Are you kidding me? You have not been paying enough attention to what Google does in my opinion, there is a much more valid concern. Google will load it up with NSA goodies and sell it at a loss! Best have your wireless sniffers handy when these things get assimilated. If you are going to out Google, at least do it with something good!
There really is no such thing, they just made up the term for attention. What he is describing might be called "tools" programming, but it's not new or different. I have written "Tools" in various languages for over 20 years. If they think they are going to market a few bucks with a "re-branding" program good for them. It worked for "Cloud" and I knew better then too.
The complaint is about US public schools, not an EU school. Since you are talking about income in KEUR/yr I'm guessing you are discussing something other than US public schools.
And if your wife ran out at night and vandalized property you would just "give her a good talking to"? What if she did it several times? What if she told you "fuck off, I'm going to go vandalize a house you dick!" as you were trying to "giver her a good talking to"? What if you came home and she was drowning one of your kids, is violence still completely unwarranted so you should let your kid die?
See, the point is that violence should not be the first answer (and probably not the second either). However to ignore that sometimes it's the only answer is idiocy. I never saw the person claim "beat your kid", or even advocate corporal punishment as a better answer than other methods. If what you said worked, we'd have no criminals in jail because everyone knows and obeys right from wrong and fully understands morality and their role in society and always does the right thing.
But contrary to your delusion, we have criminals in jail because humans don't always know or care about what is right and what is wrong. Some believe that they have no worthwhile role in society, and morality takes a back seat to survival and getting ahead sometimes. We can also snap when we become victims of those types of people society. Reality tastes pretty good, you should try some.
While I don't see this as the predominant reason our schools suck, I agree with the point. If people have this incredibly wrong belief that "all children are the same" then of course we end up in this position, because people are not seeing reality. They wrongly believe that positive reinforcement, or the lack thereof, is the cure for every situation and it's not.
When your kids says "sod off" and ignores you when you give them a timeout what do you do? Continue to debate them as they ignore you? You turn off the video game, so they call you a name and turn it back on. Worse, when the kid gets older they leave the house after you say "you are grounded". He may not rob a liqueur store and go to jail, but what if he vandalizes someone's property and you have to foot the bill? You may wish he had robbed the liqueur store and went to jail.
In most cases I agree that one should not use corporal punishment. Logic and Reason should be the predominant method of teaching, because the only thing corporal punishment can teach is one of control. At a certain point, a person in authority and responsible for another person's well being may have to exercise that control.
I agree in a way, but lets not neglect the fact that "parents" have been force out of the position. I don't agree that it's the full issue either, nor do I believe it's accidental. US Adoption of the Russian "Industrial Education" system in the 40s is the problem and we are seeing the effect/impact.
40 years ago US households lived off of 1 income earner leaving a parent home to take care of kids and home. Today this is not possible for the overwhelming number of Americans. If you already have wealth, you are set. Wealth disparity in the US shows that the trends of 50 years ago have been reversed (intentionally?).
In addition to economic issues at home, school programs which enticed participation have been cut. Drama, Band, Sports, Art and Science shows, etc.. have all been drastically cut. Other social education programs such as recess, debate, (regional) spelling bees,, etc... have been cut. Interestingly nearly every State adopted legalized gambling so that they could afford these programs.
Kids today learn rote, and questionable ethics for academics. "Billy meant well" means the same thing as "Billy had correct results" today (see 'common core') and will get someone the same grade. Kids don't learn critical thinking, and don't learn social skills (generalizing for the majority, I won't discount exceptions).
Using the book example someone gave above, if I give a 1st grader a 9th grade level book and make them read it what happens? The child does not understand the book, even though they could read the words. Concepts of building education are very broken, which is why we see so man people giving up. That and the fact that College is extremely expensive and the economy being in this shape means that people don't want to spend the money or take out loans they will repay for 30 years.
You claim someone else told a bunch of bullshit, then you post prices that have not existed for 15 years! Hello Pot, meet Kettle! Look, I would agree with some things being cheaper than junk food. Rice is not enough to live on, and neither is beans. You know as much, but lets not let any actual facts get in the way of your asinine rant. In other words, there is plenty of room to debate here without liars.
Whole chicken on sale (with the bone and giblets) is at best 2.99 a pound at a grocery store in CA, 1.99 in Michigan. After you cook the water out and remove the bones, there really isn't much to eat. I normally cook this way (healthier and cheaper than boneless) and get 3-4 meals worth of meat and broth for two people (and yes I cook the Giblets and neck for broth). I also have to spend hours cooking and preparing, which I can afford to do. A person working 2 jobs would not have the time. Poor people may not have the gear required to cook.
If you live near a processing center and can purchase cheaper due to that, then that is not a fair expectation for the majority of people that have to buy at a grocery store.
Eggs are cheapest 2.49 a dozen in CA, 1.99 in Michigan. Same words as above apply if you live near a ranch.
Have a lick of common sense in the discussion, because bulk is not necessarily economical. I don't buy 25 pounds of anything because with 2 people at home I'd worry about bugs, even when storing them properly. I have purchased all kinds of things which included bugs which don't always get noticed immediately. A 25 lb bag of beans and 2 weevils means next month your pantry is fucked. I doubt you purchase 25lb bags of anything unless you are feeding enough people to cook it within a reasonable time frame.
Beans and Rice are not "healthy" by themselves. A person would die of malnutrition or be extremely ill by eating those two things alone. Even adding in a few eggs and chicken, there is no fruit or vegetables which are essential for human diet.
All that out of the way, there is a point we agree on. The "Welfare" state is unacceptable, unsustainable, and it's something that working people should not want. The causes for the Welfare state are many. Sanctioned greed is probably the biggest single factor, where a broker can make millions while losing all of your money. Banks do this and get more of your money, so I'm not just outing stock brokers. Deregulated monopolies, and laws being passed that favor large corporations over citizens.
There is a lot we need to do to "fix" the economy which puts jobs back. There is nothing happening now to do so, and in fact things like TPP will make the current situation even worse. With no jobs, or underpaying jobs as the "majority" of jobs in the US it won't get better. Blaming the guy on the bottom won't help, and believing you are immune to being on the bottom is idiocy.
Did you miss While the fine may be barely noticeable for Google, the authority requires the search giant to publish this decision on Google's French homepage, google.fr for 48 hours within the next 8 days? This means that the current politicians get a nice fat bonus check and everyone else gets the middle finger.
Is it more likely that the real issue is that there are people in numerous countries that are all playing on the same team? Hint: That team is not your own, and does not care about average citizens.
Consider what has happened after Germany was found complicit in helping the NSA spy on Germans. Merkel said "don't", and "stop", and both intelligence agencies took that to mean "don't stop". Nobody from either side has been prosecuted for treason, and nobody knows if the practices have changed (no evidence to show there has been any change). We could say the same for the GCHQ and NSA (though Brit's may not be considered in the EU or have more autonomy than some smaller countries), and the same for Italy and the NSA. Hell, even Mosod and the NSA.
Yeah yeah, you are better than us and we are better than you makes a great appeal to emotion argument. It does not change what's being done in either place. You think Politicians in any country don't know or understand what Himler said? "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.". Emphasis mine
Stop barking at each other and do something locally to force change.
What reform? Do you mean changing the practice to ensure that everything possible gets classified and buried deeper than previously? Do you mean the people that took over your Government also taking over the media to ensure you never see those types of messages again? You can't possibly be referring to the transparency it lead to, and you can't be referring to the people responsible for COINTELPRO going to jail because that never happened.
Sure, some people have heard of COINTELPRO but the majority of Americans have not. Of those a few may have heard of Operation Mocking bird too. Those are only the programs we have proof of, and there are many many more programs to explore (and we can't because it's all 'classified').
I'm sure you will claim that those are isolated incidents where our government misbehaved because, well, you have a history of doing just that. Which ignores MKUltra where our CIA drugged a whole lot of people with LSD without their knowledge (and that is one of the few pieces of the program we have proof of, but torture and abuse are also well known). The nice expanded operation that dumped radiation on poor people in Corpus Christi and St. Louis. Fast and Furious, etc... These "conspiracy theories" are all proven to exist and have some amount of information leaked. These are what we "know" are not just theories..
Deny all you want, but when shitty people hold power shitty things happen.
I was pretty clear on all accounts, try to reread it again. I would venture to guess that a large portion of the problem is that you believe Wiki is a source of truth for Logic and rhetoric which it is not. It is a human modified semi-truthful summary and not an in depth conceptual study for either of those subjects.
Very common today that people believe that simply looking at a Wiki or Google result gives them knowledge, and it does anything but present "knowledge".
As stated, read a text book on Logic (my text books are well over 500 pages each) and actually attempt to "learn" the subjects. Or don't and continue believing that an opinionated summary makes you intelligent. Either way, this discussion is concluded from my end.
Stop listening to what they are saying and watch what they do. If there was a difference you would see different actions, and perhaps different results. This is not the case.
Let me give an easy example. If I say "I am for pacifism" and then punch you in the nose you would question my claim of pro pacifism. If I again claim "I am pro pacifist" and punch you in the nose a second time, you should figure out really quickly that I am in fact a liar and not pro pacifism.
Look at the Democrat voting record, bills introduced, etc.. and no matter what they claim they are doing the same thing that the Republicans are doing. And of course vice versa. If they claim something different while they do things opposite to their claims, they are liars and not "different philosophies".
Examples (easy to verify). Obama claimed to be for closing Guantanamo, ending wars in the Middle East, pro US Economy, would end the corruption in banking, etc.. etc.. etc.. and none of those things were done. In fact wars in the Middle East have been expanded and Banks were not even investigated. TPP should answer any questions you have about his concern for the US Economy.
Stop making excuses for these people and see them for what they really are!
I think you skipped a few lectures in Logic. You could read, but don't. You could understand that Wiki is not a great source of truth on Logic and Philosophy as well. Reductio is what you are describing, which is an error in reducing arguments as required by the Socratic Method. That Reduction error is exactly what the Wiki page is referring too, and not the "absurdum" portion.
I realize that thinking can be very difficult, but Wiki lists "reductio ad hitlerum (which is not in any of my text books)" as a genetic fallacy. Do you really think that the level of reduction to something absurd can only be with Hitler references? Come now, you can't be daft. Get a good College level Logic text book and find out what good source claims about reductio ad absurdum. Further, Wiki's references given previously for straw man and slippery slope hint at it, let's see if you can connect the dots on why it's a conditional fallacy and not the same as a "reduction error". It only takes a trip to a University Book store to confirm. It would be better of course to take the classes that the books come from.
I could not find the speech by the quantum developer, but you can search. I have no reason to lie, and remember that the two other points I started with were correct (even though you claimed one was false). You don't have to take my word for it, but you can find the information on your own.
All of this is moot, of course, since my original statement about superpowers wasn't meant to be any form of logical argument or fallacy.
For this, there is no need to continue. Comparing a lack of knowledge (what I stated) to someone having superpowers (your counter to my statement) is illogical, and only done for the purpose of trying to win without concern for truth. That is about as anti philosophical as you can get, though I'm sure you will deny that.
BB has failed, and instead of trying to salvage anything they seem to be turning into the new patent troll company. Anyone else remember SCO? Hint: jump while you still can.
It's a reduction to the absurd, and it's not a fallacy at all, but a method of reasoning.
Yes, Depends, and No. Yes it's a reduction to the absurd. By Wiki's definition you would be correct but in practice it depends on the use (see slippery slope and straw man by Wiki's definition). My college text books list reductio ad absurdum as a conditional fallacy, No it's an "invalid" method of reasoning.
To the remainder, there is no reason to add clarity to what you claimed is false and what I have already shown to be true. Feigning ignorance is not very becoming especially when you tend to quote what you want to see so have read the materials.
The Study was done by sampling "whom" exactly? From TFA I see That's according to research by accounting and consultancy firm Ernst & Young, which suggests that more than half of people - 55 per cent - say they're comfortable sharing personal information with central government organisations, such as HM Revenue & Customs and the NHS. but I see no data on who was polled, what the sample rate was, etc...
99.28% of all statistics are manipulated to present a wanted message, 68.7% of those are made up on the spot, and 0.035% of them are actually correct.
I personally have no difficulty understanding fallacy arguments, perhaps it's you that should consider what you claim in a discussion. Reductio ad absurdum is an argument from the absurd. Where for example you claim something absurd like having superpowers as an answer to someone claiming we know that observation changes the results of experiments. (Quantum theory does not mean we might all have latent super powers.) That example is within the definition, as would be a claim of the flying spaghetti monster when discussing whether the Universe requires a creator.
If you intended something other than what you said, use more caution with your statements.
My description of the similarities of thought and observation I agree is lacking, but there is only so much I'm willing to do when I am pretty sure I'm correct. If you were courteous in your response, or simply inquisitive, I would most likely be different in my responses. *shrug*, not that you have been a complete douche, but not what I consider friendly dialogue.
If you stop and consider how observation and thinking are similar, perhaps you would see the point. If I can find the link to the interview I'll pass it along. You should also go looking since I was right about 1 of 2 statements you so bluntly claimed "wrong" on, and 2 out of 3 in the examples given are easily provable statements.
Only in the sense of "not proven mathematically impossible", not in the sense of "it's a consistent model for observed data needing explanation" nor even "it's possible with stuff we no exists, and it's just a question of engineering". The only theoretical model for time travel requires either a wormhole held open with fictional "exotic matter", that could exists in theory but there's no evidence for, or a non-standard model of general relativity. Very far-fetched stuff.
Look at it in true false statement on both sides. Your "not proven mathematically impossible" also matches with "mathematically possible". You are putting your own bias on the science.
With limited resources you have to choose what to fund. Priority goes to stuff that there's some evidence for, or some other strong reason to believe is true. Mere creative writing not yet proven impossible must be given lower priority. I didn't think that was at all controversial.
While I agree in a general sense, show me where science has become altruistic and only looks for the betterment of humanity and I'll change my opinion. Currently we have people with too much money that pay people (too little) to figure out how they can gain more wealth. We have scientists working on all sorts of nasty things which are much worse than this, which I perceive at worst as a waste of time. Complaining about this one is like complaining that your feather pillow is too soft while bed bugs chomp on you while you sleep.
And when I dig up that quote what do I win? I'll have to dig because the interview is older. I proved you wrong on the first one and can prove you wrong again (I have an exceptional memory, but don't necessarily pay attention to everything about an materials I read). I will agree that a simple google search did not come up with the result. "Quantum computer interview thinking about the state changes the state".
Nobody said we have superpowers except you (reducto ad absurdum) to try and prove yourself correct. I said that we don't really understand what's going on regarding certain quantum events, and simply thinking about the quantum state can change the quantum state, just like observing quantum events changes those events (as the linked article states with clarity). You claim that observation and thinking are dissimilar, which is untrue. Name my prize, and I'll go hunting
Fair enough on the first point, and I apologize for the statement. That said, the argument changes very little. By theoretical physics principles, time travel is possible. So the issue is still that you believe it's "nuts" to investigate whether or not it's actually being used by someone in the future.
As a skeptic, I happen to share your opinion that "I" would not waste time looking for it. But that is just my opinion. What harm is there for these people to investigate? We know it's possible. Further, they came up with a method of testing. Their method may not work, but this is exactly how we make progress.
It's the filtering process for experimental physics, where there are "quite limited experimental resources, so a higher bar than "we can't quite prove it impossible" is required".
This, as with the first point, is your opinion and I believe goes the wrong direction (my opinion). I see that as we come up with concepts and try to prove them, we come up with new concepts and new methods of proof. Science is all about progression, and if you say "don't do that one" it really needs good reason other than "I think its nuts". Searching for ways of killing off certain genes is something I would agree is nuts to investigate. Searching for faster ways to infect someone with a disease is also something I would agree is nuts. On the surface, I see no such harm in looking for time travelers.
Perhaps you believe it's frivolous or that science should be studying better things, and that's okay. I might agree with that if all of science was altruistic, but it's not.
That's not what you wrote? It may not be what you intended, but it is surely what you wrote. Here Physics puts time travel in the same bucket as God: we can't prove it's impossible, but it's not needed to explain anything. which claims similarity and dismisses both concepts. Here Spending resources looking for time travelers is a bit nuts. which claims your belief about pursuit of these topics as "nuts". And finally here OTOH, purely theoretical exploration of the math around time travel is valuable, because the areas where theory describes oddities are often the most productive areas to investigate. where you change your position enough to claim that only what _you_ consider productive matters (which of course is subjective).
That does not answer the question, and your first sentence is only partial. The Universe came from nothing, or from something. Claiming it always existed runs contrary to what we know about physics. It's an interesting paradox to discuss, but is also invalidated by observation at just about every level.
Which one? The only statement you said is false and continue to claim is false which contradicts the information I provided to find the data. Further, you didn't bother to read the science behind the article I presented or just dismissed it out of ignorance to your own belief system.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding me? You have not been paying enough attention to what Google does in my opinion, there is a much more valid concern. Google will load it up with NSA goodies and sell it at a loss! Best have your wireless sniffers handy when these things get assimilated. If you are going to out Google, at least do it with something good!
There really is no such thing, they just made up the term for attention. What he is describing might be called "tools" programming, but it's not new or different. I have written "Tools" in various languages for over 20 years. If they think they are going to market a few bucks with a "re-branding" program good for them. It worked for "Cloud" and I knew better then too.
The complaint is about US public schools, not an EU school. Since you are talking about income in KEUR/yr I'm guessing you are discussing something other than US public schools.
. Wholly fuck it's not hard to Google very basic information, and I would figure someone with a 4 digit ID would know better.
And if your wife ran out at night and vandalized property you would just "give her a good talking to"? What if she did it several times? What if she told you "fuck off, I'm going to go vandalize a house you dick!" as you were trying to "giver her a good talking to"? What if you came home and she was drowning one of your kids, is violence still completely unwarranted so you should let your kid die?
See, the point is that violence should not be the first answer (and probably not the second either). However to ignore that sometimes it's the only answer is idiocy. I never saw the person claim "beat your kid", or even advocate corporal punishment as a better answer than other methods. If what you said worked, we'd have no criminals in jail because everyone knows and obeys right from wrong and fully understands morality and their role in society and always does the right thing.
But contrary to your delusion, we have criminals in jail because humans don't always know or care about what is right and what is wrong. Some believe that they have no worthwhile role in society, and morality takes a back seat to survival and getting ahead sometimes. We can also snap when we become victims of those types of people society. Reality tastes pretty good, you should try some.
While I don't see this as the predominant reason our schools suck, I agree with the point. If people have this incredibly wrong belief that "all children are the same" then of course we end up in this position, because people are not seeing reality. They wrongly believe that positive reinforcement, or the lack thereof, is the cure for every situation and it's not.
When your kids says "sod off" and ignores you when you give them a timeout what do you do? Continue to debate them as they ignore you? You turn off the video game, so they call you a name and turn it back on. Worse, when the kid gets older they leave the house after you say "you are grounded". He may not rob a liqueur store and go to jail, but what if he vandalizes someone's property and you have to foot the bill? You may wish he had robbed the liqueur store and went to jail.
In most cases I agree that one should not use corporal punishment. Logic and Reason should be the predominant method of teaching, because the only thing corporal punishment can teach is one of control. At a certain point, a person in authority and responsible for another person's well being may have to exercise that control.
I agree in a way, but lets not neglect the fact that "parents" have been force out of the position. I don't agree that it's the full issue either, nor do I believe it's accidental. US Adoption of the Russian "Industrial Education" system in the 40s is the problem and we are seeing the effect/impact.
40 years ago US households lived off of 1 income earner leaving a parent home to take care of kids and home. Today this is not possible for the overwhelming number of Americans. If you already have wealth, you are set. Wealth disparity in the US shows that the trends of 50 years ago have been reversed (intentionally?).
In addition to economic issues at home, school programs which enticed participation have been cut. Drama, Band, Sports, Art and Science shows, etc.. have all been drastically cut. Other social education programs such as recess, debate, (regional) spelling bees,, etc... have been cut. Interestingly nearly every State adopted legalized gambling so that they could afford these programs.
Kids today learn rote, and questionable ethics for academics. "Billy meant well" means the same thing as "Billy had correct results" today (see 'common core') and will get someone the same grade. Kids don't learn critical thinking, and don't learn social skills (generalizing for the majority, I won't discount exceptions).
Using the book example someone gave above, if I give a 1st grader a 9th grade level book and make them read it what happens? The child does not understand the book, even though they could read the words. Concepts of building education are very broken, which is why we see so man people giving up. That and the fact that College is extremely expensive and the economy being in this shape means that people don't want to spend the money or take out loans they will repay for 30 years.
You claim someone else told a bunch of bullshit, then you post prices that have not existed for 15 years! Hello Pot, meet Kettle! Look, I would agree with some things being cheaper than junk food. Rice is not enough to live on, and neither is beans. You know as much, but lets not let any actual facts get in the way of your asinine rant. In other words, there is plenty of room to debate here without liars.
Whole chicken on sale (with the bone and giblets) is at best 2.99 a pound at a grocery store in CA, 1.99 in Michigan. After you cook the water out and remove the bones, there really isn't much to eat. I normally cook this way (healthier and cheaper than boneless) and get 3-4 meals worth of meat and broth for two people (and yes I cook the Giblets and neck for broth). I also have to spend hours cooking and preparing, which I can afford to do. A person working 2 jobs would not have the time. Poor people may not have the gear required to cook.
If you live near a processing center and can purchase cheaper due to that, then that is not a fair expectation for the majority of people that have to buy at a grocery store.
Eggs are cheapest 2.49 a dozen in CA, 1.99 in Michigan. Same words as above apply if you live near a ranch.
Have a lick of common sense in the discussion, because bulk is not necessarily economical. I don't buy 25 pounds of anything because with 2 people at home I'd worry about bugs, even when storing them properly. I have purchased all kinds of things which included bugs which don't always get noticed immediately. A 25 lb bag of beans and 2 weevils means next month your pantry is fucked. I doubt you purchase 25lb bags of anything unless you are feeding enough people to cook it within a reasonable time frame.
Beans and Rice are not "healthy" by themselves. A person would die of malnutrition or be extremely ill by eating those two things alone. Even adding in a few eggs and chicken, there is no fruit or vegetables which are essential for human diet.
All that out of the way, there is a point we agree on. The "Welfare" state is unacceptable, unsustainable, and it's something that working people should not want. The causes for the Welfare state are many. Sanctioned greed is probably the biggest single factor, where a broker can make millions while losing all of your money. Banks do this and get more of your money, so I'm not just outing stock brokers. Deregulated monopolies, and laws being passed that favor large corporations over citizens.
There is a lot we need to do to "fix" the economy which puts jobs back. There is nothing happening now to do so, and in fact things like TPP will make the current situation even worse. With no jobs, or underpaying jobs as the "majority" of jobs in the US it won't get better. Blaming the guy on the bottom won't help, and believing you are immune to being on the bottom is idiocy.
wrong cat buddy
Did you miss While the fine may be barely noticeable for Google, the authority requires the search giant to publish this decision on Google's French homepage, google.fr for 48 hours within the next 8 days? This means that the current politicians get a nice fat bonus check and everyone else gets the middle finger.
Is it more likely that the real issue is that there are people in numerous countries that are all playing on the same team? Hint: That team is not your own, and does not care about average citizens.
Consider what has happened after Germany was found complicit in helping the NSA spy on Germans. Merkel said "don't", and "stop", and both intelligence agencies took that to mean "don't stop". Nobody from either side has been prosecuted for treason, and nobody knows if the practices have changed (no evidence to show there has been any change). We could say the same for the GCHQ and NSA (though Brit's may not be considered in the EU or have more autonomy than some smaller countries), and the same for Italy and the NSA. Hell, even Mosod and the NSA.
Yeah yeah, you are better than us and we are better than you makes a great appeal to emotion argument. It does not change what's being done in either place. You think Politicians in any country don't know or understand what Himler said? "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. ". Emphasis mine
Stop barking at each other and do something locally to force change.
What reform? Do you mean changing the practice to ensure that everything possible gets classified and buried deeper than previously? Do you mean the people that took over your Government also taking over the media to ensure you never see those types of messages again? You can't possibly be referring to the transparency it lead to, and you can't be referring to the people responsible for COINTELPRO going to jail because that never happened.
Sure, some people have heard of COINTELPRO but the majority of Americans have not. Of those a few may have heard of Operation Mocking bird too. Those are only the programs we have proof of, and there are many many more programs to explore (and we can't because it's all 'classified').
I'm sure you will claim that those are isolated incidents where our government misbehaved because, well, you have a history of doing just that. Which ignores MKUltra where our CIA drugged a whole lot of people with LSD without their knowledge (and that is one of the few pieces of the program we have proof of, but torture and abuse are also well known). The nice expanded operation that dumped radiation on poor people in Corpus Christi and St. Louis. Fast and Furious, etc... These "conspiracy theories" are all proven to exist and have some amount of information leaked. These are what we "know" are not just theories..
Deny all you want, but when shitty people hold power shitty things happen.
I was pretty clear on all accounts, try to reread it again. I would venture to guess that a large portion of the problem is that you believe Wiki is a source of truth for Logic and rhetoric which it is not. It is a human modified semi-truthful summary and not an in depth conceptual study for either of those subjects.
Very common today that people believe that simply looking at a Wiki or Google result gives them knowledge, and it does anything but present "knowledge".
As stated, read a text book on Logic (my text books are well over 500 pages each) and actually attempt to "learn" the subjects. Or don't and continue believing that an opinionated summary makes you intelligent. Either way, this discussion is concluded from my end.
Stop listening to what they are saying and watch what they do. If there was a difference you would see different actions, and perhaps different results. This is not the case.
Let me give an easy example. If I say "I am for pacifism" and then punch you in the nose you would question my claim of pro pacifism. If I again claim "I am pro pacifist" and punch you in the nose a second time, you should figure out really quickly that I am in fact a liar and not pro pacifism.
Look at the Democrat voting record, bills introduced, etc.. and no matter what they claim they are doing the same thing that the Republicans are doing. And of course vice versa. If they claim something different while they do things opposite to their claims, they are liars and not "different philosophies".
Examples (easy to verify). Obama claimed to be for closing Guantanamo, ending wars in the Middle East, pro US Economy, would end the corruption in banking, etc.. etc.. etc.. and none of those things were done. In fact wars in the Middle East have been expanded and Banks were not even investigated. TPP should answer any questions you have about his concern for the US Economy.
Stop making excuses for these people and see them for what they really are!
I think you skipped a few lectures in Logic. You could read, but don't. You could understand that Wiki is not a great source of truth on Logic and Philosophy as well. Reductio is what you are describing, which is an error in reducing arguments as required by the Socratic Method. That Reduction error is exactly what the Wiki page is referring too, and not the "absurdum" portion.
I realize that thinking can be very difficult, but Wiki lists "reductio ad hitlerum (which is not in any of my text books)" as a genetic fallacy. Do you really think that the level of reduction to something absurd can only be with Hitler references? Come now, you can't be daft. Get a good College level Logic text book and find out what good source claims about reductio ad absurdum. Further, Wiki's references given previously for straw man and slippery slope hint at it, let's see if you can connect the dots on why it's a conditional fallacy and not the same as a "reduction error". It only takes a trip to a University Book store to confirm. It would be better of course to take the classes that the books come from.
I could not find the speech by the quantum developer, but you can search. I have no reason to lie, and remember that the two other points I started with were correct (even though you claimed one was false). You don't have to take my word for it, but you can find the information on your own.
All of this is moot, of course, since my original statement about superpowers wasn't meant to be any form of logical argument or fallacy.
For this, there is no need to continue. Comparing a lack of knowledge (what I stated) to someone having superpowers (your counter to my statement) is illogical, and only done for the purpose of trying to win without concern for truth. That is about as anti philosophical as you can get, though I'm sure you will deny that.
BB has failed, and instead of trying to salvage anything they seem to be turning into the new patent troll company. Anyone else remember SCO? Hint: jump while you still can.
It's a reduction to the absurd, and it's not a fallacy at all, but a method of reasoning.
Yes, Depends, and No. Yes it's a reduction to the absurd. By Wiki's definition you would be correct but in practice it depends on the use (see slippery slope and straw man by Wiki's definition). My college text books list reductio ad absurdum as a conditional fallacy, No it's an "invalid" method of reasoning.
To the remainder, there is no reason to add clarity to what you claimed is false and what I have already shown to be true. Feigning ignorance is not very becoming especially when you tend to quote what you want to see so have read the materials.
The Study was done by sampling "whom" exactly? From TFA I see That's according to research by accounting and consultancy firm Ernst & Young, which suggests that more than half of people - 55 per cent - say they're comfortable sharing personal information with central government organisations, such as HM Revenue & Customs and the NHS. but I see no data on who was polled, what the sample rate was, etc...
99.28% of all statistics are manipulated to present a wanted message, 68.7% of those are made up on the spot, and 0.035% of them are actually correct.
I personally have no difficulty understanding fallacy arguments, perhaps it's you that should consider what you claim in a discussion. Reductio ad absurdum is an argument from the absurd. Where for example you claim something absurd like having superpowers as an answer to someone claiming we know that observation changes the results of experiments. (Quantum theory does not mean we might all have latent super powers.) That example is within the definition, as would be a claim of the flying spaghetti monster when discussing whether the Universe requires a creator.
If you intended something other than what you said, use more caution with your statements.
My description of the similarities of thought and observation I agree is lacking, but there is only so much I'm willing to do when I am pretty sure I'm correct. If you were courteous in your response, or simply inquisitive, I would most likely be different in my responses. *shrug*, not that you have been a complete douche, but not what I consider friendly dialogue.
If you stop and consider how observation and thinking are similar, perhaps you would see the point. If I can find the link to the interview I'll pass it along. You should also go looking since I was right about 1 of 2 statements you so bluntly claimed "wrong" on, and 2 out of 3 in the examples given are easily provable statements.
Only in the sense of "not proven mathematically impossible", not in the sense of "it's a consistent model for observed data needing explanation" nor even "it's possible with stuff we no exists, and it's just a question of engineering". The only theoretical model for time travel requires either a wormhole held open with fictional "exotic matter", that could exists in theory but there's no evidence for, or a non-standard model of general relativity. Very far-fetched stuff.
Look at it in true false statement on both sides. Your "not proven mathematically impossible" also matches with "mathematically possible". You are putting your own bias on the science.
With limited resources you have to choose what to fund. Priority goes to stuff that there's some evidence for, or some other strong reason to believe is true. Mere creative writing not yet proven impossible must be given lower priority. I didn't think that was at all controversial.
While I agree in a general sense, show me where science has become altruistic and only looks for the betterment of humanity and I'll change my opinion. Currently we have people with too much money that pay people (too little) to figure out how they can gain more wealth. We have scientists working on all sorts of nasty things which are much worse than this, which I perceive at worst as a waste of time. Complaining about this one is like complaining that your feather pillow is too soft while bed bugs chomp on you while you sleep.
And when I dig up that quote what do I win? I'll have to dig because the interview is older. I proved you wrong on the first one and can prove you wrong again (I have an exceptional memory, but don't necessarily pay attention to everything about an materials I read). I will agree that a simple google search did not come up with the result. "Quantum computer interview thinking about the state changes the state".
Nobody said we have superpowers except you (reducto ad absurdum) to try and prove yourself correct. I said that we don't really understand what's going on regarding certain quantum events, and simply thinking about the quantum state can change the quantum state, just like observing quantum events changes those events (as the linked article states with clarity). You claim that observation and thinking are dissimilar, which is untrue. Name my prize, and I'll go hunting
Fair enough on the first point, and I apologize for the statement. That said, the argument changes very little. By theoretical physics principles, time travel is possible. So the issue is still that you believe it's "nuts" to investigate whether or not it's actually being used by someone in the future.
As a skeptic, I happen to share your opinion that "I" would not waste time looking for it. But that is just my opinion. What harm is there for these people to investigate? We know it's possible. Further, they came up with a method of testing. Their method may not work, but this is exactly how we make progress.
It's the filtering process for experimental physics, where there are "quite limited experimental resources, so a higher bar than "we can't quite prove it impossible" is required".
This, as with the first point, is your opinion and I believe goes the wrong direction (my opinion). I see that as we come up with concepts and try to prove them, we come up with new concepts and new methods of proof. Science is all about progression, and if you say "don't do that one" it really needs good reason other than "I think its nuts". Searching for ways of killing off certain genes is something I would agree is nuts to investigate. Searching for faster ways to infect someone with a disease is also something I would agree is nuts. On the surface, I see no such harm in looking for time travelers.
Perhaps you believe it's frivolous or that science should be studying better things, and that's okay. I might agree with that if all of science was altruistic, but it's not.
That's not what you wrote? It may not be what you intended, but it is surely what you wrote. Here Physics puts time travel in the same bucket as God: we can't prove it's impossible, but it's not needed to explain anything. which claims similarity and dismisses both concepts. Here Spending resources looking for time travelers is a bit nuts. which claims your belief about pursuit of these topics as "nuts". And finally here OTOH, purely theoretical exploration of the math around time travel is valuable, because the areas where theory describes oddities are often the most productive areas to investigate. where you change your position enough to claim that only what _you_ consider productive matters (which of course is subjective).
That does not answer the question, and your first sentence is only partial. The Universe came from nothing, or from something. Claiming it always existed runs contrary to what we know about physics. It's an interesting paradox to discuss, but is also invalidated by observation at just about every level.
Which one? The only statement you said is false and continue to claim is false which contradicts the information I provided to find the data. Further, you didn't bother to read the science behind the article I presented or just dismissed it out of ignorance to your own belief system.