So not much less radio-active then, like I said - would you drink 40% of a pint of cyanide
First, would you take a 60% pay cut and feel that your new check wasn't "much less"?
Second, what sort of idiotic analogy is that? A pint is about 470 ml. Sodium cyanide's solubility is 580mg/ml. So a pint of sodium cyanide would be 272, 600 mg. It's LD50 is 6.4 mg/kg. Assuming average weight about 75 kg, you're starting with enough sodium cyanide to kill almost 300 people. Starting with ridiculous overkill like that, of course 60% reduction isn't meaningful.
Ignoring the absurd exaggeration of a pint of cyanide, 60% less radioactive would be analogous to comparing cyanide to a substance 60% less toxic. Not 60% less volume of the exact same substance. As luck would have it, arsenic trioxide is roughly 60% less toxic than cyanide. Arsenic is absolutely still very toxic. However, turns out, in proper dosage and in combination with other chemicals, it has medical benefits, the chief among them being treatment of leukemia. So, under certain circumstances, I certainly would take something 60% as toxic as cyanide.
Anyway, I didn't really have much of a point, I was just offended by the enormous ignorance encapsulated in your one analogy. Carry on.
Do you know of any studies that have quantified different news organizations based on news vs. propaganda content? No? Then what else should I base my opinions on other than my subjective experience of the two? You are free to disagree, based on your own subjective experiences, but your original comment seemed to be suggesting that TDS only bashed on Fox News, and that only b/c of the different political biases. I merely point out a (to my mind) more reasonable explanation. Particularly given your false assertion that The Daily Show ONLY bashes Fox News.
Yeah... this is called "reporting the news" when you repeat what the news media is reporting.
No, it's called "reporting on news media" when you show clips of the media, then provide commentary on how the media is reporting the news. It really isn't a very subtle distinction between the two. It's the difference between being an author and a critic.
. Now, TDS does go out and actually report on news itself occasionally, but that is much less frequently than their news media coverage.
When you Americans say you live in the "The Land of the Free" do you REALLY believe it? If so, you need to get out and see the world and get a reality check for yourselves.
Well, see, back when it was the cops using their "leeway" to roust out the blacks, hippies and other undesirables, that was fine. They didn't used to mess with honest, upright citizens. Then the War on Drugs came along, and everyone became an undesirable. That is why cops so often are thugs and bullies (besides the obvious b/c they can): they are indoctrinated that all citizens, by virtue of not being a cop, are guilty. They are programmed with a "them vs. us" attitude. And they are determined that their "side" will "win".
I've always found that definition to be somewhat recursive. How is Opportunity not based at least in part on Luck? Maybe there are very rare exceptions where a truly extraordinary individual 100% created his own opportunities, but I doubt it.
while ignoring MSNBC and CNN's opinion programs and winking while hosting his own "fake news" show?
He goes where the funny is. Fox simply has more ridiculousness than CNN. You act as though the 3 networks are all equivalent, and thus only partisan bias could possibly cause someone to criticize one more harshly than the other. Not so. CNN is a news network (or tries to be, they have really gone downhill in recent years) that has a bit of a political bias, as is inevitable. Fox is a propaganda network that reports some news. I don't watch MSNBC. Oh, and he does call out CNN quite a bit. Especially their reliance on Twitter and user submitted "news". He used to rag on Keith Olberman, but ever since he quit, I don't recall hearing anything about MSNBC.
"fake news": the Daily Show doesn't report on the news. It reports on the news media, which perforce gives viewers a passing familiarity with what the news media is reporting. They blur the line somewhat, but the focus is clearly on media, not current events.
I don't know about the O'Reilly interview, but the Daily Show consistently uses video clips of people's actual words to point out the shit they are decrying. Video footage strikes me as rather strong fact based evidence (assuming it isn't doctored, which I imagine would quickly be called out if it ever happened). Yes, TDS political leanings are apparent, but they don't let that drive the show. The funny drives the show (why else would they have covered in such detail not only a Democrat's scandal, but one who happens to be a personal friend of John?)
Yeah, I know. If you're not a cop you can never understand the stress and pressure and danger these men go through.
You know what's more dangerous than being a cop? Working retail. Being a garbage man. And that's just odds of being murdered at work. If you count accidental death on the job, mining and agricultural jobs are WAAAY more dangerous. In fact, fatalities amongst law enforcement have fallen dramatically since 2007. Statistically, an altercation between a cop and a civilian is much more likely to end in the civilian being shot than the cop. On and on and on, the statistics and figures all agree, being a cop is not that dangerous. Certainly not dangerous enough to justify their being assholes and tyrants under the mantraf "better safe than sorry".
Just to support what the AC asserted, I work with a medical school, know many doctors and med students, and all agree. Once into the med school, you pretty much have to actively try to fail out. And this is no lower level school, either. Well known and respected (top 10 in a few disciplines) around the country.
While I agree with the sentiment that raising your kids is a parent's first responsibility, people such as the poster I responded to see anyone in poverty as lazy. They don't recognize that there are sometimes necessary trade-offs, which is what I was trying to point out.
If running your own business is what is required to succeed in our society, then we are admitting that our society relies on keeping some people down. It is impossible for a society to function when every person in it is a self-employed business person. Some of us view a society that relies on there being an underclass to function as a flawed society.
As a bonus, and contrary to what many would say would happen with a smaller central government (that corporate/monied interests would more-easily influence/control government), with a less-corrupt government and justice system, corporations/businesses/unions and other wealthy/powerful interests that engage in bad/illegal behavior will actually have a decent chance of having meaningful consequences and penalties applied for their misdeeds
How would making government weaker in a way that reduces the incentive to corrupt it ALSO result in a government that exerts more influence over corporate (just to pick a common example) malfeasance? If the government is capable of punishing a large player's bad behavior, that player will have incentive to influence whatever body is responsible for policing it's bad behavior. If government is not capable of policing large players' bad behavior, then who?
So if you're poor, do you put in the HARD WORK to raise your kids, or raise yourself out of poverty*? It's not like time and effort are in limitless supply.
* It is a fallacy that HARD WORK alone will raise you out of poverty. It is but one of the ingredients, you need some combination of effort, luck and talent. The hardest working ditch digger in the world is gonna be poor his whole life. The laziest genius with the right connections can easily succeed beyond that ditch digger's wildest dreams. The sweet spot is when a talented individual, born into the right circumstances, is also willing to work hard. Then you get the Bill Gates of the world.
If something is "possible", it's treated as "inevitable". But somehow only for things that are bad.
Slight correction. If something is possible, it is inevitable. But only for things that are profitable to someone. Unfortunately, it seems easier and thus more widespread to profit by screwing others out of a piece of the pie rather than profiting by increasing the amount of pie available for everyone. I'm not saying that is happening here, this actually seems reasonable to me. But as a general rule, yeah, it's true much more often than not.
The right to free speech, the right to free association, the right to not have onerous complicated tangling laws over the transmission of money, the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given.
Money isn't speech, no matter what the courts say. It's only in the incredibly narrow world of campaign contributions that anyone even pretends to believe this. Limiting campaign donations is not stepping on anyone's moral or natural rights to express themselves. It's prohibiting wealthy people/organizations from buying the political process in this country.
the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given
You do not have any such right, nor should you. Society prohibits all sorts of things you do with your money. Paying for political favors is one of them, except when it is done under the fiction of "donating large sums to the campaign". I think we should get rid of that loophole in what most people agree is a pretty good prohibition.
But why should people with more free time have more political influence than busy people? Ok, you can also spread the word, again the time thing, but also the number of friends you have and how well you speak, why should that affect your political influence? Are you implying ugly, awkward people should have less political influence than beautiful, captivating women asking for petition signatures?
Yep, people with more time and/or ability to influence people have more time and/or ability to influence people. But unlike money, people with good looks aren't trying to influence government in order to become better looking. Wealth seeks to influence government in order to increase wealth. The really large donations come when people/organizations spend money buying political influence b/c they want a return on investment. They buy policies that are detrimental to society at large b/c it makes them money. Governmental policies become simply a cost of doing business.
Don't be so obsessed with money, sometimes dealing with people is sticky and sometimes they won't do what you want
I am "so obsessed with money" b/c history demonstrates that some people, generally those with very little or a whole lot of money, will do anything to their fellow man in pursuit of it. Those with very little have little power to oppress me. Those with a whole lot have great power to oppress me; good government is one of the few defenses I have against that potential oppression. Why wouldn't I jealously guard that defense against being undermined?
By "run as Administrator", I'm including the Stupid Applications(tm) that require Administrator access just to run it. That's simply retarded, no matter how you slice it.
While I certainly agree that is annoying and insecure, how is that the fault of the OS?
but the problem is when people make an equivocation fallacy and want to say that my "faith" in science is of exactly the same sort as their own religious faith. This article, and many commenters here, present exactly this fallacy
No, the article doesn't. Nor have I seen any commenters mention it, other than you and the others that have propped it up to argue against. The summary specifically compares faith in science to faith in history, i.e. you take it as fact based on someone else's word. In fact, your own definition lists requires you to ignore the first two definitions, which obviously make sense in this context, in order to get this equivalency fallacy you (and others) have imagined.
Faith is defined as trust in something (or someone).
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
BTW, accusing me of making up a definition, then linking to an almost identical definition in order to "correct" me makes you an ass.
Given this background on the reliability of science, it's not faith, it's trust.
See, this is why everyone here has their panties in a wad over this. Basic semantics. Faith is defined as trust in something (or someone). Saying it's not faith, it's trust is nonsensical. Faith is not equivalent to religious faith. Religion is a subset of all things in which one can have faith. Trusting scientists is synonymous with having faith in scientists (their integrity, their competence, etc.). Saying you don't understand, nor is it possible for you to understand, all aspects of science, thus you must take some of it on faith (in the scientific method and the people that are applying it) has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Someone who has it together enough to work at NASA doesn't have such a terribly bad habit that they are going to test dirty
You mean like the guy that thought it was a good idea to bring his stash to work? Presumably so he could do it at work? You don't think that guy is gonna test dirty?
Wow, thanks for the tip! The "inconsistent" behavior of clipboard in Excel is one of those mild irritants that annoyed me whenever I ran across it, but not enough to actually figure out why it was behaving that way or how to fix it.
develop a strong sense of self-worth
Yes, I've noticed the lack of certainty and even the lack of strong convictions evidenced by most internet posters. If only more people were secure in their estimation of their own worth, relative to the worth of those in their community, the internet would become a truly harmonious place.
To sell flags and promote socialism. Seriously. Francis Bellamy wrote the American pledge of allegiance as a marketing tool to use in selling flags to schools, and to promote patriotism in children. Funniest thing (to me) is that originally, rather than place hand over heart, one would perform the Bellamy salute to the flag. Which was almost identical to the Nazi salute (palm up rather than palm down being the only difference). Which is why the Bellamy salute was replaced by the current hand over heart salute during World War II.
Slashdot Mirror
So not much less radio-active then, like I said - would you drink 40% of a pint of cyanide
First, would you take a 60% pay cut and feel that your new check wasn't "much less"?
Second, what sort of idiotic analogy is that? A pint is about 470 ml. Sodium cyanide's solubility is 580mg/ml. So a pint of sodium cyanide would be 272, 600 mg. It's LD50 is 6.4 mg/kg. Assuming average weight about 75 kg, you're starting with enough sodium cyanide to kill almost 300 people. Starting with ridiculous overkill like that, of course 60% reduction isn't meaningful.
Ignoring the absurd exaggeration of a pint of cyanide, 60% less radioactive would be analogous to comparing cyanide to a substance 60% less toxic. Not 60% less volume of the exact same substance. As luck would have it, arsenic trioxide is roughly 60% less toxic than cyanide. Arsenic is absolutely still very toxic. However, turns out, in proper dosage and in combination with other chemicals, it has medical benefits, the chief among them being treatment of leukemia. So, under certain circumstances, I certainly would take something 60% as toxic as cyanide.
Anyway, I didn't really have much of a point, I was just offended by the enormous ignorance encapsulated in your one analogy. Carry on.
Do you know of any studies that have quantified different news organizations based on news vs. propaganda content? No? Then what else should I base my opinions on other than my subjective experience of the two? You are free to disagree, based on your own subjective experiences, but your original comment seemed to be suggesting that TDS only bashed on Fox News, and that only b/c of the different political biases. I merely point out a (to my mind) more reasonable explanation. Particularly given your false assertion that The Daily Show ONLY bashes Fox News.
Yeah... this is called "reporting the news" when you repeat what the news media is reporting.
No, it's called "reporting on news media" when you show clips of the media, then provide commentary on how the media is reporting the news. It really isn't a very subtle distinction between the two. It's the difference between being an author and a critic.
. Now, TDS does go out and actually report on news itself occasionally, but that is much less frequently than their news media coverage.
When you Americans say you live in the "The Land of the Free" do you REALLY believe it? If so, you need to get out and see the world and get a reality check for yourselves.
Well, see, back when it was the cops using their "leeway" to roust out the blacks, hippies and other undesirables, that was fine. They didn't used to mess with honest, upright citizens. Then the War on Drugs came along, and everyone became an undesirable. That is why cops so often are thugs and bullies (besides the obvious b/c they can): they are indoctrinated that all citizens, by virtue of not being a cop, are guilty. They are programmed with a "them vs. us" attitude. And they are determined that their "side" will "win".
I've always found that definition to be somewhat recursive. How is Opportunity not based at least in part on Luck? Maybe there are very rare exceptions where a truly extraordinary individual 100% created his own opportunities, but I doubt it.
while ignoring MSNBC and CNN's opinion programs and winking while hosting his own "fake news" show?
He goes where the funny is. Fox simply has more ridiculousness than CNN. You act as though the 3 networks are all equivalent, and thus only partisan bias could possibly cause someone to criticize one more harshly than the other. Not so. CNN is a news network (or tries to be, they have really gone downhill in recent years) that has a bit of a political bias, as is inevitable. Fox is a propaganda network that reports some news. I don't watch MSNBC. Oh, and he does call out CNN quite a bit. Especially their reliance on Twitter and user submitted "news". He used to rag on Keith Olberman, but ever since he quit, I don't recall hearing anything about MSNBC.
"fake news": the Daily Show doesn't report on the news. It reports on the news media, which perforce gives viewers a passing familiarity with what the news media is reporting. They blur the line somewhat, but the focus is clearly on media, not current events.
I don't know about the O'Reilly interview, but the Daily Show consistently uses video clips of people's actual words to point out the shit they are decrying. Video footage strikes me as rather strong fact based evidence (assuming it isn't doctored, which I imagine would quickly be called out if it ever happened). Yes, TDS political leanings are apparent, but they don't let that drive the show. The funny drives the show (why else would they have covered in such detail not only a Democrat's scandal, but one who happens to be a personal friend of John?)
Yeah, I know. If you're not a cop you can never understand the stress and pressure and danger these men go through.
You know what's more dangerous than being a cop? Working retail. Being a garbage man. And that's just odds of being murdered at work. If you count accidental death on the job, mining and agricultural jobs are WAAAY more dangerous. In fact, fatalities amongst law enforcement have fallen dramatically since 2007. Statistically, an altercation between a cop and a civilian is much more likely to end in the civilian being shot than the cop. On and on and on, the statistics and figures all agree, being a cop is not that dangerous. Certainly not dangerous enough to justify their being assholes and tyrants under the mantraf "better safe than sorry".
Just to support what the AC asserted, I work with a medical school, know many doctors and med students, and all agree. Once into the med school, you pretty much have to actively try to fail out. And this is no lower level school, either. Well known and respected (top 10 in a few disciplines) around the country.
While I agree with the sentiment that raising your kids is a parent's first responsibility, people such as the poster I responded to see anyone in poverty as lazy. They don't recognize that there are sometimes necessary trade-offs, which is what I was trying to point out.
If running your own business is what is required to succeed in our society, then we are admitting that our society relies on keeping some people down. It is impossible for a society to function when every person in it is a self-employed business person. Some of us view a society that relies on there being an underclass to function as a flawed society.
As a bonus, and contrary to what many would say would happen with a smaller central government (that corporate/monied interests would more-easily influence/control government), with a less-corrupt government and justice system, corporations/businesses/unions and other wealthy/powerful interests that engage in bad/illegal behavior will actually have a decent chance of having meaningful consequences and penalties applied for their misdeeds
How would making government weaker in a way that reduces the incentive to corrupt it ALSO result in a government that exerts more influence over corporate (just to pick a common example) malfeasance? If the government is capable of punishing a large player's bad behavior, that player will have incentive to influence whatever body is responsible for policing it's bad behavior. If government is not capable of policing large players' bad behavior, then who?
So if you're poor, do you put in the HARD WORK to raise your kids, or raise yourself out of poverty*? It's not like time and effort are in limitless supply.
* It is a fallacy that HARD WORK alone will raise you out of poverty. It is but one of the ingredients, you need some combination of effort, luck and talent. The hardest working ditch digger in the world is gonna be poor his whole life. The laziest genius with the right connections can easily succeed beyond that ditch digger's wildest dreams. The sweet spot is when a talented individual, born into the right circumstances, is also willing to work hard. Then you get the Bill Gates of the world.
Maybe I missed something, but where were these girls forced to go look at his list? How did he force his opinion on anyone?
If something is "possible", it's treated as "inevitable". But somehow only for things that are bad.
Slight correction. If something is possible, it is inevitable. But only for things that are profitable to someone. Unfortunately, it seems easier and thus more widespread to profit by screwing others out of a piece of the pie rather than profiting by increasing the amount of pie available for everyone. I'm not saying that is happening here, this actually seems reasonable to me. But as a general rule, yeah, it's true much more often than not.
The right to free speech, the right to free association, the right to not have onerous complicated tangling laws over the transmission of money, the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given.
Money isn't speech, no matter what the courts say. It's only in the incredibly narrow world of campaign contributions that anyone even pretends to believe this. Limiting campaign donations is not stepping on anyone's moral or natural rights to express themselves. It's prohibiting wealthy people/organizations from buying the political process in this country.
the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given
You do not have any such right, nor should you. Society prohibits all sorts of things you do with your money. Paying for political favors is one of them, except when it is done under the fiction of "donating large sums to the campaign". I think we should get rid of that loophole in what most people agree is a pretty good prohibition.
But why should people with more free time have more political influence than busy people? Ok, you can also spread the word, again the time thing, but also the number of friends you have and how well you speak, why should that affect your political influence? Are you implying ugly, awkward people should have less political influence than beautiful, captivating women asking for petition signatures?
Yep, people with more time and/or ability to influence people have more time and/or ability to influence people. But unlike money, people with good looks aren't trying to influence government in order to become better looking. Wealth seeks to influence government in order to increase wealth. The really large donations come when people/organizations spend money buying political influence b/c they want a return on investment. They buy policies that are detrimental to society at large b/c it makes them money. Governmental policies become simply a cost of doing business.
Don't be so obsessed with money, sometimes dealing with people is sticky and sometimes they won't do what you want
I am "so obsessed with money" b/c history demonstrates that some people, generally those with very little or a whole lot of money, will do anything to their fellow man in pursuit of it. Those with very little have little power to oppress me. Those with a whole lot have great power to oppress me; good government is one of the few defenses I have against that potential oppression. Why wouldn't I jealously guard that defense against being undermined?
You shouldn't limit contributions. It really infringes on people's rights
What rights? The right to buy political influence? How is that a right? Why should a wealthier person have more influence than a poorer person?
The best girlfriends can, too.
By "run as Administrator", I'm including the Stupid Applications(tm) that require Administrator access just to run it. That's simply retarded, no matter how you slice it.
While I certainly agree that is annoying and insecure, how is that the fault of the OS?
but the problem is when people make an equivocation fallacy and want to say that my "faith" in science is of exactly the same sort as their own religious faith. This article, and many commenters here, present exactly this fallacy
No, the article doesn't. Nor have I seen any commenters mention it, other than you and the others that have propped it up to argue against. The summary specifically compares faith in science to faith in history, i.e. you take it as fact based on someone else's word. In fact, your own definition lists requires you to ignore the first two definitions, which obviously make sense in this context, in order to get this equivalency fallacy you (and others) have imagined.
Faith is defined as trust in something (or someone).
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
BTW, accusing me of making up a definition, then linking to an almost identical definition in order to "correct" me makes you an ass.
Given this background on the reliability of science, it's not faith, it's trust.
See, this is why everyone here has their panties in a wad over this. Basic semantics. Faith is defined as trust in something (or someone). Saying it's not faith, it's trust is nonsensical. Faith is not equivalent to religious faith. Religion is a subset of all things in which one can have faith. Trusting scientists is synonymous with having faith in scientists (their integrity, their competence, etc.). Saying you don't understand, nor is it possible for you to understand, all aspects of science, thus you must take some of it on faith (in the scientific method and the people that are applying it) has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
If I want, I can educate myself enough to perform the necessary steps to produce quantum entanglement.
Or so you believe. Unless you have, you don't know that for a fact, you just take it, ahem, on faith.
again - it was you americans. rest of the world didnt join in your bullshit.
Never met any English folks, huh? You think Americans rag on the French....
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project That might not turn out as well as you'd hope...
Someone who has it together enough to work at NASA doesn't have such a terribly bad habit that they are going to test dirty
You mean like the guy that thought it was a good idea to bring his stash to work? Presumably so he could do it at work? You don't think that guy is gonna test dirty?
Wow, thanks for the tip! The "inconsistent" behavior of clipboard in Excel is one of those mild irritants that annoyed me whenever I ran across it, but not enough to actually figure out why it was behaving that way or how to fix it.
develop a strong sense of self-worth
Yes, I've noticed the lack of certainty and even the lack of strong convictions evidenced by most internet posters. If only more people were secure in their estimation of their own worth, relative to the worth of those in their community, the internet would become a truly harmonious place.
To sell flags and promote socialism. Seriously. Francis Bellamy wrote the American pledge of allegiance as a marketing tool to use in selling flags to schools, and to promote patriotism in children. Funniest thing (to me) is that originally, rather than place hand over heart, one would perform the Bellamy salute to the flag. Which was almost identical to the Nazi salute (palm up rather than palm down being the only difference). Which is why the Bellamy salute was replaced by the current hand over heart salute during World War II.