Propaganda is a powerful tool. Playing the ignorant against "save the children" arguments is not complex if tyranny owns TV stations. Do you think that the BLM standing down against Bundy was because they were afraid of Bundy? No, they were afraid it would be a spark to a much bigger event.
Claiming Bundy is a tax avoider is not just a horrible grammatical error, but factually incorrect. Why not look at other cases where a Judge has already ruled that the BLM was conspiring to put ranchers out of business?
I hear my fellow Americans talk about needing guns in every room of the house to ward off the nightly assaults of Orc maurders but what country do these people actually live in? How many times has anyone ever personally had to fire a gun for self defense?
Trolling won't help, especially with something as flagrantly invented to distort reality.
Reality is that people know that the 2nd amendment is not, and was not, primarily intended to protect yourself from a bad guy. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the populace to defend themselves against tyranny. The Federalist papers and notes from nearly every founding member of the US discussed this. Without weapons, they could not have won a war with England and we would have still been a colony. Sure, it can secondarily be used to defend your property from a bad guy but that is a side effect.
When you look at the constant attack on the 2nd amendment by the same corrupt politicians that are allowing TPP to be "top secret classified", have not punished any of the people that made billions collapsing the economy a few years ago it becomes obvious that armed citizens are a concern for them. People are fed up with corruption, fed up with overreach, and fed up with the same ole controlling both parties doing nothing for the Citizens.
I don't see this attack as anything other than the latest anti 2nd amendment attack.
Stories like this don't make national news because it harms the agenda trying to disarm citizens. Considering the take over of US media, the take over of nearly every major political office (Judicial as well as other branches) people _should_ be concerned and push back. The US is not immune to having shitty people in office, and not immune to corruption in office no matter how nicely the major news outlets try to paint people like Diane Feinstein and Eric Holder.
Holder has not been punished for Fast and Furious, and neither has anyone else. Now the Holder is trying to strong arm banks into not doing business with Gun Manufacturers and sellers. You can play stupid if you like, but don't spread the same propaganda as the corrupt politicians are trying to do.
If people were not being executed legally of course I would not have the same words. The problem does not exist so why should it be discussed? At least until someone starts claiming that "So-and-So should die".
Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.
When TFA includes this little gem of a statistic the problem becomes much more obvious. sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent.
So we not only have a messed up legal and prison system that can get innocent people imprisoned for felonies, we have a messed up legal system that can sentence 4 out 100 people to die for crimes they never committed.
The argument you are making (look at his crime) is simply an appeal to emotion which lacks logical merit. And look, I fully agree that certain people can not be rehabilitated. Should any people be legally killed while we have severe problems with both our legal and penal systems? Hell no. Should we be convicting people of felonies when society does not offer them any other option? (think of narcotics) Again hell no. Prison terms and real rehabilitation where possible? I absolutely agree with this approach.
While funny, it distracts from several serious problems in the US.
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty? Surely there are some people with mental disorders that can not maintain a life with the rest of society, but this is what Prisons and mental health institutes are supposed to be for. We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business. The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity and nearly everyone in the US can commit several felonies every day without their knowledge. This means that we have people in prison that should probably not be there, and we lack the capacity to keep the really socially defunct people in jail.
We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later. We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world, and why we still have executions first.
I'd have to see these scientists to know what you think a rational middle is.
You can search out doctors that argue the exact point I mentioned on vaccines. I did a quick search and could not find any of the previous papers I read because they are buried in "get vaccine" campaigns. This is a big part of the problem, as "Wallgreens" does not offer any advice on when a person should not get a vaccine even though the CDC does.
If you're arguing that nationally syndicated shows are showing extreme versions of the science and misinforming the public than I'll enthusiastically agree, but those shows are not the science nor do they have much of anything to do with the scientific consensus.
This misinformation is campaigned to set policy, which indicates that our policies are not being made based on science. As I said, a Carbon tax does not fix the problems. Policy is allowing pollution without penalty and misinforming the public so that no better policies can be made.
If anyone counters the Discovery channel "science" they are labelled an extremist wacko.
I think we are in agreement but are mincing a minor point. Primarily, I never said that real science does not exist. I stated that people are not being taught real science and only shown two extremes to get middle ground someone want's them to have. What gets airtime, publication, and syndication is only the extreme viewpoint.
It may and probably will. Remember that throughout Roman history there were numerous purges of "Nobles". This was rarely done though civic action, it was mostly done through military action. Something we lack today is that leadership does not go to war, they sit back and direct wars. In other words, we will need to rely on civic action much like the original US Revolution.
We are close to a point where this cycle needs to be repeated in the US. Once that happens, the foundation of the Republic does not need to change. Garbage laws will be removed from the books and the system will become fair again. For a while at least, there is a rhythm to these things. Mostly because people forget that shitty people can get and hold power as easy, or perhaps easier, than good people.
What you're looking at is the fact that antivaxxers started with one extreme hypothesis, then when that was thoroughly discredited in the public, they shifted the goalposts to another hypothesis, "too many".
That is an invalid premise. While certainly certain people could be found to fit that criteria, the majority of doctors questioning the current vaccine policy never started on the anti-vaccine campaign. I can't poll them all, neither can you, but from the articles I have read most started on the pro vaccine campaign and changed their thinking reviewing results.
Seems like you are fitting the bill I mentioned earlier of owning both sides of the debate to distract from the middle pretty well, so no further need to discuss this.
These X, Y, and Z include the pollution, ecological damage, sea level changes, temperature change, large scale droughts, etc.
Carbon tax does not fix the problem, so again you are choosing to ignore facts and camp on a side of the fence. If you wished to discuss how regulation may help I'd be right there with you. Pundits of business campaign exactly for carbon tax because it does not address the problem yet increases profits.
I'm talking about actual scientific research and you keep talking about how the scientists are studying extreme hypothesis by bringing up NBC, Popular Science, and Discovery Channel. Don't you think you're looking at a form of science publication biased towards extremism if you're looking at news organizations?
You have not provided any science, you have provided an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. I brought up arguments against your opinion which are fact based and easy to research.
How do you not point at those sources, when those sources are nationally syndicated shows manipulating public opinion? Joe's science rag may be more accurate, but if people don't know about that source then they are lost. A lost public works to benefit big business, but not humanity as a whole. Which was and is the 2nd point I have been debating, and you continue to sit on the business side of the debate.
I was going to quote both of your points, but believe it would be both redundant and unnecessary. In both statements you use a similar generalization for science, and in neither case is the generalization true. The premise you give without the generalization has some truth, and this question is relevant to both of your points. Hang on a moment, I promise to get to the question.
First, why is the generalization untrue. In both cases it depends on who's science is read. What tends to make political hearings and mass publishing is only corporate opinion. You can check records as easily as I can, and no offense intended but I am not going to post easy to find sources. The previous example of Corexit is an easy study to pursue. There were certainly scientists that disagreed with BP, but none of them made any publications (beyond perhaps a brief mention for ad hominem or reductio ad absurdum) and none of them were heard in proceedings. Universities were not commissioned for studies on the damage Corexit was causing, and when you use the term 'independent research labs' how do you know which were paid for by BP? Study the controversy, and all of this becomes abundantly clear, and this controversy is far from buried like other topics.
To your question I posted above. Independent science is material which may not have any presence in mass publication or broadcast media. NBC News or Popular Science for example. 'Independent Research Lab' is a generalized term which has little meaning by itself. If you know the Scientific method and reads numerous works it is possible to find what is fact and what is fiction, assuming you are willing to do the background work and gain knowledge of the subject matter. One must also have knowledge of rhetoric to rule out fallacy arguments, Logic to ensure a rational line of thought, and Ethics to evaluate the complete thesis and any counter motives. None of that knowledge of Philosophy is easy, I spent 4 years in a University learning them, decades later I still study them.
In other words, this is not just an independent persons work, but also your (or my) independent analysis of their work. As I stated earlier, searching for an answer does not give a person knowledge. I'm an advocate for rationalizing and understanding on your own.
To further back my points, when we look at vaccinations there are no journals reporting what I would perceive as a realistic concern. The rational argument I summarized of "quantity and rate" being a problem is not mentioned in any publication to my knowledge. We either hear that we should all be vaccinated and how good a vaccine is, or that vaccines are evil. If we actually studied the rate quantity issue we may find information on why autism rates have increased so drastically, and that is just one of many potential disorders that have skyrocketed.
When we look at Global warming, we see the same type of debates. It is presented that either we need a carbon tax, or that man is not responsible for climate change. Pollution and ecological damage is rarely discussed, only the basic claims themselves. Since we are not discussing the root cause corporations continue to make massive profits at the expense of our ecology. In fact numerous 'Discovery Channel' programs glamorize the abuse of ecology for profit. If alternative is given to consider, and no harm is shown from the methods these shows become conditioning (whether it is intended or not).
I remember hearing about this at the time, the scientists were ignored but they could get their message out. Anyways, it seems like that's an argument in my favour. Despite heavy pressure from government and big business the scientists partiality was not compromised.
Actually it's not in your favor. The reason BP was allowed to dump more and more Corexit is that they provided scientists to the Government that claimed it did no harm. Other scientists were in the Gulf telling news crews lies. As stated, you have to research a bit and not rely on hearsay or major news outlets for coverage.
But we aren't hearing anything extreme from the scientists, they've said all along they're overwhelmingly safe with minor exceptions, that's not an extreme position, it's the scientific consensus. As for those middle ground positions, ie 'too many too quickly', those are heard, but the reason they're not well publicized isn't because they're censored, it's because they're not backed by evidence. And if you're someone who publicizes a position not backed by evidence you're generally going to take an extreme position.
Whether you are looking at Vaccines or Global Warming, this is false. The only thing being published are extremes which is why I go out of my way to find and read independent science. Try it yourself, it's pretty cool.
I'm aggressive because I gave you the information and author, and you choose to ignore it and continue to attack my point from an ignorant perspective. Or because I claimed that your thought process was fucked up when your morality showed it's true colors?
I believe you are quite misguided.
I do agree with your goal of science, but will point out that your behavior is absolutely unscientific. The Scientific method requires analysis of each argument, this requires knowledge of the subject.
Don't worry about me believing you are a horrible person. I don't know you, and I happen to be very rational and logical. If you had said "Hey, I am not sure I agree with Kraus's math on this point" I would happily entertain a debate. How is it feasible for me to entertain the debate when you summarize something you don't know as false? Simple, it's not.
My reaction would have been different had you simply said "I don't know, I have to study the material." Again, that was not your action. Your action was claiming that something you are completely ignorant of was wrong.
What would you prefer my reaction is, when the debate turns into the same argument I can have with a Religious zealot claiming science is wrong because of their book, or that people should sacrifice their lives for their book?
As a rational person I point out you are wrong, and why you are wrong. I don't coddle you, but I don't slander you. If you believe the word "ignorant" is an attack I'll suggest you read the definition. When your morality changes to claiming you should be able to choose another persons fate, that is fucked up thinking.
And absolutely not, I can not teach you near 35 years of study on ethics and logic in a post either.
There is a laundry list of issues with Corexit. They were told to limit use and used more, the Government paid them to use every drop used, even when it was reported to be killing everything in site it was used instead of alternatives which were recommended by numerous scientists, etc.. etc... As with most issues it's not a simple thing. The majority of American's don't know anything about it. Scientists were silenced and slandered who spoke out against the massive use, and economists that were pointing out that the Government was paying BP twice to clean up their own mess were also silenced and slandered.
Who said anything about publishing every doctor? I said very clearly that we are only seeing reports of either end of the extreme and any other voice is silenced or slandered.
Get the trend yet?
Yes, there is ample evidence for manipulation but you obviously have to go look for information. Silence and slander is not something new as a tactic of manipulating and maintaining public opinion. The practice goes back at least 100 years.
I'm not saying University science labs are incorruptible, but they are extremely vigilant about resisting bias and disclosing potential conflicts of interest. A researcher who fails to disclose a potential conflict of interest can seriously damage their career.
The majority of issues we are discussing are not using just science from Universities but even those are subject to biases. For example: What happens if a grant is given to not study the whole of a problem but discount a certain argument against some companies practice. This happens to be at least a portion of today's grants which means that the vigilance of the University is not a problem.
Now consider that at least some studies require disclosure, which may not be accurate. Again, look at BP and Corexit for an example.
It's a simple matter to search for and find bogus 'science'. Many of these "studies" are pushed to the public as complete answers to a problem, so painted falsely. Many people here can't tell the difference between good and bad science, and most Slashdotters would be considered higher intelligence than the "average".
One more point for consideration, which does go to historical documents and psychological papers regarding public manipulation. If a person wants to manipulate the public they simply own both sides of the debate. If I can pay for lobbyists who are extremists against a cause, and extremist for a cause, would not the public move to the middle? This is again something easy to see in "science" and publications if you care to look.
If the people looking at the middle get a voice people would change their minds, which is why doctors questioning the policies of vaccines, for example, simply don't get published. You either hear the wacko version of "vaccines are killing everyone" or wacko version of "vaccines are all perfectly safe, you can get 10,000 in a day and it would cause no harm".
I'm not sure I understand your argument, all I hear from the scientists has to do with the root cause CO2, I don't really recall hearing anything from scientists about corporate profits. And the scientists generally work for universities or government labs, which carries some risk of government interference, but as a group scientists are one of the most aggressive about maintaining their independence.
University science labs receive funding from private sources, investigate how it works before making claims which are false.
The point I was making is that the science ignores the root cause. I guess you could say profits, and that's a good way of putting it. It's cheaper for someone to strip mine and destroy millions of acres of land than it is to mine in a different fashion. Lobbyists, corrupt politics, etc.. have allowed companies to make massive profits and not be responsible for damaging the land. Investigate BP in the Gulf for prime examples, especially in their use and abuse of Corexit. This is easy to find data.
The rest is a rehash and not worth discussion because you continue to overlook or ignore the point, which is claiming something is correct is not the same thing as something being correct.
And even if they DID cause some harm, the lives saved by their use is still worth it.
Wow, just wow. Who are you to claim that one person not getting the flu is worth disabling someone else for life? Do you see how fucked up your thought process is?
As for your Expanding Vacuum thingy, because I don't know about it I'm somehow wrong?
Claiming a theory is wrong when you are completely ignorant to the theory is both illogical and irrational by definition.
Instead of trying to explain to me why it's right you insult me?
Pointing out your ignorance and how that ignorance is manifesting unreasonable logic is insulting? No, it's not. It's a statement of fact which you can easily change.
You expect me to teach you the contents of a novel sized book in a post? Now you are being unreasonable in other ways to boot. You can't learn something in a Google search or Wiki article, you can only find someone else' answer. Do the work!
No, the first step is making sure that you're not comparing apples to oranges. Looking for any potential causes comes after that. Because if you're comparing apples to oranges, there are no potential causes to look for.
We can not possibly find apples to orange comparisons when a bushel is not allowed, and anyone talking about that bushel is either silenced or slandered. I have stated this before, and if you continue to ignore the point I can only assume you are trolling.
As a rule of thumb, vaccination is safe if the last time you had fever was more than 2 weeks ago and you don't have any other individual risk factors. If you want better explanation, go talk to an immunologist.
Given this information, there is an obvious _potential_ issue when giving someone 5-10 vaccines in a sitting. But we can't investigate the extent because of what I said above.
I have read numerous articles by Doctors specializing in pediatrics that question the vaccine policy. They note the effects of vaccines and a relationship with other illness. Absolutely none of them have been brought up in medical journals, professional journals, or main stream media. Those people are silenced.
Thankfully my son's pediatrician was very careful with vaccines. If my son was not healthy he did not get a vaccine even when the state demanded it, we waited until he was healthy. He was also never received more than 1 vaccine in a sitting. He's healthy and I'm very glad for a cautious doctor.
Now to be sure that this is not just an appeal to emotion argument, I would have been fine if there were studies showing that the DOH recommended 7-9 vaccines in a whack caused no issues. There are no such studies, just some companies claim that there is no impact. The common sense that should come along with your statement does not exist.
As stated, if you don't have the money you won't replace it unless it's broken. If you don't have excess cash you don't care about running the latest version of Word until you absolutely must. Sure, us techies update frequently even when it is probably not needed. We are not the majority of the country.
This brings up something that I noticed as completely overlooked. Saturation is not mentioned, but becomes important especially given the economy. If you have a working iPad 1 why would you need to race out and buy a newer generation? Generally people don't unless they have excess funds.
I'm not an 5 digit UID but 6 is pretty damn old and I am not a drive by commenter. I've been thinking more and more about giving up though. Primarily the problems are with shills, trolls, and distribution of mod points to those people. This is in addition to what has become paid marketing articles instead of tech news.
Slashdot is still better than Reddit, but I'm not sure how much any more.
One of the biggest current problems is that the Beta fiasco drove many of the old regulars away. This left a disparate number of sock puppet accounts, and the mod system has been reflecting this since January. Sock puppets have always been an issue, but regulars getting mod points used to be able to offset their ratings to some degree.
I have noticed in the past few months that high volume topics which have a propensity to make certain Government agencies uncomfortable get pushed off the main page with trash submissions.
Nope, I don't have a solution to the problems. As a suggestion Slashdot should set about finding and banishing sock puppet accounts, they have the information which would allow them to search. The mods here are already busy, so they would need to find a way to staff the project properly without forcing an already overworked staff of people out. That may curb part of the modding issues but the pay-for articles would still exist. Hard to say if the article issue is just that mods are too busy to notice, or if Dice change practices. The former is fixed also by staffing, the later.. well, I'll refer to your wisdom of shutting it down.
I didn't agree that something might be bogus, I stated that correlation != causation. If we don't have proof of a cause currently, so the most obvious method of pursuit is to look at where there are correlations and rule those out (if we can).
I'm all for "Science" and experiments, but if you bring up vaccines as even a potential issue you are slandered or silenced. Read this whole thread and look at the moronic and similar responses to my point. The point was not about vaccines being bad, but questioning the volume and frequency of the vaccines.
Interestingly I can tell you that there are warnings on numerous vaccines and medical sites warning people not to get vaccinated during certain times due to potential issues. Yet for some reason, a vaccine can not impact another vaccine? Think about that one.
Bullshit and lies, do you have anything to say that's fact based? Anything that is not either blatant fallacy or personal attack? If you can't provide facts, kindly STFU.
Slashdot Mirror
Propaganda is a powerful tool. Playing the ignorant against "save the children" arguments is not complex if tyranny owns TV stations. Do you think that the BLM standing down against Bundy was because they were afraid of Bundy? No, they were afraid it would be a spark to a much bigger event.
Claiming Bundy is a tax avoider is not just a horrible grammatical error, but factually incorrect. Why not look at other cases where a Judge has already ruled that the BLM was conspiring to put ranchers out of business?
I hear my fellow Americans talk about needing guns in every room of the house to ward off the nightly assaults of Orc maurders but what country do these people actually live in? How many times has anyone ever personally had to fire a gun for self defense?
Trolling won't help, especially with something as flagrantly invented to distort reality.
Reality is that people know that the 2nd amendment is not, and was not, primarily intended to protect yourself from a bad guy. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the populace to defend themselves against tyranny. The Federalist papers and notes from nearly every founding member of the US discussed this. Without weapons, they could not have won a war with England and we would have still been a colony. Sure, it can secondarily be used to defend your property from a bad guy but that is a side effect.
When you look at the constant attack on the 2nd amendment by the same corrupt politicians that are allowing TPP to be "top secret classified", have not punished any of the people that made billions collapsing the economy a few years ago it becomes obvious that armed citizens are a concern for them. People are fed up with corruption, fed up with overreach, and fed up with the same ole controlling both parties doing nothing for the Citizens.
I don't see this attack as anything other than the latest anti 2nd amendment attack.
Stories like this don't make national news because it harms the agenda trying to disarm citizens. Considering the take over of US media, the take over of nearly every major political office (Judicial as well as other branches) people _should_ be concerned and push back. The US is not immune to having shitty people in office, and not immune to corruption in office no matter how nicely the major news outlets try to paint people like Diane Feinstein and Eric Holder.
Holder has not been punished for Fast and Furious, and neither has anyone else. Now the Holder is trying to strong arm banks into not doing business with Gun Manufacturers and sellers. You can play stupid if you like, but don't spread the same propaganda as the corrupt politicians are trying to do.
If people were not being executed legally of course I would not have the same words. The problem does not exist so why should it be discussed? At least until someone starts claiming that "So-and-So should die".
Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.
If people _are_ being executed the obviously someone did win the debate. Hint: It's not the people in disagreement or on the fence.
When TFA includes this little gem of a statistic the problem becomes much more obvious. sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent.
So we not only have a messed up legal and prison system that can get innocent people imprisoned for felonies, we have a messed up legal system that can sentence 4 out 100 people to die for crimes they never committed.
The argument you are making (look at his crime) is simply an appeal to emotion which lacks logical merit. And look, I fully agree that certain people can not be rehabilitated. Should any people be legally killed while we have severe problems with both our legal and penal systems? Hell no. Should we be convicting people of felonies when society does not offer them any other option? (think of narcotics) Again hell no. Prison terms and real rehabilitation where possible? I absolutely agree with this approach.
While funny, it distracts from several serious problems in the US.
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty? Surely there are some people with mental disorders that can not maintain a life with the rest of society, but this is what Prisons and mental health institutes are supposed to be for. We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business. The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity and nearly everyone in the US can commit several felonies every day without their knowledge. This means that we have people in prison that should probably not be there, and we lack the capacity to keep the really socially defunct people in jail.
We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later. We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world, and why we still have executions first.
I'd have to see these scientists to know what you think a rational middle is.
You can search out doctors that argue the exact point I mentioned on vaccines. I did a quick search and could not find any of the previous papers I read because they are buried in "get vaccine" campaigns. This is a big part of the problem, as "Wallgreens" does not offer any advice on when a person should not get a vaccine even though the CDC does.
If you're arguing that nationally syndicated shows are showing extreme versions of the science and misinforming the public than I'll enthusiastically agree, but those shows are not the science nor do they have much of anything to do with the scientific consensus.
This misinformation is campaigned to set policy, which indicates that our policies are not being made based on science. As I said, a Carbon tax does not fix the problems. Policy is allowing pollution without penalty and misinforming the public so that no better policies can be made.
If anyone counters the Discovery channel "science" they are labelled an extremist wacko.
I think we are in agreement but are mincing a minor point. Primarily, I never said that real science does not exist. I stated that people are not being taught real science and only shown two extremes to get middle ground someone want's them to have. What gets airtime, publication, and syndication is only the extreme viewpoint.
The USA won't get that old.
It may and probably will. Remember that throughout Roman history there were numerous purges of "Nobles". This was rarely done though civic action, it was mostly done through military action. Something we lack today is that leadership does not go to war, they sit back and direct wars. In other words, we will need to rely on civic action much like the original US Revolution.
We are close to a point where this cycle needs to be repeated in the US. Once that happens, the foundation of the Republic does not need to change. Garbage laws will be removed from the books and the system will become fair again. For a while at least, there is a rhythm to these things. Mostly because people forget that shitty people can get and hold power as easy, or perhaps easier, than good people.
What you're looking at is the fact that antivaxxers started with one extreme hypothesis, then when that was thoroughly discredited in the public, they shifted the goalposts to another hypothesis, "too many".
That is an invalid premise. While certainly certain people could be found to fit that criteria, the majority of doctors questioning the current vaccine policy never started on the anti-vaccine campaign. I can't poll them all, neither can you, but from the articles I have read most started on the pro vaccine campaign and changed their thinking reviewing results.
Seems like you are fitting the bill I mentioned earlier of owning both sides of the debate to distract from the middle pretty well, so no further need to discuss this.
These X, Y, and Z include the pollution, ecological damage, sea level changes, temperature change, large scale droughts, etc.
Carbon tax does not fix the problem, so again you are choosing to ignore facts and camp on a side of the fence. If you wished to discuss how regulation may help I'd be right there with you. Pundits of business campaign exactly for carbon tax because it does not address the problem yet increases profits.
I'm talking about actual scientific research and you keep talking about how the scientists are studying extreme hypothesis by bringing up NBC, Popular Science, and Discovery Channel. Don't you think you're looking at a form of science publication biased towards extremism if you're looking at news organizations?
You have not provided any science, you have provided an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. I brought up arguments against your opinion which are fact based and easy to research.
How do you not point at those sources, when those sources are nationally syndicated shows manipulating public opinion? Joe's science rag may be more accurate, but if people don't know about that source then they are lost. A lost public works to benefit big business, but not humanity as a whole. Which was and is the 2nd point I have been debating, and you continue to sit on the business side of the debate.
What do you consider 'independent science'?
I was going to quote both of your points, but believe it would be both redundant and unnecessary. In both statements you use a similar generalization for science, and in neither case is the generalization true. The premise you give without the generalization has some truth, and this question is relevant to both of your points. Hang on a moment, I promise to get to the question.
First, why is the generalization untrue. In both cases it depends on who's science is read. What tends to make political hearings and mass publishing is only corporate opinion. You can check records as easily as I can, and no offense intended but I am not going to post easy to find sources. The previous example of Corexit is an easy study to pursue. There were certainly scientists that disagreed with BP, but none of them made any publications (beyond perhaps a brief mention for ad hominem or reductio ad absurdum) and none of them were heard in proceedings. Universities were not commissioned for studies on the damage Corexit was causing, and when you use the term 'independent research labs' how do you know which were paid for by BP? Study the controversy, and all of this becomes abundantly clear, and this controversy is far from buried like other topics.
To your question I posted above. Independent science is material which may not have any presence in mass publication or broadcast media. NBC News or Popular Science for example. 'Independent Research Lab' is a generalized term which has little meaning by itself. If you know the Scientific method and reads numerous works it is possible to find what is fact and what is fiction, assuming you are willing to do the background work and gain knowledge of the subject matter. One must also have knowledge of rhetoric to rule out fallacy arguments, Logic to ensure a rational line of thought, and Ethics to evaluate the complete thesis and any counter motives. None of that knowledge of Philosophy is easy, I spent 4 years in a University learning them, decades later I still study them.
In other words, this is not just an independent persons work, but also your (or my) independent analysis of their work. As I stated earlier, searching for an answer does not give a person knowledge. I'm an advocate for rationalizing and understanding on your own.
To further back my points, when we look at vaccinations there are no journals reporting what I would perceive as a realistic concern. The rational argument I summarized of "quantity and rate" being a problem is not mentioned in any publication to my knowledge. We either hear that we should all be vaccinated and how good a vaccine is, or that vaccines are evil. If we actually studied the rate quantity issue we may find information on why autism rates have increased so drastically, and that is just one of many potential disorders that have skyrocketed.
When we look at Global warming, we see the same type of debates. It is presented that either we need a carbon tax, or that man is not responsible for climate change. Pollution and ecological damage is rarely discussed, only the basic claims themselves. Since we are not discussing the root cause corporations continue to make massive profits at the expense of our ecology. In fact numerous 'Discovery Channel' programs glamorize the abuse of ecology for profit. If alternative is given to consider, and no harm is shown from the methods these shows become conditioning (whether it is intended or not).
I remember hearing about this at the time, the scientists were ignored but they could get their message out. Anyways, it seems like that's an argument in my favour. Despite heavy pressure from government and big business the scientists partiality was not compromised.
Actually it's not in your favor. The reason BP was allowed to dump more and more Corexit is that they provided scientists to the Government that claimed it did no harm. Other scientists were in the Gulf telling news crews lies. As stated, you have to research a bit and not rely on hearsay or major news outlets for coverage.
But we aren't hearing anything extreme from the scientists, they've said all along they're overwhelmingly safe with minor exceptions, that's not an extreme position, it's the scientific consensus. As for those middle ground positions, ie 'too many too quickly', those are heard, but the reason they're not well publicized isn't because they're censored, it's because they're not backed by evidence. And if you're someone who publicizes a position not backed by evidence you're generally going to take an extreme position.
Whether you are looking at Vaccines or Global Warming, this is false. The only thing being published are extremes which is why I go out of my way to find and read independent science. Try it yourself, it's pretty cool.
It's tempting to stoop to a LMGTFY link. Google is not hard to use. Blaming other people for both your laziness and ignorance is extremely sad.
I'm aggressive because I gave you the information and author, and you choose to ignore it and continue to attack my point from an ignorant perspective. Or because I claimed that your thought process was fucked up when your morality showed it's true colors?
I believe you are quite misguided.
I do agree with your goal of science, but will point out that your behavior is absolutely unscientific. The Scientific method requires analysis of each argument, this requires knowledge of the subject.
Don't worry about me believing you are a horrible person. I don't know you, and I happen to be very rational and logical. If you had said "Hey, I am not sure I agree with Kraus's math on this point" I would happily entertain a debate. How is it feasible for me to entertain the debate when you summarize something you don't know as false? Simple, it's not.
My reaction would have been different had you simply said "I don't know, I have to study the material." Again, that was not your action. Your action was claiming that something you are completely ignorant of was wrong.
What would you prefer my reaction is, when the debate turns into the same argument I can have with a Religious zealot claiming science is wrong because of their book, or that people should sacrifice their lives for their book?
As a rational person I point out you are wrong, and why you are wrong. I don't coddle you, but I don't slander you. If you believe the word "ignorant" is an attack I'll suggest you read the definition. When your morality changes to claiming you should be able to choose another persons fate, that is fucked up thinking.
And absolutely not, I can not teach you near 35 years of study on ethics and logic in a post either.
There is a laundry list of issues with Corexit. They were told to limit use and used more, the Government paid them to use every drop used, even when it was reported to be killing everything in site it was used instead of alternatives which were recommended by numerous scientists, etc.. etc... As with most issues it's not a simple thing. The majority of American's don't know anything about it. Scientists were silenced and slandered who spoke out against the massive use, and economists that were pointing out that the Government was paying BP twice to clean up their own mess were also silenced and slandered.
Who said anything about publishing every doctor? I said very clearly that we are only seeing reports of either end of the extreme and any other voice is silenced or slandered.
Get the trend yet?
Yes, there is ample evidence for manipulation but you obviously have to go look for information. Silence and slander is not something new as a tactic of manipulating and maintaining public opinion. The practice goes back at least 100 years.
I'm not saying University science labs are incorruptible, but they are extremely vigilant about resisting bias and disclosing potential conflicts of interest. A researcher who fails to disclose a potential conflict of interest can seriously damage their career.
The majority of issues we are discussing are not using just science from Universities but even those are subject to biases. For example: What happens if a grant is given to not study the whole of a problem but discount a certain argument against some companies practice. This happens to be at least a portion of today's grants which means that the vigilance of the University is not a problem.
Now consider that at least some studies require disclosure, which may not be accurate. Again, look at BP and Corexit for an example.
It's a simple matter to search for and find bogus 'science'. Many of these "studies" are pushed to the public as complete answers to a problem, so painted falsely. Many people here can't tell the difference between good and bad science, and most Slashdotters would be considered higher intelligence than the "average".
One more point for consideration, which does go to historical documents and psychological papers regarding public manipulation. If a person wants to manipulate the public they simply own both sides of the debate. If I can pay for lobbyists who are extremists against a cause, and extremist for a cause, would not the public move to the middle? This is again something easy to see in "science" and publications if you care to look.
If the people looking at the middle get a voice people would change their minds, which is why doctors questioning the policies of vaccines, for example, simply don't get published. You either hear the wacko version of "vaccines are killing everyone" or wacko version of "vaccines are all perfectly safe, you can get 10,000 in a day and it would cause no harm".
ACs can be a problem, but many people modding use AC to bring up points. So it's a double edged sword if you disband or disallow comments by ACs.
When a sock puppet mods an obvious troll up and mods down legitimate posts, this has a much worse impact on the site.
I'm not sure I understand your argument, all I hear from the scientists has to do with the root cause CO2, I don't really recall hearing anything from scientists about corporate profits. And the scientists generally work for universities or government labs, which carries some risk of government interference, but as a group scientists are one of the most aggressive about maintaining their independence.
University science labs receive funding from private sources, investigate how it works before making claims which are false.
The point I was making is that the science ignores the root cause. I guess you could say profits, and that's a good way of putting it. It's cheaper for someone to strip mine and destroy millions of acres of land than it is to mine in a different fashion. Lobbyists, corrupt politics, etc.. have allowed companies to make massive profits and not be responsible for damaging the land. Investigate BP in the Gulf for prime examples, especially in their use and abuse of Corexit. This is easy to find data.
The rest is a rehash and not worth discussion because you continue to overlook or ignore the point, which is claiming something is correct is not the same thing as something being correct.
And even if they DID cause some harm, the lives saved by their use is still worth it.
Wow, just wow. Who are you to claim that one person not getting the flu is worth disabling someone else for life? Do you see how fucked up your thought process is?
As for your Expanding Vacuum thingy, because I don't know about it I'm somehow wrong?
Claiming a theory is wrong when you are completely ignorant to the theory is both illogical and irrational by definition.
Instead of trying to explain to me why it's right you insult me?
Pointing out your ignorance and how that ignorance is manifesting unreasonable logic is insulting? No, it's not. It's a statement of fact which you can easily change.
You expect me to teach you the contents of a novel sized book in a post? Now you are being unreasonable in other ways to boot. You can't learn something in a Google search or Wiki article, you can only find someone else' answer. Do the work!
No, the first step is making sure that you're not comparing apples to oranges. Looking for any potential causes comes after that. Because if you're comparing apples to oranges, there are no potential causes to look for.
We can not possibly find apples to orange comparisons when a bushel is not allowed, and anyone talking about that bushel is either silenced or slandered. I have stated this before, and if you continue to ignore the point I can only assume you are trolling.
As a rule of thumb, vaccination is safe if the last time you had fever was more than 2 weeks ago and you don't have any other individual risk factors. If you want better explanation, go talk to an immunologist.
Given this information, there is an obvious _potential_ issue when giving someone 5-10 vaccines in a sitting. But we can't investigate the extent because of what I said above.
I have read numerous articles by Doctors specializing in pediatrics that question the vaccine policy. They note the effects of vaccines and a relationship with other illness. Absolutely none of them have been brought up in medical journals, professional journals, or main stream media. Those people are silenced.
Thankfully my son's pediatrician was very careful with vaccines. If my son was not healthy he did not get a vaccine even when the state demanded it, we waited until he was healthy. He was also never received more than 1 vaccine in a sitting. He's healthy and I'm very glad for a cautious doctor.
Now to be sure that this is not just an appeal to emotion argument, I would have been fine if there were studies showing that the DOH recommended 7-9 vaccines in a whack caused no issues. There are no such studies, just some companies claim that there is no impact. The common sense that should come along with your statement does not exist.
As stated, if you don't have the money you won't replace it unless it's broken. If you don't have excess cash you don't care about running the latest version of Word until you absolutely must. Sure, us techies update frequently even when it is probably not needed. We are not the majority of the country.
This brings up something that I noticed as completely overlooked. Saturation is not mentioned, but becomes important especially given the economy. If you have a working iPad 1 why would you need to race out and buy a newer generation? Generally people don't unless they have excess funds.
I'm not an 5 digit UID but 6 is pretty damn old and I am not a drive by commenter. I've been thinking more and more about giving up though. Primarily the problems are with shills, trolls, and distribution of mod points to those people. This is in addition to what has become paid marketing articles instead of tech news.
Slashdot is still better than Reddit, but I'm not sure how much any more.
One of the biggest current problems is that the Beta fiasco drove many of the old regulars away. This left a disparate number of sock puppet accounts, and the mod system has been reflecting this since January. Sock puppets have always been an issue, but regulars getting mod points used to be able to offset their ratings to some degree.
I have noticed in the past few months that high volume topics which have a propensity to make certain Government agencies uncomfortable get pushed off the main page with trash submissions.
Nope, I don't have a solution to the problems. As a suggestion Slashdot should set about finding and banishing sock puppet accounts, they have the information which would allow them to search. The mods here are already busy, so they would need to find a way to staff the project properly without forcing an already overworked staff of people out. That may curb part of the modding issues but the pay-for articles would still exist. Hard to say if the article issue is just that mods are too busy to notice, or if Dice change practices. The former is fixed also by staffing, the later.. well, I'll refer to your wisdom of shutting it down.
Doh, my bad!! thanks for pointing that out. Yes, we agree!! haha
I didn't agree that something might be bogus, I stated that correlation != causation. If we don't have proof of a cause currently, so the most obvious method of pursuit is to look at where there are correlations and rule those out (if we can).
I'm all for "Science" and experiments, but if you bring up vaccines as even a potential issue you are slandered or silenced. Read this whole thread and look at the moronic and similar responses to my point. The point was not about vaccines being bad, but questioning the volume and frequency of the vaccines.
Interestingly I can tell you that there are warnings on numerous vaccines and medical sites warning people not to get vaccinated during certain times due to potential issues. Yet for some reason, a vaccine can not impact another vaccine? Think about that one.
Bullshit and lies, do you have anything to say that's fact based? Anything that is not either blatant fallacy or personal attack? If you can't provide facts, kindly STFU.