Now, while happiness does help us catch lies in advertising, we're also more likely to react positively to advertising in general when we're happy. Thus google's mission should be to make people happy at the expense of news quality, since they're in the advertising business.
Strictly speaking, the assertion mwvdlee makes is logical. You can't affirm the consequent like that. But it's completely unreasonable in that it freely disregards other available(and in fact trivially commonplace) information about how diseases, and HIV in particular, work.
Oh this is the most intellectually lazy of bullshit.
Saying "Why would stopping treatment lead to a relapse?" as if there was no trivially understood relationship there. It's just... silly. I mean, come on bro, no one wants to jump to conclusions, but this is like saying "I stopped watering my houseplant, and at some point, it died. We don't know there's any relationship there."
If they count as a foreign nation. Since "no one country" owns space according so some treaty or another(okay, I admit, my memory is fuzzy on this), they might not.
But they will pay taxes on the income/profits. And there's no economic system that doesn't value the availability of new raw materials as a primary interest.
Worse than that. It's like Brave New World news. The only things fit to publish are the things that keep us happy(and thus amendable to advertisements in this case). It's not trying to make on specific entity look good, it's trying to engage in actual mind control via selection bias.
It's never about the moral high-ground. It's always about diplomatic leverage.
This excludes actions by populist elected bodies or particularly fickle monarchs. But in general if one nation is doing something to another nation, it's maneuvering by state and intelligence departments.
You're the guys who have this whole fictionalized "al gore obsession" where you pretend there's a cult of personality. You don't actually need to have one over Watt. He's just one shithead. Let it go.
Here's your Liar cite promised that a new examination was neutral and he'd base his views on that.
Immediately rejected it when it showed the scientific consensus. He's a liar. Established.
Yeah, see, we are eventually going to come take your stupid wasteful shit. And you won't do anything, because the only dog you have in this fight is that you don't want to acknowledge how wrong you are and how you're harming the future.
Your reaction to cognitive dissonance isn't my problem.
Your lack of understanding here doesn't mean shit.
An example of hypothesis here, say that carbon dioxide absorbs the primary spectra of light that radiate from the earth as kinetic energy, is easily proven in a lab with easily acquired equipment.
The primary inference of that and other hypotheses that you're pretending is up for debate has been so thoroughly demonstrated through both direct observational evidence and predictive modeling based experiments, that it's accepted by experts throughout virtually the entire applicable field.
It's not anyone's fault but your own that you see applying predictive value from existing theories, and corroborating that with real world observational evidence as anything other than normal scientific application.
There is no standing null hypothesis to the idea that the earth is rapidly warming due to CO2, there are a couple of alternate assertions about the cause of observationally higher temperatures that technically have some scientific basis, but none of them have anything approaching the respectability de facto scientific understanding that the earth is retaining more heat than ever before.
The fact that you don't even begin to understand the philosophy of science isn't a reason global warming "is bullshit" it's a poor reflection on your own character.
Let me repeat, you don't even understand how science works. And you should start learning somewhere.
A complex well-established theory is not the same as a hypothesis, and you should either learn the difference, or not pretend to understand.
Well, I mean, of course they haven't succeeded. We live in a democracy, so people are power, and they've won a big enough chunk of people to hold sway for a while.
But we also live in a representative republic. And the elitism designed into the system sort of works. A little. Policy makers are sometimes moderated by practicality.
It's just enough that there's a potential avenue of progress.
I get that every time facts come in it makes you look like a bumbling idiot, and you object to that, but come on.
You make up an excuse, it's relatively easily demonstrated to fantasy, and you demand credentials, as if credentials were what was missing from the climate science side.
Well, keep in mind that that phenomenon is tightly coupled with the melting of the arctic and how cold air blows around North America a bit more. Presumably once there's no more Antarctica left, they're get to join the rest of the world in unseasonable droughts.
Let's just pretend for a moment the answer to that question isn't yes
That wasn't even the point being made. It's the temperatures that are the threat to modern forms of plant, not CO2 concentration. Any farmer will tell you about the importance of climate to growing a particular crop.
1. The status quo is a powerful force on both an economy and politics 2. Debating real facts about the effects of certain types of human activity is important 3. You don't know what "bogey man" means. 4. Because coal is cheaper in the short term, not accounting for externalities, and climate change is becoming increasingly clear as an important one
There are multiple human beings who identify themselves as environmentalists, and not all are as informed as others. And not all are as spirited as others. And contradictions can arise within a community, as ideas struggle for dominance.
Slashdot Mirror
[calling a moron a moron]
You're doing god's work.
a cite
Now, while happiness does help us catch lies in advertising, we're also more likely to react positively to advertising in general when we're happy. Thus google's mission should be to make people happy at the expense of news quality, since they're in the advertising business.
Friend google has prescribed me 3 doses of happy happy to be taken at the nearest confession booth.
Strictly speaking, the assertion mwvdlee makes is logical. You can't affirm the consequent like that. But it's completely unreasonable in that it freely disregards other available(and in fact trivially commonplace) information about how diseases, and HIV in particular, work.
Oh, no, that's absolutely an attempt at large-scale mental manipulation as well.
Because HIV has numerous properties that allow it to remain dormant in a host for a long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Replication_cycle
Oh this is the most intellectually lazy of bullshit.
Saying "Why would stopping treatment lead to a relapse?" as if there was no trivially understood relationship there. It's just... silly. I mean, come on bro, no one wants to jump to conclusions, but this is like saying "I stopped watering my houseplant, and at some point, it died. We don't know there's any relationship there."
If they count as a foreign nation. Since "no one country" owns space according so some treaty or another(okay, I admit, my memory is fuzzy on this), they might not.
But they will pay taxes on the income/profits. And there's no economic system that doesn't value the availability of new raw materials as a primary interest.
Worse than that. It's like Brave New World news. The only things fit to publish are the things that keep us happy(and thus amendable to advertisements in this case). It's not trying to make on specific entity look good, it's trying to engage in actual mind control via selection bias.
Yeah, but see, you can have your cake and eat it too. Eject someone if you don't get what you want, once you have the pretense to defy the US.
It's never about the moral high-ground. It's always about diplomatic leverage.
This excludes actions by populist elected bodies or particularly fickle monarchs. But in general if one nation is doing something to another nation, it's maneuvering by state and intelligence departments.
No, a surprise would be throwing US agents in jail. This is definitely regular international diplomacy stuff.
The occasional persona non grata happens.
"I have no dog in this fight, but please, let me be annoyed at your for trying to take an unqualified paid shill's opinion out of the discussion"
Why does this guy have so many dedicated fans?
You're the guys who have this whole fictionalized "al gore obsession" where you pretend there's a cult of personality. You don't actually need to have one over Watt. He's just one shithead. Let it go.
Here's your Liar cite promised that a new examination was neutral and he'd base his views on that.
Immediately rejected it when it showed the scientific consensus. He's a liar. Established.
Shilling established
Now will you PLEASE stop defending this scum?
Yeah, see, we are eventually going to come take your stupid wasteful shit. And you won't do anything, because the only dog you have in this fight is that you don't want to acknowledge how wrong you are and how you're harming the future.
Your reaction to cognitive dissonance isn't my problem.
Your lack of understanding here doesn't mean shit.
An example of hypothesis here, say that carbon dioxide absorbs the primary spectra of light that radiate from the earth as kinetic energy, is easily proven in a lab with easily acquired equipment.
The primary inference of that and other hypotheses that you're pretending is up for debate has been so thoroughly demonstrated through both direct observational evidence and predictive modeling based experiments, that it's accepted by experts throughout virtually the entire applicable field.
It's not anyone's fault but your own that you see applying predictive value from existing theories, and corroborating that with real world observational evidence as anything other than normal scientific application.
There is no standing null hypothesis to the idea that the earth is rapidly warming due to CO2, there are a couple of alternate assertions about the cause of observationally higher temperatures that technically have some scientific basis, but none of them have anything approaching the respectability de facto scientific understanding that the earth is retaining more heat than ever before.
The fact that you don't even begin to understand the philosophy of science isn't a reason global warming "is bullshit" it's a poor reflection on your own character.
Let me repeat, you don't even understand how science works. And you should start learning somewhere.
A complex well-established theory is not the same as a hypothesis, and you should either learn the difference, or not pretend to understand.
Well, I mean, of course they haven't succeeded. We live in a democracy, so people are power, and they've won a big enough chunk of people to hold sway for a while.
But we also live in a representative republic. And the elitism designed into the system sort of works. A little. Policy makers are sometimes moderated by practicality.
It's just enough that there's a potential avenue of progress.
Oh look, libel suit gets ruled correctly. Liars allies invent new lies to justify old lies.
Citing a proven liar, ex TV weatherman's (who has less formal meteorological education than I have) wordpress blog.
Just saying. Oh, and paid shill. Let's not forget that he gets paid money to maintain a specific position.
Oh yes, do show me what data I cited was wrong.
Please. Please, absolutely do.
I get that every time facts come in it makes you look like a bumbling idiot, and you object to that, but come on.
You make up an excuse, it's relatively easily demonstrated to fantasy, and you demand credentials, as if credentials were what was missing from the climate science side.
Well, keep in mind that that phenomenon is tightly coupled with the melting of the arctic and how cold air blows around North America a bit more. Presumably once there's no more Antarctica left, they're get to join the rest of the world in unseasonable droughts.
Oooooh look who got 5 mod points and wasted them all on this thread, as if Karma were some hard to come by resource.
Let's just pretend for a moment the answer to that question isn't yes
That wasn't even the point being made. It's the temperatures that are the threat to modern forms of plant, not CO2 concentration. Any farmer will tell you about the importance of climate to growing a particular crop.
Because:
1. The status quo is a powerful force on both an economy and politics
2. Debating real facts about the effects of certain types of human activity is important
3. You don't know what "bogey man" means.
4. Because coal is cheaper in the short term, not accounting for externalities, and climate change is becoming increasingly clear as an important one
I have a crazy proposition for you:
There are multiple human beings who identify themselves as environmentalists, and not all are as informed as others. And not all are as spirited as others. And contradictions can arise within a community, as ideas struggle for dominance.