OTOH, Einstein's Nobel Prize was for his work on quanta, ironically enough (specically, the photoelectric effect). In fact, the Nobel Prize committee is rumored to have been initially against giving him the prize on the basis that it might provide support to that crazy relativity theory of his.
And thus convince a Blind person to hand over their modded $100 for a chocolate bar and expect no change! Good work...
If you could get their $100 bill in order to mod it, wouldn't you just keep it? (Assuming you're going to be dishonest, that is.) If they received it already modded, then they would either have gotten it as $1 so no loss to them, or (more likely) they would know that they had a faulty $100 bill in their wallet and make sure they weren't giving that one away as $1.
TFA is pretty clear that it wants readers with first hand experience (i.e., scientists) to submit this evidence and not just submit articles about such bias that they may have read elsewhere. Doesn't mean that the BBC won't get plenty of those articles, but they have been quite clear about what they want and what they don't want.
The simple answer is that OpenDocument is not a Microsoft core asset. It's not even from Microsoft. It was originally created by OpenOffice, a competitor to MS Office.
I know it might be crazy considering the word "Gates" here, but perhaps he's thinking that with an organization doling out > $1 billion a year, other would-be philanthropists might actually be less inclined to start new foundations? Perhaps there's an understanding that part of the reason behind some people's philanthropy is the need to be the "biggest" donor.
On one hand, having this foundation in perpetuity might create a very high bar that would only push such "competition" even higher. On the other hand, it might be seen as such an impossibly high bar that it ends up stifling "competition".
You make some good points, I like Crichton, and I'm not inclined to believe he's been "bought out". (For one thing, I doubt it'd be worth "buying" him since he earns enough money from his books that he'd be much more likely to value his good name.)
I haven't read State of Fear yet, but I've heard it cited enough by those who think it proves their point that what you told me is no "spoiler".:)
If I had to guess as to why Crichton is a little paranoid in this regard it would have to be that he's never actually had to apply for a grant (I've been involved in several and have one due tomorrow where I'm the PI), so he has no idea how ludicrous his "conspiracy" actually is. Also, of course, as a writer, inventing conspiracies is what he has experience at.
Now I guess I have to actually read that book so I can form a more educated opinion about Crichton.
If you can get the blind person's $100 bill to punch the holes to make it a $1, then you can just take the $1 bill. If it was punched prior to the blind person receiving it, then the blind person would either have received it as a $1 bill (so he's out no money), or he would be aware that he had a $100 bill that felt like a $1 bill and wouldn't be so casual about it. Again, not that there aren't plenty of other problems...
But the solution to the aforementioned problem is to make the highest currency bill have the least holes. Therefore, you could turn a $100 bill into a $1 by punching holes, but not vice-versa. There are other problems with the idea, of course.
Btw, since you seem to be doubting that statement, I'll provide a nice link to my thesis for my Master's in Astrophysics (from Georgia State) as well as a link to my project for my Master's in Computer Science. Naturally, I also have a BS in Physics (from Georgia Tech), and I'm working on a Ph.D. in Computer Science. If you like, you can also read my dissertation proposal for the dissertation I'm currently working on.
This is not meant to impress you - just to point out that your skepticism is ill-founded.
I was making a joke (which the smiley face should have suggested) at the fact that you wrote:
I know there is little debate that anthropogenic global warming occurs, the real debate which you gloss over is that no one agrees on just how much is being contributed by man.
Obviously, man is responsible for 100% of the anthropogenic global warming, which was my joke on your choice of phrasing - which it appears I read more carefully than you did, or else you might have caught the humor. (OTOH, to be fair, it's often difficult to catch our own mistakes.)
Yes I know what the word means, the key is, why use it?
The reason it's useful is because it cuts to the chase. A lot of people like to argue "oh, we don't deny global warming, we just don't think man is responsible for it". The adjective "anthropogenic" thereby allows one to point out that all non-ExxonMobil funded climatologists will tell you that man's contribution to global warming is significant and a problem.
If you have to toss out catch phrases using big words it usually means you have nothing to say yourself.
It's neither a "catch phrase" nor that particularly big of a word. If you think that, you probably haven't been paying much attention to the debate - which is probably why you think there's still any reasonable doubt as to man's contribution to global warming.
Dreamers all, but sore losers.
I'm desperately trying to avoid making another joke here that might offend you, but I'm afraid I've already failed...:D
Are you trying to be an apologist for the fossil fuel industry, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? If that latter, I can respect that, but if the former, why?
Are you totally unwilling to look beyond what is said and investigate their motive? Whether or not one can be cool without fuel, one can definitely be cool without fossil fuels (although I suspect you and I disagree about what's "cool"). However, I strongly suspect that this movie suggests otherwise. I'll admit I haven't seen it, so correct me if I'm wrong. (Assuming you have seen it.) Still, even it were true that one can't be "cool" without fossil fuels, what's the point? If it's so obvious, as you seem to believe, why does it need to be stated? What's the motivation?
"'We were not created to sit down for long hours, but somehow modern life requires the vast majority of the global population to work in a seated position,' Dr. Bashir said.
So, although I was questioning "vast majority", it was in the context of the "work" comment.
When it comes to free will, what is your opinion? Would you consider yourself a "believer" in free will, agnostic, or, um, awillist?
If anything other than "awillist", do you understand the similarities to believing in God or being agnostic wrt same?
Personally, despite all common sense, I believe in free will in a personal sense, but in a scientific sense I act as if it is utter nonsense. Otherwise, my brain research wouldn't be able to get very far.:) If you're "awillist", than don't even try to argue with me, because I'd only have to agree with all of your statements and still say I believe in free will, and that might just drive you insane...
I hate to sound like a hippy here...
Or maybe further in history we can look at the misleading "research" on Marijuana, and the production of 'Reefer Madness'. These were financed by companies who were going to lose money if Marijuana were legalized.
Why in the world do you think you would sound like a hippy?:D
Does the vast majority of the global population really work in a sitting position, or is it just the vast majority that are participating in the "global economy"? I.e., if you factor in the billions who are living in poverty, is that statement still true? I'm skeptical.
This, in a nutshell, delineates why agnosticism, with its implied balance between "might be" and "might not be" seems intellectually dishonest to me. It is why I dismiss it as a cop-out; if one actually thinks that there is a balance between "there might be gods" and "there might not be gods", then one has given a great deal of credence to something that is, in the end, faith based; and I think what we actually have is a theist who wants to appear more of a thinker to those who are not theists. If one does not actually think that these ideas are balanced, yet asserts an agnostic position, then I think we have an atheist who doesn't want to offend the superstitious among their friends, family, coworkers and so on. I readily admit these are cynical takes, and am always interested to hear an agnostic's rationale(s) for the position they assert.
When you say balance, do you mean 50/50? Because very few self-described agnostics would hold that belief. If, however, you merely mean that we think that God is more likely than IPUs, then I'll accept that distinction. Of course, I will admit to believing quite strongly that there are no IPUs, whereas perhaps you won't? (Notice the distinction, again, between not believing in IPUs and believing in the absence of IPUs.) As for the evidence comment, I'll point out that many people DO have "evidence" of God. It's just not scientific evidence in the sense of being reproducible. I, personally, have felt a profound "connection" with God that I'm now willing to admit was most likely my imagination. Then, of course, there's the fact that one-in-a-million events happen all the time - but for those to which these events happen, they seem like good evidence for the existence of God (or Satan, depending on the nature of the one-in-a-million event, I suppose).
Btw, I also feel obligated to point out that my.sig comes from "Mere Christianity" - a book I recommend you read as it's much easier than the Bible, and you might find it illuminating. Then again, you might just find it nauseating.:P
I'm glad to see the environmental movement has rethought its position on nuclear power.
I never said that. I said that I thought that nuclear power is possibly the best option for dealing with greenhouse gases. Al Gore agrees with me, of course, as does at least one founder of the Sierra Club, IIRC. However, there are still several people in the "environmental movement" who are anti-nuclear power. And, I'll admit, there are a few wackos in the "environmental movement", but find me a movement without nuts... (pun intended).
I agree, leave the strawman out of it. I was attempting to point out that his argument (and yours) is a strawman argument.
Sorry but not every scientist agrees with the claim regardless of who is funding them. That is a simply a standard phrase used by any group to dismiss anyone who opposes them. It is the cliche method... in other words if you use it you are indicating you do not care to debate as you have already decided.
Can you find one scientist who disagrees with that claim who is NOT being funded by a fossil fuel company? Should be pretty easy to prove me wrong. I've made a very straightforward claim, and one that only requires one counter-example. I'm more than willing to debate you as I'm quite familiar with the science. I was merely pointing out that the argument that there is no consensus is wrong (as implied by the anti-science comment). There is a consensus amongst all scientists not being funded by fossil fuel companies.
I know there is little debate that anthropogenic global warming occurs, the real debate which you gloss over is that no one agrees on just how much is being contributed by man.
I'm guessing you don't know what anthropogenic means.:D
If your argument has merit them argue the point, attacking those who offer the opposing opinion and not the opinion itself shows you have no desire to debate the issue as your hard locked mentally in your belief.
I was arguing the point - that anthropogenic global warming can't be anti-science when it is supported by virtually all scientists. What point did you think he was making? (Assuming he was making a point, of course.)
Yeah, I've always been a bit skeptical about some ideas surrounding carbon neutrality. Obviously, the best option is to not emit carbon in the first place or to emit as little as possible, with ideas like increased efficiency, solar power, nuclear power, etc. However, planting trees does seem better than doing nothing, as long as those trees are native and aren't stifling diversity.
That's an allegation, but the facts of the article don't strongly support it.
What about this fact? "Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place 'unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.' One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp."
I'm not sure who you're calling "environmentalists", but I know that I self-identify as one. I also have 3 science degrees, and am working on a fourth. I don't think you could sanely call me anti-science. Also, when it comes to anthropogenic global warming, every single last climatologist who does not receive money from fossil fuel companies is in agreement that it is real, and that it will be a major problem for humanity if something is not done about it.
Of course, I'm not 100% against GM foods (although I appreciate caution), I'm in favor of informed uses of nano-technology, and I think that nuclear power (i.e., fission) is the best option we currently have for dealing with greenhouse gases. So maybe I'm not an "environmentalist" by your definition - but I still recognize that global warming is a real, anthropogenic, threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Take the number of people driving below the speed limit to the number of people who are tailgating. My estimate is that this ratio is about 1:5000.
OTOH, Einstein's Nobel Prize was for his work on quanta, ironically enough (specically, the photoelectric effect). In fact, the Nobel Prize committee is rumored to have been initially against giving him the prize on the basis that it might provide support to that crazy relativity theory of his.
If you could get their $100 bill in order to mod it, wouldn't you just keep it? (Assuming you're going to be dishonest, that is.) If they received it already modded, then they would either have gotten it as $1 so no loss to them, or (more likely) they would know that they had a faulty $100 bill in their wallet and make sure they weren't giving that one away as $1.
TFA is pretty clear that it wants readers with first hand experience (i.e., scientists) to submit this evidence and not just submit articles about such bias that they may have read elsewhere. Doesn't mean that the BBC won't get plenty of those articles, but they have been quite clear about what they want and what they don't want.
The simple answer is that OpenDocument is not a Microsoft core asset. It's not even from Microsoft. It was originally created by OpenOffice, a competitor to MS Office.
I know it might be crazy considering the word "Gates" here, but perhaps he's thinking that with an organization doling out > $1 billion a year, other would-be philanthropists might actually be less inclined to start new foundations? Perhaps there's an understanding that part of the reason behind some people's philanthropy is the need to be the "biggest" donor.
On one hand, having this foundation in perpetuity might create a very high bar that would only push such "competition" even higher. On the other hand, it might be seen as such an impossibly high bar that it ends up stifling "competition".
You make some good points, I like Crichton, and I'm not inclined to believe he's been "bought out". (For one thing, I doubt it'd be worth "buying" him since he earns enough money from his books that he'd be much more likely to value his good name.)
I haven't read State of Fear yet, but I've heard it cited enough by those who think it proves their point that what you told me is no "spoiler". :)
If I had to guess as to why Crichton is a little paranoid in this regard it would have to be that he's never actually had to apply for a grant (I've been involved in several and have one due tomorrow where I'm the PI), so he has no idea how ludicrous his "conspiracy" actually is. Also, of course, as a writer, inventing conspiracies is what he has experience at.
Now I guess I have to actually read that book so I can form a more educated opinion about Crichton.
If you can get the blind person's $100 bill to punch the holes to make it a $1, then you can just take the $1 bill. If it was punched prior to the blind person receiving it, then the blind person would either have received it as a $1 bill (so he's out no money), or he would be aware that he had a $100 bill that felt like a $1 bill and wouldn't be so casual about it. Again, not that there aren't plenty of other problems...
Good point. How cynical of you to think that someone might try to take advantage of the blind by abusing this otherwise perfect system, however. ;)
But the solution to the aforementioned problem is to make the highest currency bill have the least holes. Therefore, you could turn a $100 bill into a $1 by punching holes, but not vice-versa. There are other problems with the idea, of course.
Btw, since you seem to be doubting that statement, I'll provide a nice link to my thesis for my Master's in Astrophysics (from Georgia State) as well as a link to my project for my Master's in Computer Science. Naturally, I also have a BS in Physics (from Georgia Tech), and I'm working on a Ph.D. in Computer Science. If you like, you can also read my dissertation proposal for the dissertation I'm currently working on.
This is not meant to impress you - just to point out that your skepticism is ill-founded.
The reason it's useful is because it cuts to the chase. A lot of people like to argue "oh, we don't deny global warming, we just don't think man is responsible for it". The adjective "anthropogenic" thereby allows one to point out that all non-ExxonMobil funded climatologists will tell you that man's contribution to global warming is significant and a problem.
It's neither a "catch phrase" nor that particularly big of a word. If you think that, you probably haven't been paying much attention to the debate - which is probably why you think there's still any reasonable doubt as to man's contribution to global warming.
I'm desperately trying to avoid making another joke here that might offend you, but I'm afraid I've already failed...Are you trying to be an apologist for the fossil fuel industry, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? If that latter, I can respect that, but if the former, why?
Are you totally unwilling to look beyond what is said and investigate their motive? Whether or not one can be cool without fuel, one can definitely be cool without fossil fuels (although I suspect you and I disagree about what's "cool"). However, I strongly suspect that this movie suggests otherwise. I'll admit I haven't seen it, so correct me if I'm wrong. (Assuming you have seen it.) Still, even it were true that one can't be "cool" without fossil fuels, what's the point? If it's so obvious, as you seem to believe, why does it need to be stated? What's the motivation?
When it comes to free will, what is your opinion? Would you consider yourself a "believer" in free will, agnostic, or, um, awillist?
If anything other than "awillist", do you understand the similarities to believing in God or being agnostic wrt same?
Personally, despite all common sense, I believe in free will in a personal sense, but in a scientific sense I act as if it is utter nonsense. Otherwise, my brain research wouldn't be able to get very far. :) If you're "awillist", than don't even try to argue with me, because I'd only have to agree with all of your statements and still say I believe in free will, and that might just drive you insane...
Why in the world do you think you would sound like a hippy? :D
Does the vast majority of the global population really work in a sitting position, or is it just the vast majority that are participating in the "global economy"? I.e., if you factor in the billions who are living in poverty, is that statement still true? I'm skeptical.
When you say balance, do you mean 50/50? Because very few self-described agnostics would hold that belief. If, however, you merely mean that we think that God is more likely than IPUs, then I'll accept that distinction. Of course, I will admit to believing quite strongly that there are no IPUs, whereas perhaps you won't? (Notice the distinction, again, between not believing in IPUs and believing in the absence of IPUs.) As for the evidence comment, I'll point out that many people DO have "evidence" of God. It's just not scientific evidence in the sense of being reproducible. I, personally, have felt a profound "connection" with God that I'm now willing to admit was most likely my imagination. Then, of course, there's the fact that one-in-a-million events happen all the time - but for those to which these events happen, they seem like good evidence for the existence of God (or Satan, depending on the nature of the one-in-a-million event, I suppose).
Btw, I also feel obligated to point out that my .sig comes from "Mere Christianity" - a book I recommend you read as it's much easier than the Bible, and you might find it illuminating. Then again, you might just find it nauseating. :P
I never said that. I said that I thought that nuclear power is possibly the best option for dealing with greenhouse gases. Al Gore agrees with me, of course, as does at least one founder of the Sierra Club, IIRC. However, there are still several people in the "environmental movement" who are anti-nuclear power. And, I'll admit, there are a few wackos in the "environmental movement", but find me a movement without nuts... (pun intended).
I agree, leave the strawman out of it. I was attempting to point out that his argument (and yours) is a strawman argument.
Can you find one scientist who disagrees with that claim who is NOT being funded by a fossil fuel company? Should be pretty easy to prove me wrong. I've made a very straightforward claim, and one that only requires one counter-example. I'm more than willing to debate you as I'm quite familiar with the science. I was merely pointing out that the argument that there is no consensus is wrong (as implied by the anti-science comment). There is a consensus amongst all scientists not being funded by fossil fuel companies.
I'm guessing you don't know what anthropogenic means. :D
I was arguing the point - that anthropogenic global warming can't be anti-science when it is supported by virtually all scientists. What point did you think he was making? (Assuming he was making a point, of course.)
Yeah, I've always been a bit skeptical about some ideas surrounding carbon neutrality. Obviously, the best option is to not emit carbon in the first place or to emit as little as possible, with ideas like increased efficiency, solar power, nuclear power, etc. However, planting trees does seem better than doing nothing, as long as those trees are native and aren't stifling diversity.
I'm not sure who you're calling "environmentalists", but I know that I self-identify as one. I also have 3 science degrees, and am working on a fourth. I don't think you could sanely call me anti-science. Also, when it comes to anthropogenic global warming, every single last climatologist who does not receive money from fossil fuel companies is in agreement that it is real, and that it will be a major problem for humanity if something is not done about it.
Of course, I'm not 100% against GM foods (although I appreciate caution), I'm in favor of informed uses of nano-technology, and I think that nuclear power (i.e., fission) is the best option we currently have for dealing with greenhouse gases. So maybe I'm not an "environmentalist" by your definition - but I still recognize that global warming is a real, anthropogenic, threat.
Can you guess where the maximized profits are going?