otherwise has questionable motives, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong. We should look for alternatives and implement them where appropriate. And we should not waste our natural resources such as we do today (especially oil, it is much more valuable than our treatment of it would imply). But mandatory caps will not do anything good.
We already have 6 billion brains working in parallel to try to solve these problems, and they haven't done it. What you need is something that thinks "better" than a human brain, assuming such a thing is possible. But I don't think you can just use thought to solve all your problems. There is real, physical, work involved in inventing something. That takes time and resources.
And what makes you think such a thing is 40 years out? That kind of technology is completely unprecedented.
What do you think that word means? What makes you think they will achieve it? And what do you think will happen when they do? Such a machine would have no use for you. . .
Think of it this way. We have an incredible amount of automation, and yet we still spend a huge amount of our time working. Technology that makes the development of technology easier runs up against the same barrier. There is work that must be done by people and there always will be. There is no magical "singularity" after which the development of new technology will become easier at an unprecedented rate. It will only become incrementally easier over time.
No evidence to the contrary has ever been presented, and the idea doesn't make sense if you really understand how new technology is developed. The whole singularity thing is just fanciful speculation with no grounding in reality whatsoever.
It is complete and utter nonsense. These people are so obsessed with the idea that science and knowledge and inventiveness can solve all our problems that they've neglected the actual process of technological development, which is filled with ideas that look good on paper but don't work when you try them in the real world.
When it comes to solving problems, nothing beats hard work, not even the "singularity".
What does it even mean to break bacteria up into species? They don't reproduce sexually. They take up new genetic material from their environment. It's a bit of a misnomer.
The headline is a little alarmist, but the article is more reasobable:
That's really a political decision because there's more at issue than just the science. It's the issue of what the science says, plus what's feasible politically, plus what's reasonable economically to do," Oppenheimer says.
One of the things people don't understand about science sometimes is that it doesn't set policy because it requires objectivity. Goals, which are the basis of judgement and therefore decision making, are subjective.
Slashdot Mirror
We can sue someone for libel whenever they say anything about us now? Has the whole world gone insane? This is crazy.
"What's wrong with people these days?"
It's called moral relativism. Many people believe that something is wrong when someone else does it, but OK whey they do it (because they are doing it for a good reason or what the fuck ever). It stems from a lack of desire to think rationally and accept truth. The best example is when people say that it okay to be intolerant intolerant views. I'm not sure how it works, but I am told this is a totally rational, non-hypocritical viewpoint. I say it's bullshit.
How about if you just click on none of the ads? It's not rocket science.
He was a thief. Other people who actually work for a living do not take from those around them.
That said, it would be better if people didn't take more than they need. And our society often does marginalize people and make them poor (I'm not totally sure why). This achieved through government action, mandated by the middle class. I'm sure the wealthy would do it if they had the political power.
Bill Gates was successful at holding back the software industry and costing us all billions of dollars though needlessly aggressive tactics and the inability of his business model to produce usable software. I wouldn't consider that a success. I suppose it depends what you're trying to accomplish.
Same here. It hasn't caused me any problems.
How about if we are all just totally honest about everything. Why should an employer hire you if you drink, and they don't think a drinker is the best fit for the job? And if everyone is honest about stuff, maybe it will help people have reasonable expectations.
Looking a publicly available information and using it to make hiring decisions is not "snooping". You put that information up there so that people can know about you.
Your "economic programme" and "school of politico-philosophical thought" are actually every bit as relevant/irrelevant at the iPhone. You think they're special because they're all scholarly, but they don't really accomplish anything more than the iPhone does. At least the things accomplished by the iPhone can be stated in concrete terms without a bunch of hand-waving and excuse-making.
I apologize if this is a bit over-the-top. I'm a recovering academic.
You've missed my entire point. Students are compelled by law to be in school. They don't "choose to accept rules" and they can't "choose to leave". They have to be there. This is not something we require of adults (in this country, anyway), so it's not reasonable to say that you are treating her as an adult. You are giving her all the consequences and none of the choice. That isn't accountability. And it will not, under any circumstances, solve her problem. This is just an absurd overreaction to something that doesn't really matter at all. She will understand it as such, and it will only serve to reinforce her distrust of adults and authority.
"where do you get "years of abuse and neglect?"
As a general rule, students that act out and get into trouble have that background. I work with kids regularly, and I have never seen a situation where this is not the case.
"if your college has rules regarding cell phone usage"
I'm not in college. I don't need their bizarre rules and retarded grading schemes. Thankfully, that is my choice since I'm an adult, which is exactly my point.
"Science isn't an exact science"
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't exactness the whole point of science? Doesn't science rely on controlled experimentation to conclusively disprove or fail to disprove a hypothesis? Has "pop science" become the new science? Is it now considered acceptable to reach a conclusion without the support of controlled experimentation, but still call it a scientific conclusion? How is this new breed of science any different than guessing?
I think the true scientists among us need to find a new word to describe what they do.
Or rather, numerous studies have failed to show a link between autism and vaccines. The doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one. But you should have some kind of positive proof of harm, in my opinion, before you go sue someone over it.
This is not the kind of love and support this young woman needs. You can't solve the problems that have been brought by years of abuse and neglect arresting someone and calling it "accountability". In point of fact, this young person was being held against her will, and there is no law saying she has to do everything her teacher says.
"Treat teenagers like adults they act like adults."
I never see people calling the cops on my friends when they are texting during their compulsory education process. That's because we don't write laws to compel adults to sit on their ass 8 hours a day (yet), and last time I checked, texting was not illegal. You have a strange idea of what constitutes freedom and accountability, sir. There's more to life than keeping your head down and doing what you are told. You advocate teaching her the opposite of accountability.
Dude, calm down. It's just the internet.
The term "producer" does not specify what you do with what you produce. The point of this statement is that the he will give you something, but get something in return. In this context, claiming to be a producer does not convey the same meaning.
You can establish the existence of gravity through a program if controlled experimentation, so that is an extremely poor example. A better example may be homeopathic medicine, or medicine in general, where procedures are often performed that are poorly understood and have not been proven to be effective through rigorous controlled experimentation.
"installing smoke scrubbers to reduce the pollution outputted by a factory"
This is not the same as eliminating CO2 emissions. Also, people are suggesting that we stop all oil drilling and burning, or nearly all of it. Regardless, mandatory caps are an extremely poor choice, because they make no effort at all to establish the merit of CO2 generating activities, but rather aim only to put an arbitrary limit on emissions. Also, I get the impression that you did not read the last paragraph of my comment, so you should go back and read it.
"every single life-support task can be completely automated"
No, you would probably be surprised how much work is and must be done by hand. People have the impression that these things are or can be automated but it is not true. Automation is only used in certain specific situations where the cost of automation is lower than the cost of manual labor. Watch "how it's made" and look at how much hand work is done to make everything we use. Try to think of a way to automate it and you will see that it is harder than simply performing the task by hand.
It's not good science to say that it is very likely that one action causes another effect when "the precise details are not clear yet". It would be another matter if a controlled experiment could reach this conclusion, but we have only one earth, so it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty that increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 have contributed to changes in the climate, or that they will cause changes.
The claim that CO2 has lead to changes in the climate is a hypotheses that has not been proven (or tested). More experimentation is necessary to draw a meaningful scientific conclusion.
Here are the facts:
1) CO2 is a known greenhouse gas which exists in extremely low concentrations in our atmosphere, so the hypothesis that increases in CO2 concentrations will lead to climate change is reasonable.
2) The climate has shown small changes over the last several decades, but these changes are poorly understood and have only limited effects on the earth's population.
3) CO2 concentrations are rising because of the combustion of fossil fuels. This process is the fundamental power-source for all modern technology, and without it billions of humans will face extreme adversity.
I think given the facts, it is pretty clear that we should not stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone who would suggest otherwise has questionable motives, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong. We should look for alternatives and implement them where appropriate. And we should not waste our natural resources such as we do today (especially oil, it is much more valuable than our treatment of it would imply). But mandatory caps will not do anything good.
We already have 6 billion brains working in parallel to try to solve these problems, and they haven't done it. What you need is something that thinks "better" than a human brain, assuming such a thing is possible. But I don't think you can just use thought to solve all your problems. There is real, physical, work involved in inventing something. That takes time and resources.
And what makes you think such a thing is 40 years out? That kind of technology is completely unprecedented.
What do you think that word means? What makes you think they will achieve it? And what do you think will happen when they do? Such a machine would have no use for you. . .
Think of it this way. We have an incredible amount of automation, and yet we still spend a huge amount of our time working. Technology that makes the development of technology easier runs up against the same barrier. There is work that must be done by people and there always will be. There is no magical "singularity" after which the development of new technology will become easier at an unprecedented rate. It will only become incrementally easier over time.
No evidence to the contrary has ever been presented, and the idea doesn't make sense if you really understand how new technology is developed. The whole singularity thing is just fanciful speculation with no grounding in reality whatsoever.
It is complete and utter nonsense. These people are so obsessed with the idea that science and knowledge and inventiveness can solve all our problems that they've neglected the actual process of technological development, which is filled with ideas that look good on paper but don't work when you try them in the real world. When it comes to solving problems, nothing beats hard work, not even the "singularity".
Kinda makes you wonder if government intervention is really necessary.
You can't really know until you've tried it. Statistical information requires data from previous experimentation. Are these people really scientists?
What does it even mean to break bacteria up into species? They don't reproduce sexually. They take up new genetic material from their environment. It's a bit of a misnomer.
The headline is a little alarmist, but the article is more reasobable:
One of the things people don't understand about science sometimes is that it doesn't set policy because it requires objectivity. Goals, which are the basis of judgement and therefore decision making, are subjective.