You are mentally ill if you believe that torture is the same thing as gathering honey, which requires almost no interaction with the bees and does not cause them any harm.
I'm not a PETA member, and eat meat. I would not eat meat if I found the producer advocating or allowing inhumane treatment however. To believe that you must have one to get the other is idiocy. So I think you are a troll.
He's a comedian. A comedian's job is to make you laugh, and the easiest way to do that is Satire. It's harder to control comedy and satire than printed media. I can give you a hefty list of US Comedians that use satire to show you how shitty the US was becoming and has become, starting with George Carlin, and including Lewis Black.
Let me try to open your eyes, under the assumption you want them opened.
How does knowing about the existence of a program equal in depth knowledge of the details in the program? There is no such magical connection, though there are many people that will tell you there is.
For example, knowing that the ATF is buying guns in the US and giving them to foreign people is something every congressman should be aware of. They should have all had a chance to critique the spending bill, and deny such a foolish act by the ATF. They didn't need to know the guns were being given to Mexican drug gangs, nor did they need to know what stores they were being purchase from.
There is no positive way to spin the basis for knowing what's happening and having our elected officials ask their constituents if the action should be supported. As John F. Kennedy stated, "The very idea of secrecy in a free and open society is repugnant.".
Now, if the spending bill is allowed the Congressmen, Minister, etc.. don't need the details. Approving the plan does not mean they need to know all of the details. If the CIA is spending money to bring foreign scientists out of Russia and to the US, our elected officials don't need to know the "who" because they have already approved of the plan. Then again, you have a "Secret" plan called Operation Paperclip which freed thousands of German's that should have been in jail. See how this secrecy thing works?
This is the big question. Now that you know you were duped, spied on, and the citizens you are supposed to be serving have been taken advantage of, what will you do?
My guess is nothing, it'll be USA part 2. A few bands will file suit, everything will be classified secret, and nothing will happen. It's not just the US that needs to be considering a revolt, the UK is just as bad as we are in nearly everything.
Interesting to hear Russel Brand talk about his own country here in the US, since we really get little information that is not "party line".
Everyone wants smaller government until they don't get services they want. There is a tradeoff. If you don't want an agency like the EPA, you have to accept the reality before: polluted water, polluted air, acid rain, etc. Blah Blah same old propaganda
Spare the rhetoric, it does not work on people that are educated. When you look at ACA, it's not an essential service. Welfare is not essential either, but at least we can state that it helps some people. The job of the Federal Government is not Welfare. The job of the Federal Government is to protect the US from invading Armies and resolve issues between States. If you were even slightly educated on our Government, you would know this information. You would also see how ACA over steps the bounds of Federal Government and puts more power in he hands of the Federal Government, thus making it both unconstitutional and against the spirit of a Democratic Republic.
And the courts are supposed to make this call about what is and is not constitutional. SCOTUS ruled against the GOP. Yet you know so much more than them. Your law degree is from where exactly? Again the cry of "limited government" when it suits you.
If the courts are stacked with anti-Americans, they won't rule for the people. This is why SCOTUS is should have limited terms just like all political offices. To see them perform illegal actions and not admit corruption is idiotic. I never claimed to be a lawyer either, so save the straw man and appeal to intellect fallacies. One does not have to hold a law degree in order to understand Law, History, and Current events. Further, you don't need to be an economist to understand economics. That is poppycock rhetoric handed down as propaganda.
Everything else you claim is simply repeating propaganda from Obama. You still ignored the question regarding Ron Paul, and ignored your own Constitution in order to justify your belief in propaganda. If you are content to be a parrot for the party, goodie for you. Don't expect Philosophers to follow do the same.
There is no mention in the Constitution of the ACA being legal or not, because it's a hair brained scheme that came about over 20 years ago to increase dependence on the Government and increase control (The CFR has requested the Government take this over since the 70s in various CFR publications). We have had various discussions and plans for it, but it was never passed until ACA because there were enough politicians in Federal Government to squelch the unconstitutional law attempts.
Now what the Constitution and History does say is that the Federal Government must be limited in powers. Giving them control over health insurance is the exact opposite of limited powers. It does not take a genius to figure that out, nor does it take a genius to read history and see that Limited Government is essential to a Free People/Democratic Republic.
Neither Ron or Rand Paul nor you knows anything about me. You've just basically assumed so many things about me. I actually watch very little television, btw. You seem to be under the delusion that you can ignore the procedures of how to pass a bill in the Congress.
I didn't guess, I presented a question. Since you don't seem to know what they have stated on the subject, I believe my guess was correct. Your inability to answer the question and your immediate defensive posture also back my guess. Changing the subject from the legality of the ACA to "how to pass a bill" further entrenches my belief.
You also ignore that the Supreme Court is corrupt and anti-American. When they rule that Corporations are People and that the Government can punish people and squelch the First amendment that corruption should be painfully obvious.
People like you repeating Obama rhetoric won't fix issues, you exacerbate them. Want it fixed? Get the career politicians out of office and demand term limits on all public offices. Want to continue down the slope of Authoritarianism/Tyranny/Communism keep things the way they are and keep ignoring whats broken.
You are funny, repeating the same lie over and over won't make it true. You also claim I need to read the constitution, yet claim ACA is legal?
Politics is _supposed_ to be about compromise and working for the best interest of the Public. Obama and his cronies refusing to pass a spending bill without additional funding for ACA shows you which side he is really on, and it's not the US People's side. Propaganda media won't give the other side of the argument, so you have to do some actual work to find out who is for and against what.
Have you refused to listen to Rand Paul and Ron Paul on the issue? My guess is that you ignore them, because you are still under the delusion that there is a Democrat and Republican party working slightly differently for the best interest of US Citizens. It's much easier to believe television propaganda.
First, the furloughs don't impact many DOD jobs. DOD work is not like working for a private company for several reasons. First, because funding is given ahead of time in the contract by Law. Second, most DOD spending is protected. Meaning that once approved for spending the funding continues unless Congress cancels the contract by changing the Law. Lastly, most Military spending is considered essential and does not require annual approval for spending (which is what's currently frozen).
General Dynamics, for example, received payments for FCS until Congress cancelled the contract by changing the Law. They worked actively on the project the whole time they were getting paid. Of course during the 2 year talks before cancelling, many other companies laid people off claiming "no funding". In some situations money may be "frozen", but that is not the same thing as the Government cancelling a contract.
Fear mongering is not something new, and we are seeing it heavy on both sides today.
The fix for this crap has been there for a long time. Members and staff of the Senate, Congress, and the executive branch should be the first to lose pay in the case of a disagreement like this. Like term limits, it has not been enacted. People would rather cry about a false dilemma than actually take action, making sure the media never mentions the "fix" and misleads the public on what's wrong.
If you look at some of the people fighting the additional payments, they are not pro-war either. The base of the fighters are more Libertarian and 'Tea party' than 'Republican'. A few people with similar ideas to Ron Paul did get elected to office, and in my opinion we need to wipe out the cronies and get more people involved who are pro Constitution and against the NWO clan currently holding so many offices.
This is not about repealing, it's about not allowing additional funding. Correlation != Causation and all that.
It should also make you really question the propaganda coming from der furor Obama and his cronies when you realize that there has been 42 tries at repealing a questionable law. It has no economic benefit (in fact it has negative impact), requires money we don't have, and gives the US Federal Government much more power than it is supposed to have under our Constitution.
I'm not Republican, nor am I Democrat. I don't agree with either parties lines, but look at the Constitution and what we are supposed to be verses what we are and what people in power are trying to do. I try to read the laws and understand the implication, not follow a "party".
So who pays for the money that the federal government is handing out? Nothing is "free" but as with most propaganda we are hearing, you refuse to discuss who is actually paying the bills for welfare (and yes, free health care counts as welfare).
I agree with you pointing out that the lay-off was just convenient, but the rest is the same lines of crap we keep hearing on TV media which are based on lies.
Deregulation is what started to screw up the insurance industry, and the proper fix should have been to re-implement regulation and not have a Government take over. The same can be said with Banking, and utilities.
All the money that was printed and handed out to people by the Government has not helped the economy, it has put us on the path to fascism/authoritarian Government. Repeating the party propaganda won't change that, it will only help facilitate a delusion that we are still a Constitutional Republic.
Unless you find out that the funding that they are fighting about for Obamacare was not in the original Law. It was supposed to use existing funding and a wee bit more. Then after it was passed, they decided that it needed 900 billion more dollars. This is why there is so much fuss from Republicans. It was not supposed to have any need for additional funding. In a country that 17 Trillion dollars in debt (this is if we could pay in cash, the actual debt with interest is estimated at nearly 100 Trillion) we can't afford to add another trillion dollars to a bill that was supposed to be covered.
Irritation? I think it's worse than that with the eugenics people. I side with Socrates over the Sophists, and despise this type of rhetoric for the same reasons. Philosophy should not be used for personal gain, but should be used for bettering society. I may actually be irritated because people are repeatedly being duped by the same propaganda, and on a site where people are supposed to be intellectuals it's befuddling that the same rhetorical tricks seem to always work.
In the last year, there have been at least 5 different articles of "science" claiming to be able to work magic with words. This is everything from labeling you as a psychopath or a sociopath by your 1024 or less character tweets, to determining if you will be a future criminal by your DNA, to this one claiming to be able to know your emotion by a single email (or the emotions involved while you created your email). None of this is possible, but since they wrap it in a box labelled "science" people seem to ignore the content.
Sense of intellectual superiority? That is an entirely subjective, quite possibly stated as an ad hominem.
Exactly what language give you the idea that I claim that a communication could not cause harm? I never make that claim, and make no implication. I claim that communications are subjective.
This is not indicative of there "emotions". This is indicative of their education, wisdom, and who they are having a conversation with and the topics of discussion.
Seriously, do I give any hint that communication in any medium is different (internet vs. diary vs. book)? The point I raise is not that you can't harm someone in a communication, the point is that you can't know their intent by the words chosen from a single email.
If I was to analyze a threaded communication, I would get an idea that it's possible your "piss off" email was a joke and not malicious. Having no such thread and looking at the "piss off" email I can make no such speculation rationally, and should make no claim that it's possible. Especially considering that when I read the thread and assume you were joking, I may be very very wrong.
The point is not that communication is not real depending on the medium. The point is that we can't use a single communication as a reference to claim to know a person's emotional state or psychological state.
Your logic is not quite correct. Historically, education never focused on the slowest or fastest learners, it focused on the middle. That is what public education is supposed to do. If you compare the number of truly gifted people to the number of true idiots, the numbers favor the idiots. So historically, schools were in the right game and _should_ be targeting the middle. Not the upper, and not the lower ends. A real intelligent kid can still get an accelerated education. If a person is too smart, they get double promoted up grades to keep them learning ahead of pace.
Common core is an attempt to focus more on the dumber, but hell most people today are like bricks. Yes, the last 40-50 years at least of education has been horrible at producing intelligent people. My kid went to private school because of how bad public schools have gotten, mostly due to US Government mandates on curriculum and methods.
What's really cool to me is now that my kid is in college, he admits all my ranting about the education system while he was growing up was correct. He sees how messed even junior college has become because of Government intervention. More so, he sees how stupid people are that came from public schools.
You could just as easily use those words due to ignorance and be repeating what you heard someone else say, and not intentionally using fear correct? How would a person or application be able to discern the difference? It can't because, as with any language, there is a tremendous amount of subjectivity in the words.
To take this a bit further, we often apply emotional words in an exactly different theme than our emotion. Take satire as a massive example. Another smaller example would be the person who just experienced a death of a close loved one that realizes they are emotionally distraught so intentionally choose words to mask their emotion (or for someone with knowledge of psychology, to facilitate changing their emotional state).
These small examples show that the claim is based on the false premise that you can know (via empathy, psychological profiling, etc..) what someone means when communicating. This is counter intuitive with even a basic understanding of language. One of the reasons we have so many different languages is that we have never perfected one that expresses our precise meaning, let alone our psychological reference for making our statements.
Cronyism is not Capitalism, and what you point at is called cronyism. Gates does not help non-members of the club. Investigate the Gates foundation and how much money they collect to pass to the good-ole boy pharmaceutical companies for the vaccines they charge foreign governments to give. And yes, when you use those vaccines for free contracts, tax free zones for your buddies, etc.. the foreign Government is paying for them.
Capitalism is a flawed design (as is true with all economic systems due to human nature), but the flaws were considered in the design when Adam Smith discussed the principles. This is why Government is supposed to be intervening to maintain balance and prevent monopolization and cronyism. They did actually do that occasionally, just not any time in recent memory.
It is apparent that you missed "The same researchers say they are developing a Google app that will allow users to track their own emotions towards the people they correspond with in Gmail."
If you choose to ignore what the article claims that is not my issue, but yours. I didn't read anything into the article, I read the whole article.
It is then a straightforward matter to search Tweets, novels and even fairy tales to see what emotions appear. Now, researchers have carried out the first large-scale study of sentiment in workplace emails. They examined the emotions associated with words in over 30,000 emails and analyzed the emotional differences between messages sent by men and women.
If you are determining that someone is of an emotion, you are determining their emotional state. If you are determining an emotional difference, you must know two states of emotion. Logic and reason is not very complex, but many people choose not to use either.
Of course men and women use different language in their emails. Young men would use different language than middle aged or older people do. A person emailing a friend would have different language than when they email their boss. This is not indicative of there "emotions". This is indicative of their education, wisdom, and who they are having a conversation with and the topics of discussion.
This whole article discusses work done on an absolutely false premise. Emails can not be used to determine your emotional state, any more than tweets can not be used to determine your psychological state.
Pack it in you eugenics morons! We are on to your game!
While you raise an interesting point, that open journals should be very suspicious and scrutinize probably better than closed systems, the point is regarding a study which was not at all scientific. If an experiment is done to show people accepting bad papers and only one group is tested, how is this "science". More importantly since this is an article, how is it "fair" journalism?
Since I see garbage on closed proprietary sites as well, why would they not also submit the same bogus papers to closed journals? If you want examples read just about every corporate sponsored report on GMO foods and Global Warming. Perhaps they did sample closed systems, and they did not publish the result. Did the result not favor their implication that "open is bad"? This becomes a very important question.
Hell, maybe it's a spoof report to see how many suckers fall for the gag. I doubt it, since censorship has been a hot topic to the string pullers for quite some time.
Analogy time for the people not seeing it. This "study" and article is like having people inspect Super 8 motels and finding roaches in more than half the rooms, then claiming "More than half of all Hotel rooms are infected with roaches.".
That is obviously sensationalizing a study which is not at all scientific.
I was not just making a point about the Universe not reflecting the model. It's the point that a lot of what we are calling "science" today is simply not science, or at least not "fact based science".
The person I responded to probably read an article or a book on a cosmology theory of a N dimension universe. Okay, it was in a book. That does not mean we should believe it because someone wrote it, it's a theory. Those theories have no backing, except for perhaps someone's hypothetical math problem which they can solve by making 2 or more additional dimensions in the current models of the Universe.
If a person believes that, I have no issues. Just like I have no issues with a Buddhist believing in Karma, or a Catholic believing in all of their beliefs.
To espouse a belief as fact, and use that belief to ridicule people and diminish other beliefs I take serious issues with. It happens on this site all the time. Someone mentions a religious belief and they are inundated with comments about Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory, and silenced. Moderators downgrade their posts and mark them "flamebait" or "troll" just like they did mine because I declared that the "belief" system in science is the same as the "belief" system in Religion.
The so-called intellectuals don't realize that both Evolution and Big Bang are also Theories and both are unproven. We have never seen a species evolve into a new species, only seen variations in species. We have "belief" that in time it could happen and have numerous examples of proven variation in species. But the theory that a mouse could evolve into something other than a mouse is not proven. Say that here, and you are treated the same as the person claiming that the Book of Genesis may contain some fact. Ridiculed, silenced, and shouted out.
Those reductions in rational discourse diminish science, they don't help them. As stated elsewhere in the post, a more logical direction for myself (being a realist) is to claim that we are missing data and have to refine methods. Not believe in a theory because someone wrote a book on the theory.
Slashdot Mirror
You are mentally ill if you believe that torture is the same thing as gathering honey, which requires almost no interaction with the bees and does not cause them any harm.
I'm not a PETA member, and eat meat. I would not eat meat if I found the producer advocating or allowing inhumane treatment however. To believe that you must have one to get the other is idiocy. So I think you are a troll.
He's a comedian. A comedian's job is to make you laugh, and the easiest way to do that is Satire. It's harder to control comedy and satire than printed media. I can give you a hefty list of US Comedians that use satire to show you how shitty the US was becoming and has become, starting with George Carlin, and including Lewis Black.
Let me try to open your eyes, under the assumption you want them opened.
How does knowing about the existence of a program equal in depth knowledge of the details in the program? There is no such magical connection, though there are many people that will tell you there is.
For example, knowing that the ATF is buying guns in the US and giving them to foreign people is something every congressman should be aware of. They should have all had a chance to critique the spending bill, and deny such a foolish act by the ATF. They didn't need to know the guns were being given to Mexican drug gangs, nor did they need to know what stores they were being purchase from.
There is no positive way to spin the basis for knowing what's happening and having our elected officials ask their constituents if the action should be supported. As John F. Kennedy stated, "The very idea of secrecy in a free and open society is repugnant.".
Now, if the spending bill is allowed the Congressmen, Minister, etc.. don't need the details. Approving the plan does not mean they need to know all of the details. If the CIA is spending money to bring foreign scientists out of Russia and to the US, our elected officials don't need to know the "who" because they have already approved of the plan. Then again, you have a "Secret" plan called Operation Paperclip which freed thousands of German's that should have been in jail. See how this secrecy thing works?
This is the big question. Now that you know you were duped, spied on, and the citizens you are supposed to be serving have been taken advantage of, what will you do?
My guess is nothing, it'll be USA part 2. A few bands will file suit, everything will be classified secret, and nothing will happen. It's not just the US that needs to be considering a revolt, the UK is just as bad as we are in nearly everything.
Interesting to hear Russel Brand talk about his own country here in the US, since we really get little information that is not "party line".
Everyone wants smaller government until they don't get services they want. There is a tradeoff. If you don't want an agency like the EPA, you have to accept the reality before: polluted water, polluted air, acid rain, etc. Blah Blah same old propaganda
Spare the rhetoric, it does not work on people that are educated. When you look at ACA, it's not an essential service. Welfare is not essential either, but at least we can state that it helps some people. The job of the Federal Government is not Welfare. The job of the Federal Government is to protect the US from invading Armies and resolve issues between States. If you were even slightly educated on our Government, you would know this information. You would also see how ACA over steps the bounds of Federal Government and puts more power in he hands of the Federal Government, thus making it both unconstitutional and against the spirit of a Democratic Republic.
And the courts are supposed to make this call about what is and is not constitutional. SCOTUS ruled against the GOP. Yet you know so much more than them. Your law degree is from where exactly? Again the cry of "limited government" when it suits you.
If the courts are stacked with anti-Americans, they won't rule for the people. This is why SCOTUS is should have limited terms just like all political offices. To see them perform illegal actions and not admit corruption is idiotic. I never claimed to be a lawyer either, so save the straw man and appeal to intellect fallacies. One does not have to hold a law degree in order to understand Law, History, and Current events. Further, you don't need to be an economist to understand economics. That is poppycock rhetoric handed down as propaganda.
Everything else you claim is simply repeating propaganda from Obama. You still ignored the question regarding Ron Paul, and ignored your own Constitution in order to justify your belief in propaganda. If you are content to be a parrot for the party, goodie for you. Don't expect Philosophers to follow do the same.
There is no mention in the Constitution of the ACA being legal or not, because it's a hair brained scheme that came about over 20 years ago to increase dependence on the Government and increase control (The CFR has requested the Government take this over since the 70s in various CFR publications). We have had various discussions and plans for it, but it was never passed until ACA because there were enough politicians in Federal Government to squelch the unconstitutional law attempts.
Now what the Constitution and History does say is that the Federal Government must be limited in powers. Giving them control over health insurance is the exact opposite of limited powers. It does not take a genius to figure that out, nor does it take a genius to read history and see that Limited Government is essential to a Free People/Democratic Republic.
Neither Ron or Rand Paul nor you knows anything about me. You've just basically assumed so many things about me. I actually watch very little television, btw. You seem to be under the delusion that you can ignore the procedures of how to pass a bill in the Congress.
I didn't guess, I presented a question. Since you don't seem to know what they have stated on the subject, I believe my guess was correct. Your inability to answer the question and your immediate defensive posture also back my guess. Changing the subject from the legality of the ACA to "how to pass a bill" further entrenches my belief.
You also ignore that the Supreme Court is corrupt and anti-American. When they rule that Corporations are People and that the Government can punish people and squelch the First amendment that corruption should be painfully obvious.
People like you repeating Obama rhetoric won't fix issues, you exacerbate them. Want it fixed? Get the career politicians out of office and demand term limits on all public offices. Want to continue down the slope of Authoritarianism/Tyranny/Communism keep things the way they are and keep ignoring whats broken.
You are funny, repeating the same lie over and over won't make it true. You also claim I need to read the constitution, yet claim ACA is legal?
Politics is _supposed_ to be about compromise and working for the best interest of the Public. Obama and his cronies refusing to pass a spending bill without additional funding for ACA shows you which side he is really on, and it's not the US People's side. Propaganda media won't give the other side of the argument, so you have to do some actual work to find out who is for and against what.
Have you refused to listen to Rand Paul and Ron Paul on the issue? My guess is that you ignore them, because you are still under the delusion that there is a Democrat and Republican party working slightly differently for the best interest of US Citizens. It's much easier to believe television propaganda.
First, the furloughs don't impact many DOD jobs. DOD work is not like working for a private company for several reasons. First, because funding is given ahead of time in the contract by Law. Second, most DOD spending is protected. Meaning that once approved for spending the funding continues unless Congress cancels the contract by changing the Law. Lastly, most Military spending is considered essential and does not require annual approval for spending (which is what's currently frozen).
General Dynamics, for example, received payments for FCS until Congress cancelled the contract by changing the Law. They worked actively on the project the whole time they were getting paid. Of course during the 2 year talks before cancelling, many other companies laid people off claiming "no funding". In some situations money may be "frozen", but that is not the same thing as the Government cancelling a contract.
Fear mongering is not something new, and we are seeing it heavy on both sides today.
The fix for this crap has been there for a long time. Members and staff of the Senate, Congress, and the executive branch should be the first to lose pay in the case of a disagreement like this. Like term limits, it has not been enacted. People would rather cry about a false dilemma than actually take action, making sure the media never mentions the "fix" and misleads the public on what's wrong.
If you look at some of the people fighting the additional payments, they are not pro-war either. The base of the fighters are more Libertarian and 'Tea party' than 'Republican'. A few people with similar ideas to Ron Paul did get elected to office, and in my opinion we need to wipe out the cronies and get more people involved who are pro Constitution and against the NWO clan currently holding so many offices.
This is not about repealing, it's about not allowing additional funding. Correlation != Causation and all that.
It should also make you really question the propaganda coming from der furor Obama and his cronies when you realize that there has been 42 tries at repealing a questionable law. It has no economic benefit (in fact it has negative impact), requires money we don't have, and gives the US Federal Government much more power than it is supposed to have under our Constitution.
I'm not Republican, nor am I Democrat. I don't agree with either parties lines, but look at the Constitution and what we are supposed to be verses what we are and what people in power are trying to do. I try to read the laws and understand the implication, not follow a "party".
So who pays for the money that the federal government is handing out? Nothing is "free" but as with most propaganda we are hearing, you refuse to discuss who is actually paying the bills for welfare (and yes, free health care counts as welfare).
I agree with you pointing out that the lay-off was just convenient, but the rest is the same lines of crap we keep hearing on TV media which are based on lies.
Deregulation is what started to screw up the insurance industry, and the proper fix should have been to re-implement regulation and not have a Government take over. The same can be said with Banking, and utilities.
All the money that was printed and handed out to people by the Government has not helped the economy, it has put us on the path to fascism/authoritarian Government. Repeating the party propaganda won't change that, it will only help facilitate a delusion that we are still a Constitutional Republic.
Unless you find out that the funding that they are fighting about for Obamacare was not in the original Law. It was supposed to use existing funding and a wee bit more. Then after it was passed, they decided that it needed 900 billion more dollars. This is why there is so much fuss from Republicans. It was not supposed to have any need for additional funding. In a country that 17 Trillion dollars in debt (this is if we could pay in cash, the actual debt with interest is estimated at nearly 100 Trillion) we can't afford to add another trillion dollars to a bill that was supposed to be covered.
Irritation? I think it's worse than that with the eugenics people. I side with Socrates over the Sophists, and despise this type of rhetoric for the same reasons. Philosophy should not be used for personal gain, but should be used for bettering society. I may actually be irritated because people are repeatedly being duped by the same propaganda, and on a site where people are supposed to be intellectuals it's befuddling that the same rhetorical tricks seem to always work.
In the last year, there have been at least 5 different articles of "science" claiming to be able to work magic with words. This is everything from labeling you as a psychopath or a sociopath by your 1024 or less character tweets, to determining if you will be a future criminal by your DNA, to this one claiming to be able to know your emotion by a single email (or the emotions involved while you created your email). None of this is possible, but since they wrap it in a box labelled "science" people seem to ignore the content.
Sense of intellectual superiority? That is an entirely subjective, quite possibly stated as an ad hominem.
Come now mods, this is absolutely not a troll.
Exactly what language give you the idea that I claim that a communication could not cause harm? I never make that claim, and make no implication. I claim that communications are subjective.
This is not indicative of there "emotions". This is indicative of their education, wisdom, and who they are having a conversation with and the topics of discussion.
Seriously, do I give any hint that communication in any medium is different (internet vs. diary vs. book)? The point I raise is not that you can't harm someone in a communication, the point is that you can't know their intent by the words chosen from a single email.
If I was to analyze a threaded communication, I would get an idea that it's possible your "piss off" email was a joke and not malicious. Having no such thread and looking at the "piss off" email I can make no such speculation rationally, and should make no claim that it's possible. Especially considering that when I read the thread and assume you were joking, I may be very very wrong.
The point is not that communication is not real depending on the medium. The point is that we can't use a single communication as a reference to claim to know a person's emotional state or psychological state.
Your logic is not quite correct. Historically, education never focused on the slowest or fastest learners, it focused on the middle. That is what public education is supposed to do. If you compare the number of truly gifted people to the number of true idiots, the numbers favor the idiots. So historically, schools were in the right game and _should_ be targeting the middle. Not the upper, and not the lower ends. A real intelligent kid can still get an accelerated education. If a person is too smart, they get double promoted up grades to keep them learning ahead of pace.
Common core is an attempt to focus more on the dumber, but hell most people today are like bricks. Yes, the last 40-50 years at least of education has been horrible at producing intelligent people. My kid went to private school because of how bad public schools have gotten, mostly due to US Government mandates on curriculum and methods.
What's really cool to me is now that my kid is in college, he admits all my ranting about the education system while he was growing up was correct. He sees how messed even junior college has become because of Government intervention. More so, he sees how stupid people are that came from public schools.
You could just as easily use those words due to ignorance and be repeating what you heard someone else say, and not intentionally using fear correct? How would a person or application be able to discern the difference? It can't because, as with any language, there is a tremendous amount of subjectivity in the words.
To take this a bit further, we often apply emotional words in an exactly different theme than our emotion. Take satire as a massive example. Another smaller example would be the person who just experienced a death of a close loved one that realizes they are emotionally distraught so intentionally choose words to mask their emotion (or for someone with knowledge of psychology, to facilitate changing their emotional state).
These small examples show that the claim is based on the false premise that you can know (via empathy, psychological profiling, etc..) what someone means when communicating. This is counter intuitive with even a basic understanding of language. One of the reasons we have so many different languages is that we have never perfected one that expresses our precise meaning, let alone our psychological reference for making our statements.
Cronyism is not Capitalism, and what you point at is called cronyism. Gates does not help non-members of the club. Investigate the Gates foundation and how much money they collect to pass to the good-ole boy pharmaceutical companies for the vaccines they charge foreign governments to give. And yes, when you use those vaccines for free contracts, tax free zones for your buddies, etc.. the foreign Government is paying for them.
Capitalism is a flawed design (as is true with all economic systems due to human nature), but the flaws were considered in the design when Adam Smith discussed the principles. This is why Government is supposed to be intervening to maintain balance and prevent monopolization and cronyism. They did actually do that occasionally, just not any time in recent memory.
It is apparent that you missed "The same researchers say they are developing a Google app that will allow users to track their own emotions towards the people they correspond with in Gmail."
If you choose to ignore what the article claims that is not my issue, but yours. I didn't read anything into the article, I read the whole article.
It is then a straightforward matter to search Tweets, novels and even fairy tales to see what emotions appear. Now, researchers have carried out the first large-scale study of sentiment in workplace emails. They examined the emotions associated with words in over 30,000 emails and analyzed the emotional differences between messages sent by men and women.
If you are determining that someone is of an emotion, you are determining their emotional state. If you are determining an emotional difference, you must know two states of emotion. Logic and reason is not very complex, but many people choose not to use either.
Of course men and women use different language in their emails. Young men would use different language than middle aged or older people do. A person emailing a friend would have different language than when they email their boss. This is not indicative of there "emotions". This is indicative of their education, wisdom, and who they are having a conversation with and the topics of discussion.
This whole article discusses work done on an absolutely false premise. Emails can not be used to determine your emotional state, any more than tweets can not be used to determine your psychological state.
Pack it in you eugenics morons! We are on to your game!
While you raise an interesting point, that open journals should be very suspicious and scrutinize probably better than closed systems, the point is regarding a study which was not at all scientific. If an experiment is done to show people accepting bad papers and only one group is tested, how is this "science". More importantly since this is an article, how is it "fair" journalism?
Since I see garbage on closed proprietary sites as well, why would they not also submit the same bogus papers to closed journals? If you want examples read just about every corporate sponsored report on GMO foods and Global Warming. Perhaps they did sample closed systems, and they did not publish the result. Did the result not favor their implication that "open is bad"? This becomes a very important question.
Hell, maybe it's a spoof report to see how many suckers fall for the gag. I doubt it, since censorship has been a hot topic to the string pullers for quite some time.
Analogy time for the people not seeing it. This "study" and article is like having people inspect Super 8 motels and finding roaches in more than half the rooms, then claiming "More than half of all Hotel rooms are infected with roaches.".
That is obviously sensationalizing a study which is not at all scientific.
Thanks for making my point!! :D
I was not just making a point about the Universe not reflecting the model. It's the point that a lot of what we are calling "science" today is simply not science, or at least not "fact based science".
The person I responded to probably read an article or a book on a cosmology theory of a N dimension universe. Okay, it was in a book. That does not mean we should believe it because someone wrote it, it's a theory. Those theories have no backing, except for perhaps someone's hypothetical math problem which they can solve by making 2 or more additional dimensions in the current models of the Universe.
If a person believes that, I have no issues. Just like I have no issues with a Buddhist believing in Karma, or a Catholic believing in all of their beliefs.
To espouse a belief as fact, and use that belief to ridicule people and diminish other beliefs I take serious issues with. It happens on this site all the time. Someone mentions a religious belief and they are inundated with comments about Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory, and silenced. Moderators downgrade their posts and mark them "flamebait" or "troll" just like they did mine because I declared that the "belief" system in science is the same as the "belief" system in Religion.
The so-called intellectuals don't realize that both Evolution and Big Bang are also Theories and both are unproven. We have never seen a species evolve into a new species, only seen variations in species. We have "belief" that in time it could happen and have numerous examples of proven variation in species. But the theory that a mouse could evolve into something other than a mouse is not proven. Say that here, and you are treated the same as the person claiming that the Book of Genesis may contain some fact. Ridiculed, silenced, and shouted out.
Those reductions in rational discourse diminish science, they don't help them. As stated elsewhere in the post, a more logical direction for myself (being a realist) is to claim that we are missing data and have to refine methods. Not believe in a theory because someone wrote a book on the theory.