So the Cosmologist that believes in String theory must also be a fool right? We can't predict string theory either, there are literally hundreds to choose from and all require imaginary numbers and theories as a starting point. We also must use magical made up numbers to predict the "big bang" to determine the origin of the Universe. Those cosmologists must be fools also then?
It's really sad if you truly believe that your "belief" in the Big Bang is any better than the "belief" in having a creator. Both require faith. Both are only beliefs and neither are proven. Neither can be proven, but that's a philosophical discussion for a different day.
What I find more sad is that moderators rate a bigoted comment with no rationalization as +5 insightful.
Your fallacy does not make you correct. I do realize that logic and critical thinking is difficult, but at least make an attempt.
As with other commentators, I'm fine with you having beliefs. I have lots of my own, as does a Catholic, or any Cosmologist or Theoretical Physicist. We use some reasoning to get to our beliefs, so very few are truly irrational. What is irrational is claiming that your belief is factual, and that everyone else should share your belief.
Huh? Moderation has yet to occur. If the post gets modded over-rated a few times, nobody sees the comment. Other people have said the same thing in a nicer way, so the pointer to the correction still exists. Of course/. does not allow you to edit your own comments to correct grammar and spelling, which if it was a "Science" site I would consider essential.
Claiming a raw string of words breaks ever single comment in a thread is like claiming that having "twat" in the dictionary makes it an obscene book. It's a very small portion of the book, and I'll bet more people notice the word "twat" than would notice a moderated down personal attack.
Nope, they just need to understand a few very basic concepts of rhetoric (fallacy detecting) and skill with the language.
a) Moderator sees "you are an idiot" and removes the post for ad hominem.
b) Moderator sees "Obama's drone killing" in commentary for a fluid dynamics article is removed as "off topic". Does not matter if it was a strawman or red herring.
c) Moderator sees a 2nd post pointing out a spelling or grammar and removes that post for redundancy.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to discuss rocket science. If that was true, we would have never gotten to the moon because a physicist would not have been able to talk to a mathematician who would not have been able to talk to the engineer, etc... Claiming you must be an expert in a field to discuss or understand a field is incorrect.
it's clear to me that the issue isn't with science itself, or how it's "done" in some sort of ontological sense.
I disagree with the terminology here, because while "science" never changes the politics around what is approved for teaching has always been political. I believe that's much of the concern with shutting down blog posts, as is discussed very well here. If a person points out a typographical error, it's beneficial to the article. If a person points out a different study with different results, it is also beneficial to the science. Shutting down comments removes both of those possibilities.
the issue is with how people perceive science, and how they perceive others' perceptions of science to be. These meta-perceptions are really what the whole issue is about.
I disagree with this also, because people believe what they are taught. I'm giving an extreme point here intentionally, so don't be offended. You and I might be able to have a lengthy and healthy discussion on the merits of a creator from a Philosophical perspective. That is science, like it or not, though people tend to jump to immediately defending their beliefs (which is why I italicized "might"). We can each have competing theories, and we can each present our points. Today, it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion on the topic because people have only been taught one side of the debate, in addition to all of the propaganda to support their beliefs. If people were taught to recognize fallacy and taught to be neutral in beliefs until their are no questionable facts remaining we could have such a debate. (I realize that facts are limited in this discussion, the extreme is being used to amplify the point).
If you only read one persons point and never question that point, you are not doing science. You are being propagandized. Unless of course you are talking about very basic things, like 2+2=4 which are unquestionable facts. Point being, complex science requires complex debate and study.
For a comment to further scientific discourse, not only does it have to contribute a constructive thought, but others need to perceive it as constructive and build further on it. Web comments are often exactly the opposite - people make a mental impression of your comment without fully trying to comprehend (or even read!) it, and respond based on that. So you get what we have here today. Trolls, shills, pedants, and grammar nazis.
Actually, my favorite comments are at the right-wing rag Daily Caller. Every single comment thread devolves into one party accusing the other party of being closet democrats.
That statement I agree with. If a post is ad homimen, off topic, flaming, trolling, or factually incorrect a moderator should remove the comment. As hinted at, I don't see an issue with the first person pointing out a spelling or grammar error. Redundant corrections could also be removed. This is what moderators are supposed to do.
This does bring up a question of paying moderators for sites like PopSci, but I don't see that as a huge issue. If the company can't afford moderators, hell they could ask the community to assist. I'm sure that they could vet a couple volunteers and occasionally check to make sure they are not abusing moderator powers. It works for Wiki pretty well doesn't it?
To me, I'm concerned that people are already being propagandized too much. Look at the current Global Warming debate and be amazed at how little people actually know, and how they simply repeat propaganda. We need more science in the world, and less propaganda. Offering open debate allows us to question the arguments and selective facts. If opens the doors for people to question who is funding certain "scientific reports" and "scientific data".
If you claim that I blamed the Government for 9/11 go find me a post. You can't, which is why you simply repeat the same lie over and over instead of doing any actual work. Slashdot history is very easy to go through, but a bit time consuming.
I don't worry about people like you insulting my intelligence, it's easy to defend against liars. Facts are very easy to differentiate from fantasies, and you are simply supporting your own fantasy.
I can find posts where you refused to review facts for a few reasons, like "it dishonors the dead'. As stated previously, this shows that you don't care about facts or truth, you only care about your delusional beliefs. Now stop trolling. Go try and find some facts to support your rantings.
Both are important. Without freedom you can only receive the eduction someone wants you to have. Without "proper" education you don't know what freedom is. You are both correct, and neither is more important than the other.
To that end, that is why the US Constitution and Bill of Rights define what our liberties are. None weigh more than another, since all are required to be a "free" person.
When your hypothesis is that "it vanishes into an unknown dimension" (or "fairies worked magic in the background") it is impossible to have science. No, I can not possibly disprove a theory of non-existence and should not have to. It's called a fallacy. To claim I need to prove there is no 9th dimension is idiocy.
As mentioned, I'm okay with someone having these beliefs just like I'm find with anyone's Religious beliefs. I am not okay with people preaching their beliefs as "fact".
We are seeking to recruit from three areas: regular personnel leaving the service; current and former reservists; and individuals with no previous military service
In other words, they take anyone.
As well as employing reserves under current terms and conditions of service, the Cyber Reserve will be running a pilot scheme to evaluate innovative and inclusive approaches to recruiting, training, and employment.
Emphasis mine, but I think that's enough to question what you are getting into.
* possess verifiable exceptional cyber skills (*)
* be aged 18 or over
* be a UK or Commonwealth Citizen
* have lived in the UK for the last 5 years
* be able to commit to the minimum annual training
* be willing to undergo and pass a security clearance process
* use spare time and weekends in order to support defence’s cyber security mission
Nothing too odd here, but it appears that you are going to working for free. Also, "cyber skills" really means squat. I'm sure they will give you a test...
The Cyber Reserve offers a challenge that you can get nowhere else.
Except for the US, the current UK version of NSA, the current version of the German NSA, the Italian version of the NSA, etc.. etc.. blah blah and yes, even Russia has one of those. Not unique, and only challenging to your morals in most cases.
It would be cool if nobody in the UK signed up, but I know that the UK plays on patriotism and "terror" as much as the USA does. So the race is full speed for who is the biggest dickhead country, the US or UK. Good luck over there across the pond.
As stated previously, questioning the answers from the government is not blaming the government. I have never ever blamed the Government for 9/11, I have questioned the reports from the Government. The difference is vast. If you are going to lie and claim I have blamed the government, provide a link and don't just make up more stories.
As mentioned previously, also, by your logic anyone questioning JFK or MLK's assassination must also be blaming the government for the assassination. That logic is horribly broken. People questioning see problems with the story provided by the Government, and while it may imply that the government is covering up information it does not imply that the government is at fault.
If it gives you an aneurysm to read people questioning what the government claims, go away and never come back. Live happily in your own little delusional world where the government gives you candy and ice cream all day.
Or just read and don't respond. You offer nothing productive to the discussion. You refuse to read or review evidence, and simply name call and troll with fallacy. Your "it dishonors the dead to review evidence" shows how little you actually care about facts.
I'm not so sure that the stock market will crash any time soon. When you have a global cartel of bankers re-distributing at will, it means that the US economy could be artificially propped up for a very long time.
Since it's all artificial, I agree that when it happens it's going to be devastating. I just don't see it happening soon. It could mind you, but the people pulling the strings are not stupid. Careless at times sure, sloppy at times sure, but not stupid.
I will look into those books, not sure I have heard the "Teapot Dome Scandal" referenced before your post. I agree that it's more than 100, but there is a problem with getting good facts much further back than the early 1900s.
So Google searching a book is the same thing as reading a book? Wholly fuck you are stupid, and I'm not going to bother beyond pointing out where you are absolutely wrong.
Your item 3 is complete bullshit. Read the whole fucking book instead of using Google. The book is very explicit in pointing out that Jews are intentionally blamed for things to obscure what really happens and divert the argument away from facts.
Your item 2 is also bullshit. How many Senators did it take to pass the federal reserve act and when did it pass? It has nothing to do with Jews you moron, and Gary Allen explains exactly what happened in addition to telling you that people play the race/religion game to keep the argument off topic.
In closing, instead of being like everyone else and believing what you are told, why not do the fucking work and read the short book? It would take you less than a week if you read at a 8th grade level. Then you can start checking the sources Gary Allen gives and make up your own mind instead of relying on bullshit Google searched nonsense.
Hang on a second, you believe it's a delusion that they are currently in power? There is no question about them being in power, assuming you even try to look into the subject. Who controls the banks, media, and politicians? And it is not just US banks, media, and politicians. The same corrupt cartel controlling those establishments in the US control the UK, Germany, Australia, Italy, Rome, etc.. etc...
If you believe that being "conspiracy theorist" is a bad thing, you have been successfully brainwashed. Interestingly, they started that brainwashing in the 60s and it's also mentioned in Gary Allen's book.
I'm not sure if you are new to the game or not, so let me take the slow approach. Who do you think has been putting the majority of politicians in power for the last 100 or so years? I'll give you a hint, it's not you and me.
While the scale of corruption has grown exponentially in the last 30 years, the corruption is not something new. Hell go read Gary Allen "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" from the 1970. That should be a decent eye opener for you. Just to make sure you don't have any excuses not to read it, the book is free for most e-readers.
If the self proclaimed elites buy or put people in office, why would those same people complain about the job that they signed up for?
You lost me on what the difference is. If a group of terrorists want control and use media to do so, or the cartel that owns the US media want control, I fail to see the difference. Sure, independent media and journalists can work for any cause they wish. They could work for the cartel controlling American media, the terrorists, themselves, or even a foreign government. It's all about controlling knowledge no matter how you look at it.
If a terrorist starts a video and kills someone, is it really different than US media lying to the public and start a war resulting in lots of people being killed? In my opinion, the cartel in this case is much worse. They are trying to do much more than get attention for their group, they cause or facilitate much more death than the terrorists.
How many people would have been pro war in Iraq if US media was honest? And don't give me bullshit about politicians being dishonest, plenty of people were trying to tell the public that the politicians _and_ media were presenting false information to get us into war. Of course since the cartel controlling politicians also controls the media they were rarely heard.
Aside from the question of who gets to act as producer, how is this different from using CNN to do the same thing?
That's an easy question to answer. CNN is way more corrupt than the terrorists in Kenya. CNN's lies also caused more deaths than these terrorists did. The fake gas attacks on the CNN outlet in Georgia for example.
The article is not discussing traders, it's the exchange to exchange portion. It is absolutely relevant because the trade had to move from Chicago to NY. The amount of time for the trader in Chicago to talk to the exchange in Chicago is what is not relevant. This is why the miles question comes up, as does the 7ms time frame being discussed.
Nobody in TFA, nor did I, ever discuss the trade house -> exchange communication. You did, which is either you trying to distract from the article or appear to be intelligent about the gear not being questioned. Either way, your points, even if correct, have nothing to do with the TFA or my points backing the TFAs claim.
Slashdot Mirror
So the Cosmologist that believes in String theory must also be a fool right? We can't predict string theory either, there are literally hundreds to choose from and all require imaginary numbers and theories as a starting point. We also must use magical made up numbers to predict the "big bang" to determine the origin of the Universe. Those cosmologists must be fools also then?
It's really sad if you truly believe that your "belief" in the Big Bang is any better than the "belief" in having a creator. Both require faith. Both are only beliefs and neither are proven. Neither can be proven, but that's a philosophical discussion for a different day.
What I find more sad is that moderators rate a bigoted comment with no rationalization as +5 insightful.
Your fallacy does not make you correct. I do realize that logic and critical thinking is difficult, but at least make an attempt.
As with other commentators, I'm fine with you having beliefs. I have lots of my own, as does a Catholic, or any Cosmologist or Theoretical Physicist. We use some reasoning to get to our beliefs, so very few are truly irrational. What is irrational is claiming that your belief is factual, and that everyone else should share your belief.
Huh? Moderation has yet to occur. If the post gets modded over-rated a few times, nobody sees the comment. Other people have said the same thing in a nicer way, so the pointer to the correction still exists. Of course /. does not allow you to edit your own comments to correct grammar and spelling, which if it was a "Science" site I would consider essential.
Claiming a raw string of words breaks ever single comment in a thread is like claiming that having "twat" in the dictionary makes it an obscene book. It's a very small portion of the book, and I'll bet more people notice the word "twat" than would notice a moderated down personal attack.
Nope, they just need to understand a few very basic concepts of rhetoric (fallacy detecting) and skill with the language.
a) Moderator sees "you are an idiot" and removes the post for ad hominem.
b) Moderator sees "Obama's drone killing" in commentary for a fluid dynamics article is removed as "off topic". Does not matter if it was a strawman or red herring.
c) Moderator sees a 2nd post pointing out a spelling or grammar and removes that post for redundancy.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to discuss rocket science. If that was true, we would have never gotten to the moon because a physicist would not have been able to talk to a mathematician who would not have been able to talk to the engineer, etc... Claiming you must be an expert in a field to discuss or understand a field is incorrect.
And? Why do we have a routine business sales article instead of an article on hyper-local weather forecasting?
and it's not prediction, it's forecasting.
Because Monsanto brings out lots of emotional debate? Just a hunch of course.
Another reason could be the relation to the obvious conflict of interest in Monsanto owning such a tech company.
it's clear to me that the issue isn't with science itself, or how it's "done" in some sort of ontological sense.
I disagree with the terminology here, because while "science" never changes the politics around what is approved for teaching has always been political. I believe that's much of the concern with shutting down blog posts, as is discussed very well here. If a person points out a typographical error, it's beneficial to the article. If a person points out a different study with different results, it is also beneficial to the science. Shutting down comments removes both of those possibilities.
the issue is with how people perceive science, and how they perceive others' perceptions of science to be. These meta-perceptions are really what the whole issue is about.
I disagree with this also, because people believe what they are taught. I'm giving an extreme point here intentionally, so don't be offended. You and I might be able to have a lengthy and healthy discussion on the merits of a creator from a Philosophical perspective. That is science, like it or not, though people tend to jump to immediately defending their beliefs (which is why I italicized "might"). We can each have competing theories, and we can each present our points. Today, it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion on the topic because people have only been taught one side of the debate, in addition to all of the propaganda to support their beliefs. If people were taught to recognize fallacy and taught to be neutral in beliefs until their are no questionable facts remaining we could have such a debate. (I realize that facts are limited in this discussion, the extreme is being used to amplify the point).
If you only read one persons point and never question that point, you are not doing science. You are being propagandized. Unless of course you are talking about very basic things, like 2+2=4 which are unquestionable facts. Point being, complex science requires complex debate and study.
For a comment to further scientific discourse, not only does it have to contribute a constructive thought, but others need to perceive it as constructive and build further on it. Web comments are often exactly the opposite - people make a mental impression of your comment without fully trying to comprehend (or even read!) it, and respond based on that. So you get what we have here today. Trolls, shills, pedants, and grammar nazis.
Actually, my favorite comments are at the right-wing rag Daily Caller. Every single comment thread devolves into one party accusing the other party of being closet democrats.
That statement I agree with. If a post is ad homimen, off topic, flaming, trolling, or factually incorrect a moderator should remove the comment. As hinted at, I don't see an issue with the first person pointing out a spelling or grammar error. Redundant corrections could also be removed. This is what moderators are supposed to do.
This does bring up a question of paying moderators for sites like PopSci, but I don't see that as a huge issue. If the company can't afford moderators, hell they could ask the community to assist. I'm sure that they could vet a couple volunteers and occasionally check to make sure they are not abusing moderator powers. It works for Wiki pretty well doesn't it?
To me, I'm concerned that people are already being propagandized too much. Look at the current Global Warming debate and be amazed at how little people actually know, and how they simply repeat propaganda. We need more science in the world, and less propaganda. Offering open debate allows us to question the arguments and selective facts. If opens the doors for people to question who is funding certain "scientific reports" and "scientific data".
If you claim that I blamed the Government for 9/11 go find me a post. You can't, which is why you simply repeat the same lie over and over instead of doing any actual work. Slashdot history is very easy to go through, but a bit time consuming.
I don't worry about people like you insulting my intelligence, it's easy to defend against liars. Facts are very easy to differentiate from fantasies, and you are simply supporting your own fantasy.
I can find posts where you refused to review facts for a few reasons, like "it dishonors the dead'. As stated previously, this shows that you don't care about facts or truth, you only care about your delusional beliefs. Now stop trolling. Go try and find some facts to support your rantings.
Well stated, too bad I have no mod points.
Both are important. Without freedom you can only receive the eduction someone wants you to have. Without "proper" education you don't know what freedom is. You are both correct, and neither is more important than the other.
To that end, that is why the US Constitution and Bill of Rights define what our liberties are. None weigh more than another, since all are required to be a "free" person.
When your hypothesis is that "it vanishes into an unknown dimension" (or "fairies worked magic in the background") it is impossible to have science. No, I can not possibly disprove a theory of non-existence and should not have to. It's called a fallacy. To claim I need to prove there is no 9th dimension is idiocy.
As mentioned, I'm okay with someone having these beliefs just like I'm find with anyone's Religious beliefs. I am not okay with people preaching their beliefs as "fact".
I didn't say that the Brit's fell for the patriotism rhetoric as easily as Americans, I said the Government plays the card with the same frequency.
If you are going to lie and claim I have blamed the government, provide a link and don't just make up more stories.
Reading is not that difficult, so you are trolling still.
From the source, and I'll add some commentary.
We are seeking to recruit from three areas: regular personnel leaving the service; current and former reservists; and individuals with no previous military service
In other words, they take anyone.
As well as employing reserves under current terms and conditions of service, the Cyber Reserve will be running a pilot scheme to evaluate innovative and inclusive approaches to recruiting, training, and employment.
Emphasis mine, but I think that's enough to question what you are getting into.
* possess verifiable exceptional cyber skills (*)
* be aged 18 or over
* be a UK or Commonwealth Citizen
* have lived in the UK for the last 5 years
* be able to commit to the minimum annual training
* be willing to undergo and pass a security clearance process
* use spare time and weekends in order to support defence’s cyber security mission
Nothing too odd here, but it appears that you are going to working for free. Also, "cyber skills" really means squat. I'm sure they will give you a test...
The Cyber Reserve offers a challenge that you can get nowhere else.
Except for the US, the current UK version of NSA, the current version of the German NSA, the Italian version of the NSA, etc.. etc.. blah blah and yes, even Russia has one of those. Not unique, and only challenging to your morals in most cases.
It would be cool if nobody in the UK signed up, but I know that the UK plays on patriotism and "terror" as much as the USA does. So the race is full speed for who is the biggest dickhead country, the US or UK. Good luck over there across the pond.
As stated previously, questioning the answers from the government is not blaming the government. I have never ever blamed the Government for 9/11, I have questioned the reports from the Government. The difference is vast. If you are going to lie and claim I have blamed the government, provide a link and don't just make up more stories.
As mentioned previously, also, by your logic anyone questioning JFK or MLK's assassination must also be blaming the government for the assassination. That logic is horribly broken. People questioning see problems with the story provided by the Government, and while it may imply that the government is covering up information it does not imply that the government is at fault.
If it gives you an aneurysm to read people questioning what the government claims, go away and never come back. Live happily in your own little delusional world where the government gives you candy and ice cream all day.
Or just read and don't respond. You offer nothing productive to the discussion. You refuse to read or review evidence, and simply name call and troll with fallacy. Your "it dishonors the dead to review evidence" shows how little you actually care about facts.
Well stated, and with your time lines I agree. I interpreted your "soon" to be within the next couple of year or two.
My kingdom for mod points.
I'm not so sure that the stock market will crash any time soon. When you have a global cartel of bankers re-distributing at will, it means that the US economy could be artificially propped up for a very long time.
Since it's all artificial, I agree that when it happens it's going to be devastating. I just don't see it happening soon. It could mind you, but the people pulling the strings are not stupid. Careless at times sure, sloppy at times sure, but not stupid.
I will look into those books, not sure I have heard the "Teapot Dome Scandal" referenced before your post. I agree that it's more than 100, but there is a problem with getting good facts much further back than the early 1900s.
Stop trolling dickhead. It's really sad that you have nothing better to do than lurk on slashdot and make up stories.
So Google searching a book is the same thing as reading a book? Wholly fuck you are stupid, and I'm not going to bother beyond pointing out where you are absolutely wrong.
Your item 3 is complete bullshit. Read the whole fucking book instead of using Google. The book is very explicit in pointing out that Jews are intentionally blamed for things to obscure what really happens and divert the argument away from facts.
Your item 2 is also bullshit. How many Senators did it take to pass the federal reserve act and when did it pass? It has nothing to do with Jews you moron, and Gary Allen explains exactly what happened in addition to telling you that people play the race/religion game to keep the argument off topic.
In closing, instead of being like everyone else and believing what you are told, why not do the fucking work and read the short book? It would take you less than a week if you read at a 8th grade level. Then you can start checking the sources Gary Allen gives and make up your own mind instead of relying on bullshit Google searched nonsense.
Hang on a second, you believe it's a delusion that they are currently in power? There is no question about them being in power, assuming you even try to look into the subject. Who controls the banks, media, and politicians? And it is not just US banks, media, and politicians. The same corrupt cartel controlling those establishments in the US control the UK, Germany, Australia, Italy, Rome, etc.. etc...
If you believe that being "conspiracy theorist" is a bad thing, you have been successfully brainwashed. Interestingly, they started that brainwashing in the 60s and it's also mentioned in Gary Allen's book.
I'm not sure if you are new to the game or not, so let me take the slow approach. Who do you think has been putting the majority of politicians in power for the last 100 or so years? I'll give you a hint, it's not you and me.
While the scale of corruption has grown exponentially in the last 30 years, the corruption is not something new. Hell go read Gary Allen "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" from the 1970. That should be a decent eye opener for you. Just to make sure you don't have any excuses not to read it, the book is free for most e-readers.
If the self proclaimed elites buy or put people in office, why would those same people complain about the job that they signed up for?
You lost me on what the difference is. If a group of terrorists want control and use media to do so, or the cartel that owns the US media want control, I fail to see the difference. Sure, independent media and journalists can work for any cause they wish. They could work for the cartel controlling American media, the terrorists, themselves, or even a foreign government. It's all about controlling knowledge no matter how you look at it.
If a terrorist starts a video and kills someone, is it really different than US media lying to the public and start a war resulting in lots of people being killed? In my opinion, the cartel in this case is much worse. They are trying to do much more than get attention for their group, they cause or facilitate much more death than the terrorists.
How many people would have been pro war in Iraq if US media was honest? And don't give me bullshit about politicians being dishonest, plenty of people were trying to tell the public that the politicians _and_ media were presenting false information to get us into war. Of course since the cartel controlling politicians also controls the media they were rarely heard.
Aside from the question of who gets to act as producer, how is this different from using CNN to do the same thing?
That's an easy question to answer. CNN is way more corrupt than the terrorists in Kenya. CNN's lies also caused more deaths than these terrorists did. The fake gas attacks on the CNN outlet in Georgia for example.
The article is not discussing traders, it's the exchange to exchange portion. It is absolutely relevant because the trade had to move from Chicago to NY. The amount of time for the trader in Chicago to talk to the exchange in Chicago is what is not relevant. This is why the miles question comes up, as does the 7ms time frame being discussed.
Nobody in TFA, nor did I, ever discuss the trade house -> exchange communication. You did, which is either you trying to distract from the article or appear to be intelligent about the gear not being questioned. Either way, your points, even if correct, have nothing to do with the TFA or my points backing the TFAs claim.