Well... let's not just brush it off as one single management failure with no precedence.
Note that even the HST was hugely over budget, over time, and was mismanaged as well... so it's not like it's a one-time thing. Instead, it's more common than not.
From its original total cost estimate of about US$400 million, the hubble space telescope cost about US$4.7 billion by the time of its launch. Hubble's cumulative costs were estimated to be about US$10 billion in 2010. It was launched years behind shedule. It had a flawed main mirror. Etc.
So...sure, it provided nice pictures, and was/is a great asset, but let's not sugarcoat the truth: it was over-budget, over-time, and mismanaged as well. You could have built about 3 OWL's with that. And those would have provided better pictures, certainly in the visible spectrum.
That's why the "Just because in e.g. 20 years we can do something much cheaper we should not stop building scientific instruments today." argument doesn't hold up, imho, because it will ALWAYS be cheaper to build them on Earth. It's a given. One knows this in front. It's not about 'not' building scientific instruments; one can build new ones for Earth-based telescopes as well. It's balancing the advantages and deciding where the most bang for the buck is.
And as said, I think in many instances, unless for specific reasons or goals, space-based telescopes will always come out lower in that regard.
Now, I do understand what you're trying to say, and it's one of the reasons why - even though I personally would have liked to see 'normal' pictures - I do think it made the most scientific sense to use JWST for infra-red observations. At least, that's something that can not, or only with great difficulty, be done on Earth. But still, it's hard to argue that it was worth more than 10 billion dollars. And it's also hard to argue that's an exception, in large space projects.
with the money of the HST, one could have build a couple of EEVLT instead. With the money of the JWST, one could have build a couple of OWL's. And if one ever would send up a new teslecope, double as grand as JWST and double as costly, it's a given for the same money one would, once again, be able to build a far more powerful telescope on Earth. Yes, maybe not in the infra-red... but is getting infra-red really worth 20 billion dollars?
As for exposure-times... you could build an OWL on each side of the planet. Also: while exposure time is important for deep field viewing, *aperture* (and thus lightgathering power) is even more important. Meaning: with a much bigger mirror, you can see much more much faster. So one day with a two meter diameter telescope would demand LESS than half a day with a 8 meter telescope, if we're only talking about exposure time.
And sure, space has its advantages, but the point I'm trying to make, they're not all THAT overwhelmingly large anymore, on a lot of fronts. Not to warrant a cost/time loss of billions/years - and certainly not if it's not strictly necessary to do it that way.
Now... true, costs may come down - hopefully that will pan out for SpaceX - but if we're speculating on future technology, one may do it both ways, and what if, in the future, they find a way to capture infra-red waves in sufficient amount on Earth, for instance? Future technology works both ways, after all - adaptive optics, unimaginable only 40 years ago, is the proof of that.
So, while potentially complementary, I think a very stringent look is necessary as for what projects, exactly, a space-telesope is worth the extra effort and money, and to what degree.
For some tings, it's pretty obvious; for instance, if one wants to test out interferometry on a scale larger than the diameter of Earth. For others, it's less obvious or necessary.
Also, they had to remove a scientific instrument to make room for the corrective optics.
There is no doubt it was a kludge, and an expensive one at that. And a completely avoidable one. For the PRIMARY mirror - the main piece of the space-telescope - to be flawed in such an endeavor... you'd either need to be willfully turn a blind eye or be incompetent beyond belief.
Even NASA doesn't go without blame, here. They should have checked it independently, before shipping.
If one doesn't want to fall in the trap of meaningless semantics, one can just say it as it is: it WAS a flawed instrument, indeed. One which they corrected later, but not without paying a penalty, both in cost as in time/science wasted.
The original estimate was officially 1 to 1,2 billion euro's (in 2006 currency). The *original* estimate that is. But we all know how that goes, with large projects.;-)
That said, let's say it would have been double that amount in reality. It still would mean 4-5 OWL's. Even one OWL would produce better pictures than JWST would ever be able to, let alone 5 with interferometry...
It would have outclassed JWST without any doubt.
(If, I repeat, JWST would have been in the visible wavelength as well, which it isn't, and which makes the comparison now difficult. But overall, the 5 OWLs surely would have delivered vastly more scientific output in total.)
But, well, no crying over spilled milk. I'm sure the JWST will provide us with nice and scientific interesting things too. It's just that, in this thread/debate, if you compare space-telescopes with earth-based telescopes (including cost), it becomes clear the former only make sense in some specific circumstances or for particular goals.
Are you using ublock? Otherwise I recommend that. It's pretty good, and I have had very few problems with it (false positives included) on any site, thusfar.
"Space telescopes not only have advantage in some wavelengths, but they are critical, since parts of the spectrum are blocked by the atmosphere."
Which was why I said they still had advantages in those area's.;-)
There needs to be a compelling reason to send a telescope in space that costs 10 times more for 10 times less aperture. Difficulties to get close to the diffraction limit used to be one of those, up until the late 20th century, but this reason has been starkly reduced with the advent of adaptive optics. Specific wavelengths which are difficult to observe (not impossible, however, if you use high altitude airplanes or balloons) would be a clear advantage. Longer uninterupted viewing in *some* directions, another.
The question is, whether it's worth it, and at what price (as a cost-comparison).
I'll repeat once more, that for the cost of the JWST one could have build 10 OWL terrestrial telescopes. And there is no doubt that, however good the JWST may turn out, ten OWLs would have overclassed and blown away almost everything JWST could show us. The scientific output would be an order of magnitude more.
So I don't think, in a reality where budgets are restrained, that there is always a sufficient cost-benefit analysis being done for the 'complementary' aspects you speak of. I would therefor hold my position space-based telescopes are only useful (in a cost-benefit context) in specific circumstances and special fields of endeavor, in certain scientific niches, or with with particular goals in mind - all of which are not, or only with great difficulty, possible with more feasible, cheaper Earth-based telescopes.
Not to take sides, but it was pretty clearly shown at the right of the summary, which is still 'the article', and it even says "Neptune from the VLT and Hubble". A cursory look would have been enough to find it. As I did.
While true it could have been put nicer, you're exaggerating with 'ESP' as well. And in your rebuttal you weren't very nice neither. In the end, he did give you the link for your request, so maybe you should have stayed a bit more polite as well, if you're going to complain about it in the first place.
"The diffraction limit is not due to atmospheric effects. It is a fundamental limit imposed by the aperture of your telescope, which is more or less the size of the primary mirror. +/but with the bigger ones it's hard to achieve the diffraction limit because of atmospheric effects"
Indeed. The larger the aperture, the more the disturbances are visible and noticeable as well. At a certain point, you gain nothing in resolution (though you still gather more light), even with bigger mirrors.
"The very best adaptive optics only get you to Hubble territory. JWST is bigger than Hubble."
Which is about current technology. sjb was arguing that better space-telescopes than hubble can be made (similar to your argument here), but better Earth telescopes can be made than VLT too.
There is little doubt that EELT with new adaptive optics would, once again, best the JWST (if they were going for visible light). Let alone OWL, with a span of 100 meters, if they had gone with that idea - and for only one tenth of the price.
"Interferometry, particularly image-forming interferometry, is probably easier in space."
True. And in addition, you can do it near limitless (in distance), contrary to something on earth, and with far less potential noise. My point of the interferometry was the hypothetical case, of a bang-for-the-bucks comparison between JWST and something like OWL. For the same cost, one would have had 10 OWL's. Each OWL would have already provided better images (in visible light) as what WST would be cable of, and while the latter is on segmented mirror, the OWL's could use interferometry, which would completely overwhelm anything the JWST could muster.
I would agree with the theoretical advantages of space-telescopes - of course, viewed on a aperture-vs-aperture basis (and without calculating costs) - there is little doubt space-telescopes are always going to be better. The point here rather is, that at how things are in reality, Earth-based telescopes have become so good, that the huge extra cost of space-based telescopes is just not warranted, unless in very specific circumstances.
In fact, you see that already with the JWST: there was a reason they used beryllium mirror and went for the infra-red, after all. Scientifically spoken, it was the most sensible to do.
To be clear: I'm not against space-telescopes on themselves. I think they have potential. but unless the cost is starkly reduced to build and put them up there, there is little doubt Earth telescopes are the better choice, *unless* in specific circumstances are with a specific goal in mind. For instance, if one wanted to try out optical interferometry with a a larger diameter than that of the Earth, it would stand to reason that the only way to go would be space. Even at an added cost. Same goes for infra-red and ultra-violet observations, depending on the wavelengths.
For the foreseeable future, though, if you take aperture and cost in consideration, it's clear Earth-based telescopes will continue to trump space-based telescopes in the visible spectrum.
Pseudo-anonymous accounts are perfectly viable, certainly on slashdot. Have been using them for years, and never got any spam or harrassement. I mean, not outside of the commentary/thread itself.
I've never quite understood the 'online harassment' claim, frankly. Certainly not when one is posting with nicknames that don't (cor)relate with your real person. You can always just decide to not read trollish posts or put spam in the bin or auto-filter it. Straightforwardly said: you can easily ignore that crap. There is no issue there.
So I don't think an AC is really necessary for those reasons. If anything, it dilutes the incentive for posting something worthwhile as an AC, as the VAST majority of AC-post prove. I rather applaud people giving there opinion when posting under their actual nickname: at least one shows one is confident enough to put one's online reputation at stake - small comfort as that may be, it's still something. With AC's, you don't even know IF you're talking to the same AC anyumore, the next comment.
There is no such thing as an uninterrupted view in all angles and directions, if one stays in Earth's orbit - and certainly not a low Earth orbit, as the HST does.
0ne can get longer uninterrupted exposures in some directions, especially if you move out of Earth's low orbit, but the question is, if that's relevant. Deep field imagery is depended on the lightgathering, which, indeed, is dependent on exposure-time BUT even far more so on aperture size. Meaning, you can see far more with a bigger aperture in less time. And since since Earth-telescopes can be built MUCH larger - and for far less money - than space-based telescopes, I think the clear advantage still goes to the former.
For instance, if they had built OWL, it would have overwhelmed and provided better pictures than anything that the WST will be able to do, for less than a fifth of the cost.
EXCEPT of course, for infra-red wavelengths, which is exactly the reason they shifted to that, instead of visible light as with the HST. It's a pitty we won't see 'real' pictures in visible light from the WST, but scientifically spoken, it was the right decision. If you're going to spend 10 billion on something, at least spend it at something that can't be done otherwise.
There is no denying that since the adoption of adaptive optics, one of the major advantages of space-telescopes has been starkly reduced. And if you consider the cost as well, it's clear space-telescopes only make sense anymore in very specific circumstances.
Granted, but then you shouldn't have used it in substantiation of the point.
The original point being: "The achievement is that due to adaptive optics, an earth based telescope can deliver pictures as sharp or sharper than a space based telescope."
Which, basically, is true. As we seem both to agree, the fact that one can built better space-telescopes does not change or counter anything to the above claim, since better Earth-based telescopes can be built as well.
If one wants to qualify it, it would be that, for exactly the same aperture, and in visible light, the space-telescope only has a small advantage anymore, due to adaptive optics. For the same *cost* however, an earth-telescope provides much, much sharper images than any space-based telescope. For infra-red and ultra-violet wavelengths, the space telescope still has moderate to far better advantages (depending on which specific wavelength you're looking).
Note that the bang-for-the-bucks argument will ALWAYS be true, no matter how 'better' space-telescopes will become, provided that technology doesn't stand still for neither concepts. One can call this a generalization or speculation or assumption, but it's a reasonable and very logical assumption, bordering on being an obvious certitude. At least, up until technology moves in such direction, both the cost of sending it up into space (SpaceX?) goes drastically down, and/or the structural components can only be fulfilled by a space-environment (which isn't the case for classical mirror-segments).
Only partially true. Space-telescopes still have an advantage in some area's, especially for the deep and near-infrared wavelengths, and ultraviolet wavelengths, but the other advantages are becoming less and less obvious, especially if you consider the cost of both space-based as Earth-based telescopes.
The disturbances of the atmosphere - the major drawback (diffraction limit) up until the last decade of the 20th century - have become largely reduced thanks to adaptive optics and other technological advances.
The argument that we are now capable of constructing space-telescopes that are better than Hubble has no bearings on the comparative advances, since we can also create better earth-based telescopes than VLT, these days. As the Extremely Large Telescope will show, no doubt. There is little doubt this latter one will exceed the JWST, just as the VLT did with Hubble - IF the JWST was going for the visible light waves, which it isn't. In fact, it's the main reason Beryllium mirrors were used that excel in infra-red wavelengths, about the last advantage space-telescopes still have that warrant the vastly more expensive cost (now at more than 10 *billion* for the JWST, if I remember correctly).
Note that for that price, you could have made 10 Overwhelmingly Large Telescopes (OWL) which would completely DWARF the JWST on almost all other fronts, certainly when using interferometry.
"if implied to some high(er) moral stake" = "if applied to some high(er) moral stake " "all hominids fall under 'people' automatically" = "all humans fall under 'people' automatically"
And probably a few others, but it's getting awfully late. I'll assume you will know what I mean, even if I made some additional minor spelling- and other mistakes.
"Yes I do, I just think you're focusing on a minor mundane detail and missing the purpose of the lawsuit."
Exactly. You fail to see the principle of the matter. If it was NOT such a rather mundane topic, but something of importance, *exactly the same reasoning* would NOT be accepted. This shows that the reasoning is flawed and applied arbitrarily.
"Yikes. I'm going to skip the loaded appeal-to-emotion example if you don't mind."
I do mind a bit. Because you're basically ignoring it, then, while the example was put there to demonstrate how arbitrarily your reasoning is, if implied to some high(er) moral stake - which is why it has to be emotionally laden, indeed. But if your *reasoning* is correct and consistent, than emotional load should not have any bearings on your argumentation. As you will note, *I* will not skip around your own example.
"no more revenue for you"
Since when is it the courts job to provide the government with more revenue? It's those little remarks of you that make me feel how distant your premise from mine is. How dangerous would that be, if that was truly the job of the courts, instead of, you know, meet out justice in a logical and consistent way. Also, while one can argue it was the politician/lawmakers job, he didn't do a very good job of it, and should have been required to write it better, IF he wanted to make a distinction. That would be the same for all the things you described above, if you want to make a distinction between all kinds of different things. But all this misses the point.
Let me give a simple example where your objections would be nullified: the lawmaker could have NOT made such a distinction, and said that taxes were equally due for vegetables AND fruits. There. 'Revenue for the government' ensured! (If that were to be deemed the goal for the court, which I refute). So you see, your objection to it didn't go to heart of the matter at all. If one wants to make complex laws, one can not complain afterwards about the complexity of it. Saying but what about those, those, and those things then? Indeed, what about them? Do you WANT to differentiate and exempt some from taxes and some not, and on what objective grounds? Any competent lawmaker would realize you either keep it simple and then you have less work to do to keep it consistent and concise, or you make it more complex, and then you have more work to do to keep it consistent and concise. But I've been over this before.
You gave a counterexample with the homo sapiens, but one big glaring omission is, that you did not give any clear definition of 'people' or 'human'. Scientifically, for instance, all species with 'homo' in it, are per definition 'human', since that is what the word means (as I'm sure you know, because you don't seem to be an idiot). So it reinforces my point once again: if you take a clear scientific definition, for instance; all hominids fall under 'people' automatically, this would be FAR more clear and consistent than saying something like "what is seen as human in common parlance". IF one would argue it's only valid for 'people' and you have a wishy-washy vague definition again, you would have to argue this for EVERY case of species, or even subspecies, or even ethnicity. Even worse, if we take the analogy further to its correct statement, then it would be like this: a law saying "You have humans and you have animals. You can kill animals but you can't kill humans EXCEPT for homo sapiens neanderthalis". Because THAT is the equivalent of the courtcase. And then the court arguing: "Yes, we KNOW that Neanderthals are also human, but in common parlance it's viewed differently; only the homo sapiens sapiens is seen as human. Therefor they can be killed like an animal. The lawmaker too, only knew of homo sapiens sapiens, so his intent was to safeguard us, and not other humans. So for the sake of killing, we judge they may be killed, but that doesn't mean we don't consider them humans.
This, as said, makes NO SENSE. The exact reverse of what you claimed, thus. F
We'll simply have to agree to disagree. Saying "we accept they are fruits" but then judge they don't fall under fruits when it comes to taxation just does NOT make sense. I could re-iterate and make bold what I said before, but what's the use. I think I've explained to you more than enough what my point is.
The only way this is accepted, is because it's of minor import to most people. If it was something of large importance, no-one would actually accept such a thing. Imagine a law about whether blacks should be considered people or animals with a law saying "you can shoot an animal without any punishment" in the 50ies. And if one would shoot blacks and then claim "but the lawmaker back than regarded black people as animals" - quite possible back then - would anyone now really be following the same reasoning you're upholding here? Would one say: "no, no! The court made no mistake, they just followed the 'intent'! See? The court AGREED with you that blacks are not animals, they just followed intent."
And when I would point out that that DE FACTO means they regard blacks as animals, you could argue; "Not at all. They acknowledge *the fact* that blacks are people, and then just go on to say "we don't think that's what the author of the law meant when he said humans vs. animals.""
Following your reasoning, this would be a perfectly valid reasoning, and the court made the right call that blacks could be shot, without this meaning they didn't acknowledge blacks are humans.
But one can easily see this is BS. *The differentiation ITSELF* of the judgement means you're *de facto* MAKING a distinction between the two. I just can not wrap my mind around you not comprehending this. The court SAYING they acknowledge it, but then not applying it, means they're NOT acknowledging it where it matters most; not in their words, but in their actions. The reason for that is immaterial. Intent does not change reality. Humans have also a very clear biological definition. Whether one wants to acknowledge this or not, or invoke 'intent' or 'common parlance' is aside the question. If the court would deem it allowed to shoot blacks, regarding the question whether one could consider them humans or animals (aka, vegetables or fruits), you de facto consider them animals if you allow blacks to be shot, but not 'humans' - this is true, EVEN if the court says it acknowledges blacks are humans as well. Do you understand what I'm saying, here?
For some reason, you seem to think what the court says about it ways heavier than how they actually have judged it to be. I disagree. You would too - presumably - if it was a case of high moral stake as the example I gave - but now you're just content arguing differently.
It is contradictory. It makes no sense. Saying "The world is round, but because people think it's flat (or the lawmaker thought it was flat) we're going to agree to a flat-earth tax" is stupid, wrong, and nonsensical, and grates with what one first said, namely that the Earth was round. If they KNOW the Earth is round, or a black a human, or a tomato a fruit, they need to be consistent and logical, REGARDLESS of intent or what trade-people think about it, and make a judgement in accordance with reality, as they - in fact - know it is. Again: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum".
So yes, I agree that the court knew fully well it were fruits, but *in reality* they judged it were not fruits - not by saying it, but by their judgement, in this case. Which makes it twice as worse, in fact. You're looking at what they 'say' about it, and conclude they judged tomatoes as fruits. You do not consider the logical consequences and implication of the judgment itself they actually made, which means they do *not* consider tomatoes fruits because it doesn't suited them in this case (aka, because of 'intent' or 'common usage'). But denying reality because of convenience, is still denying reality. Saying you acknowledge this reality, but then make a judgement that goes against it, makes it hypocritical on top.
Ermm.. you just gave the normal definitions, that one can find in all dictionaries... which pretty much say what I said. I was well aware of THOSE, since that was my whole point. The scienitfic defintion is there, all right. My question was for the 'trade-definition' that apparently was as logic, concise and clear as the scientific the scientific one, as you claimed. (or, at least, some commentator here claimed - the comments are getting a bit too much in quantity, so excuse me if I bring something up that you didn't even allude at, in this regard;-)).
Basically, you've proven that the scientific definition is readily available and clear to all. what I don't see is any definition of some 'trade-dictionary' where it is otherwise defined to explain why tomatoes are not to be considered fruit - even though you (or someone else here) has said it is 'well documented'. Apparently so well documented, there is no trace to be found in any official dictionary of any repute. I guess they just all missed this widely adopted and used definition, then? Or... maybe... there isn't one to begin with. Well, in that case, if you want to define something, I would say it makes more sense - certainly in regard to clarity - to use an existing definition to define something, than a non-existing definition.
As for the 'real' one; I get what you're trying to say. But clearly, the definitions are made in order of importance, and while it may change slightly, they ALL say more or less the same, and they ALL have the scientific definition as one of the first definitions. Of course there can be other meanings, I said so myself. The 'fruits of labor' for instance. But all that has no bearing to this case. A trade-definition explaining why tomatoes are not fruit WOULD have been relevant, but as you can see in your examples, is nowhere to be found. One can throw up 'common parlance' again, but that's not a definition, and, indeed, while "correct" is an ambiguous word on itself, I would want to make clear that science is always going to be MORE correct than an non-scientific definition, in the sense that it better describes reality.
" respectfully disagree"
Well, at least you're being respectful, contrary to some others.
No sweat, that's what civil discussions are for. Each can give his/her arguments, but in the end one can only agree or disagree to the different points made - or at least agree to disagree, if nothing else.;-)
"Yeah, you think so? What if the law sets different tax rates for berries, drupes, pomes [snip]"
Then he's making it harder for himself. I fail to see your point, if that point was a counter to what I said. I didn't say there are no other ways to make things more complicated, I said using inconsistent and arbitrary and illogical definitions and interpretations of laws are a sure want to complicate it further, while being concise and consistent lessens this.
"You keep getting that wrong. The court did not say "tomatoes are not a fruit."
you used that statement before, but it's logically inconsistent. If the question is between taxation or non-taxation of fruit and vegetables - which was the point: fruits were exempt - yet you judge tomatoes must pay the taxes contrary to, well, the fruits, you DE FACTO claim that tomatoes are not fruit. that is the implicit claim made in the case of those taxes, even if they don't *directly* said as such. Now, the *reason* they give for that is, granted, that they assume the intent was different for the lawmaker who made this law in ignorance or incompetence. And my point is, that that shouldn't supersede reality, namely that tomatoes are fruits.
"Here's something else to consider: if 100% of laws were non-ambiguous/snip"
I often hear that counter, and it always baffles me because it makes no sense at all, in determining which way one should *strive* how society (and in this case, the courts/laws) should go. Look: did I say all laws are 100% non-ambiguous? Or that that all people are rational and logical? Or that lawmakers are all competent and wise?
No.
So why act as if I did? It's very close to a straw man fallacy what you're using here.
I'm saying concise and consistent laws that are clear and non-contradictory drastically improve things. Whether it IS this way now, was not the question. Clearly, since I argue the law and judgement makes little sense, and the lawmaker ignorant or incompetent, already shows I'm aware of people's faults and societies' shortcommings. Obviously.;-) However, it changes *nothing* to my above statement. So, seen we're never going to be 100% perfect, one should leave things as they are and not impove, and keep things illogical and inconsistent? Strange reasoning. If we had judges that actually would follow logic and be consistent and not cater to ignorance - even ignorance in parlance - and force the lawmaker to make clear, concise and consistent laws, we would need LESS courts and judges and have less courtcases in general. Yes, true. And? I would think that a good thing.
That we would never attain it fully because people never are totally, does nothing to repudiate what I said. no; that's why we would always have some courts and judges and courtcases. But the lesser we have/do, the better. So one should go for that, obviously.
"No it's not, it's people trying to do their best."
No, if they had done their best, they would have concluded tomatoes falls under fruits and are exempt from taxes, and if the lawmaker wanted it differently, he should make a law that is more logical, clear and consistent - aka: better.
" I'd assume you could notice that from the view up there on your horse."
Here we go. Always an indication of strong counterarguments, if people start to play ad hominem in their rebuttal... Why not go all the way and say 'up there on your horse on the rooftop of your ivory tower'?;-)
"Oh, well, then apologies indeed good sir, perhaps the gentleman would consider fucking off to a society/snip"
Apologies accepted, but I'll decline the suggestion, polite and amicable as it may be. It's sufficient if our current societies (including courts and judges) would *strive* to be more rational and logical, when they make or apply laws that govern people, instead of catering to ignorance of the populace - even if that ignorance is the current 'best they can do'. If you never teach anyone why what t
"We were not discussing science, we were discussing tax law."
And the link to that was, since science is more concise, you are better of with the scientific definition, also in law. And, btw, the next sentence said exactly the same about language, so 'science' was only one of the examples.
"But even in science it is in fact extremely common/"
Yes, and those are always well defined, and everyone knows what is meant by it. and in the rare cases it isn't we DO get a mess there too, so this rather strengthens the case I made.
"The usage in question is not arbitrary at all, it is well established common usage and this is easy to document."
The usage is vague and inconsistent, which makes the *distinction* arbitrary. As for 'documented': I'm still waiting on a link to a dictionary of any repute with a completely different 'trade-definition' of the word fruit that involves tomatoes, but not other fruits.
"As does yours."
I beg to differ. Mine certainly is more consistent and concise. Only if you ADD things to it, and want to make more distinctions, does it need any elaboration. you gave the examples of flour and what not, but do note that the original definition says nothing about that neither, so you'd need even more additional (and far less logical) elaboration of the law as well, if you wanted to include differentiation between those distinctions as well.
For THE SAME thing, thus, my law is both more clear, concise, consistent and logical. It's immediately clear what fruits are, and when and why they're exempt from taxes - also for tomatoes.
Granted, it says nothing about flower, but so didn't the other law. that is purely a question of how complex the world is, and even more how complex you want to want to make the laws to have influence on that complex world. This does not diminish by making vague and inconsistent laws, however, rather the contrary.
"I agree that the law should be sent back to the drawing board"
Well, at least we're agreeing to some things, then.;-) It's becoming increasingly rare in discussions, especially on slashdot.:-)
For the rest of your paragraph I - again - have a slightly different opinion. What we see happening now, is that it's NOT being revised, but the law, in all its inconsistency, is applied and continues to be applied. Which will happen almost in every case, when you do so with a law, because it it becomes a case for precedent, NOT for revision that way.
I also disagree with the catering to ignorance, as I've said before. Even if all trade-people would start bowling their eyes out because they realize they should adapt their misinformed and highly inconsistent idea about tomatoes and fruits - used as they are in their parlance, the court should have gone through with it. "Fiat justitia ruat cælum" as said before. In reality, traders would adapt really quickly, I assure you. They really don't care. If the court had said tomatoes are fruits, that would be that. And if the lawmaker didn't agree, he would be FORCED to make a better, more logical law. all advantages, as far as I'm concerned.
Then, as a lawmaker, IF you want to make a distinction, you can say: for all fruits, except when peeled or any sort of treatment has been done on the fruit.
The world is, indeed, not as simple, that's why simplistic arbitrary laws that are not consistent does not do justice to the complexity of the world. If the world is complex, and you want to make complex distinctions, your laws must be reflect that as well, if you want to be concise. The clarity does not come from simplistic laws, but from internal logic and consistency in the laws.
The law, however, dated from the time we already had the scientific definition, so the lawmaker was either ignorant of this, or incompetent, or both, as I said.
"Because you're asking for a world where laws need to be so specific as to not be understandable by common people"
On the contrary; it's by using DIFFERENT ad-hoc interpretations of the same word without regard to consistency or logic that things become not understandable.
This very example proves it.
1)The court says 'Tomatoes are fruit, and therefor should be exempt from taxes'. "Huh?", say the common but ignorant people 'I always thought tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit." "Well, you're wrong about that, because THIS is the primary definition of a fruit, and as you can see, tomatoes fall under it." "True." the common people can't but agree, when remaining logical and consistent.
2)The court says 'Tomatoes are not fruit, and therefor should not be exempt from taxes'. "Huh?", say the less common but intelligent people 'I always thought tomatoes were fruit." "Well, you're wrong about that, because THIS is the primary definition of a... no wait, it isn't. It's what the ignorant people think, and therefor we must interpret it on equally ignorant basis. It's because fruit is sweet and as you can see, tomatoes don't fall under it." "Not true." the less common people point out, because not all fruit is sweet, and some vegetables are also sweet, yet you don't consider *those* vegetables and fruit in reverse. So that can't be the characteristics for defining a fruit or a vegetable." The court now scratches her many blindfolded heads and tries something else: "Well, it's because vegetables are usually cooked. That's the different characteristic.See how that makes more sense than using the proper scientific defintion?" "What?", answers the not common people; that makes even less sense, because tomatoes are usually NOT cooked, so with that definition it should certainly not be considered a fruit!" Etc, etc.
One can clearly see what is causing the most nonsensical inconsistencies here, and it's NOT using specific and logical interpretations and clear wordings. Rather the contrary.
Ultimately, since there is no *inherent* logic in it, they can only resort to: it's not factual correct, nor logical, nor consistent, but we're using it anyway because most of the common people are ignorant and are used to it that way anyway.
It's an attitude based on ignorance and laziness thus, as I've said before. And I do simply do not concur with such a thing.
I disagree. The dictionary definition should be the most valid one. (Btw, I didn't search for 'one', I searched for five ot he most common dictionaries, and they ALL had that very same definition at the very top and thus as primary definition. And none gave a 'trade'-definition, as you've been postulating.)
On the contrary, it's very scientific to use precise words and convey exact meaning to what one says. What a mess one would be in, if in science everyone used his own meaning of a word, and interpreted everything fully arbitrarily! In fact, even in normal usage of language it is of paramount importance to use commonly defined interpretations, and, indeed - certainly when in doubt - to refer to the dictionary definitions as the defining one.
Can you imagine what bable of babylon any talk or discussion would otherwise amount to. Imagine every word I or you utter we both interpret in our own, unique way. Ah, but *I* mean with the word cat a species of canine! Ah, but I mean with cat a vehicle one can drive with! Ah, but I interpret 'canine' as being only applicable to snakes.
etc.
One could not have any decent conversation whatsoever, if everyone interprets the meaning of words in another way. Common language wouldn't even exist.
So, no, I refute the notion that any interpretation is as as good as the next ones. You personal (or my personal) interpretation is superseded by that of a dictionary one, for instance - whether I or you like that or not. Because going the other route makes (and devolves) into nothing sensible at all.
The very fact that we can have a sensible discussion is due to the fact we DO NOT interpret each word differently. In fact - which proves my case in regard to what gives the most trouble/causes the biggest mess - one of the major causes of misunderstandings and endless disagreements is exactly the fact that both parties interpret something differently. Start with agreeing to use the primary dictionary definition - or explicitly mention the secondary/third if applicable - when in doubt, and much of that goes away.
You've not understood my point completely. If there actually IS suich a huge concern for the intent of the lawmaker, it's even more reason to resend the law to the drawing-board so he can make one which makes logical sense. The law was made when the definition of a fruit was already known - not a vague common-parlance-in-trade definition that actually never was a real definition, as I, presume - but the scientific definition. So, he either was ignorant, or he was incompetent, and consequently, also the law he made. Reason the more to not cater to some inconsistent, self-invented/interpreted, illogical law, but to actually follow the law in the most logical and consistent way.
That the lawmaker meant something else is HIS problem, the courts should not try to second guess any ill-informed intent, especially one that is based on ignorance or incompetence, but should apply direct logic and scientific scrutiny and strive for consistency to the utmost of their abilities. And follow a more strict and consistent interpretation of the law. It's also well established in law that they can do so as well. My point is: and they equally should have done it here as well.
I disagree. I checked 5 dictionaries: they all basically give the same definition as the prior definition as I gave. There is NO such a thing as a 'trade' definition where a tomato would be a vegetable but not other fruits. Provide me ONE link to a dictionary of any repute where there is a seperate 'trade' definition. there is NO SUCH THING. It's only in common parlance based on ignorance one find this notion back, as said. The only other definitions being allegorical in nature, like 'the fruits of labor', which, obviously, has no bearing on the case. Thus the argument that it has another definition, as it has ACTUALLY been defined, holds no value, and even if it were true: the most scientific definition is the most correct one, and by the time the law was made and it came before the court, that definition was already there. That people in their ignorance and in 'common speach' refer to other things of 'fruit' is no reason to suddenly cater to that opinion. In fact, one most definitely shouldn't. That's the same f- problem with people whining and complaining (and trying to make courtcases) out of the fact that Tesla uses the word 'autopilot' and they don't know what that actually means.
No. No catering to ignorance. It's just *because* people that know better, like judges, cater and pamper to this sort of nonsense that it perpetuates even more and you keep getting this sort of BS cases. Use the correct definition, and if there is none, or there is doubt (aka, 'there are more than one', and both are relevant) write down which one you mean. It's not that difficult to do, now, is it? And remains consistent herein, and everyone soon will understand it's not their own invented definition that counts, and a lot less time will be wasted on such cases.
"It is perfectly logical to assume a law regulating trade uses the language of trade."
I disagree, it's far more logical to use the definition that is used AS a definition. And if there is more than one which may apply, and where there is doubt within the definitions, to explain which one you're using. There is no such thing as a 'trade dictionary' that has definitions that a normal dictionary hasn't. That's just something that you invented. I'll repeat: you claim it's differently defined; well, give me a link to a dictionary where the definition I gave isn't the at the top of the list, and where you can conclude tomatoes aren't fruits. don't say so, show me. We'll talk further after that.
"For your interpretation to hold up the tax rules for fruit would also automatically apply to whole nuts but not shelled nuts."
You've lost me there. Everything that is a fruit, would be considered a fruit. Whether it's peeled or not.
It's not 'my' interpretation, btw, it's the scientific interpretation. Which is the most logical and most correct of all interpretations in regard to reality. And certainly the most consistent. If you deny that, I'm curious to see your 'trade definition' to 1) actually be a *definition* anywhere to be found on the internet let alone scientific papers or dictionaries, 2)to make more logical sense why tomatoes should not be considered fruit, but other fruits do - on what logical basis is that distinction made, since you claim that 'my' interpretation is not more logical or rational? I would like to see that famous consistency and logic that trumps the scientific definition in making the distinction. It's certainly didn't pan out with the self-invented conditions of it being 'sweet or not' or 'usually cooked or not', as I've shown the many contradictions when applying those in a logical manner, in earlier posts. So I'm really curious to see a 'trade-definition' which will be more logical and consistent in its application than the normal definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... let's not just brush it off as one single management failure with no precedence.
Note that even the HST was hugely over budget, over time, and was mismanaged as well... so it's not like it's a one-time thing. Instead, it's more common than not.
From its original total cost estimate of about US$400 million, the hubble space telescope cost about US$4.7 billion by the time of its launch. Hubble's cumulative costs were estimated to be about US$10 billion in 2010. It was launched years behind shedule. It had a flawed main mirror. Etc.
So...sure, it provided nice pictures, and was/is a great asset, but let's not sugarcoat the truth: it was over-budget, over-time, and mismanaged as well. You could have built about 3 OWL's with that. And those would have provided better pictures, certainly in the visible spectrum.
That's why the "Just because in e.g. 20 years we can do something much cheaper we should not stop building scientific instruments today." argument doesn't hold up, imho, because it will ALWAYS be cheaper to build them on Earth. It's a given. One knows this in front. It's not about 'not' building scientific instruments; one can build new ones for Earth-based telescopes as well. It's balancing the advantages and deciding where the most bang for the buck is.
And as said, I think in many instances, unless for specific reasons or goals, space-based telescopes will always come out lower in that regard.
Now, I do understand what you're trying to say, and it's one of the reasons why - even though I personally would have liked to see 'normal' pictures - I do think it made the most scientific sense to use JWST for infra-red observations. At least, that's something that can not, or only with great difficulty, be done on Earth. But still, it's hard to argue that it was worth more than 10 billion dollars. And it's also hard to argue that's an exception, in large space projects.
with the money of the HST, one could have build a couple of EEVLT instead. With the money of the JWST, one could have build a couple of OWL's. And if one ever would send up a new teslecope, double as grand as JWST and double as costly, it's a given for the same money one would, once again, be able to build a far more powerful telescope on Earth. Yes, maybe not in the infra-red... but is getting infra-red really worth 20 billion dollars?
As for exposure-times... you could build an OWL on each side of the planet. Also: while exposure time is important for deep field viewing, *aperture* (and thus lightgathering power) is even more important. Meaning: with a much bigger mirror, you can see much more much faster. So one day with a two meter diameter telescope would demand LESS than half a day with a 8 meter telescope, if we're only talking about exposure time.
And sure, space has its advantages, but the point I'm trying to make, they're not all THAT overwhelmingly large anymore, on a lot of fronts. Not to warrant a cost/time loss of billions/years - and certainly not if it's not strictly necessary to do it that way.
Now... true, costs may come down - hopefully that will pan out for SpaceX - but if we're speculating on future technology, one may do it both ways, and what if, in the future, they find a way to capture infra-red waves in sufficient amount on Earth, for instance? Future technology works both ways, after all - adaptive optics, unimaginable only 40 years ago, is the proof of that.
So, while potentially complementary, I think a very stringent look is necessary as for what projects, exactly, a space-telesope is worth the extra effort and money, and to what degree.
For some tings, it's pretty obvious; for instance, if one wants to test out interferometry on a scale larger than the diameter of Earth. For others, it's less obvious or necessary.
Also, they had to remove a scientific instrument to make room for the corrective optics.
There is no doubt it was a kludge, and an expensive one at that. And a completely avoidable one. For the PRIMARY mirror - the main piece of the space-telescope - to be flawed in such an endeavor... you'd either need to be willfully turn a blind eye or be incompetent beyond belief.
Even NASA doesn't go without blame, here. They should have checked it independently, before shipping.
If one doesn't want to fall in the trap of meaningless semantics, one can just say it as it is: it WAS a flawed instrument, indeed. One which they corrected later, but not without paying a penalty, both in cost as in time/science wasted.
That said, they had to remove a scientific instrument to make room for the corrective optics.
The original estimate was officially 1 to 1,2 billion euro's (in 2006 currency). The *original* estimate that is. But we all know how that goes, with large projects. ;-)
That said, let's say it would have been double that amount in reality. It still would mean 4-5 OWL's. Even one OWL would produce better pictures than JWST would ever be able to, let alone 5 with interferometry...
It would have outclassed JWST without any doubt.
(If, I repeat, JWST would have been in the visible wavelength as well, which it isn't, and which makes the comparison now difficult. But overall, the 5 OWLs surely would have delivered vastly more scientific output in total.)
But, well, no crying over spilled milk. I'm sure the JWST will provide us with nice and scientific interesting things too. It's just that, in this thread/debate, if you compare space-telescopes with earth-based telescopes (including cost), it becomes clear the former only make sense in some specific circumstances or for particular goals.
Fair enough. :-)
Are you using ublock? Otherwise I recommend that. It's pretty good, and I have had very few problems with it (false positives included) on any site, thusfar.
"Space telescopes not only have advantage in some wavelengths, but they are critical, since parts of the spectrum are blocked by the atmosphere."
Which was why I said they still had advantages in those area's. ;-)
There needs to be a compelling reason to send a telescope in space that costs 10 times more for 10 times less aperture. Difficulties to get close to the diffraction limit used to be one of those, up until the late 20th century, but this reason has been starkly reduced with the advent of adaptive optics. Specific wavelengths which are difficult to observe (not impossible, however, if you use high altitude airplanes or balloons) would be a clear advantage. Longer uninterupted viewing in *some* directions, another.
The question is, whether it's worth it, and at what price (as a cost-comparison).
I'll repeat once more, that for the cost of the JWST one could have build 10 OWL terrestrial telescopes. And there is no doubt that, however good the JWST may turn out, ten OWLs would have overclassed and blown away almost everything JWST could show us. The scientific output would be an order of magnitude more.
So I don't think, in a reality where budgets are restrained, that there is always a sufficient cost-benefit analysis being done for the 'complementary' aspects you speak of. I would therefor hold my position space-based telescopes are only useful (in a cost-benefit context) in specific circumstances and special fields of endeavor, in certain scientific niches, or with with particular goals in mind - all of which are not, or only with great difficulty, possible with more feasible, cheaper Earth-based telescopes.
Not to take sides, but it was pretty clearly shown at the right of the summary, which is still 'the article', and it even says "Neptune from the VLT and Hubble". A cursory look would have been enough to find it. As I did.
While true it could have been put nicer, you're exaggerating with 'ESP' as well. And in your rebuttal you weren't very nice neither. In the end, he did give you the link for your request, so maybe you should have stayed a bit more polite as well, if you're going to complain about it in the first place.
"The diffraction limit is not due to atmospheric effects. It is a fundamental limit imposed by the aperture of your telescope, which is more or less the size of the primary mirror. + /but with the bigger ones it's hard to achieve the diffraction limit because of atmospheric effects"
Indeed. The larger the aperture, the more the disturbances are visible and noticeable as well. At a certain point, you gain nothing in resolution (though you still gather more light), even with bigger mirrors.
"The very best adaptive optics only get you to Hubble territory. JWST is bigger than Hubble."
Which is about current technology. sjb was arguing that better space-telescopes than hubble can be made (similar to your argument here), but better Earth telescopes can be made than VLT too.
There is little doubt that EELT with new adaptive optics would, once again, best the JWST (if they were going for visible light). Let alone OWL, with a span of 100 meters, if they had gone with that idea - and for only one tenth of the price.
"Interferometry, particularly image-forming interferometry, is probably easier in space."
True. And in addition, you can do it near limitless (in distance), contrary to something on earth, and with far less potential noise. My point of the interferometry was the hypothetical case, of a bang-for-the-bucks comparison between JWST and something like OWL. For the same cost, one would have had 10 OWL's. Each OWL would have already provided better images (in visible light) as what WST would be cable of, and while the latter is on segmented mirror, the OWL's could use interferometry, which would completely overwhelm anything the JWST could muster.
I would agree with the theoretical advantages of space-telescopes - of course, viewed on a aperture-vs-aperture basis (and without calculating costs) - there is little doubt space-telescopes are always going to be better. The point here rather is, that at how things are in reality, Earth-based telescopes have become so good, that the huge extra cost of space-based telescopes is just not warranted, unless in very specific circumstances.
In fact, you see that already with the JWST: there was a reason they used beryllium mirror and went for the infra-red, after all. Scientifically spoken, it was the most sensible to do.
To be clear: I'm not against space-telescopes on themselves. I think they have potential. but unless the cost is starkly reduced to build and put them up there, there is little doubt Earth telescopes are the better choice, *unless* in specific circumstances are with a specific goal in mind. For instance, if one wanted to try out optical interferometry with a a larger diameter than that of the Earth, it would stand to reason that the only way to go would be space. Even at an added cost. Same goes for infra-red and ultra-violet observations, depending on the wavelengths.
For the foreseeable future, though, if you take aperture and cost in consideration, it's clear Earth-based telescopes will continue to trump space-based telescopes in the visible spectrum.
I can follow you, up until your last sentence.
Pseudo-anonymous accounts are perfectly viable, certainly on slashdot. Have been using them for years, and never got any spam or harrassement. I mean, not outside of the commentary/thread itself.
I've never quite understood the 'online harassment' claim, frankly. Certainly not when one is posting with nicknames that don't (cor)relate with your real person. You can always just decide to not read trollish posts or put spam in the bin or auto-filter it. Straightforwardly said: you can easily ignore that crap. There is no issue there.
So I don't think an AC is really necessary for those reasons. If anything, it dilutes the incentive for posting something worthwhile as an AC, as the VAST majority of AC-post prove. I rather applaud people giving there opinion when posting under their actual nickname: at least one shows one is confident enough to put one's online reputation at stake - small comfort as that may be, it's still something. With AC's, you don't even know IF you're talking to the same AC anyumore, the next comment.
There is no such thing as an uninterrupted view in all angles and directions, if one stays in Earth's orbit - and certainly not a low Earth orbit, as the HST does.
0ne can get longer uninterrupted exposures in some directions, especially if you move out of Earth's low orbit, but the question is, if that's relevant. Deep field imagery is depended on the lightgathering, which, indeed, is dependent on exposure-time BUT even far more so on aperture size. Meaning, you can see far more with a bigger aperture in less time. And since since Earth-telescopes can be built MUCH larger - and for far less money - than space-based telescopes, I think the clear advantage still goes to the former.
For instance, if they had built OWL, it would have overwhelmed and provided better pictures than anything that the WST will be able to do, for less than a fifth of the cost.
EXCEPT of course, for infra-red wavelengths, which is exactly the reason they shifted to that, instead of visible light as with the HST. It's a pitty we won't see 'real' pictures in visible light from the WST, but scientifically spoken, it was the right decision. If you're going to spend 10 billion on something, at least spend it at something that can't be done otherwise.
There is no denying that since the adoption of adaptive optics, one of the major advantages of space-telescopes has been starkly reduced. And if you consider the cost as well, it's clear space-telescopes only make sense anymore in very specific circumstances.
"True in both cases but irrelevant to my point."
Granted, but then you shouldn't have used it in substantiation of the point.
The original point being: "The achievement is that due to adaptive optics, an earth based telescope can deliver pictures as sharp or sharper than a space based telescope."
Which, basically, is true. As we seem both to agree, the fact that one can built better space-telescopes does not change or counter anything to the above claim, since better Earth-based telescopes can be built as well.
If one wants to qualify it, it would be that, for exactly the same aperture, and in visible light, the space-telescope only has a small advantage anymore, due to adaptive optics. For the same *cost* however, an earth-telescope provides much, much sharper images than any space-based telescope. For infra-red and ultra-violet wavelengths, the space telescope still has moderate to far better advantages (depending on which specific wavelength you're looking).
Note that the bang-for-the-bucks argument will ALWAYS be true, no matter how 'better' space-telescopes will become, provided that technology doesn't stand still for neither concepts. One can call this a generalization or speculation or assumption, but it's a reasonable and very logical assumption, bordering on being an obvious certitude. At least, up until technology moves in such direction, both the cost of sending it up into space (SpaceX?) goes drastically down, and/or the structural components can only be fulfilled by a space-environment (which isn't the case for classical mirror-segments).
Only partially true. Space-telescopes still have an advantage in some area's, especially for the deep and near-infrared wavelengths, and ultraviolet wavelengths, but the other advantages are becoming less and less obvious, especially if you consider the cost of both space-based as Earth-based telescopes.
The disturbances of the atmosphere - the major drawback (diffraction limit) up until the last decade of the 20th century - have become largely reduced thanks to adaptive optics and other technological advances.
The argument that we are now capable of constructing space-telescopes that are better than Hubble has no bearings on the comparative advances, since we can also create better earth-based telescopes than VLT, these days. As the Extremely Large Telescope will show, no doubt. There is little doubt this latter one will exceed the JWST, just as the VLT did with Hubble - IF the JWST was going for the visible light waves, which it isn't. In fact, it's the main reason Beryllium mirrors were used that excel in infra-red wavelengths, about the last advantage space-telescopes still have that warrant the vastly more expensive cost (now at more than 10 *billion* for the JWST, if I remember correctly).
Note that for that price, you could have made 10 Overwhelmingly Large Telescopes (OWL) which would completely DWARF the JWST on almost all other fronts, certainly when using interferometry.
errata:
"if implied to some high(er) moral stake" = "if applied to some high(er) moral stake "
"all hominids fall under 'people' automatically" = "all humans fall under 'people' automatically"
And probably a few others, but it's getting awfully late. I'll assume you will know what I mean, even if I made some additional minor spelling- and other mistakes.
"Yes I do, I just think you're focusing on a minor mundane detail and missing the purpose of the lawsuit."
Exactly. You fail to see the principle of the matter. If it was NOT such a rather mundane topic, but something of importance, *exactly the same reasoning* would NOT be accepted. This shows that the reasoning is flawed and applied arbitrarily.
"Yikes. I'm going to skip the loaded appeal-to-emotion example if you don't mind."
I do mind a bit. Because you're basically ignoring it, then, while the example was put there to demonstrate how arbitrarily your reasoning is, if implied to some high(er) moral stake - which is why it has to be emotionally laden, indeed. But if your *reasoning* is correct and consistent, than emotional load should not have any bearings on your argumentation. As you will note, *I* will not skip around your own example.
"no more revenue for you"
Since when is it the courts job to provide the government with more revenue? It's those little remarks of you that make me feel how distant your premise from mine is. How dangerous would that be, if that was truly the job of the courts, instead of, you know, meet out justice in a logical and consistent way. Also, while one can argue it was the politician/lawmakers job, he didn't do a very good job of it, and should have been required to write it better, IF he wanted to make a distinction. That would be the same for all the things you described above, if you want to make a distinction between all kinds of different things. But all this misses the point.
Let me give a simple example where your objections would be nullified: the lawmaker could have NOT made such a distinction, and said that taxes were equally due for vegetables AND fruits. There. 'Revenue for the government' ensured! (If that were to be deemed the goal for the court, which I refute). So you see, your objection to it didn't go to heart of the matter at all. If one wants to make complex laws, one can not complain afterwards about the complexity of it. Saying but what about those, those, and those things then? Indeed, what about them? Do you WANT to differentiate and exempt some from taxes and some not, and on what objective grounds? Any competent lawmaker would realize you either keep it simple and then you have less work to do to keep it consistent and concise, or you make it more complex, and then you have more work to do to keep it consistent and concise. But I've been over this before.
You gave a counterexample with the homo sapiens, but one big glaring omission is, that you did not give any clear definition of 'people' or 'human'. Scientifically, for instance, all species with 'homo' in it, are per definition 'human', since that is what the word means (as I'm sure you know, because you don't seem to be an idiot). So it reinforces my point once again: if you take a clear scientific definition, for instance; all hominids fall under 'people' automatically, this would be FAR more clear and consistent than saying something like "what is seen as human in common parlance". IF one would argue it's only valid for 'people' and you have a wishy-washy vague definition again, you would have to argue this for EVERY case of species, or even subspecies, or even ethnicity. Even worse, if we take the analogy further to its correct statement, then it would be like this: a law saying "You have humans and you have animals. You can kill animals but you can't kill humans EXCEPT for homo sapiens neanderthalis". Because THAT is the equivalent of the courtcase. And then the court arguing: "Yes, we KNOW that Neanderthals are also human, but in common parlance it's viewed differently; only the homo sapiens sapiens is seen as human. Therefor they can be killed like an animal. The lawmaker too, only knew of homo sapiens sapiens, so his intent was to safeguard us, and not other humans. So for the sake of killing, we judge they may be killed, but that doesn't mean we don't consider them humans.
This, as said, makes NO SENSE. The exact reverse of what you claimed, thus. F
"Yeah, I agree."
Well, at least we both agree to something, then. And I'm glad to note it's not a of trivial importance, that which we agree on. :-)
On slashdot, one may already consider the discussion a success, then. ;-)
We'll simply have to agree to disagree. Saying "we accept they are fruits" but then judge they don't fall under fruits when it comes to taxation just does NOT make sense. I could re-iterate and make bold what I said before, but what's the use. I think I've explained to you more than enough what my point is.
The only way this is accepted, is because it's of minor import to most people. If it was something of large importance, no-one would actually accept such a thing. Imagine a law about whether blacks should be considered people or animals with a law saying "you can shoot an animal without any punishment" in the 50ies. And if one would shoot blacks and then claim "but the lawmaker back than regarded black people as animals" - quite possible back then - would anyone now really be following the same reasoning you're upholding here? Would one say: "no, no! The court made no mistake, they just followed the 'intent'! See? The court AGREED with you that blacks are not animals, they just followed intent."
And when I would point out that that DE FACTO means they regard blacks as animals, you could argue; "Not at all. They acknowledge *the fact* that blacks are people, and then just go on to say "we don't think that's what the author of the law meant when he said humans vs. animals.""
Following your reasoning, this would be a perfectly valid reasoning, and the court made the right call that blacks could be shot, without this meaning they didn't acknowledge blacks are humans.
But one can easily see this is BS. *The differentiation ITSELF* of the judgement means you're *de facto* MAKING a distinction between the two. I just can not wrap my mind around you not comprehending this. The court SAYING they acknowledge it, but then not applying it, means they're NOT acknowledging it where it matters most; not in their words, but in their actions. The reason for that is immaterial. Intent does not change reality. Humans have also a very clear biological definition. Whether one wants to acknowledge this or not, or invoke 'intent' or 'common parlance' is aside the question. If the court would deem it allowed to shoot blacks, regarding the question whether one could consider them humans or animals (aka, vegetables or fruits), you de facto consider them animals if you allow blacks to be shot, but not 'humans' - this is true, EVEN if the court says it acknowledges blacks are humans as well. Do you understand what I'm saying, here?
For some reason, you seem to think what the court says about it ways heavier than how they actually have judged it to be. I disagree. You would too - presumably - if it was a case of high moral stake as the example I gave - but now you're just content arguing differently.
It is contradictory. It makes no sense. Saying "The world is round, but because people think it's flat (or the lawmaker thought it was flat) we're going to agree to a flat-earth tax" is stupid, wrong, and nonsensical, and grates with what one first said, namely that the Earth was round. If they KNOW the Earth is round, or a black a human, or a tomato a fruit, they need to be consistent and logical, REGARDLESS of intent or what trade-people think about it, and make a judgement in accordance with reality, as they - in fact - know it is. Again: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum".
So yes, I agree that the court knew fully well it were fruits, but *in reality* they judged it were not fruits - not by saying it, but by their judgement, in this case. Which makes it twice as worse, in fact. You're looking at what they 'say' about it, and conclude they judged tomatoes as fruits. You do not consider the logical consequences and implication of the judgment itself they actually made, which means they do *not* consider tomatoes fruits because it doesn't suited them in this case (aka, because of 'intent' or 'common usage'). But denying reality because of convenience, is still denying reality. Saying you acknowledge this reality, but then make a judgement that goes against it, makes it hypocritical on top.
That IS my po
?
Ermm.. you just gave the normal definitions, that one can find in all dictionaries... which pretty much say what I said. I was well aware of THOSE, since that was my whole point. The scienitfic defintion is there, all right. My question was for the 'trade-definition' that apparently was as logic, concise and clear as the scientific the scientific one, as you claimed. (or, at least, some commentator here claimed - the comments are getting a bit too much in quantity, so excuse me if I bring something up that you didn't even allude at, in this regard ;-)).
Basically, you've proven that the scientific definition is readily available and clear to all. what I don't see is any definition of some 'trade-dictionary' where it is otherwise defined to explain why tomatoes are not to be considered fruit - even though you (or someone else here) has said it is 'well documented'. Apparently so well documented, there is no trace to be found in any official dictionary of any repute. I guess they just all missed this widely adopted and used definition, then? Or... maybe... there isn't one to begin with. Well, in that case, if you want to define something, I would say it makes more sense - certainly in regard to clarity - to use an existing definition to define something, than a non-existing definition.
As for the 'real' one; I get what you're trying to say. But clearly, the definitions are made in order of importance, and while it may change slightly, they ALL say more or less the same, and they ALL have the scientific definition as one of the first definitions. Of course there can be other meanings, I said so myself. The 'fruits of labor' for instance. But all that has no bearing to this case. A trade-definition explaining why tomatoes are not fruit WOULD have been relevant, but as you can see in your examples, is nowhere to be found. One can throw up 'common parlance' again, but that's not a definition, and, indeed, while "correct" is an ambiguous word on itself, I would want to make clear that science is always going to be MORE correct than an non-scientific definition, in the sense that it better describes reality.
" respectfully disagree"
Well, at least you're being respectful, contrary to some others.
No sweat, that's what civil discussions are for. Each can give his/her arguments, but in the end one can only agree or disagree to the different points made - or at least agree to disagree, if nothing else. ;-)
"Yeah, you think so? What if the law sets different tax rates for berries, drupes, pomes [snip]"
Then he's making it harder for himself. I fail to see your point, if that point was a counter to what I said. I didn't say there are no other ways to make things more complicated, I said using inconsistent and arbitrary and illogical definitions and interpretations of laws are a sure want to complicate it further, while being concise and consistent lessens this.
"You keep getting that wrong. The court did not say "tomatoes are not a fruit."
you used that statement before, but it's logically inconsistent. If the question is between taxation or non-taxation of fruit and vegetables - which was the point: fruits were exempt - yet you judge tomatoes must pay the taxes contrary to, well, the fruits, you DE FACTO claim that tomatoes are not fruit. that is the implicit claim made in the case of those taxes, even if they don't *directly* said as such. Now, the *reason* they give for that is, granted, that they assume the intent was different for the lawmaker who made this law in ignorance or incompetence. And my point is, that that shouldn't supersede reality, namely that tomatoes are fruits.
"Here's something else to consider: if 100% of laws were non-ambiguous /snip"
I often hear that counter, and it always baffles me because it makes no sense at all, in determining which way one should *strive* how society (and in this case, the courts/laws) should go. Look: did I say all laws are 100% non-ambiguous? Or that that all people are rational and logical? Or that lawmakers are all competent and wise?
No.
So why act as if I did? It's very close to a straw man fallacy what you're using here.
I'm saying concise and consistent laws that are clear and non-contradictory drastically improve things. Whether it IS this way now, was not the question. Clearly, since I argue the law and judgement makes little sense, and the lawmaker ignorant or incompetent, already shows I'm aware of people's faults and societies' shortcommings. Obviously. ;-) However, it changes *nothing* to my above statement. So, seen we're never going to be 100% perfect, one should leave things as they are and not impove, and keep things illogical and inconsistent? Strange reasoning. If we had judges that actually would follow logic and be consistent and not cater to ignorance - even ignorance in parlance - and force the lawmaker to make clear, concise and consistent laws, we would need LESS courts and judges and have less courtcases in general. Yes, true. And? I would think that a good thing.
That we would never attain it fully because people never are totally, does nothing to repudiate what I said. no; that's why we would always have some courts and judges and courtcases. But the lesser we have/do, the better. So one should go for that, obviously.
"No it's not, it's people trying to do their best."
No, if they had done their best, they would have concluded tomatoes falls under fruits and are exempt from taxes, and if the lawmaker wanted it differently, he should make a law that is more logical, clear and consistent - aka: better.
" I'd assume you could notice that from the view up there on your horse."
Here we go. Always an indication of strong counterarguments, if people start to play ad hominem in their rebuttal... Why not go all the way and say 'up there on your horse on the rooftop of your ivory tower'? ;-)
"Oh, well, then apologies indeed good sir, perhaps the gentleman would consider fucking off to a society /snip"
Apologies accepted, but I'll decline the suggestion, polite and amicable as it may be. It's sufficient if our current societies (including courts and judges) would *strive* to be more rational and logical, when they make or apply laws that govern people, instead of catering to ignorance of the populace - even if that ignorance is the current 'best they can do'. If you never teach anyone why what t
"We were not discussing science, we were discussing tax law."
And the link to that was, since science is more concise, you are better of with the scientific definition, also in law. And, btw, the next sentence said exactly the same about language, so 'science' was only one of the examples.
"But even in science it is in fact extremely common /"
Yes, and those are always well defined, and everyone knows what is meant by it. and in the rare cases it isn't we DO get a mess there too, so this rather strengthens the case I made.
"The usage in question is not arbitrary at all, it is well established common usage and this is easy to document."
The usage is vague and inconsistent, which makes the *distinction* arbitrary. As for 'documented': I'm still waiting on a link to a dictionary of any repute with a completely different 'trade-definition' of the word fruit that involves tomatoes, but not other fruits.
"As does yours."
I beg to differ. Mine certainly is more consistent and concise. Only if you ADD things to it, and want to make more distinctions, does it need any elaboration. you gave the examples of flour and what not, but do note that the original definition says nothing about that neither, so you'd need even more additional (and far less logical) elaboration of the law as well, if you wanted to include differentiation between those distinctions as well.
For THE SAME thing, thus, my law is both more clear, concise, consistent and logical. It's immediately clear what fruits are, and when and why they're exempt from taxes - also for tomatoes.
Granted, it says nothing about flower, but so didn't the other law. that is purely a question of how complex the world is, and even more how complex you want to want to make the laws to have influence on that complex world. This does not diminish by making vague and inconsistent laws, however, rather the contrary.
"I agree that the law should be sent back to the drawing board"
Well, at least we're agreeing to some things, then. ;-) It's becoming increasingly rare in discussions, especially on slashdot. :-)
For the rest of your paragraph I - again - have a slightly different opinion. What we see happening now, is that it's NOT being revised, but the law, in all its inconsistency, is applied and continues to be applied. Which will happen almost in every case, when you do so with a law, because it it becomes a case for precedent, NOT for revision that way.
I also disagree with the catering to ignorance, as I've said before. Even if all trade-people would start bowling their eyes out because they realize they should adapt their misinformed and highly inconsistent idea about tomatoes and fruits - used as they are in their parlance, the court should have gone through with it. "Fiat justitia ruat cælum" as said before. In reality, traders would adapt really quickly, I assure you. They really don't care. If the court had said tomatoes are fruits, that would be that. And if the lawmaker didn't agree, he would be FORCED to make a better, more logical law. all advantages, as far as I'm concerned.
Then, as a lawmaker, IF you want to make a distinction, you can say: for all fruits, except when peeled or any sort of treatment has been done on the fruit.
The world is, indeed, not as simple, that's why simplistic arbitrary laws that are not consistent does not do justice to the complexity of the world. If the world is complex, and you want to make complex distinctions, your laws must be reflect that as well, if you want to be concise. The clarity does not come from simplistic laws, but from internal logic and consistency in the laws.
The law, however, dated from the time we already had the scientific definition, so the lawmaker was either ignorant of this, or incompetent, or both, as I said.
"Because you're asking for a world where laws need to be so specific as to not be understandable by common people"
On the contrary; it's by using DIFFERENT ad-hoc interpretations of the same word without regard to consistency or logic that things become not understandable.
This very example proves it.
1)The court says 'Tomatoes are fruit, and therefor should be exempt from taxes'. "Huh?", say the common but ignorant people 'I always thought tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit." "Well, you're wrong about that, because THIS is the primary definition of a fruit, and as you can see, tomatoes fall under it." "True." the common people can't but agree, when remaining logical and consistent.
2)The court says 'Tomatoes are not fruit, and therefor should not be exempt from taxes'. "Huh?", say the less common but intelligent people 'I always thought tomatoes were fruit." "Well, you're wrong about that, because THIS is the primary definition of a... no wait, it isn't. It's what the ignorant people think, and therefor we must interpret it on equally ignorant basis. It's because fruit is sweet and as you can see, tomatoes don't fall under it." "Not true." the less common people point out, because not all fruit is sweet, and some vegetables are also sweet, yet you don't consider *those* vegetables and fruit in reverse. So that can't be the characteristics for defining a fruit or a vegetable." The court now scratches her many blindfolded heads and tries something else: "Well, it's because vegetables are usually cooked. That's the different characteristic.See how that makes more sense than using the proper scientific defintion?" "What?", answers the not common people; that makes even less sense, because tomatoes are usually NOT cooked, so with that definition it should certainly not be considered a fruit!" Etc, etc.
One can clearly see what is causing the most nonsensical inconsistencies here, and it's NOT using specific and logical interpretations and clear wordings. Rather the contrary.
Ultimately, since there is no *inherent* logic in it, they can only resort to: it's not factual correct, nor logical, nor consistent, but we're using it anyway because most of the common people are ignorant and are used to it that way anyway.
It's an attitude based on ignorance and laziness thus, as I've said before. And I do simply do not concur with such a thing.
I disagree. The dictionary definition should be the most valid one. (Btw, I didn't search for 'one', I searched for five ot he most common dictionaries, and they ALL had that very same definition at the very top and thus as primary definition. And none gave a 'trade'-definition, as you've been postulating.)
On the contrary, it's very scientific to use precise words and convey exact meaning to what one says. What a mess one would be in, if in science everyone used his own meaning of a word, and interpreted everything fully arbitrarily! In fact, even in normal usage of language it is of paramount importance to use commonly defined interpretations, and, indeed - certainly when in doubt - to refer to the dictionary definitions as the defining one.
Can you imagine what bable of babylon any talk or discussion would otherwise amount to. Imagine every word I or you utter we both interpret in our own, unique way. Ah, but *I* mean with the word cat a species of canine! Ah, but I mean with cat a vehicle one can drive with! Ah, but I interpret 'canine' as being only applicable to snakes.
etc.
One could not have any decent conversation whatsoever, if everyone interprets the meaning of words in another way. Common language wouldn't even exist.
So, no, I refute the notion that any interpretation is as as good as the next ones. You personal (or my personal) interpretation is superseded by that of a dictionary one, for instance - whether I or you like that or not. Because going the other route makes (and devolves) into nothing sensible at all.
The very fact that we can have a sensible discussion is due to the fact we DO NOT interpret each word differently. In fact - which proves my case in regard to what gives the most trouble/causes the biggest mess - one of the major causes of misunderstandings and endless disagreements is exactly the fact that both parties interpret something differently. Start with agreeing to use the primary dictionary definition - or explicitly mention the secondary/third if applicable - when in doubt, and much of that goes away.
You've not understood my point completely. If there actually IS suich a huge concern for the intent of the lawmaker, it's even more reason to resend the law to the drawing-board so he can make one which makes logical sense. The law was made when the definition of a fruit was already known - not a vague common-parlance-in-trade definition that actually never was a real definition, as I, presume - but the scientific definition. So, he either was ignorant, or he was incompetent, and consequently, also the law he made. Reason the more to not cater to some inconsistent, self-invented/interpreted, illogical law, but to actually follow the law in the most logical and consistent way.
That the lawmaker meant something else is HIS problem, the courts should not try to second guess any ill-informed intent, especially one that is based on ignorance or incompetence, but should apply direct logic and scientific scrutiny and strive for consistency to the utmost of their abilities. And follow a more strict and consistent interpretation of the law. It's also well established in law that they can do so as well. My point is: and they equally should have done it here as well.
I disagree. I checked 5 dictionaries: they all basically give the same definition as the prior definition as I gave. There is NO such a thing as a 'trade' definition where a tomato would be a vegetable but not other fruits. Provide me ONE link to a dictionary of any repute where there is a seperate 'trade' definition. there is NO SUCH THING. It's only in common parlance based on ignorance one find this notion back, as said. The only other definitions being allegorical in nature, like 'the fruits of labor', which, obviously, has no bearing on the case. Thus the argument that it has another definition, as it has ACTUALLY been defined, holds no value, and even if it were true: the most scientific definition is the most correct one, and by the time the law was made and it came before the court, that definition was already there. That people in their ignorance and in 'common speach' refer to other things of 'fruit' is no reason to suddenly cater to that opinion. In fact, one most definitely shouldn't. That's the same f- problem with people whining and complaining (and trying to make courtcases) out of the fact that Tesla uses the word 'autopilot' and they don't know what that actually means.
No. No catering to ignorance. It's just *because* people that know better, like judges, cater and pamper to this sort of nonsense that it perpetuates even more and you keep getting this sort of BS cases. Use the correct definition, and if there is none, or there is doubt (aka, 'there are more than one', and both are relevant) write down which one you mean. It's not that difficult to do, now, is it? And remains consistent herein, and everyone soon will understand it's not their own invented definition that counts, and a lot less time will be wasted on such cases.
"It is perfectly logical to assume a law regulating trade uses the language of trade."
I disagree, it's far more logical to use the definition that is used AS a definition. And if there is more than one which may apply, and where there is doubt within the definitions, to explain which one you're using. There is no such thing as a 'trade dictionary' that has definitions that a normal dictionary hasn't. That's just something that you invented. I'll repeat: you claim it's differently defined; well, give me a link to a dictionary where the definition I gave isn't the at the top of the list, and where you can conclude tomatoes aren't fruits. don't say so, show me. We'll talk further after that.
"For your interpretation to hold up the tax rules for fruit would also automatically apply to whole nuts but not shelled nuts."
You've lost me there. Everything that is a fruit, would be considered a fruit. Whether it's peeled or not.
It's not 'my' interpretation, btw, it's the scientific interpretation. Which is the most logical and most correct of all interpretations in regard to reality. And certainly the most consistent. If you deny that, I'm curious to see your 'trade definition' to 1) actually be a *definition* anywhere to be found on the internet let alone scientific papers or dictionaries, 2)to make more logical sense why tomatoes should not be considered fruit, but other fruits do - on what logical basis is that distinction made, since you claim that 'my' interpretation is not more logical or rational? I would like to see that famous consistency and logic that trumps the scientific definition in making the distinction. It's certainly didn't pan out with the self-invented conditions of it being 'sweet or not' or 'usually cooked or not', as I've shown the many contradictions when applying those in a logical manner, in earlier posts. So I'm really curious to see a 'trade-definition' which will be more logical and consistent in its application than the normal definition.