Standing up for yourself lets you know that you have your own power and authority. If someone takes advantage of you, and you let them, you will begin to feel that they are justified in their actions and internalize their treatment. If you stand up for yourself, even if it means you get the crap beaten out of you, you take the important step of rejecting that view of yourself.
Taking it further, when people believe that they need someone else to defend them it also reinforces an inappropriate view of helplessness. Sure, it's great if someone will step in and help you. But in the real world, people are often too busy or to concerned with their own business to step in and stand up for someone who's oppressed. That's why I always get upset when teachers get angry at students for standing up for themselves, or advise them not to. If you don't learn to do it from a young age, what hope is there for you later on when there is not teacher to "protect" you?
Then there's the laughable idea that the government can protect you from exploitation by you employer, or by other criminal elements more traditionally accepted as such (white collar criminals, murders, rapists, extortionists, polluters, regular old thieves, etc...), or from your abusive spouse. People always criticize libertarians (I am not a libertarian) for their view that you can take care of your self. While they are wrong about that, and you do need other people for sure, there will still be times when you will be all alone left to fend for yourself. If you find yourself in that situation (and you surely will) and you don't know how to stand up for yourself in the face of certain destruction, there is no hope for you.
This article is good. Hopefully now people will stop saying that we shouldn't stand up for ourselves.
The code of federal regulations and a first post? I don't think that will help. Seriously, though, the point I was trying to make was that people know communism by it's results, not by it's lofty ideals. What system can ever live up to that? Communism is not what it aspires to be.
Isn't it fun to argue over definitions? Try this on for size: China is a communist country, that's what the phrase "Peoples Republic" means. You say "if there is one thing that it isn't, its people working in capitalistic factories." In that case, how can it be that so many people work in Chinese factories?
The foundation of language is shared experience. If the most populous country in the world holds the understanding that communism means people working in factories, that's the only sensible definition to use. Unless you want a lot of people to misunderstand you when you're talking, I'd suggest you change your wording. May I suggest Marxism?
I don't think Anarchy qualifies as a system. Anarchy is what happens when your system fails, or you decide you don't need a system. It's kind of like the null option (what should we do about the oil spill? 1: Cap it, 2: Siphon it, 3: Nuclear Bomb, 4: do nothing.). It's not actually doing something, but it's always good to compare the null option to the alternatives to make sure action is warranted.
If you wanted to claim it as a system you'd have to concede that the vast majority of all systems are anarchy.
Fascism is more like it. And I'm talking about the economic model. It's almost like you take the Capitalism in the US and use trade to combine it with the Nationalistic Communist government of China and you get some sort of perverted system of Fascism. It's a strange thing.
The situation in China is hardly "unregulated". The problem is that the attitude in China is a bit more nationalistic. They view human casualties as an appropriate cost for ensuring the strength of the nation as a whole. Market competitiveness is very important to them as their world standing (particularly in manufacturing) is a point of pride for them.
But a manager can't fire someone just because they think they are a poor employee! Surely someone's livelihood should not be undone because of the opinion of their manager, right?
A lot of it has to do with the way we do business today. Everyone knows who the bad employees are, but you aren't really allowed to say anything or call them out. Even if it were socially acceptable, it is practically illegal to fire someone for incompetence, unless you can prove they are incompetent. That's where the metrics come in. Once you need to fire someone, you have numbers to back it up. It even eliminates the awkwardness of having to confront someone about their poor work ethic or the low quality of their work. The only downside is that it is easy to game the system, and you spend most of your time maintaining the system instead of working. Welcome to the 21st century.
The "soft", controlled forces of launch, reentry, and even impacting the ground are not like the hard, random impact of a kill vehicle. So just because a warhead is protected against the predictable stages of it's flight does not mean it is protected against an interceptor.
I don't know what kind of reliability studies have been done on nuclear warheads, but to know if you're knocking them out you'd have to build some mock-up warheads, intercept a bunch of them, and see how many of them would have been disabled.
The trouble with chemical and biological weapons is that even though it's easy to imagine some small group will get their hands on them and kill a lot of people, things are more difficult in practice. Since they rely on air to carry them, there's a lot that can go wrong (or right, if you're like me and you don't think killing people is a good thing). And manufacturing them is actually a lot more difficult than people think, due to the dangerous nature of the materials. It reminds me of a kid I knew who insisted he could build a rocket to travel to space by himself (after all, the principles of rocketry are very simple). I was not able to convince him that putting it into practice was actually a lot more complicated, and the he would probably need help and lots of money.
It seems to me that an intercept at such a high velocity might disable a warhead whether or not the warhead is impacted directly. Also, it seems that even if it doesn't it will knock the missal off course so that it won't hit whatever urban center it was aimed at (most of the US is empty space, after all).
That's a really arrogant thing to say. I'm sure many people who advocate the missile shield are not paid to do so (I doubt Obama is paid to). Not everyone who works in industry is paid to hold their opinions, and you do not have a monopoly on rational, independent thought.
So the only proof of your claim here is that poor people in Texas have racist tattoos and buy knives and guns? You know, that is not a new phenomenon. Poor people have to entertain themselves too. It's the rich people in the cities who are changing the textbooks, BTW.
a threat to the apolitical nature of public school governance and academic content standards in California.
Oh man, reading that line of bullshit just cracked me up. Listen to this politician: "We don't let politics interfere with education in this state, that's why we, your elected, political leaders, are enacting laws to prevent it." The very action he is undertaking falsifies his claim. His own claim falsifies itself merely by coming out of his mouth! You would have to be a complete idiot to buy into this nonsense.
Speak for yourself. I live in Orange County, CA. It's about as pedestrian / public transit unfriendly as you can get. Still, I do not own a car and I get around just fine (I walk about 50 miles a week, but that's doable). Before that I lived in Moscow, Idaho. I did not own a car there either, and there is absolutely no public transit. However, since it's a small town I was able to walk everywhere I needed to go. The problem's not that you can't do it, it's that you don't want to make the lifestyle choices you'd need to in order to do it.
You don't actually need to buy it. So this is a new choice, something you can choose to buy. Obviously, Steve has not required you to use it. So if you want to choose those things buy an iPad, otherwise, don't.
Just take one of the publicly available climate models and show that you can alter the conclusions by changing one of the parameterizations without losing consistency with...historical data.
But I've just spent this entire time trying to explain to you that establishing a parameter based on historical data precludes the notion that you are "predicting" the historical data. All I am saying is that if you use the historical data to validate the parameter you can not then go and claim the model predicts the historical data, it is a forgone conclusion that it will match the data because that was a condition for establishing the parameter's value in the first place. So the purposes of predicting the past (that doesn't even make any sense!) you can not claim that a parameter, established by fitting historical data, is well constrained.
Either you can use the historical data to validate the parameter, or you can use the parameter to validate the historical data. You can not do both. Again, I am not saying that computer models do not have value in predicting things, what I'm saying is that they haven't been around long enough for us to really know whether the models' predictions are accurate.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to model the climate, I am saying that we don't currently know how to model the climate from first principles. You were the one who said models didn't use parameterizations. You were wrong.
A tightly constrained parameter is something we know with certainty through direct measurement, such as the absorption spectrum of CO2, or the equation of state for water, or the amount of radiation emitted by the sun, or the global temperature of the atmosphere. Other things, like the weather patterns or the way clouds form are not tightly constrained.
I don't know whether or not it's possible to create another plausible model that is not dependent on CO2, I'd have to try it. I don't know if anyone else has, if they did they didn't publicize the result. I am not really arguing with you about whether or not CO2 is likely to cause global warming. In my opinion it is. But I really do have a problem with people who don't know what they're talking about claiming that global climate models "predict" the past. That's not true, and it doesn't make any sense. You can't predict the past.
At the risk of repeating myself: the problem is that all computer models are validated against real world data. That means they will will always agree with historical data when using the computer model to "predict" past behavior. Since this is true, you can not silence criticism with computer models.
Perhaps if, as you claim, a computer model was derived only from observable and measurable physical phenomena, an undiscerning man might accept it as proof. However, that is not true. While climate models do incorporate those things, they also incorporate "parameterizations" to allow for variables too complex to simulate.
This truth about climate models should be obvious. If we can't accurately simulate fluid dynamics in general (much less in a two-phase system) how could we presume to simulate the climate, which is made up of fluids? All computer models of such phenomena must be validated against real world data. Hence the problem with claiming climate models predict the past. You can not claim to have predicted data that you used to validate your prediction, because an agreement is a foregone conclusion.
No, that's exactly what you'd expect. CO2 concentrations have been rising, and so have temperatures. Any model that will give you a result matching the data must show the two rising together. Any model that doesn't is immediately invalid because it fails to accurately reproduce historic temperatures.
What skeptics are saying is that the data shows a correlation, but that that doesn't necessarily mean causation. You can't point to a computer model to prove them wrong because the way computer models are generated and validated guarantees they will agree with the statistical result.
Slashdot Mirror
Standing up for yourself lets you know that you have your own power and authority. If someone takes advantage of you, and you let them, you will begin to feel that they are justified in their actions and internalize their treatment. If you stand up for yourself, even if it means you get the crap beaten out of you, you take the important step of rejecting that view of yourself.
Taking it further, when people believe that they need someone else to defend them it also reinforces an inappropriate view of helplessness. Sure, it's great if someone will step in and help you. But in the real world, people are often too busy or to concerned with their own business to step in and stand up for someone who's oppressed. That's why I always get upset when teachers get angry at students for standing up for themselves, or advise them not to. If you don't learn to do it from a young age, what hope is there for you later on when there is not teacher to "protect" you?
Then there's the laughable idea that the government can protect you from exploitation by you employer, or by other criminal elements more traditionally accepted as such (white collar criminals, murders, rapists, extortionists, polluters, regular old thieves, etc...), or from your abusive spouse. People always criticize libertarians (I am not a libertarian) for their view that you can take care of your self. While they are wrong about that, and you do need other people for sure, there will still be times when you will be all alone left to fend for yourself. If you find yourself in that situation (and you surely will) and you don't know how to stand up for yourself in the face of certain destruction, there is no hope for you.
This article is good. Hopefully now people will stop saying that we shouldn't stand up for ourselves.
You could use it do a sub-oribital flight. There's no drag in space, and you'd get to your destination really fast.
The code of federal regulations and a first post? I don't think that will help. Seriously, though, the point I was trying to make was that people know communism by it's results, not by it's lofty ideals. What system can ever live up to that? Communism is not what it aspires to be.
Just because it's a sarcastic joke doesn't mean it's not insightful.
Isn't it fun to argue over definitions? Try this on for size: China is a communist country, that's what the phrase "Peoples Republic" means. You say "if there is one thing that it isn't, its people working in capitalistic factories." In that case, how can it be that so many people work in Chinese factories?
The foundation of language is shared experience. If the most populous country in the world holds the understanding that communism means people working in factories, that's the only sensible definition to use. Unless you want a lot of people to misunderstand you when you're talking, I'd suggest you change your wording. May I suggest Marxism?
I don't think Anarchy qualifies as a system. Anarchy is what happens when your system fails, or you decide you don't need a system. It's kind of like the null option (what should we do about the oil spill? 1: Cap it, 2: Siphon it, 3: Nuclear Bomb, 4: do nothing.). It's not actually doing something, but it's always good to compare the null option to the alternatives to make sure action is warranted.
If you wanted to claim it as a system you'd have to concede that the vast majority of all systems are anarchy.
I'm talking about how we got where we are today. You are talking about what may happen tomorrow. It's a completely different thing.
Fascism is more like it. And I'm talking about the economic model. It's almost like you take the Capitalism in the US and use trade to combine it with the Nationalistic Communist government of China and you get some sort of perverted system of Fascism. It's a strange thing.
The situation in China is hardly "unregulated". The problem is that the attitude in China is a bit more nationalistic. They view human casualties as an appropriate cost for ensuring the strength of the nation as a whole. Market competitiveness is very important to them as their world standing (particularly in manufacturing) is a point of pride for them.
But a manager can't fire someone just because they think they are a poor employee! Surely someone's livelihood should not be undone because of the opinion of their manager, right?
A lot of it has to do with the way we do business today. Everyone knows who the bad employees are, but you aren't really allowed to say anything or call them out. Even if it were socially acceptable, it is practically illegal to fire someone for incompetence, unless you can prove they are incompetent. That's where the metrics come in. Once you need to fire someone, you have numbers to back it up. It even eliminates the awkwardness of having to confront someone about their poor work ethic or the low quality of their work. The only downside is that it is easy to game the system, and you spend most of your time maintaining the system instead of working. Welcome to the 21st century.
This comment is insightful, not funny.
He's talking about the difference between assuming a spherical earth and a flat earth. It effects volume-related calculations.
The "soft", controlled forces of launch, reentry, and even impacting the ground are not like the hard, random impact of a kill vehicle. So just because a warhead is protected against the predictable stages of it's flight does not mean it is protected against an interceptor.
I don't know what kind of reliability studies have been done on nuclear warheads, but to know if you're knocking them out you'd have to build some mock-up warheads, intercept a bunch of them, and see how many of them would have been disabled.
The trouble with chemical and biological weapons is that even though it's easy to imagine some small group will get their hands on them and kill a lot of people, things are more difficult in practice. Since they rely on air to carry them, there's a lot that can go wrong (or right, if you're like me and you don't think killing people is a good thing). And manufacturing them is actually a lot more difficult than people think, due to the dangerous nature of the materials. It reminds me of a kid I knew who insisted he could build a rocket to travel to space by himself (after all, the principles of rocketry are very simple). I was not able to convince him that putting it into practice was actually a lot more complicated, and the he would probably need help and lots of money.
It seems to me that an intercept at such a high velocity might disable a warhead whether or not the warhead is impacted directly. Also, it seems that even if it doesn't it will knock the missal off course so that it won't hit whatever urban center it was aimed at (most of the US is empty space, after all).
That's a really arrogant thing to say. I'm sure many people who advocate the missile shield are not paid to do so (I doubt Obama is paid to). Not everyone who works in industry is paid to hold their opinions, and you do not have a monopoly on rational, independent thought.
So the only proof of your claim here is that poor people in Texas have racist tattoos and buy knives and guns? You know, that is not a new phenomenon. Poor people have to entertain themselves too. It's the rich people in the cities who are changing the textbooks, BTW.
Oh man, reading that line of bullshit just cracked me up. Listen to this politician: "We don't let politics interfere with education in this state, that's why we, your elected, political leaders, are enacting laws to prevent it." The very action he is undertaking falsifies his claim. His own claim falsifies itself merely by coming out of his mouth! You would have to be a complete idiot to buy into this nonsense.
Speak for yourself. I live in Orange County, CA. It's about as pedestrian / public transit unfriendly as you can get. Still, I do not own a car and I get around just fine (I walk about 50 miles a week, but that's doable). Before that I lived in Moscow, Idaho. I did not own a car there either, and there is absolutely no public transit. However, since it's a small town I was able to walk everywhere I needed to go. The problem's not that you can't do it, it's that you don't want to make the lifestyle choices you'd need to in order to do it.
Just because no one else has said it:
You don't actually need to buy it. So this is a new choice, something you can choose to buy. Obviously, Steve has not required you to use it. So if you want to choose those things buy an iPad, otherwise, don't.
But I've just spent this entire time trying to explain to you that establishing a parameter based on historical data precludes the notion that you are "predicting" the historical data. All I am saying is that if you use the historical data to validate the parameter you can not then go and claim the model predicts the historical data, it is a forgone conclusion that it will match the data because that was a condition for establishing the parameter's value in the first place. So the purposes of predicting the past (that doesn't even make any sense!) you can not claim that a parameter, established by fitting historical data, is well constrained.
Either you can use the historical data to validate the parameter, or you can use the parameter to validate the historical data. You can not do both. Again, I am not saying that computer models do not have value in predicting things, what I'm saying is that they haven't been around long enough for us to really know whether the models' predictions are accurate.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to model the climate, I am saying that we don't currently know how to model the climate from first principles. You were the one who said models didn't use parameterizations. You were wrong.
A tightly constrained parameter is something we know with certainty through direct measurement, such as the absorption spectrum of CO2, or the equation of state for water, or the amount of radiation emitted by the sun, or the global temperature of the atmosphere. Other things, like the weather patterns or the way clouds form are not tightly constrained.
I don't know whether or not it's possible to create another plausible model that is not dependent on CO2, I'd have to try it. I don't know if anyone else has, if they did they didn't publicize the result. I am not really arguing with you about whether or not CO2 is likely to cause global warming. In my opinion it is. But I really do have a problem with people who don't know what they're talking about claiming that global climate models "predict" the past. That's not true, and it doesn't make any sense. You can't predict the past.
At the risk of repeating myself: the problem is that all computer models are validated against real world data. That means they will will always agree with historical data when using the computer model to "predict" past behavior. Since this is true, you can not silence criticism with computer models.
Perhaps if, as you claim, a computer model was derived only from observable and measurable physical phenomena, an undiscerning man might accept it as proof. However, that is not true. While climate models do incorporate those things, they also incorporate "parameterizations" to allow for variables too complex to simulate.
This truth about climate models should be obvious. If we can't accurately simulate fluid dynamics in general (much less in a two-phase system) how could we presume to simulate the climate, which is made up of fluids? All computer models of such phenomena must be validated against real world data. Hence the problem with claiming climate models predict the past. You can not claim to have predicted data that you used to validate your prediction, because an agreement is a foregone conclusion.
No, that's exactly what you'd expect. CO2 concentrations have been rising, and so have temperatures. Any model that will give you a result matching the data must show the two rising together. Any model that doesn't is immediately invalid because it fails to accurately reproduce historic temperatures.
What skeptics are saying is that the data shows a correlation, but that that doesn't necessarily mean causation. You can't point to a computer model to prove them wrong because the way computer models are generated and validated guarantees they will agree with the statistical result.