As you can tell by your mod rating, shills and idiots are very abundant on Slashdot. In other words, you stated things well and can't fix the idiots that can't grasp your thoughts the first time no matter how hard you try.
A mix of all of those things is the most obvious, and add some more to that list. Make the citizens 'fear' some country and dilute any alternative opinions on what's really happening are a couple to add.
It's foolish to think that Russia is a new threat, or bigger threat than China. China has a huge budget for espionage, Russia does not. Working in IT you will quickly find that the most sophisticated attacks are from China. Russia has a few but seem to focus primarily on black market and illegal activities, not espionage. I.E. Human trafficking, porn, pyramid schemes, and gambling content commonly comes from Russian servers for Botnets. These botnets are not also trying to break into Boeing's networks for schematics. China on the other hand has teams constantly trying to break in to Boeing.
The article sums itself up as someone spreading FUD over and over again, which is the most telling thing you should get reading the piece.
Now how are we supposed to collect people's private information without their knowledge? Think of the children and all of the terrorists captured with this exploit in the wild!
"Rule" wouldn't make much sense in that context anyway, but if that's what you meant why didn't you write that?
I personally don't have that much difficulty with generalizations, and assume others think the same as I do. Of course that is a bad assumption, but not unreasonable expectation that a few people get it.
Statistically, it doesn't matter. When people run polls, how do they know how many people are lying to them? That's why they use large samples, so the signal can rise above the noise.
Interesting point, but let's be clear. If I happen to be a politician and want to make the economy look good, would I poll every citizen in the US for their feelings on the economy? I believe that I would I target people that are employed, working in particular fields, living in certain types of neighborhoods. This is how statistics are done used to present an invalid/biased view of the world. Anyone believing that the economy is healthy in the US is an idiot, but politicians can show you this all day long with statistical backing. Statistics rarely show the truth of things, so invalid example all the way around.
You'd be extremely unlikely to do so, and even if you did, as long as you sample enough zebra paintings, its noise would be swamped by the signal. Most zebra paintings would show a realistic, if not 100% accurate, size and number of stripes, especially if the artist could look out of his window and see a zebra.
Nope, sorry. You seem to be very ignorant about art and a quick Google search yields how wrong you are. "Realism" is not even audible noise in the traffic, it barely exists.
My understanding of the paper is that they looked not only at red/green ratios per painting, but also red/green ratio changes within the painting. That will have removed some of the kind of uncertainty you're talking about.
Did you do any of my suggested study on paints? Here is a primer, then go look at Audion's paintings and see how the colors vary from picture to picture. Dilution causes variances as does ingredients. This is not the artist capturing the 'real color of the sky', but the artist mixing paints for the effect they desire.
There are thousands of references to why artists strive for emotion in paintings, not realism. There is almost no information on why artists strive for realism without emotion. People that teach artists will tell you never put realism above emotion. This is not just the abstract, but people painting family pictures. Here is yet another quick Google result.
Let's simplify things and discuss zebras. If zebras in the 18th century were 25% white and 75% black, but those in the 19th century were 50% white and 50% black, you would expect paintings to reflect this quite well, wouldn't you? What if they were once 40% white and 60% black, but now 50-50? That information would also seem likely to be recoverable, especially given a variety of paintings by a variety of artists.
If I look at various paintings of Zebras, I'm not going to be able to do any such measurements. I'll find Zebras that appear to be 6" tall, and others that look like mountains. I'll find Zebras with 2 strips, and Zebras that have hundreds. I'll find Zebras with unicorn horns and monkeys riding them. I'll find Zebras with long hair, and short hair, grey hair and red lips, purple eyes, and all sorts of hoof colors. At no point do any of those pictures reflect reality, they reflect the story the artist was telling in the painting.
This is where our two view points differ rather drastically.
How do you know which of the painters that are long dead were trying to capture an actual Zebra with the actual amount of stripes in the exact pattern and colors they saw? These people did not all have photographs to go by. How do you know who had to change their zebra to look more unicorn like to appease the guy paying them to pain the picture? You don't, I don't, and neither does a team of so called 'scientists'.
None of those things undermine the basic concept that artists' choice of colours is primarily influenced by the actual colour of an object. If something is blue, an artist is far more likely to paint it as blue than red. That's all you need to recover useful information.
They all do, please do some study of artists and art. The great majority of artists strive for emotion, not realism, because emotion sells and realism is what you get every day. Certain colors are also expensive, read up on how paints are and were made. Ingredients were critical and not always available. This changes color and hue drastically, especially when you are mixing your own paints.
What these authors are proposing (tentatively) is nothing like alchemy. They're not claiming to have invented a process; they're claiming to have found a signal in amongst the noise - a single that must have had some influence, no matter how small, on how these artists painted their paintings
Sounds just like alchemy to me, or maybe snake oil and charms.
No, you did falsely paint the medical consensus as 'extreme'.
I was referring to:
I consider it to be a piece of sanity in the world of two extremes
You are calling the mainstream advice of the medical community 'extreme', no? This categorisation looks an awful lot like the argument to moderation fallacy.
I don't know where you're getting Anything that does not match your view is 'extreme' according to you from. I'm not calling anyone extreme. I'm questioning your use of the term.
No, I was not calling a particular person's advice extreme. I said very clearly that there are two extremes. 1) Don't get vaccinated and 2) Get all vaccines. Very few people take a middle ground in the debate, yourself included. You are in the #2 camp, and me arguing in the middle of the two extremes has caused you to label me an 'extremist' on more than one occasion. As stated, you are of the belief that anyone disagreeing with you is an extremist, so any claim of fallacy you have is based on bad logic. Sorry, but that is in plain view. My point is, and was, that sanity is somewhere in between the two extremes.
Huh? I never 'just' invented a position
Looks like I rather mangled my point there: I was trying to say that no-one is arguing that everyone should be given every vaccine irrespective of their state-of-health/family-history/intolerances. No-one is saying to ignore the do-not-vaccinate-if conditions. That, of course, really would be an extreme pro-vaccination position.
This is a rational viewpoint, but is different than what you previously said.
since you lost the debate on increase risk (there is none)
I lost nothing. It is here that you move from arguing category to assuming vanishing degree:
I did not change the subject, go back and see who changed topics. I thought you mentioned something interesting so offered an opinion backed by paraphrasing someone from the medical community. You agree with that position on here, but not previously.
If _you_ change the subject then how is it my fallacy of vanishing degrees? I believe you have that logic reversed, if it exists at all. I don't believe you diverted the topic intentionally so did not see it as such a fallacy.
I'll agree that someone has additional risk due to someone refusing the vaccine, considering that the risk is so small it's irrelevant to debate
You have no idea if it's actually so small it's irrelevant to debate, you just made that up. I have no idea either, but I'm not pretending.
No, it's a logical conclusion. You started with an invalid premise that the Herd immunity backed a claim that you have increased risk due to a person refusing a vaccine. Herd immunity claims the opposite. If there is such a risk, it is not measurable. We have been through that part of the debate, go back and read it if you are still confused. If it was 10% of the population refusing vaccines we could measure risk. The percentage not receiving vaccines is less than.001% of the population (willful or due to medical issues preventing vaccines). If your risk is already impossible to measure, say Polio in the US then a single person refusing makes no difference. If your risk is still high even with a vaccine, like flu then the numbers will be skewed in a different direction. This is where I stated previously that we would have to measure risk for all vaccines against all diseases and viruses separately, because they are all drastically different.
If you have pneumonia it is not recommended that you get vaccines. Period.
I wasn't able to find anything on the web about getting vaccines whilst having pneumonia. If you have
If that was literally true, every painting would be random colours, wouldn't it?
Random? No, and the statement is an absurdity (intentional or otherwise). For example: If I paint a horse blue, it's not going to look much like a horse. I don't go measure horse RGB values of real horses, but I stay within browns, blacks, whites, and grey colors. I may put spots in a pattern that is intended to move your eyes in one direction or another, I don't necessarily use an exact pattern found on a real horse somewhere. If I wanted viewers to feel more tranquil, I'll probably use lighter colors. If I want them to feel more sullen I would use darker colors. This is what an artist thinks of, in addition to the colors of paints on hand and how to mix so that I can stretch paint to more areas of the canvas.
I disagree. Colours in art are chosen primarily for what things actually look like, otherwise we'd have paintings of Elizabeth I with blue hair and red skin. But for some reason everyone painted her as pasty and redheaded, because she was. In almost all cases, those things you've mentioned are secondary factors. I don't think you'd find many artists who'd paint a clear daytime sky as hot pink just because they'd have an argument with their significant other.
Using my horse example above I'll agree with you to some extent. To claim you can measure the evolution of horse hair color based on my, and various other artists renditions of horses is not possible. Colors chosen have something to do with reality, but are not like photos that you can measure reality with. Take an art class for pity sake, or even a basic psychology course can tell you how colors impact our emotions.
Further, you do realize that the paintings of Elizabeth have a historical context which is not "reality". It was considered noble and respectable to be pale skinned, so even if she had a tan the artist would have lightened the skin tone. Just like he would not have painted a run in her stockings even if she was posing with such an item. If she had a blemish on her skin that would not have been painted either, even if the blemish was staring the artist in the face the whole time he was painting. Painting != Picture, never has been and never will be. Paintings are art. Paintings are depicted to tell a story, not to create and present a photo. In the case of your Elizabeth example, the artist would have done things he was told to do, such as make hair color uniform and lighten skin tones or add blush or ignore blemishes, or put a dragon in the background, or paint flowers that she was allergic to.
Actually I do find it plausible that you could find evidence of a correlation between progression of cataracts and the colouring of paintings in a number of artists' works. Other artists who didn't suffer cataracts might reduce the correlation, but they wouldn't undo it.
Wrong generalization. Can you use the waterlily paintings to determine _all_ cataracts and their progression based on just water lily paintings? Hell no!
But, to be honest, one of the reasons I'm defending the possibility so strongly is exactly because of those people who are always itching to dismiss just about anything remotely interesting simply because they can't believe it.
As I said way up in the posts, interesting != science. I find a whole lot of stuff 'interesting' that I don't consider science, even when I can make loose correlations between my interests and a real science. For example, I find alchemy fascinating but don't believe fish oil and lead makes gold. If someone told me that they could do so and that the Government should give them lots of our tax dollars to study the process I'd say "NO" to them too.
What you seem to miss completely is that an artist does not choose colors by the colors they see, or that someone else saw. Colors are chosen more for providing an emotion, or to have continuity in the painting, or to emphasize a color in the focus area, or to help move a persons eye to a different region of the painting, or countless other things. It also has to do with the paint being used, how the color is added to the paint and what is used to make the color. None of that is "realism".
Of course these people could come up with correlation, especially given the broad and bad criteria. For every painting they claim backs their theory how many don't? I"m betting the numbers would be extraordinary. They intentionally limited the paintings and artists reviewed to back their poor logical correlation (which never equals causation).
Your Monet example is not quite right, you are giving a specific artist and a specific illness to the eyes that impacted his paintings. You are not generalizing that we can know how bad everyone's cataracts are by looking at all paintings of waterlilies made over the last X amount of time. I think you would agree that me making a claim that I could, would be extremely foolish. Yet if I change cataract to pollution and waterlily to sunset you claim it's plausible.
No, you did falsely paint the medical consensus as 'extreme'.
Anything that does not match your view is 'extreme' according to you. That is poor logic and irrational but you continue to make such invalid claims and have repeatedly done so here.
You have now invented a position - people should take every vaccine (which no-one is arguing, and certainly is certainly not the medical consensus). Let's be clear: do you consider the position held by the bulk of the medical community, to be extreme?
Huh? I never 'just' invented a position, the position I have matches numerous medical professionals and would have been said at the start if the debate started there. Go back and read the thread, it was you that changed the subject since you lost the debate on increase risk (there is none). I pointed out that your change in subject was wrong out of courtesy, and you turn it into another circus of poor logic and showcase of fallacy.
I stand by my claim that it's empty scaremongering. It falsely assumes that the medical community hasn't thought to account for individual variation or for 'overloading' the body with administration of several vaccines in a short period.
More fallacy, no I'm not surprised!! If it matches your opinion it's fine, but anything else is 'scaremongering' even when medical professionals tell you otherwise.
Unless these extremely rare serious side-effects outweigh the benefits, to describe vaccination as insanity really doesn't hold up.
You missed the doctors point completely, and intentionally since you consistently argue the same bad logic. If you have pneumonia it is not recommended that you get vaccines. Period. Sure, there are a few people that tell you there are no issues, but it is well known that the body will have a difficult time coping with a vaccine when it's already fighting an illness. A certain jackasses make false claims that you can get 10,000 vaccines in a day and it will cause no harm. That same person was offered $10,000.00 to get just 1,000 over the course of 10 days and that person refused (Google that with 'Natural News' and you can find the info). His position, and yours, is horse shit and wrong!
The doctors point was that we need to treat vaccines like other medical procedures, not all refuse vaccines. If you don't feel well should you get a vaccine? Can a Medical Doctor make measurements to reduce risks by postponing vaccines? Are people falsely convinced that vaccines do nothing to the human body, including some medical professionals? Are we doing enough testing of the vaccines themselves to ensure they are safe (contaminated vaccines are uncommon but happen)?
Currently there is very little done to measure a persons health at the time they get a vaccine. Further, we are compounding potential issues by giving multiple vaccines at the same time. Vaccines are also a for profit industry, which has lead to contaminated vaccines being given to people in third world countries to save a company money instead of being trashed because they were contaminated. Perhaps if we did more thinking instead of repeating false claims those rare cases of permanent injury from vaccines would be reduced.
I'm guessing that you will change the argument again, or make up more bad logic to continue to make false claims so let me close with these two points.
1. You can do what ever you want when ever you want. Take your children in to the doctor and get them loaded with everything possible when ever you feel the mood strikes you. I feel bad for your children because that's reckless behavior, but I can't stop you from making decisions, even if I believe they are poorly made. Hell, sit in the Doctors office yourself and get the most vaccines in history. It's you that's at risk, and I can't force you to behave intelligently.
2. We have already agreed that there is no increased risk to you by allowing me making my own choices. I interview Doctors the same way I interrogate a procedure someone recommends, objectively and with as much knowledge as possible. When I have to accept the risk, I can make my own choices.
You are correct, I didn't read the article. No need though, because the article won't change my logic at all. Paintings and Canvas are not done to be exact replicas of nature, but are painted to be appealing to the eye. Even if an artist attempted to replicate a particular color he saw in the sky, there are thousands of reasons for the sky to be that color. Pollution is not the only, or even the best, explanation for the colors the artist chose.
No, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt because the only reasonable information I've seen on what they've achieved suggests they've got something interesting, and also because it
Interesting != Science
a) doesn't seem that ridiculous to me
So Zeus was a historical figure and the Greeks painted him while he posed? He's just one of many of their gods painted.
I believe it's obvious that this is like reading tea leaves. When you start with a unrealistic premise it's nearly impossible to get to a realistic solution. Perhaps because of your "b" you just don't care to scrutinize the logic.
I'll agree with you that it's interesting, but it's not science. It would be impossible to try and make any type of measurement for what they are trying to measure based on paintings, when the majority of those paintings contain mythical and unrealistic objects. If you believe that their goal is possible, do me a favor and visit a few art museums and just look at the paintings. I'd refuse to believe that Poseidon swallowed ships for the same reason I would refuse to claim that the colors the artist chose for the sky indicate how much air pollution there was.
Quite frankly, you don't even need to make a trip to a museum and look at more modern paintings. Just Google search "Ancient Greek Paintings" and have a look at what someone is claiming can be used to determine air pollution levels base on pain hue and RGB content.
One of my many studies in life has been art. I paint in oils and acrylics, and even took a few college courses. Very few painters are "realists" and even back 3000 years ago we knew about how to use colors for effect, not realism.
Sure, sculpting was one of those things where the ancient Greek artists tried to be as realistic as possible. At the same time, paintings of Hermes and Zeus indicate that not everything required the same level of realism (unless of course someone wishes to argue that the Ancient Greeks "saw" their gods.). Trying to measure the atmosphere based on pictures of Hermes seems pretty silly to me.
Lets also not forget that even with realism, many things can give the sunset or sunrise in a nice red hue (storm on the horizon anyone?). The pollution in the atmosphere is just one of countless things that could cause the sky to have a red hue. I really hope that people are not calling this "science".
My comment had to do with an obvious implication the person I responded to made, which is that the management and employees are there to look out for the bests interests of the company. Perhaps English is not your first language, but if you ready my comment after reading the one I responded to, there should be no big mystery or confusion.
While I certainly did imply a personal distaste for companies and people that prey on society, I certainly never said "Down with all corporation!".
Sometimes the job of CEO is not looking out for the best interests of the product and company. Sometimes their job is looking out for some people in a back room that actually hired him to make things fail so that they can make lots of money scavenging parts and losing competition to other companies they own. Unfortunately there are still legal ways to do this, and many venture capital companies prove this over and over.
If the Mozilla staff has justification to question the CEOs motives, he probably should consider either taking steps to end their worry or perhaps stepping down. Even if the employees don't have the power to force the step down, they would have the ability to cause problems and impact profits.
Well, "Average Joe" does not normally receive a Golden Parachute when hired. I'm not saying Mozilla's boss did, just countering your generalization with a different generalization which is fair.
Well, since ZFS is available for Linux I had to wonder why there would be people making a fuss about btrfs. You bring up licensing which is an issue, and I'm guessing Oracle did not help the license issues, or possibly made the license issues worse.
While I'll agree that there a few companies that only take advantage of Open Source work, I happen to work for and know several that have full time developers working on nothing but Open Source projects as their full time job. (No, I dislike Facebook and would probably never work there).
I have no idea why so many people try and paint everything as black or white. The world is grey, enjoy it!!
The first thing happening in Crimea happened long before Kiev fell.
do you mean russian soldiers wandering outside of their bases, which was prohibited by ukraine-russia agreement?
No, I meant exactly what I said. Try to read a little bit of history of events in the Ukraine prior to the coup in Kiev.
And you will further claim the the US and EU nations are not aggressive and have purely altruistic goals?
i'm not sure about the usa. most eu nations seem to be very concerned, especially given that many of them have just slipped out of the totalitarian grip. i would agree that they don't have purely altruistic goals - they have survivalistic goals. they know they are the next...
EU countries that were in totalitarian grip, like Spain or Germany? I think you are fabricating reality, which we call delusion.
what Russia did was nothing like what Hitler did, which was my original point.
it's definitely close to what hitler did. it's almost like putin is roleplaying hitler.
just one example of many is to compare putin's speech with hitler's speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6SB9sqCevk#t=1h50m11s
No, it's not. You have to pluck sentences from here and there to make them look similar, just like you have to pluck an hour of history from weeks worth of conflict to make Crimea look like Sudeten.
If I don't pain them as evil I paint them as good?
you whitewash evil actions. decide for yourself what does that make you. it might seem ok right now, but such approach does seem to eat the consciousness from inside.
I did not white wash, I pointed out that people like you are trying to paint the situation as completely black. RT probably white washes, but I'm not RT.
If you distort reality you are a bad person, even if you think that you are doing so for a good reason. Lies always lead to more lies, when caught people don't trust you. This is the reality that so many people refuse to grasp even though Socrates pointed out this very thing 2,500 years ago. If you look at a spot on a painting that's red, and claim the whole picture is red, you are an idiot that should keep your mouth shut. Anyone that takes a step back can see it's an apple on a tree that you are looking at, and the tree is in a forest.
I consider it to be a piece of sanity in the world of two extremes.
This is the argument to moderation fallacy on a silver platter. Calling a position 'extreme' does not make it so.
Claiming something like "vaccines" as a general term is either "good" or "bad" are all extremes. All three terms I have quoted here are generalization fallacies. Vaccines are not all the same, do not all have the same value, and do not all have the same risks, and from batch to batch can be completely different makeup changing the value even among the same vaccine. It is impossible to logically assign "good" or "bad" which just extend the generalization fallacy. A person claiming "people should take every vaccine" are an extremist implying that all vaccines are "good". A person claiming "refuse all vaccines" is a person another extremist implying all vaccines are "bad". This is simply not true and we can measure it's lack of truthfulness by facts.
You don't discount the paraphrased message from the doctor, so are attempting to claim fallacy when none actually exists. Sorry, if you are guilty of being an extremist on one side or the other, shame on you.
There is no scare mongering, the doctor said what many vaccine producers already admit and recommend. This is in addition to numerous medical professionals which hold this same criteria. Do not get a vaccine within X time of an illness, do not get vaccines if you are being treated for X, do not take vaccines if you are undergoing X procedure, and do not take X vaccine if you have had Y virus/disease.
Claiming this is scare mongering is an invalid appeal to emotion which is provably false based on medical practices and source data. The doctor was surely claiming that we did not do enough of those things, because people _do_ have reactions to vaccines and those reactions can rarely cause permanent damage. Numerous class action law suits show that position to also be true, but of course since we allow gag orders we don't have all of the facts in those cases.
So look, you can get as many vaccines as you want when ever you want them. I'm okay with that, it's your choice. You are judging the reward worth the risk and that's fine. Don't demand that others have your same value system and deny that people should be educated as to the risks of any medical procedure including vaccines so that the issue is propagandized to match your beliefs.
You started with a piece of bad logic that claimed that a person not getting a vaccine increases your risk to getting a disease. This was shown to not change your risk to getting a disease or virus by any measurable amount. Now you have another piece of bad logic, which is that anyone not backing your belief is "scare mongering". This one is worse logic however because it's not just faulty reasoning, it's absolutely false.
There are many kinds of law, and I'll grant I was being very generalized. If something is against a law there is an expected punishment. I know of cases where people were charged with fraud (as someone mentions above) so we would have to debate the technical merits of each case to know if 'fraud' was committed and if there would be criminal prosecution.
That said, I think you should compare the definition of "rule" and "law" and you will see what I intended with my statement.
Oh, and read those to definitions very slowly if you don't get it the first time.
there are no sources claiming anything like that, even not russian ones. the first thing happening in crimea was invasion by an army wearing no insignia.
This information is surely available, and I gave the search method for finding all kinds of goodies. The first thing happening in Crimea happened long before Kiev fell. History is not that hard to find or read. I will give you that generic searches will mask history, and you will see the most recent propaganda pieces. These sources were not just RT news, so it's not purely Russian propaganda.
i apologise for my spelling, here in eastern europe we learned english as our third language. and we know this neighbouring country too well to see who's the aggressor.
And you will further claim the the US and EU nations are not aggressive and have purely altruistic goals? Nope, it's a game and the people in the Ukraine are caught in the middle. At the same time, what Russia did was nothing like what Hitler did, which was my original point.
you are either quite delusional or financially motivated to whitewash the actions of russia - which, despite there being many really great people in there, is a monster that endangers all of it's neighbours and whole world.
If I don't pain them as evil I paint them as good? Nope, not hardly and your level of logic is rather delusional. Funny that you continue to portray exactly what you accuse me of.
Slashdot Mirror
As you can tell by your mod rating, shills and idiots are very abundant on Slashdot. In other words, you stated things well and can't fix the idiots that can't grasp your thoughts the first time no matter how hard you try.
A mix of all of those things is the most obvious, and add some more to that list. Make the citizens 'fear' some country and dilute any alternative opinions on what's really happening are a couple to add.
It's foolish to think that Russia is a new threat, or bigger threat than China. China has a huge budget for espionage, Russia does not. Working in IT you will quickly find that the most sophisticated attacks are from China. Russia has a few but seem to focus primarily on black market and illegal activities, not espionage. I.E. Human trafficking, porn, pyramid schemes, and gambling content commonly comes from Russian servers for Botnets. These botnets are not also trying to break into Boeing's networks for schematics. China on the other hand has teams constantly trying to break in to Boeing.
The article sums itself up as someone spreading FUD over and over again, which is the most telling thing you should get reading the piece.
Now how are we supposed to collect people's private information without their knowledge? Think of the children and all of the terrorists captured with this exploit in the wild!
sincerely,
NSA
"Rule" wouldn't make much sense in that context anyway, but if that's what you meant why didn't you write that?
I personally don't have that much difficulty with generalizations, and assume others think the same as I do. Of course that is a bad assumption, but not unreasonable expectation that a few people get it.
Statistically, it doesn't matter. When people run polls, how do they know how many people are lying to them? That's why they use large samples, so the signal can rise above the noise.
Interesting point, but let's be clear. If I happen to be a politician and want to make the economy look good, would I poll every citizen in the US for their feelings on the economy? I believe that I would I target people that are employed, working in particular fields, living in certain types of neighborhoods. This is how statistics are done used to present an invalid/biased view of the world. Anyone believing that the economy is healthy in the US is an idiot, but politicians can show you this all day long with statistical backing. Statistics rarely show the truth of things, so invalid example all the way around.
You'd be extremely unlikely to do so, and even if you did, as long as you sample enough zebra paintings, its noise would be swamped by the signal. Most zebra paintings would show a realistic, if not 100% accurate, size and number of stripes, especially if the artist could look out of his window and see a zebra.
Nope, sorry. You seem to be very ignorant about art and a quick Google search yields how wrong you are. "Realism" is not even audible noise in the traffic, it barely exists.
My understanding of the paper is that they looked not only at red/green ratios per painting, but also red/green ratio changes within the painting. That will have removed some of the kind of uncertainty you're talking about.
Did you do any of my suggested study on paints? Here is a primer, then go look at Audion's paintings and see how the colors vary from picture to picture. Dilution causes variances as does ingredients. This is not the artist capturing the 'real color of the sky', but the artist mixing paints for the effect they desire.
There are thousands of references to why artists strive for emotion in paintings, not realism. There is almost no information on why artists strive for realism without emotion. People that teach artists will tell you never put realism above emotion. This is not just the abstract, but people painting family pictures. Here is yet another quick Google result.
Let's simplify things and discuss zebras. If zebras in the 18th century were 25% white and 75% black, but those in the 19th century were 50% white and 50% black, you would expect paintings to reflect this quite well, wouldn't you? What if they were once 40% white and 60% black, but now 50-50? That information would also seem likely to be recoverable, especially given a variety of paintings by a variety of artists.
If I look at various paintings of Zebras, I'm not going to be able to do any such measurements. I'll find Zebras that appear to be 6" tall, and others that look like mountains. I'll find Zebras with 2 strips, and Zebras that have hundreds. I'll find Zebras with unicorn horns and monkeys riding them. I'll find Zebras with long hair, and short hair, grey hair and red lips, purple eyes, and all sorts of hoof colors. At no point do any of those pictures reflect reality, they reflect the story the artist was telling in the painting.
This is where our two view points differ rather drastically.
How do you know which of the painters that are long dead were trying to capture an actual Zebra with the actual amount of stripes in the exact pattern and colors they saw? These people did not all have photographs to go by. How do you know who had to change their zebra to look more unicorn like to appease the guy paying them to pain the picture? You don't, I don't, and neither does a team of so called 'scientists'.
None of those things undermine the basic concept that artists' choice of colours is primarily influenced by the actual colour of an object. If something is blue, an artist is far more likely to paint it as blue than red. That's all you need to recover useful information.
They all do, please do some study of artists and art. The great majority of artists strive for emotion, not realism, because emotion sells and realism is what you get every day. Certain colors are also expensive, read up on how paints are and were made. Ingredients were critical and not always available. This changes color and hue drastically, especially when you are mixing your own paints.
What these authors are proposing (tentatively) is nothing like alchemy. They're not claiming to have invented a process; they're claiming to have found a signal in amongst the noise - a single that must have had some influence, no matter how small, on how these artists painted their paintings
Sounds just like alchemy to me, or maybe snake oil and charms.
When I put:
No, you did falsely paint the medical consensus as 'extreme'.
I was referring to:
I consider it to be a piece of sanity in the world of two extremes
You are calling the mainstream advice of the medical community 'extreme', no? This categorisation looks an awful lot like the argument to moderation fallacy.
I don't know where you're getting Anything that does not match your view is 'extreme' according to you from. I'm not calling anyone extreme. I'm questioning your use of the term.
No, I was not calling a particular person's advice extreme. I said very clearly that there are two extremes. 1) Don't get vaccinated and 2) Get all vaccines. Very few people take a middle ground in the debate, yourself included. You are in the #2 camp, and me arguing in the middle of the two extremes has caused you to label me an 'extremist' on more than one occasion. As stated, you are of the belief that anyone disagreeing with you is an extremist, so any claim of fallacy you have is based on bad logic. Sorry, but that is in plain view. My point is, and was, that sanity is somewhere in between the two extremes.
Huh? I never 'just' invented a position
Looks like I rather mangled my point there: I was trying to say that no-one is arguing that everyone should be given every vaccine irrespective of their state-of-health/family-history/intolerances. No-one is saying to ignore the do-not-vaccinate-if conditions. That, of course, really would be an extreme pro-vaccination position.
This is a rational viewpoint, but is different than what you previously said.
since you lost the debate on increase risk (there is none)
I lost nothing. It is here that you move from arguing category to assuming vanishing degree:
I did not change the subject, go back and see who changed topics. I thought you mentioned something interesting so offered an opinion backed by paraphrasing someone from the medical community. You agree with that position on here, but not previously.
If _you_ change the subject then how is it my fallacy of vanishing degrees? I believe you have that logic reversed, if it exists at all. I don't believe you diverted the topic intentionally so did not see it as such a fallacy.
I'll agree that someone has additional risk due to someone refusing the vaccine, considering that the risk is so small it's irrelevant to debate
You have no idea if it's actually so small it's irrelevant to debate, you just made that up. I have no idea either, but I'm not pretending.
No, it's a logical conclusion. You started with an invalid premise that the Herd immunity backed a claim that you have increased risk due to a person refusing a vaccine. Herd immunity claims the opposite. If there is such a risk, it is not measurable. We have been through that part of the debate, go back and read it if you are still confused. If it was 10% of the population refusing vaccines we could measure risk. The percentage not receiving vaccines is less than .001% of the population (willful or due to medical issues preventing vaccines). If your risk is already impossible to measure, say Polio in the US then a single person refusing makes no difference. If your risk is still high even with a vaccine, like flu then the numbers will be skewed in a different direction. This is where I stated previously that we would have to measure risk for all vaccines against all diseases and viruses separately, because they are all drastically different.
If you have pneumonia it is not recommended that you get vaccines. Period.
I wasn't able to find anything on the web about getting vaccines whilst having pneumonia. If you have
If that was literally true, every painting would be random colours, wouldn't it?
Random? No, and the statement is an absurdity (intentional or otherwise). For example: If I paint a horse blue, it's not going to look much like a horse. I don't go measure horse RGB values of real horses, but I stay within browns, blacks, whites, and grey colors. I may put spots in a pattern that is intended to move your eyes in one direction or another, I don't necessarily use an exact pattern found on a real horse somewhere. If I wanted viewers to feel more tranquil, I'll probably use lighter colors. If I want them to feel more sullen I would use darker colors. This is what an artist thinks of, in addition to the colors of paints on hand and how to mix so that I can stretch paint to more areas of the canvas.
I disagree. Colours in art are chosen primarily for what things actually look like, otherwise we'd have paintings of Elizabeth I with blue hair and red skin. But for some reason everyone painted her as pasty and redheaded, because she was. In almost all cases, those things you've mentioned are secondary factors. I don't think you'd find many artists who'd paint a clear daytime sky as hot pink just because they'd have an argument with their significant other.
Using my horse example above I'll agree with you to some extent. To claim you can measure the evolution of horse hair color based on my, and various other artists renditions of horses is not possible. Colors chosen have something to do with reality, but are not like photos that you can measure reality with. Take an art class for pity sake, or even a basic psychology course can tell you how colors impact our emotions.
Further, you do realize that the paintings of Elizabeth have a historical context which is not "reality". It was considered noble and respectable to be pale skinned, so even if she had a tan the artist would have lightened the skin tone. Just like he would not have painted a run in her stockings even if she was posing with such an item. If she had a blemish on her skin that would not have been painted either, even if the blemish was staring the artist in the face the whole time he was painting. Painting != Picture, never has been and never will be. Paintings are art. Paintings are depicted to tell a story, not to create and present a photo. In the case of your Elizabeth example, the artist would have done things he was told to do, such as make hair color uniform and lighten skin tones or add blush or ignore blemishes, or put a dragon in the background, or paint flowers that she was allergic to.
Actually I do find it plausible that you could find evidence of a correlation between progression of cataracts and the colouring of paintings in a number of artists' works. Other artists who didn't suffer cataracts might reduce the correlation, but they wouldn't undo it.
Wrong generalization. Can you use the waterlily paintings to determine _all_ cataracts and their progression based on just water lily paintings? Hell no!
But, to be honest, one of the reasons I'm defending the possibility so strongly is exactly because of those people who are always itching to dismiss just about anything remotely interesting simply because they can't believe it.
As I said way up in the posts, interesting != science. I find a whole lot of stuff 'interesting' that I don't consider science, even when I can make loose correlations between my interests and a real science. For example, I find alchemy fascinating but don't believe fish oil and lead makes gold. If someone told me that they could do so and that the Government should give them lots of our tax dollars to study the process I'd say "NO" to them too.
What you seem to miss completely is that an artist does not choose colors by the colors they see, or that someone else saw. Colors are chosen more for providing an emotion, or to have continuity in the painting, or to emphasize a color in the focus area, or to help move a persons eye to a different region of the painting, or countless other things. It also has to do with the paint being used, how the color is added to the paint and what is used to make the color. None of that is "realism".
Of course these people could come up with correlation, especially given the broad and bad criteria. For every painting they claim backs their theory how many don't? I"m betting the numbers would be extraordinary. They intentionally limited the paintings and artists reviewed to back their poor logical correlation (which never equals causation).
Your Monet example is not quite right, you are giving a specific artist and a specific illness to the eyes that impacted his paintings. You are not generalizing that we can know how bad everyone's cataracts are by looking at all paintings of waterlilies made over the last X amount of time. I think you would agree that me making a claim that I could, would be extremely foolish. Yet if I change cataract to pollution and waterlily to sunset you claim it's plausible.
No, you did falsely paint the medical consensus as 'extreme'.
Anything that does not match your view is 'extreme' according to you. That is poor logic and irrational but you continue to make such invalid claims and have repeatedly done so here.
You have now invented a position - people should take every vaccine (which no-one is arguing, and certainly is certainly not the medical consensus). Let's be clear: do you consider the position held by the bulk of the medical community, to be extreme?
Huh? I never 'just' invented a position, the position I have matches numerous medical professionals and would have been said at the start if the debate started there. Go back and read the thread, it was you that changed the subject since you lost the debate on increase risk (there is none). I pointed out that your change in subject was wrong out of courtesy, and you turn it into another circus of poor logic and showcase of fallacy.
I stand by my claim that it's empty scaremongering. It falsely assumes that the medical community hasn't thought to account for individual variation or for 'overloading' the body with administration of several vaccines in a short period.
More fallacy, no I'm not surprised!! If it matches your opinion it's fine, but anything else is 'scaremongering' even when medical professionals tell you otherwise.
Unless these extremely rare serious side-effects outweigh the benefits, to describe vaccination as insanity really doesn't hold up.
You missed the doctors point completely, and intentionally since you consistently argue the same bad logic. If you have pneumonia it is not recommended that you get vaccines. Period. Sure, there are a few people that tell you there are no issues, but it is well known that the body will have a difficult time coping with a vaccine when it's already fighting an illness. A certain jackasses make false claims that you can get 10,000 vaccines in a day and it will cause no harm. That same person was offered $10,000.00 to get just 1,000 over the course of 10 days and that person refused (Google that with 'Natural News' and you can find the info). His position, and yours, is horse shit and wrong!
The doctors point was that we need to treat vaccines like other medical procedures, not all refuse vaccines. If you don't feel well should you get a vaccine? Can a Medical Doctor make measurements to reduce risks by postponing vaccines? Are people falsely convinced that vaccines do nothing to the human body, including some medical professionals? Are we doing enough testing of the vaccines themselves to ensure they are safe (contaminated vaccines are uncommon but happen)?
Currently there is very little done to measure a persons health at the time they get a vaccine. Further, we are compounding potential issues by giving multiple vaccines at the same time. Vaccines are also a for profit industry, which has lead to contaminated vaccines being given to people in third world countries to save a company money instead of being trashed because they were contaminated. Perhaps if we did more thinking instead of repeating false claims those rare cases of permanent injury from vaccines would be reduced.
I'm guessing that you will change the argument again, or make up more bad logic to continue to make false claims so let me close with these two points.
1. You can do what ever you want when ever you want. Take your children in to the doctor and get them loaded with everything possible when ever you feel the mood strikes you. I feel bad for your children because that's reckless behavior, but I can't stop you from making decisions, even if I believe they are poorly made. Hell, sit in the Doctors office yourself and get the most vaccines in history. It's you that's at risk, and I can't force you to behave intelligently.
2. We have already agreed that there is no increased risk to you by allowing me making my own choices. I interview Doctors the same way I interrogate a procedure someone recommends, objectively and with as much knowledge as possible. When I have to accept the risk, I can make my own choices.
You are correct, I didn't read the article. No need though, because the article won't change my logic at all. Paintings and Canvas are not done to be exact replicas of nature, but are painted to be appealing to the eye. Even if an artist attempted to replicate a particular color he saw in the sky, there are thousands of reasons for the sky to be that color. Pollution is not the only, or even the best, explanation for the colors the artist chose.
No, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt because the only reasonable information I've seen on what they've achieved suggests they've got something interesting, and also because it
Interesting != Science
a) doesn't seem that ridiculous to me
So Zeus was a historical figure and the Greeks painted him while he posed? He's just one of many of their gods painted.
I believe it's obvious that this is like reading tea leaves. When you start with a unrealistic premise it's nearly impossible to get to a realistic solution. Perhaps because of your "b" you just don't care to scrutinize the logic.
I'll agree with you that it's interesting, but it's not science. It would be impossible to try and make any type of measurement for what they are trying to measure based on paintings, when the majority of those paintings contain mythical and unrealistic objects. If you believe that their goal is possible, do me a favor and visit a few art museums and just look at the paintings. I'd refuse to believe that Poseidon swallowed ships for the same reason I would refuse to claim that the colors the artist chose for the sky indicate how much air pollution there was.
Quite frankly, you don't even need to make a trip to a museum and look at more modern paintings. Just Google search "Ancient Greek Paintings" and have a look at what someone is claiming can be used to determine air pollution levels base on pain hue and RGB content.
You should have had Dali there too.
Dali - The world is full of hidden vaginas
This!!
One of my many studies in life has been art. I paint in oils and acrylics, and even took a few college courses. Very few painters are "realists" and even back 3000 years ago we knew about how to use colors for effect, not realism.
Sure, sculpting was one of those things where the ancient Greek artists tried to be as realistic as possible. At the same time, paintings of Hermes and Zeus indicate that not everything required the same level of realism (unless of course someone wishes to argue that the Ancient Greeks "saw" their gods.). Trying to measure the atmosphere based on pictures of Hermes seems pretty silly to me.
Lets also not forget that even with realism, many things can give the sunset or sunrise in a nice red hue (storm on the horizon anyone?). The pollution in the atmosphere is just one of countless things that could cause the sky to have a red hue. I really hope that people are not calling this "science".
My comment had to do with an obvious implication the person I responded to made, which is that the management and employees are there to look out for the bests interests of the company. Perhaps English is not your first language, but if you ready my comment after reading the one I responded to, there should be no big mystery or confusion.
While I certainly did imply a personal distaste for companies and people that prey on society, I certainly never said "Down with all corporation!".
Sometimes the job of CEO is not looking out for the best interests of the product and company. Sometimes their job is looking out for some people in a back room that actually hired him to make things fail so that they can make lots of money scavenging parts and losing competition to other companies they own. Unfortunately there are still legal ways to do this, and many venture capital companies prove this over and over.
If the Mozilla staff has justification to question the CEOs motives, he probably should consider either taking steps to end their worry or perhaps stepping down. Even if the employees don't have the power to force the step down, they would have the ability to cause problems and impact profits.
Well, "Average Joe" does not normally receive a Golden Parachute when hired. I'm not saying Mozilla's boss did, just countering your generalization with a different generalization which is fair.
I happen to use ZFS and have really enjoyed it since it came stock in Solaris 10. I really never paid attention to btrfs, no need to do so.
Well, since ZFS is available for Linux I had to wonder why there would be people making a fuss about btrfs. You bring up licensing which is an issue, and I'm guessing Oracle did not help the license issues, or possibly made the license issues worse.
While I'll agree that there a few companies that only take advantage of Open Source work, I happen to work for and know several that have full time developers working on nothing but Open Source projects as their full time job. (No, I dislike Facebook and would probably never work there).
I have no idea why so many people try and paint everything as black or white. The world is grey, enjoy it!!
Because "Get off my Lawn!" and "Screw your meme!"?
The first thing happening in Crimea happened long before Kiev fell.
do you mean russian soldiers wandering outside of their bases, which was prohibited by ukraine-russia agreement?
No, I meant exactly what I said. Try to read a little bit of history of events in the Ukraine prior to the coup in Kiev.
And you will further claim the the US and EU nations are not aggressive and have purely altruistic goals?
i'm not sure about the usa. most eu nations seem to be very concerned, especially given that many of them have just slipped out of the totalitarian grip. i would agree that they don't have purely altruistic goals - they have survivalistic goals. they know they are the next...
EU countries that were in totalitarian grip, like Spain or Germany? I think you are fabricating reality, which we call delusion.
what Russia did was nothing like what Hitler did, which was my original point.
it's definitely close to what hitler did. it's almost like putin is roleplaying hitler. just one example of many is to compare putin's speech with hitler's speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6SB9sqCevk#t=1h50m11s
No, it's not. You have to pluck sentences from here and there to make them look similar, just like you have to pluck an hour of history from weeks worth of conflict to make Crimea look like Sudeten.
If I don't pain them as evil I paint them as good?
you whitewash evil actions. decide for yourself what does that make you. it might seem ok right now, but such approach does seem to eat the consciousness from inside.
I did not white wash, I pointed out that people like you are trying to paint the situation as completely black. RT probably white washes, but I'm not RT.
If you distort reality you are a bad person, even if you think that you are doing so for a good reason. Lies always lead to more lies, when caught people don't trust you. This is the reality that so many people refuse to grasp even though Socrates pointed out this very thing 2,500 years ago. If you look at a spot on a painting that's red, and claim the whole picture is red, you are an idiot that should keep your mouth shut. Anyone that takes a step back can see it's an apple on a tree that you are looking at, and the tree is in a forest.
Clipping a bit to cover your comments.
I consider it to be a piece of sanity in the world of two extremes.
This is the argument to moderation fallacy on a silver platter. Calling a position 'extreme' does not make it so.
Claiming something like "vaccines" as a general term is either "good" or "bad" are all extremes. All three terms I have quoted here are generalization fallacies. Vaccines are not all the same, do not all have the same value, and do not all have the same risks, and from batch to batch can be completely different makeup changing the value even among the same vaccine. It is impossible to logically assign "good" or "bad" which just extend the generalization fallacy. A person claiming "people should take every vaccine" are an extremist implying that all vaccines are "good". A person claiming "refuse all vaccines" is a person another extremist implying all vaccines are "bad". This is simply not true and we can measure it's lack of truthfulness by facts.
You don't discount the paraphrased message from the doctor, so are attempting to claim fallacy when none actually exists. Sorry, if you are guilty of being an extremist on one side or the other, shame on you.
There is no scare mongering, the doctor said what many vaccine producers already admit and recommend. This is in addition to numerous medical professionals which hold this same criteria. Do not get a vaccine within X time of an illness, do not get vaccines if you are being treated for X, do not take vaccines if you are undergoing X procedure, and do not take X vaccine if you have had Y virus/disease.
Claiming this is scare mongering is an invalid appeal to emotion which is provably false based on medical practices and source data. The doctor was surely claiming that we did not do enough of those things, because people _do_ have reactions to vaccines and those reactions can rarely cause permanent damage. Numerous class action law suits show that position to also be true, but of course since we allow gag orders we don't have all of the facts in those cases.
So look, you can get as many vaccines as you want when ever you want them. I'm okay with that, it's your choice. You are judging the reward worth the risk and that's fine. Don't demand that others have your same value system and deny that people should be educated as to the risks of any medical procedure including vaccines so that the issue is propagandized to match your beliefs.
You started with a piece of bad logic that claimed that a person not getting a vaccine increases your risk to getting a disease. This was shown to not change your risk to getting a disease or virus by any measurable amount. Now you have another piece of bad logic, which is that anyone not backing your belief is "scare mongering". This one is worse logic however because it's not just faulty reasoning, it's absolutely false.
There are many kinds of law, and I'll grant I was being very generalized. If something is against a law there is an expected punishment. I know of cases where people were charged with fraud (as someone mentions above) so we would have to debate the technical merits of each case to know if 'fraud' was committed and if there would be criminal prosecution.
That said, I think you should compare the definition of "rule" and "law" and you will see what I intended with my statement.
Oh, and read those to definitions very slowly if you don't get it the first time.
there are no sources claiming anything like that, even not russian ones. the first thing happening in crimea was invasion by an army wearing no insignia.
This information is surely available, and I gave the search method for finding all kinds of goodies. The first thing happening in Crimea happened long before Kiev fell. History is not that hard to find or read. I will give you that generic searches will mask history, and you will see the most recent propaganda pieces. These sources were not just RT news, so it's not purely Russian propaganda.
i apologise for my spelling, here in eastern europe we learned english as our third language. and we know this neighbouring country too well to see who's the aggressor.
And you will further claim the the US and EU nations are not aggressive and have purely altruistic goals? Nope, it's a game and the people in the Ukraine are caught in the middle. At the same time, what Russia did was nothing like what Hitler did, which was my original point.
you are either quite delusional or financially motivated to whitewash the actions of russia - which, despite there being many really great people in there, is a monster that endangers all of it's neighbours and whole world.
If I don't pain them as evil I paint them as good? Nope, not hardly and your level of logic is rather delusional. Funny that you continue to portray exactly what you accuse me of.