Just like the US's alcohol prohibition if the 1920s, or ongoing War Against (Some) Drugs, it's much more likely they've just driven it underground and increased people's appetite for the forbidden fruit. You could say this behavior is as old as Adam and Eve...
Take, for instance, the recentish revelations that climate models weren't taking clouds into consideration very well, if at all.
Or look at the spread of predictions, with the extreme ones predicting 20-30 foot sea level rise by 2100.
Or the 1970 (?) climate models which predicted global cooling.
It's all just science, nothing remarkable in its variability, but the left wing fanatics take the extreme predictions as gospel and refuse to even admit there's any uncertainty, while the right win uses the uncertainty as excuse to doubt everything.
I figure that all those who take definitive positions are the true fanatics, whether left or right, refusing to recognize the reality that the future is not as predictable as they would wish.
Confirmation bias certainly exists throughout the political spectrum. However, it does seem that political partisanship has made it worst in the right end of the political spectrum than the left end.
Ahh, a left winger I see, cherry picking one category. Excellent confirmation of confirmation bias.
I've done similar things, where I want my phone to tell me if some external activity has happened or has changed beyond certain parameters.
I do the analysis elsewhere, such as on that desktop PC, and the alert consists of sending a text message to the phone (or multiple phone numbers). Google for the how, it's a common practice and easy (and free) to do. Depends on the carrier, altho some sites claim to figure that out for you, but I just figure each one out and avoid them. this does mean that if a phone number changes carrier, I have to change the script, but since so far I have only sent texts to my own phone, it's no biggie. Just have one central script to send the actual alert.
Then they started tying all their lines together even where the fit was poor, just so they could cross-correlate everything for more advertising dollars. Not that I have anything against making money, that's what businesses are for, but they seemed to lose track of their original purpose.
Now they are entering the holier-than-thou stage. A short while ago they decided to ban all weapon-related items in their shopper. Not the search itself, not yet, just the shopper. I don't mind them having their own personal opinions about weapons, but when you claim you want to be the world's information indexer, yet start making political decisions like that, it makes me wonder, and a little bit sad. What next? Ban sodas over 16 oz from shopper? Ban those from search too? Where do you draw the line? Trans-fats? Sugar itself? Red M&Ms? Low-mileage cars? Once you let your personal political bias into your business decisions, you have taken the wrong fork in the road.
And now they join the War On (Some) Drugs. Their power has gone to their heads. They may still be king of searches, but once people realize they provide incomplete filtered searches, they will be ripe to lose their reputation.
Makes me a little bit sad. Even tho I didn't like their tying all their products together, at least they were still efficient and simple. Now I no longer can trust them to be impartial and complete. They used to stand up to foreign governments who tried to dictate search filters. Now they do it themselves.
You can use a bigger voice; I am kinda inept in that dept and only realized the humor afterwards.
So I'll tell an off-topic joke. Know why Canada is called that? It used to be the Commonwealth Northern Dominions, which is quite a mouthful. So they formed a committee to come up with something better. One member suggested they abbreviate it. C, eh? N, eh? D, eh?
It happened because I clicked in the box by mistake, then used down arrow to scroll the page, not realizing focus was in the mod menu, and when I clicked elsewhere on the page to shift focus, that's when the javascript kicked in to apply the mod.
Just a stupid user error. Nothing to get worked up over.
Accidentally modded as flamebait, so this post is to cancel the mods.
Re:If ancient people taught us anything...
on
A Million-Year Hard Disk
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think modding needs 1-5 rankings in multiple categories:
Relevant: not at all to spot-on Funny: no to puked on my keyboard (where no doesn't mean failed humor, just not funny, which most posts would probably be) Incendiary: irrational flame bait to cold logic Popularity: The author is evil to the author is my god
My thinking is that if popularity were explicitly differentiated from relevance, people might not be so eager to mark down things which they disagree with.
That's not really true. The two different camps do have different attitudes. If you can't tell the difference, that implies you see them both like New Yorkers see everything last the Hudson in that famous New Yorker map.
Most creationists may as well be flat earthers for how they shut their brains down.
Some say the earth is 6000 years old but evolution has worked since.
Everybody else goes with normal evolution.
Whereas AGW has it straight deniers who shut their brains, but plenty of variations between the other extreme of blind faith in whatever the current story is. I myself believe in AGW but think the models are too shaky to rely on for detailed predictions (they weren't even considering clouds until a couple of years ago), and that making long term plans is pointless before the necessary corrections are known because they are such long term stuff, and nature will throw its own curves with more affect than anything we puny humans do.
Yes, the facts are changing, and the facts are useless without the models, and the models are not factual at all, only best guesses, and they all vary so much that to rely on them is a matter of choosing the one that fits your pessimism or optimism.
And you, like all statists who mistrust individuals, missed my point. If individuals have the same power as governments give themselves now to sue misbehaving corporations and fat cats, corporations and fat cats will not get away with what they do now, because their buddies won't cover their ass.
You say only governments can keep corporations and fat cats in line.
Presumably that is because they enforce the laws.
The problem is, they only enforce the laws they want, letting their buddies off the hook.
One has only to look at how many Wall Street fat cats are in temporary jobs in Washington, supposedly keeping their buddies in line, to see how well this work.
So let individuals prosecute what Washington won't. What the heck is so hard to understand about that concept?
I know the answer already -- you hate individuals, you mistrust them, you don't like them, but more than anything else -- you are a statist and want the government to tell individuals what to do.
You could quite easily have real capitalism with freed markets. All you have to do is get the government out of the markets. Governments are by nature coercive and immortal, and the more of daily life they regulate, the more they become a target of business. It becomes more productive to be a part of government to twist it to your own ends rather than compete with better products or more efficiency.
The less government affects business, the less use there is for businesses to try to control government. This is where individuals come in; if government doesn't have a monopoly on regulating business malfeasance, and individuals can take their own stab at it, then you reduce crony capitalism.
All it takes is putting individuals in charge instead of government.
I should be numbingly used to such drivel, but it still amazes me.
You said that socialists don't mind if I think for myself ("socialists don't mistrust individuals thinking for themselves"), as long as I don't actually act on that thought ("They distrust individuals ACTING for themselves unchecked"). It's ok for me to not like broccoli, but I still have to eat it when the elite tell me it's better for me. That's real useful. Thank you for letting me use the inside of my head as long as you never see any outside manifestation of thinking independently. Shall I call you Lord, or Master, or Kind Sir, or just plain Smart One?
Oh, you probably think adding "unchecked" is cute and somehow justifies the elite guiding the unwashed. What a nice strawman argument! There's not a single libertarian or even anarchist I know of or have ever heard of you who thinks people should act unchecked. There's an old saying "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" which certainly is a check, even if the saying offends your sensibilities.
You know little about either socialists or libertarians. But go ahead, see, not only do I enjoy you thinking (if that is the right word) for yourself, I don't mind you acting on it, unchecked, here in slashdot or anywhere else.
Unleashed capitalism is just as gross and obscene as any other ideology that is mistakenly viewed as gospel.
There has never been unleashed capitalism. It has always been crony capitalism, fat cats running both government and the corporations.
If government didn't reserve the prosecution arena to itself, if ordinary citizens could bring charges against the fat cats in both governments and corporations, then you might have real capitalism.
The problem with people who think we have ever had, or still have, laissez-faire or unleashed capitalism is that the only alternative they can imagine is more and more government. Socialists and corporatists have in common a complete mistrust of individuals thinking for themselves, the idea that only an elite, of which they are a part, can guide the masses. This idea scares them so much that they would rather have a government run by their ideological opponents than have little state at all.
My big disappointment with the Occupy movement is that they think government might want to rescue them from Wall Street, that they are so naive as to not recognize the two sects represent the iron fist and velvet glove, cycling back and forth so often that ir is impossible to tell which role the fat cats are playing at any given moment. The Tea Party, for all its other stupidities ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare"), at least recognized they had to change government and did get a bunch of politicians elected who did make some changes. But they too are naive to think they can have any permanent effect.
Slashdot Mirror
[citation needed]
Regardless of whether that is true or not, crime increased and drinking didn't go away.
Just like the US's alcohol prohibition if the 1920s, or ongoing War Against (Some) Drugs, it's much more likely they've just driven it underground and increased people's appetite for the forbidden fruit. You could say this behavior is as old as Adam and Eve ...
His Hitler reference was to the general case of politicians setting up bogeymen to scare the voters.
Your willful misunderstanding makes me doubt everything else you say. You need to watch it, lest you become one of the bogeyman producers yourself.
Take, for instance, the recentish revelations that climate models weren't taking clouds into consideration very well, if at all.
Or look at the spread of predictions, with the extreme ones predicting 20-30 foot sea level rise by 2100.
Or the 1970 (?) climate models which predicted global cooling.
It's all just science, nothing remarkable in its variability, but the left wing fanatics take the extreme predictions as gospel and refuse to even admit there's any uncertainty, while the right win uses the uncertainty as excuse to doubt everything.
I figure that all those who take definitive positions are the true fanatics, whether left or right, refusing to recognize the reality that the future is not as predictable as they would wish.
Confirmation bias certainly exists throughout the political spectrum. However, it does seem that political partisanship has made it worst in the right end of the political spectrum than the left end.
Ahh, a left winger I see, cherry picking one category. Excellent confirmation of confirmation bias.
I've done similar things, where I want my phone to tell me if some external activity has happened or has changed beyond certain parameters.
I do the analysis elsewhere, such as on that desktop PC, and the alert consists of sending a text message to the phone (or multiple phone numbers). Google for the how, it's a common practice and easy (and free) to do. Depends on the carrier, altho some sites claim to figure that out for you, but I just figure each one out and avoid them. this does mean that if a phone number changes carrier, I have to change the script, but since so far I have only sent texts to my own phone, it's no biggie. Just have one central script to send the actual alert.
Google at first was a pretty simple nice company.
Then they started tying all their lines together even where the fit was poor, just so they could cross-correlate everything for more advertising dollars. Not that I have anything against making money, that's what businesses are for, but they seemed to lose track of their original purpose.
Now they are entering the holier-than-thou stage. A short while ago they decided to ban all weapon-related items in their shopper. Not the search itself, not yet, just the shopper. I don't mind them having their own personal opinions about weapons, but when you claim you want to be the world's information indexer, yet start making political decisions like that, it makes me wonder, and a little bit sad. What next? Ban sodas over 16 oz from shopper? Ban those from search too? Where do you draw the line? Trans-fats? Sugar itself? Red M&Ms? Low-mileage cars? Once you let your personal political bias into your business decisions, you have taken the wrong fork in the road.
And now they join the War On (Some) Drugs. Their power has gone to their heads. They may still be king of searches, but once people realize they provide incomplete filtered searches, they will be ripe to lose their reputation.
Makes me a little bit sad. Even tho I didn't like their tying all their products together, at least they were still efficient and simple. Now I no longer can trust them to be impartial and complete. They used to stand up to foreign governments who tried to dictate search filters. Now they do it themselves.
You can use a bigger voice; I am kinda inept in that dept and only realized the humor afterwards.
So I'll tell an off-topic joke. Know why Canada is called that? It used to be the Commonwealth Northern Dominions, which is quite a mouthful. So they formed a committee to come up with something better. One member suggested they abbreviate it. C, eh? N, eh? D, eh?
It happened because I clicked in the box by mistake, then used down arrow to scroll the page, not realizing focus was in the mod menu, and when I clicked elsewhere on the page to shift focus, that's when the javascript kicked in to apply the mod.
Just a stupid user error. Nothing to get worked up over.
Accidentally modded as flamebait, so this post is to cancel the mods.
I think modding needs 1-5 rankings in multiple categories:
Relevant: not at all to spot-on
Funny: no to puked on my keyboard (where no doesn't mean failed humor, just not funny, which most posts would probably be)
Incendiary: irrational flame bait to cold logic
Popularity: The author is evil to the author is my god
My thinking is that if popularity were explicitly differentiated from relevance, people might not be so eager to mark down things which they disagree with.
Tablets! Good grief, you apple fanboiz never give up.
You too must be too young to remember the fanatics who took for faith the most extreme models and whined when the modelers changed their estimates.
What do you call someone who doesn't put much faith in such variable models?
As for religious, maybe you forget that religion is faith over facts, which fits the AGW pessimists as much as the deniers.
That would explain your religion of believing that all those who say the models suck are deniers.
What facts have you offered?
Here's something to chew on. Do you remember the models forecasting 10 meter rise in sea-level by 2050?
The blind faithers jumped all over it, wanted to shut down every fossil fuel power plant, ban babies, put the world back in the dark ages.
Then the most pessimistic model reduced it. Any apologies? Naw, they just accused the modelers of caving to public opinion.
Maybe you're just too damned young to remember that crap.
Yoru turn -- bring up a fact. Whoops! You don't have any!
Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so."
Who you gonna believe, papa or your blind eyes? Go look and see if Papa is lying.
Pardon me boy, are you the Chattanoobie?
The uid only sets an upper limit. Whether uid 513215 was reading /. before the account creation date or not, s/he must have known who CowboyNeal was.
No need to be so damned anti-elitist.
A. If you can't see the different stratification within the two communities, you are willfully blind.
B. If you can't see how the blind faithers of AGW have been choosing the most pessimistic models they can find, you haven't been paying attention.
That's not really true. The two different camps do have different attitudes. If you can't tell the difference, that implies you see them both like New Yorkers see everything last the Hudson in that famous New Yorker map.
Most creationists may as well be flat earthers for how they shut their brains down.
Some say the earth is 6000 years old but evolution has worked since.
Everybody else goes with normal evolution.
Whereas AGW has it straight deniers who shut their brains, but plenty of variations between the other extreme of blind faith in whatever the current story is. I myself believe in AGW but think the models are too shaky to rely on for detailed predictions (they weren't even considering clouds until a couple of years ago), and that making long term plans is pointless before the necessary corrections are known because they are such long term stuff, and nature will throw its own curves with more affect than anything we puny humans do.
Yes, the facts are changing, and the facts are useless without the models, and the models are not factual at all, only best guesses, and they all vary so much that to rely on them is a matter of choosing the one that fits your pessimism or optimism.
"Don't grammar matter no more"
Fixed.
Knock that off, or I'll stab you with an exclamation point!
Do that, and I'll settle your # with a ! and / you with a sword.
Are you really that willfully ignorant and unimaginative?
What makes you think there would be no government?
Read what I wrote, instead of what you want to (pretend to) read.
1. Get the government out of the prosecution racket, since it is not impartial and would rather protect its buddies.
2. Allow individuals who are affected by the corporate and fat cat misdeeds to prosecute, since they are the ones who want the errors fixed.
Once again I am amazed that I amazed at how much people hate individuals and mistrust them.
And you, like all statists who mistrust individuals, missed my point. If individuals have the same power as governments give themselves now to sue misbehaving corporations and fat cats, corporations and fat cats will not get away with what they do now, because their buddies won't cover their ass.
I know the answer already -- you hate individuals, you mistrust them, you don't like them, but more than anything else -- you are a statist and want the government to tell individuals what to do.
Why do you statists hate people so much?
You could quite easily have real capitalism with freed markets. All you have to do is get the government out of the markets. Governments are by nature coercive and immortal, and the more of daily life they regulate, the more they become a target of business. It becomes more productive to be a part of government to twist it to your own ends rather than compete with better products or more efficiency.
The less government affects business, the less use there is for businesses to try to control government. This is where individuals come in; if government doesn't have a monopoly on regulating business malfeasance, and individuals can take their own stab at it, then you reduce crony capitalism.
All it takes is putting individuals in charge instead of government.
I should be numbingly used to such drivel, but it still amazes me.
You said that socialists don't mind if I think for myself ("socialists don't mistrust individuals thinking for themselves"), as long as I don't actually act on that thought ("They distrust individuals ACTING for themselves unchecked"). It's ok for me to not like broccoli, but I still have to eat it when the elite tell me it's better for me. That's real useful. Thank you for letting me use the inside of my head as long as you never see any outside manifestation of thinking independently. Shall I call you Lord, or Master, or Kind Sir, or just plain Smart One?
Oh, you probably think adding "unchecked" is cute and somehow justifies the elite guiding the unwashed. What a nice strawman argument! There's not a single libertarian or even anarchist I know of or have ever heard of you who thinks people should act unchecked. There's an old saying "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" which certainly is a check, even if the saying offends your sensibilities.
You know little about either socialists or libertarians. But go ahead, see, not only do I enjoy you thinking (if that is the right word) for yourself, I don't mind you acting on it, unchecked, here in slashdot or anywhere else.
Unleashed capitalism is just as gross and obscene as any other ideology that is mistakenly viewed as gospel.
There has never been unleashed capitalism. It has always been crony capitalism, fat cats running both government and the corporations.
If government didn't reserve the prosecution arena to itself, if ordinary citizens could bring charges against the fat cats in both governments and corporations, then you might have real capitalism.
The problem with people who think we have ever had, or still have, laissez-faire or unleashed capitalism is that the only alternative they can imagine is more and more government. Socialists and corporatists have in common a complete mistrust of individuals thinking for themselves, the idea that only an elite, of which they are a part, can guide the masses. This idea scares them so much that they would rather have a government run by their ideological opponents than have little state at all.
My big disappointment with the Occupy movement is that they think government might want to rescue them from Wall Street, that they are so naive as to not recognize the two sects represent the iron fist and velvet glove, cycling back and forth so often that ir is impossible to tell which role the fat cats are playing at any given moment. The Tea Party, for all its other stupidities ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare"), at least recognized they had to change government and did get a bunch of politicians elected who did make some changes. But they too are naive to think they can have any permanent effect.
You mean the guy who was taller and outweighed him, who had sucker punched him and was sitting on him and bashing his head against the sidewalk?