Given the number of such articles in recent years, I would simply state that there is ground work being done in order to push for some legislation aimed at removing more obstacles in arbitrary prosecutions, aka, more legalized witch hunts.
The premise here doesn't even remotely imply the conclusion. Studying the behavior of the brain by MRI has only recently been possible, in sufficient detail to start drawing hypotheses about brain mechanisms.
The leap from that to witch hunts implies a bit of undue paranoia.
What I went looking for was explanations of mechanisms, hard economic theory, and deeper understanding.
What I found complaining, was regurgitated aphorisms, and more unsupported assertions with a small pile of trite dismissal of poorly imagined counter-arguments. Along with paranoia complaining about moderation. Like you think you're a lone voice of sanity, calling out millions of educated skilled economists, but lacking anything nearing academic backing for your own assertions.
My slashdot discussions have revealed to me that we will never get past that. Between the authoritarians republicans, execute-all-criminals-for-evolution libertarians, and all flavors of just-world believing nutballs, we will never manage to treat crime in an optimal way.
No, we really don't. That's crazy. If you can't accept that temporary inflation can be considered a good thing to address the long-term harm caused by downturns. Keynsian economics just acknowledges the social costs of individual poverty can be irreversible, whereas inflation can be countered by austerity in good times.
The fact that you invented an opinion for those you disagree with shows that you don't really have much confidence in your own position.
It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be? Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?
Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.
I don't care too much, but I think the theoretical problem is this: Makerbot used the open-source community to help popularize their product because it was open source. Now they're switching to closed source, it feels like a betrayal of the people who helped them to get popular.
Like I said, I don't care, but it's a perspective I can understand.
Where did you get the invention that Keynesian economics denies the storage of value? I'm not willing to argue to support a straw-man of my own position.
No, but there are a lot of esoteric concepts that don't need words, where the creation of words allows one to communicate a complex concept full of idiosyncrasies while retaining brevity. If I had to remove "esoteric" and "idiosyncrasies" from this post, I'd probably have to double its length to say the same thing.
Government satellites are already, by-and-large, built by private contractors for overpriced contracts, by rent-seeking engineering firms. GOES sattellites, for example, weren't designed and manufactured by NOAA scientists, but BOEING or Space Systems/Loral or Lockheed Martin. The difference here would only be the job of running them.
Hold the phone! You mean to tell me that observational data is not perfect and must be interpretted with sufficient context? I never considered that before in my life, and formulated my opinion based entirely on loose statistical correlations and have refused to considered co-factors. I mean it when I say you are making a poignant assertion regarding my own ignorance.
Or maybe we can attempt to control for as many factors as possible and see what falls out. Yeah, maybe observational evidence isn't totally worthless just because it's not absolute like experimental data is.
I'm trying to grok the distinction between a phone and a watch that makes a phone a legitimate tool and a watch idiotic. Obviously, if the weight or battery life is sufficiently poor, there's a real problem for a watch, but other than that, what's the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
Given the number of such articles in recent years, I would simply state that there is ground work being done in order to push for some legislation aimed at removing more obstacles in arbitrary prosecutions, aka, more legalized witch hunts.
The premise here doesn't even remotely imply the conclusion. Studying the behavior of the brain by MRI has only recently been possible, in sufficient detail to start drawing hypotheses about brain mechanisms.
The leap from that to witch hunts implies a bit of undue paranoia.
I can't imagine it being treated differently by the law than lie detectors.
I was just being pithy. The problem being that you can be caught for a crime that never happened.
What I went looking for was explanations of mechanisms, hard economic theory, and deeper understanding.
What I found complaining, was regurgitated aphorisms, and more unsupported assertions with a small pile of trite dismissal of poorly imagined counter-arguments. Along with paranoia complaining about moderation. Like you think you're a lone voice of sanity, calling out millions of educated skilled economists, but lacking anything nearing academic backing for your own assertions.
Your journal is really more of the same.
My slashdot discussions have revealed to me that we will never get past that. Between the authoritarians republicans, execute-all-criminals-for-evolution libertarians, and all flavors of just-world believing nutballs, we will never manage to treat crime in an optimal way.
Closer, really. Brain measurements incorporate nurture in some ways.
Please never be a juror for me.
That's a lot of unsupported assertions.
I'm not sure why you think "need" is relevant to the development of new words.
No, we really don't. That's crazy. If you can't accept that temporary inflation can be considered a good thing to address the long-term harm caused by downturns. Keynsian economics just acknowledges the social costs of individual poverty can be irreversible, whereas inflation can be countered by austerity in good times.
The fact that you invented an opinion for those you disagree with shows that you don't really have much confidence in your own position.
It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be? Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?
Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.
I don't care too much, but I think the theoretical problem is this: Makerbot used the open-source community to help popularize their product because it was open source. Now they're switching to closed source, it feels like a betrayal of the people who helped them to get popular.
Like I said, I don't care, but it's a perspective I can understand.
Where did you get the invention that Keynesian economics denies the storage of value? I'm not willing to argue to support a straw-man of my own position.
Because not being in a dictionary keeps people from using words. Ain't that right?
Perhaps I'm getting old, but I'm tiered of these new fangled words that keep geting pushed into common use.
I'll keep this brief: yes, that is just you getting old.
No, but there are a lot of esoteric concepts that don't need words, where the creation of words allows one to communicate a complex concept full of idiosyncrasies while retaining brevity. If I had to remove "esoteric" and "idiosyncrasies" from this post, I'd probably have to double its length to say the same thing.
While I agree:
Government satellites are already, by-and-large, built by private contractors for overpriced contracts, by rent-seeking engineering firms. GOES sattellites, for example, weren't designed and manufactured by NOAA scientists, but BOEING or Space Systems/Loral or Lockheed Martin. The difference here would only be the job of running them.
Hold the phone! You mean to tell me that observational data is not perfect and must be interpretted with sufficient context? I never considered that before in my life, and formulated my opinion based entirely on loose statistical correlations and have refused to considered co-factors. I mean it when I say you are making a poignant assertion regarding my own ignorance.
Or maybe we can attempt to control for as many factors as possible and see what falls out. Yeah, maybe observational evidence isn't totally worthless just because it's not absolute like experimental data is.
You sir, make Lex Luthor seem nice.
Not a fair comparison. That asshole takes the cake.
By comparing against countries that do have guns but also have gun laws?
The legal uses still result in far more accidental death and injury than protection from illegal uses.
As UI's go, smartphones suck pretty bad too. I just have a hard time imagining a watch being much worse.
Maybe it's so wasting time on the internet at work sucks.
From what I've heard, screen size will be pretty comparable to average sized modern smart phones, just curved and flexible.
I'm trying to grok the distinction between a phone and a watch that makes a phone a legitimate tool and a watch idiotic. Obviously, if the weight or battery life is sufficiently poor, there's a real problem for a watch, but other than that, what's the difference?