When are they going to make the users of their website tolerable human beings instead of insane caricatures designed to make you lose all faith in humanity?
I think Carter might be among the worst possible target for these complaints. He spends tremendous amounts of time and energy outside the US addressing serious economic, social, and diplomatic issues as a private individual and head of the Carter foundation.
A. Woosh. B. Not everyone hates liberals. It's true. Some of us would make that joke and be quite liberal ourselves. C. "Wait what?" or "wut" pick one. This blend sounds artificially stupid which makes it loose its punch.
In this particular case, I don't think it's a problem with me in that I can't really understand what it is you take issue with.
And we do have that particular problem solved, it's called a big decimal, and it's available as part of every even slightly modern language. You sacrifice FLOP speed and get indefinite precision tracking.
I don't know exactly how that relates to anything I was saying, so rebutting your post as a whole is like some non-euclidean nightmare, but suffice to say, you seem a bit... off.
Okay, but like I've said to everyone else who had the same basic assertion. Pragmatically, how do you deal with specifically that case, and not the rest? Wikipedia's approach is good, because it's trying to be a documentation of our best understanding of the world from an academic perspective.
But that's wikipedia, not the real world. Do we want to say "no, you can't be wrong about this anymore."
But short of outright quashing the ability to play devil's advocate, and forcing people to align themselves with our current best understanding, what tools our in our toolbox for this problem?
Yeah, I know. But in a hypothetical oversimplified world where the idiots are just told to shut up forever, and not allowed to present that idea, you're worse off than the one we actually live in where the educated can be a little annoyed and then ignore them.
Moderate overdosing and bio-accumulation both happen with drugs in the wild. If a medicine is a severe overdose risk, the FDA may be justified in taking it off the market, or changing prescription rules.
While a true statement about how anti-intellectualism works, good ideas need to be challenged sometimes by bad ideas, to help find their weaknesses and become (or be replaced by) better ideas. This is the true fundamental value of free speech. Not every challenge needs to come from someone who is smarter and better informed than you. Never underestimate the value of being wrong in the right way at the right time and place.
No, technically speaking an anecdote is evidence. For establishing a one time event, like "did this person go here this day?" like might be used in a court of law, it's even frequently sufficient evidence. But, we're talking evidence of a property or consistent behavior. It can still be evidence there, but it's poorly structured, nigh-unusable, easily contradicted, and subjective evidence. And being crappy evidence is enough reason to dismiss in the realm of medicine, since there are dangers inherent to the field.
Yes, a box in the lab is like the atmosphere in its entirety. This is called generalization, it is a fundamental process of science. When you contest a generalization, you propose a variable that has not been controlled for and launch a new controlled experiment, to establish that factor. You don't go "Ha, you can't know everything"
Or do you think quarks only exist in particle accelerators?
Oh yeah, because controlled experiments haven't established any of the laws being applied, right?
Are you a moron who'd say "we don't know what gravity on Jupiter is like because we haven't experimented there"?
No? Then why are you a moron who says "Carbon dioxide doesn't retain heat on a planetary scale because our experiments that clearly establish that mechanism have only been on a small scale"?
Observational evidence is evidence, and controlled experiments are only necessary for the process of establishing and challenging the laws that we use to assess the real world.
Except for the basic tools that have been migrated to metro. Want to change your wifi settings? Here's a clunky, ugly interface. It fixes some superficial problems, but other superficial problems remain.
No one really gets that much out of killing another person, which is pretty much the only crime that ever gets the death penalty. Murder, in and of itself, puts you outside the bounds of classically rational self-interest.
Slashdot Mirror
We can't even get our damned weights and measures base 10.
Oh so there's a global hegemony conspiracy except when it's inconvenient, and might involve removing actual competitors.
It's like how we're invading the EU for the Euro becoming the currency with the highest market cap.
Wait. We're not doing that at all.
When are they going to make the users of their website tolerable human beings instead of insane caricatures designed to make you lose all faith in humanity?
I promise I'm not a cop. You can't say that on the internet if it's not true.
Point of fact: he ran a bank that lost a whole bunch of people's money. If he comes here for trial, he'll probably get a bail out and a bonus.
They might be able to hear pretty well if Notch climbs on top of his own pile of earned cash and yells it right in their faces.
Of course, who says capitalism is the answer for now and forever?
Literally millions of people.
I think Carter might be among the worst possible target for these complaints. He spends tremendous amounts of time and energy outside the US addressing serious economic, social, and diplomatic issues as a private individual and head of the Carter foundation.
Ugh, stop it.
A. Woosh.
B. Not everyone hates liberals. It's true. Some of us would make that joke and be quite liberal ourselves.
C. "Wait what?" or "wut" pick one. This blend sounds artificially stupid which makes it loose its punch.
You seem to be taking a pretty hardline populist argument for someone with a "repeal the 17th amendment" sig. Just saying.
In this particular case, I don't think it's a problem with me in that I can't really understand what it is you take issue with.
And we do have that particular problem solved, it's called a big decimal, and it's available as part of every even slightly modern language. You sacrifice FLOP speed and get indefinite precision tracking.
I don't know exactly how that relates to anything I was saying, so rebutting your post as a whole is like some non-euclidean nightmare, but suffice to say, you seem a bit... off.
Okay, but like I've said to everyone else who had the same basic assertion. Pragmatically, how do you deal with specifically that case, and not the rest? Wikipedia's approach is good, because it's trying to be a documentation of our best understanding of the world from an academic perspective.
But that's wikipedia, not the real world. Do we want to say "no, you can't be wrong about this anymore."
But short of outright quashing the ability to play devil's advocate, and forcing people to align themselves with our current best understanding, what tools our in our toolbox for this problem?
Yeah, I know. But in a hypothetical oversimplified world where the idiots are just told to shut up forever, and not allowed to present that idea, you're worse off than the one we actually live in where the educated can be a little annoyed and then ignore them.
Moderate overdosing and bio-accumulation both happen with drugs in the wild. If a medicine is a severe overdose risk, the FDA may be justified in taking it off the market, or changing prescription rules.
While a true statement about how anti-intellectualism works, good ideas need to be challenged sometimes by bad ideas, to help find their weaknesses and become (or be replaced by) better ideas. This is the true fundamental value of free speech. Not every challenge needs to come from someone who is smarter and better informed than you. Never underestimate the value of being wrong in the right way at the right time and place.
No, technically speaking an anecdote is evidence. For establishing a one time event, like "did this person go here this day?" like might be used in a court of law, it's even frequently sufficient evidence. But, we're talking evidence of a property or consistent behavior. It can still be evidence there, but it's poorly structured, nigh-unusable, easily contradicted, and subjective evidence. And being crappy evidence is enough reason to dismiss in the realm of medicine, since there are dangers inherent to the field.
Yes, a box in the lab is like the atmosphere in its entirety. This is called generalization, it is a fundamental process of science. When you contest a generalization, you propose a variable that has not been controlled for and launch a new controlled experiment, to establish that factor. You don't go "Ha, you can't know everything"
Or do you think quarks only exist in particle accelerators?
Oh yeah, because controlled experiments haven't established any of the laws being applied, right?
Are you a moron who'd say "we don't know what gravity on Jupiter is like because we haven't experimented there"?
No? Then why are you a moron who says "Carbon dioxide doesn't retain heat on a planetary scale because our experiments that clearly establish that mechanism have only been on a small scale"?
Observational evidence is evidence, and controlled experiments are only necessary for the process of establishing and challenging the laws that we use to assess the real world.
Except for the basic tools that have been migrated to metro. Want to change your wifi settings? Here's a clunky, ugly interface. It fixes some superficial problems, but other superficial problems remain.
Well, I didn't mean to speak for the mentally disabled too, you're right
As someone whose laptop broke, and didn't own an install disc for older versions of windows for the new one:
Let me assure you that we're not happily using windows 8.
I think you lost some context.
No one really gets that much out of killing another person, which is pretty much the only crime that ever gets the death penalty. Murder, in and of itself, puts you outside the bounds of classically rational self-interest.