Linus "the Penguin" Torvalds and Arnold "the Gubernator" Schwarzenegger!! "D
Linus would be VP as we don't want to take too much of his precious time " )
And their initials (L.T. & A.S.) make for geeky slogans like: "LAST one to vote is afraid of Big Yellow Shiny Face!"
or: "To vote LAST is better than never!"
or: "We will put SALT on your table!"
or: "Your submitTALS are the kernel of our government!"
or: "SLATed for Presidency!" (straight from an example of Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary lol)
You are totally misunderstanding both his and my post, please read the wikipedia link.
And btw it's not really his point, it is the foundation of science. There is nothing extraordinary in his claim.
I think the honourable Carl Sagan would agree fully with this choice quote from the link: "Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth."
By definition one can't call oneself a scientist if one doesn't realize this and the reasons why.
As for your Britney example is it testable? Testing is a major criteria for being able to call something scientific. If we accept that the temperature of the sun is pretty high and that a sufficient test would be to see if a picture (basically paper) can withstand such a temperature (or lower) then testing is pretty easy - the photo would burn and the postulated hypothesis is falsified = science. However it does not absolutely prove the opposite postulated hypothesis that a photo in the center of the sun would always burn! It only gives evidence that it would be extremeley likely to burn unless we discover otherwise for some reason. Do you see the difference? If not read the link again recursively or seek help from any neighbouring professor of philosophy of science or epistemology.
Another quote from another link: "Note that if confirmed, the hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
An example (probably a very common one) from an introductionary university course in philosphy of science is the one about the sun rising every morning. Can we from past observations (the sun has risen each morning in our lives) scientifically prove that the sun will always rise every morning? The answer is NO. We can only scientifically state that the likelihood of the sun rising every morning is extremely high.
Sure, it is so extremely likely that we treat it as a fact with good reason, but please realize that this small last step from treating it as extremely likely to treating it as a fact is not science. In fact the current scientific theories are pretty adamant that the sun will not rise every morning (because the sun will die at some point in time). You might call this splitting hairs, but such splitting of hairs is exactly why science is successful, and understanding the rules of science itself is critical.
The simplest (and least giving) way of saying all this is that science does not absolutely prove positives, it only absolutely proves falsification.
That may be. What I've heard, read and seen is that "the eye of the needle" is an actual architectual structure (a kind of very narrow and low passageway/door) which has (obviously) a high defensive quality (for use at night etc. when main gates are closed). For a camel to get through this kind of doorway is pretty hard... (but not necessarily impossible if it gets on its knees, good luck trying though "D ).
Not taking things literary opens up a lot of options, some might be right, some might be wrong, but the more people who realize there are all these various options the more likely they are to understand that the major themes in almost all religions are the important ones, and most people (except the immature ones who have a need to prove they are absolutely right no matter what, fundamentalists no matter if the call themselves atheist or religious) have no quarrel with those.
I see some posters arguing his points by using mathematical proofs, these people are confusing themselves and probably others as well as the question is far from that simple: mathematical proof and the inherent characteristics of scientific results or science itself are not the same issue.
If only more people who call themselves scientists as well as people who view science as absolute truth would learn this simple utterly basic foundamental tenent of what science is and can do we would all escape a lot of stupidity.
What you said is taught in every higher level institution in the world but it seems only a few actually understand it and take it to heart. This is so sad that each time I meet upon someone who shows they've realized it I'm overjoyed - thank you for making my day "D
Moderators: please for the love of science moderate the parent up - let's raise the education of the average slashdotter!
Re:Well, since I can't get to the article...
on
Verified Voting
·
· Score: 1
I'm for Bush but not a US citizen. I don't agree with every detail of what Bush do, how he and his administration does it, or every part of the Republican party, actually there's plenty I disagree with. It's unnatural to agree a 100% with someone else on everything, do you agree in such a way with John Kerry and the Democrats? (Wow did that sound like a cheesy band name or what? lol "D ).
I'm not writing this to influence you, vote whatever you think is right, it is your election no matter what a big part of the world would like you to think. I'm writing this as I'm getting fed up with all the rambling about "facist Republicans". Seriously, is the election going to be won on who is best at calling other people facist?
My reasons, with a hint at underlying reflections and thoughts, and believe me or not I'm being brief:
0. I support the way GWB handled the time after 9/11. I remember being at work (in Norway) which involved a lot of telephone conversations and when the terrorist attacks happened it all went dead quiet. The following hours, days, then weeks, everybody expected an imminent, brutal, and "reflexive" US retaliation. GWB took his time, he and his administration did not act instinctively but thought it through and even went as far as trying to avoid war by seeking negotiations with the Taliban. But now many people are trying to portray it as the opposite, they lie. I believe the current administration acted much better than one could expect from the Clinton one or anything Gore would be involved with. Kerry? By his own admission he was "paralyzed" longer than Bush, not that it matters really. However I don't think he would have acted like Bush. When it comes to actually using the military most Democrats tend to use it as a very static thing rather than a dynamic tool, a sort of on/off attitude.
1. I support the war in Afghanistan. It got UN backing even though the UN was irrelevant (every state has the inherent right to defend itself), it got the support since nobody powerful had a vested interest in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war has been fairly successful but it will take a lot of time before we know if the country will be stable as a democracy: it's much more up to the Afghani people than the US or any other nation. I strongly doubt Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, would have started the long term involvement that the present administration supports. Barring all the nice retoric from Europe most european nations don't contribute as much as they say they will so it was definetly wise not to invlove NATO heavily in the beginning. The same people (here in Norway) that calls GWB a cowboy and tries to portray his actions as such were screaming their heads off against clusterbombs in Afghanistan and wanted to deny the US its right for self defence.
2. I support the war in Iraq. It didn't get UN backing mostly because many powerful countries had vested interest in Iraq that were contrary to the US aims. Those interests were economical and political. The UN isn't really too relevant here either as Iraq was under obligations by the US victory in the first gulf war, obligations that Iraq broke. Still GWB and his administration did their utmost in getting UN approval. I watched unedited broadcasts from the open parts of the UN security council sessions (on BBC World) as well as GWBs address in the UN. Those that say the US didn't do their utmost for a final UN resolution either have absolutely no clue or are liars. I haven't heard a single good reason not to despose of Saddam Hussein but I did disagree with the focus on WMDs that got exaggerated as an argument (mostly in europe) because WMDs in themselves isn't the issue. That part of the issue is WMD knowledge. Still, politicians need to dumb down the issues to get peoples support so it is understandable. Most people have no idea how hard it is to get resolutions passed in the security council. Contrary to what some like to portray it as Iraq had been on the agenda for over a decade without the security council managing to reach en
Sarcasm or irony, take your pick:
Yeah the Democrats seem overly keen on reinstalling the draft (not really but close enough for them to make noise about it and trying to pin it on Republicans) seeing as they created the bills in congress and senate... luckily the Republicans wont touch it with a ten foot pole.
I can't speak for all (and I know plenty disagree) but I loved him then and I still love him even though he's dead.
Reagan and Gorbatchev, and their close friendship, is what ended the cold war* in a peaceful way, which in turn enabled the circumstances leading to the (relatively peaceful) implosion of communism. They didn't do it by themselves but they were the most crucial parts for it to start (the fairly good relations between Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and Francois Mitterand were pretty important as well).
A lot of people (especially in europe) hated Reagan bitterly (just like they hate Bush, don't be surprised that most of them are the same or represent the same political mindsets). A lot of this hate probably came from the economic policies (which were to some extent copied and embellished by Thatcher in the UK) and maybe more so now as those economic policies have become very influential (traces of them can be found in most economical platforms).
* I'm a 30 year old norwegian, Norway was the northern scenario** for a 3rd WW start so the cold war was a fairly big part of my childhood.
** USSR through Finland by "treaty" and down through Norways coastline (very high strategic value for all of europe and enabeling USSR high quality icefree ports all year around) while attacking south Norway by air crossing over (or through) neutral Sweden. Norway is a long and narrow country and the plan for defense was for norwegian troops to try to halt the USSR from the north down to the middle of Norway for at least 24 hours so enough American firepower could arrive to their prepared bases and equipment depos, all while Swedens airforce (though nominally neutral) would alleviate the pressure on the south. For Norway this scenario would be pretty much acting as a "suicidal no cost too high" human buffer to halt a northern offensive - probably all (unless the USSR only attempted a limited expansion which wasn't likely) while the middle scenario in Germany and central europe involves heavy tank battles and tactical nukes from both sides. MAD and ICBMs are partially a seperate issue from this and a possible scenario endgame unless they're they were the reason for it all to start, or used by the USSR as opening moves (probably not too likely, endgame use was far more likely and MAD holding through the war wasn't too unlikely either). As it turned out none of this happened and MAD and the USSR costs involved in MAD worked flawlessly, helping to implode the communist economy. No thanks to the "peaceniks" and radical socialists/communists, they would have destroyed the future if they got the chance and they're still trying (there is a number of high-ranking leftist politicians (democratic socialists, radical socialists, communists (duh) and some greens) in europe who still don't denounce former support for communist dictatorships).
Sorry this got slightly rant-like but most people already seem to have forgotten, both in the US and in europe.
I agree completely. You're never wasting your vote even if the chances (of your choice candidate) to win are slim - your choice will still help send a signal as every party looks at what they can do to entice people to vote for them instead (and so they change/tweak their policies accordingly). That's how the religious right managed to get some of their beliefs into the republican party, they began running their own candidates and creating their own party. So if lets say the liberalists get 5% of the vote because people actually vote according to what they think is best (rather than what they think is most tactical) the result would probably be that the liberalist-friendly "Schwarzeneggerites" (I'm one but not a US citizen, if I was I'd be voting for Giant Douche hehe*) would try to tweak the republican party towards the liberalists. And if not then the liberalists will continue to try getting more supporters until either they are a major party themselves or somebody has moved close enough to them to get the votes.
Win-win! Vote your heart everybody!
* I'm guessing Turd Sandwich would be Kerry as turd sandwiches are 'free for all at "no" cost' hehe "S
"Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?"
I guess because:
- not everyone feels any need to identify that strongly with slashdot
- not everyone makes contribution a social thing (i.e. they don't join any teams)
- there are other grid projects than folding@home
Nice sig though, the more who contribute to grid projects the better imo. It's all win-win:)
If you haven't you should also read the first link in the slashdot story, it has an interview with Russell Joyner (Discipline Chief, Propulsion Systems Analysis, Pratt & Whitney) you will probably find interesting (it seems to me you are discussing something else than the Triton design).
1. Intelligence Quotient tests are fairly narrow (and somewhat culturally dependent) tests not measuring all forms of intelligence and as such a very rudimentary tool (take a look at Mensa: "intelligence" (IQ) does not always equal sanity, rationality or behaviour, just some types of logic).
2. The whole point of using IQ Penalty (or IQ Bonus) for some kind of automatic recognition of validity defeats much of the purpose. Better to see for one self if the reasoning in posts is actually sound, and point out if one thinks it isn't.
I'm biased as I don't think an IQ Penalty sytem will do much except stifle both the good and bad sides of Slashdot, i.e. less of all, maybe slightly less good than bad, but in no way more good.
Part of the reason for my point of view is that I have (had) the scores (oldest first):
163 (age 21, professional test by the military in my country)
144 (age 23, professional but commercial test by a formerly large software company in my country)
128 (age 28, commercial but national test partly for a tv entertainment program)
All the tests were certified IQ test.
According to this I should be (fairly rapidly) getting more stupid, but I am much more considerate and experienced today than I was at 21, and I think we can all agree reflection is an accumulative process...
At every point (21 to now) did I make errors, I'm convinced I will continue to do so in the "best" of human traditions:)
You really should try Cryptonomicon first and foremost (and pick up some of those writeable adhesive strip bookmarks as well to "index" the interesting parts for research).
Hmm that's pretty brutal (and immediate/short-term) options, don't you think there are other better choices? not to say more elegant/hacker-like?
Like groundswell moveon style financing and/or using the system to change the system? If enough people vote 3rd party they do have a direct say. Both take a bit more time of course, but you have nearly 50% percent of the population to get support from without even touching those supporting the two big parties.
Thank you for a very good answer, you gave me something to think about:)
You made me see that my reply is a strawman fallacy (or very similar). Thank you for taking the time to point it out to me, I really didn't see it that way at all, I'll try giving a better explanation of my view. Kissingers actions are well documented and can be discussed, no doubt about it. My problem with accusing him for war crimes is that:
- the level of direct accountability is raised so high that one (in my opinion) would have to accuse just about every major politican during the cold war, on all sides.
- the power of one single individual, even a secretary of state, is exaggerated and becomes reminiscent of finding a scapegoat rather than anything else. Likewise the ultimate personal responsibility of a single individual is raised beyond what seems fair. If the bottom hundred of a thousand people in a hierarchical structure does something criminal all the blame shouldn't be put on a person in the top hundred part of same structure. Some relevant blame yes, but not all the blame, especially when all the individuals are supposed to be accountable first and foremost for their own actions. The My Lai massacre and tragedy, as well as the following military trial, is a very good example of this, as well is the Abu Ghraib scandal.
- it seems very ad hoc: the interpretations of Kissingers actions are biased towards specific opinions which is shared mostly within a very homogeneous small minority because it fits them well. This is where my view of the whole thing becomes that of it being mostly a propaganda tool for the mentioned groups.
I can understand that you think it's wrong for me to be sweeping opinions away because of their origin. Actually I agree fully in principle that doing so is wrong, but I am not a perfect being and after time and time again (the DU example was meant as a reference to this) finding very little of lasting value from those sources I simply sweep them away as irrelevant (or having a too high noise-to-signal ratio) and prioritize sources that in my opinion have better quality.
Please explain what you think the strawman argument was. Where did I say anything about your position unless you are a radical socialist or communist? Am I supposed to assume you have those beliefs? Was it that I find the information inaccurate? How does me finding the information inaccurate form a strawman argument? As for "insulting the authors" I don't think the authors would be insulted because someone disagrees, or where you talking about yourself? If it was my opinion which insulted you then don't bother replying.
Perhaps we misunderstood each other. The reason why I disregard most of this type of information is that generally the only groups that makes a noise about this sort of thing are the same groups that make a lot of noise about for example depleted uranium (I live in Europe and there's no shortage to what you linked to, I only need to go to a political bookstore). Most "information" I've read from these groups fail closer scrutiny. Me using that experience has nothing to do with strawman arguments: I'm not saying their position is anything different than they are saying (if I distorted their position and attacked it in that way it would be the definition of strawman argument).
Btw are you familiar with false strawman arguments? It's when the strawman argument is falsly invoked as a means of escaping debate or the topic in question. So please remember my question wasn't "are there people believing he is a war criminal", the question was if anyone could back up the statement "most of the world considers him a war criminal".
If this response only insults you then don't bother, enjoy a nice day instead.
Tell me when they've made contact lenses with built-in "wifi" and powertransmission, and they go completely transparent by thought control (semitransparent otherwise). The resolution needs to be at least 1280x1000 as well. "The world is your desktop background":)
Preferrably they would take input by thought control but even if not I'd spend at least 3K$ per lens even if I had to take up a loan...
I hope you realize that your link is political propaganda loved and cherished by radical socialists and communists?
I'm sorry but to me that makes it not properly documented and thus irrelevant. And in no way does it prove the statement "most of the world considers him a war criminal", just that most of the worlds communists think so (old news).
you simply ignored the question of causation at all
I did no such thing, I put forward an important news item that has big implications for most of the theories about what the specific cause(s) is/are. For you to automatically interpret that as a claim that there are no causes at all is ludicrous. The news isn't about what the specific causes are, the news is about a major and often used analysis of data being critically flawed.
The article about PCA isn't about a flaw in the data, it's about a flaw in one particular statistical analysis
Not just any analysis, in the words of the MIT Tech Rew article: "A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change"
In case you still do not realize it the analysis of said data is the starting point for the majority of science on global warming, and used as scientific proof for it. The fact that said analysis of data is "shot down" is pretty big news no matter what you, I, or anyone else personally believe is/are the cause(s).
Do you think scientists are lying about the oceans warming up?
Some might be twisting and nudging the facts a little but that isn't interesting compared to the simple fact that science do make mistakes from time to time, even big ones. Some people seem to think that science is infallible which is simply dangerous and weakens science in the long term. It's pretty obvious that global warming is a hot potato (pun intended) and also that this has compromised the quality of science regarding it (tendency for large scale panic usually has this effect). That should be a problem for all concerned as it reduces the chances of finding the correct answers on a question vital to us all.
I haven't said that the cycles happen by themselves, of course there are chains of causalities (both manmade and natural). Neither that its just "shit happens". I don't know where you got those things from but stop putting words in the mouths of people you consider your opponents, it's better to actually try to see what they say.
As for PCA's validity etc. you don't seem to be too preoccupied by science being done right, did you read the link and the links in that text or did you just gloss over it?
Observing a vagrant squid tells us a lot less scientifically than a major flaw being discovered in some of the most used data in scientifically arguing for global warming (and implicitly for the warming to be manmade). Try reading the links again:)
It is interesting and here's the likely reason:
news media is heavily slanted towards bullshit
Of course your leftleaning person will automatically identify bullshit as rightleaning and your rightleaning person will automatically identify bullshit as leftleaning:)
I'm european as well, and pro Bush, but I hope more and more people will realize that media (all over the world) is leaning towards bullshit so we some day can get back at discussing our different thought-patterns and logic/analysis on the topics at hand instead of getting bugged down in monkey and horse jokes (Bush and Kerry).
I agree however BBC has its share of spin as well so the absolutely best is to view unedited broadcasts for example directly from the public parts of UN security council sessions (BBC showed some of those), however I've found over time that CNN (europe) actually shows far more unedited broadcasts from US politics than BBC (stuff like the state of the union address, press conferences etc.).
It's priceless to be able to base ones own opinions directly on what a person or group said rather than what someone else thinks they said. Also it's priceless for discovering which way different media tends to spin. Nothing beats straight from the horses mouth.
But it really does say something about the current state of our media
Sadly it doesn't just say something about your (I read that as US) media, it is the same all over the world wherever one has freedom of expression. Making a quick joke or playing to peoples preconceptions (usually based on a history of other jokes treated as news and facts) is the way for media to make a quick buck, ok if it's pure entertainment but not in news reporting. How else to explain that a crease on the presidents suit makes headlines? How else to explain that Fahrenheit 9/11 gets documentary awards? There actually are bigger and more important real news out there.
I enjoy the occasional Bush joke as much as the next person, and Michael Moore was entertaining to watch when he was doing his tv show (but I hate his propaganda films). However the jokes stop being funny when people swear to them as facts, it becomes the same kind of stupid mob rule that empowered the big evils of last century (facism/communism).
Jon Stewart was not funny in this "interview" even though the "stupid majority" automatically laugh. He was dead serious and the only way to support him and make the world a better place is to reflect on his point and try to take it to heart no matter what your political colour is. Or will democracy die by laughter?
Slashdot Mirror
You've just created my Dream Team! "o
Linus "the Penguin" Torvalds and Arnold "the Gubernator" Schwarzenegger!! "D
Linus would be VP as we don't want to take too much of his precious time " )
And their initials (L.T. & A.S.) make for geeky slogans like:
"LAST one to vote is afraid of Big Yellow Shiny Face!"
or:
"To vote LAST is better than never!" or:
"We will put SALT on your table!" or:
"Your submitTALS are the kernel of our government!" or:
"SLATed for Presidency!" (straight from an example of Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary lol)
You are totally misunderstanding both his and my post, please read the wikipedia link.
And btw it's not really his point, it is the foundation of science. There is nothing extraordinary in his claim.
I think the honourable Carl Sagan would agree fully with this choice quote from the link:
"Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth."
By definition one can't call oneself a scientist if one doesn't realize this and the reasons why.
As for your Britney example is it testable? Testing is a major criteria for being able to call something scientific. If we accept that the temperature of the sun is pretty high and that a sufficient test would be to see if a picture (basically paper) can withstand such a temperature (or lower) then testing is pretty easy - the photo would burn and the postulated hypothesis is falsified = science. However it does not absolutely prove the opposite postulated hypothesis that a photo in the center of the sun would always burn! It only gives evidence that it would be extremeley likely to burn unless we discover otherwise for some reason. Do you see the difference? If not read the link again recursively or seek help from any neighbouring professor of philosophy of science or epistemology.
Another quote from another link:
"Note that if confirmed, the hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
An example (probably a very common one) from an introductionary university course in philosphy of science is the one about the sun rising every morning. Can we from past observations (the sun has risen each morning in our lives) scientifically prove that the sun will always rise every morning? The answer is NO. We can only scientifically state that the likelihood of the sun rising every morning is extremely high.
Sure, it is so extremely likely that we treat it as a fact with good reason, but please realize that this small last step from treating it as extremely likely to treating it as a fact is not science. In fact the current scientific theories are pretty adamant that the sun will not rise every morning (because the sun will die at some point in time). You might call this splitting hairs, but such splitting of hairs is exactly why science is successful, and understanding the rules of science itself is critical.
The simplest (and least giving) way of saying all this is that science does not absolutely prove positives, it only absolutely proves falsification.
That may be. What I've heard, read and seen is that "the eye of the needle" is an actual architectual structure (a kind of very narrow and low passageway/door) which has (obviously) a high defensive quality (for use at night etc. when main gates are closed). For a camel to get through this kind of doorway is pretty hard... (but not necessarily impossible if it gets on its knees, good luck trying though "D ).
Not taking things literary opens up a lot of options, some might be right, some might be wrong, but the more people who realize there are all these various options the more likely they are to understand that the major themes in almost all religions are the important ones, and most people (except the immature ones who have a need to prove they are absolutely right no matter what, fundamentalists no matter if the call themselves atheist or religious) have no quarrel with those.
Notice: the parent I was referring to was the one by hobbesmaster :4 &cid=10695669
e nce
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12791
I see some posters arguing his points by using mathematical proofs, these people are confusing themselves and probably others as well as the question is far from that simple: mathematical proof and the inherent characteristics of scientific results or science itself are not the same issue.
Read and understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Goals_of_sci
Thank you for the excellent post!
If only more people who call themselves scientists as well as people who view science as absolute truth would learn this simple utterly basic foundamental tenent of what science is and can do we would all escape a lot of stupidity.
What you said is taught in every higher level institution in the world but it seems only a few actually understand it and take it to heart. This is so sad that each time I meet upon someone who shows they've realized it I'm overjoyed - thank you for making my day "D
Moderators: please for the love of science moderate the parent up - let's raise the education of the average slashdotter!
I'm for Bush but not a US citizen. I don't agree with every detail of what Bush do, how he and his administration does it, or every part of the Republican party, actually there's plenty I disagree with. It's unnatural to agree a 100% with someone else on everything, do you agree in such a way with John Kerry and the Democrats? (Wow did that sound like a cheesy band name or what? lol "D ).
I'm not writing this to influence you, vote whatever you think is right, it is your election no matter what a big part of the world would like you to think. I'm writing this as I'm getting fed up with all the rambling about "facist Republicans". Seriously, is the election going to be won on who is best at calling other people facist?
My reasons, with a hint at underlying reflections and thoughts, and believe me or not I'm being brief:
0. I support the way GWB handled the time after 9/11. I remember being at work (in Norway) which involved a lot of telephone conversations and when the terrorist attacks happened it all went dead quiet. The following hours, days, then weeks, everybody expected an imminent, brutal, and "reflexive" US retaliation. GWB took his time, he and his administration did not act instinctively but thought it through and even went as far as trying to avoid war by seeking negotiations with the Taliban. But now many people are trying to portray it as the opposite, they lie. I believe the current administration acted much better than one could expect from the Clinton one or anything Gore would be involved with. Kerry? By his own admission he was "paralyzed" longer than Bush, not that it matters really. However I don't think he would have acted like Bush. When it comes to actually using the military most Democrats tend to use it as a very static thing rather than a dynamic tool, a sort of on/off attitude.
1. I support the war in Afghanistan. It got UN backing even though the UN was irrelevant (every state has the inherent right to defend itself), it got the support since nobody powerful had a vested interest in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war has been fairly successful but it will take a lot of time before we know if the country will be stable as a democracy: it's much more up to the Afghani people than the US or any other nation. I strongly doubt Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, would have started the long term involvement that the present administration supports. Barring all the nice retoric from Europe most european nations don't contribute as much as they say they will so it was definetly wise not to invlove NATO heavily in the beginning. The same people (here in Norway) that calls GWB a cowboy and tries to portray his actions as such were screaming their heads off against clusterbombs in Afghanistan and wanted to deny the US its right for self defence.
2. I support the war in Iraq. It didn't get UN backing mostly because many powerful countries had vested interest in Iraq that were contrary to the US aims. Those interests were economical and political. The UN isn't really too relevant here either as Iraq was under obligations by the US victory in the first gulf war, obligations that Iraq broke. Still GWB and his administration did their utmost in getting UN approval. I watched unedited broadcasts from the open parts of the UN security council sessions (on BBC World) as well as GWBs address in the UN. Those that say the US didn't do their utmost for a final UN resolution either have absolutely no clue or are liars. I haven't heard a single good reason not to despose of Saddam Hussein but I did disagree with the focus on WMDs that got exaggerated as an argument (mostly in europe) because WMDs in themselves isn't the issue. That part of the issue is WMD knowledge. Still, politicians need to dumb down the issues to get peoples support so it is understandable. Most people have no idea how hard it is to get resolutions passed in the security council. Contrary to what some like to portray it as Iraq had been on the agenda for over a decade without the security council managing to reach en
Sarcasm or irony, take your pick:
Yeah the Democrats seem overly keen on reinstalling the draft (not really but close enough for them to make noise about it and trying to pin it on Republicans) seeing as they created the bills in congress and senate... luckily the Republicans wont touch it with a ten foot pole.
Maybe this will help you:
http://www.factcheck.org/article200.html
There wont be support for a draft unless US soil is the arena for war (maybe not even then). Nobody wants it, least of all the military.
"Did the people like Reagan when he ran?"
I can't speak for all (and I know plenty disagree) but I loved him then and I still love him even though he's dead.
Reagan and Gorbatchev, and their close friendship, is what ended the cold war* in a peaceful way, which in turn enabled the circumstances leading to the (relatively peaceful) implosion of communism. They didn't do it by themselves but they were the most crucial parts for it to start (the fairly good relations between Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and Francois Mitterand were pretty important as well).
A lot of people (especially in europe) hated Reagan bitterly (just like they hate Bush, don't be surprised that most of them are the same or represent the same political mindsets). A lot of this hate probably came from the economic policies (which were to some extent copied and embellished by Thatcher in the UK) and maybe more so now as those economic policies have become very influential (traces of them can be found in most economical platforms).
* I'm a 30 year old norwegian, Norway was the northern scenario** for a 3rd WW start so the cold war was a fairly big part of my childhood.
** USSR through Finland by "treaty" and down through Norways coastline (very high strategic value for all of europe and enabeling USSR high quality icefree ports all year around) while attacking south Norway by air crossing over (or through) neutral Sweden. Norway is a long and narrow country and the plan for defense was for norwegian troops to try to halt the USSR from the north down to the middle of Norway for at least 24 hours so enough American firepower could arrive to their prepared bases and equipment depos, all while Swedens airforce (though nominally neutral) would alleviate the pressure on the south. For Norway this scenario would be pretty much acting as a "suicidal no cost too high" human buffer to halt a northern offensive - probably all (unless the USSR only attempted a limited expansion which wasn't likely) while the middle scenario in Germany and central europe involves heavy tank battles and tactical nukes from both sides. MAD and ICBMs are partially a seperate issue from this and a possible scenario endgame unless they're they were the reason for it all to start, or used by the USSR as opening moves (probably not too likely, endgame use was far more likely and MAD holding through the war wasn't too unlikely either). As it turned out none of this happened and MAD and the USSR costs involved in MAD worked flawlessly, helping to implode the communist economy. No thanks to the "peaceniks" and radical socialists/communists, they would have destroyed the future if they got the chance and they're still trying (there is a number of high-ranking leftist politicians (democratic socialists, radical socialists, communists (duh) and some greens) in europe who still don't denounce former support for communist dictatorships).
Sorry this got slightly rant-like but most people already seem to have forgotten, both in the US and in europe.
Good to see someone voting for their opinion "D
I agree completely. You're never wasting your vote even if the chances (of your choice candidate) to win are slim - your choice will still help send a signal as every party looks at what they can do to entice people to vote for them instead (and so they change/tweak their policies accordingly). That's how the religious right managed to get some of their beliefs into the republican party, they began running their own candidates and creating their own party. So if lets say the liberalists get 5% of the vote because people actually vote according to what they think is best (rather than what they think is most tactical) the result would probably be that the liberalist-friendly "Schwarzeneggerites" (I'm one but not a US citizen, if I was I'd be voting for Giant Douche hehe*) would try to tweak the republican party towards the liberalists. And if not then the liberalists will continue to try getting more supporters until either they are a major party themselves or somebody has moved close enough to them to get the votes.
Win-win! Vote your heart everybody!
* I'm guessing Turd Sandwich would be Kerry as turd sandwiches are 'free for all at "no" cost' hehe "S
"Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?"
:)
I guess because:
- not everyone feels any need to identify that strongly with slashdot
- not everyone makes contribution a social thing (i.e. they don't join any teams)
- there are other grid projects than folding@home
Nice sig though, the more who contribute to grid projects the better imo. It's all win-win
You might find this interesting concerning radiation deaths/sickness and the errors in presenting such effects as a linear function of radiation:/ NR99aa01.htm
http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1999/jaworowski
It's written by UN radiation expert Zbigniew Jaworowski of UNSCEAR http://www.unscear.org/
If you haven't you should also read the first link in the slashdot story, it has an interview with Russell Joyner (Discipline Chief, Propulsion Systems Analysis, Pratt & Whitney) you will probably find interesting (it seems to me you are discussing something else than the Triton design).
Two issues concerning the IQ Penalty idea:
:)
1. Intelligence Quotient tests are fairly narrow (and somewhat culturally dependent) tests not measuring all forms of intelligence and as such a very rudimentary tool (take a look at Mensa: "intelligence" (IQ) does not always equal sanity, rationality or behaviour, just some types of logic).
2. The whole point of using IQ Penalty (or IQ Bonus) for some kind of automatic recognition of validity defeats much of the purpose. Better to see for one self if the reasoning in posts is actually sound, and point out if one thinks it isn't.
I'm biased as I don't think an IQ Penalty sytem will do much except stifle both the good and bad sides of Slashdot, i.e. less of all, maybe slightly less good than bad, but in no way more good.
Part of the reason for my point of view is that I have (had) the scores (oldest first):
163 (age 21, professional test by the military in my country)
144 (age 23, professional but commercial test by a formerly large software company in my country)
128 (age 28, commercial but national test partly for a tv entertainment program)
All the tests were certified IQ test.
According to this I should be (fairly rapidly) getting more stupid, but I am much more considerate and experienced today than I was at 21, and I think we can all agree reflection is an accumulative process...
At every point (21 to now) did I make errors, I'm convinced I will continue to do so in the "best" of human traditions
You really should try Cryptonomicon first and foremost (and pick up some of those writeable adhesive strip bookmarks as well to "index" the interesting parts for research).
Hmm that's pretty brutal (and immediate/short-term) options, don't you think there are other better choices? not to say more elegant/hacker-like?
Like groundswell moveon style financing and/or using the system to change the system? If enough people vote 3rd party they do have a direct say. Both take a bit more time of course, but you have nearly 50% percent of the population to get support from without even touching those supporting the two big parties.
Thank you for a very good answer, you gave me something to think about :)
You made me see that my reply is a strawman fallacy (or very similar). Thank you for taking the time to point it out to me, I really didn't see it that way at all, I'll try giving a better explanation of my view. Kissingers actions are well documented and can be discussed, no doubt about it. My problem with accusing him for war crimes is that:
- the level of direct accountability is raised so high that one (in my opinion) would have to accuse just about every major politican during the cold war, on all sides.
- the power of one single individual, even a secretary of state, is exaggerated and becomes reminiscent of finding a scapegoat rather than anything else. Likewise the ultimate personal responsibility of a single individual is raised beyond what seems fair. If the bottom hundred of a thousand people in a hierarchical structure does something criminal all the blame shouldn't be put on a person in the top hundred part of same structure. Some relevant blame yes, but not all the blame, especially when all the individuals are supposed to be accountable first and foremost for their own actions. The My Lai massacre and tragedy, as well as the following military trial, is a very good example of this, as well is the Abu Ghraib scandal.
- it seems very ad hoc: the interpretations of Kissingers actions are biased towards specific opinions which is shared mostly within a very homogeneous small minority because it fits them well. This is where my view of the whole thing becomes that of it being mostly a propaganda tool for the mentioned groups.
I can understand that you think it's wrong for me to be sweeping opinions away because of their origin. Actually I agree fully in principle that doing so is wrong, but I am not a perfect being and after time and time again (the DU example was meant as a reference to this) finding very little of lasting value from those sources I simply sweep them away as irrelevant (or having a too high noise-to-signal ratio) and prioritize sources that in my opinion have better quality.
Please explain what you think the strawman argument was. Where did I say anything about your position unless you are a radical socialist or communist? Am I supposed to assume you have those beliefs? Was it that I find the information inaccurate? How does me finding the information inaccurate form a strawman argument? As for "insulting the authors" I don't think the authors would be insulted because someone disagrees, or where you talking about yourself? If it was my opinion which insulted you then don't bother replying.
Perhaps we misunderstood each other. The reason why I disregard most of this type of information is that generally the only groups that makes a noise about this sort of thing are the same groups that make a lot of noise about for example depleted uranium (I live in Europe and there's no shortage to what you linked to, I only need to go to a political bookstore). Most "information" I've read from these groups fail closer scrutiny. Me using that experience has nothing to do with strawman arguments: I'm not saying their position is anything different than they are saying (if I distorted their position and attacked it in that way it would be the definition of strawman argument).
Btw are you familiar with false strawman arguments? It's when the strawman argument is falsly invoked as a means of escaping debate or the topic in question. So please remember my question wasn't "are there people believing he is a war criminal", the question was if anyone could back up the statement "most of the world considers him a war criminal".
If this response only insults you then don't bother, enjoy a nice day instead.
Tell me when they've made contact lenses with built-in "wifi" and powertransmission, and they go completely transparent by thought control (semitransparent otherwise). The resolution needs to be at least 1280x1000 as well. "The world is your desktop background" :)
Preferrably they would take input by thought control but even if not I'd spend at least 3K$ per lens even if I had to take up a loan...
I hope you realize that your link is political propaganda loved and cherished by radical socialists and communists?
I'm sorry but to me that makes it not properly documented and thus irrelevant. And in no way does it prove the statement "most of the world considers him a war criminal", just that most of the worlds communists think so (old news).
you simply ignored the question of causation at all
I did no such thing, I put forward an important news item that has big implications for most of the theories about what the specific cause(s) is/are. For you to automatically interpret that as a claim that there are no causes at all is ludicrous. The news isn't about what the specific causes are, the news is about a major and often used analysis of data being critically flawed.
The article about PCA isn't about a flaw in the data, it's about a flaw in one particular statistical analysis
Not just any analysis, in the words of the MIT Tech Rew article:
"A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change"
In case you still do not realize it the analysis of said data is the starting point for the majority of science on global warming, and used as scientific proof for it. The fact that said analysis of data is "shot down" is pretty big news no matter what you, I, or anyone else personally believe is/are the cause(s).
Do you think scientists are lying about the oceans warming up?
Some might be twisting and nudging the facts a little but that isn't interesting compared to the simple fact that science do make mistakes from time to time, even big ones. Some people seem to think that science is infallible which is simply dangerous and weakens science in the long term. It's pretty obvious that global warming is a hot potato (pun intended) and also that this has compromised the quality of science regarding it (tendency for large scale panic usually has this effect). That should be a problem for all concerned as it reduces the chances of finding the correct answers on a question vital to us all.
I haven't said that the cycles happen by themselves, of course there are chains of causalities (both manmade and natural). Neither that its just "shit happens". I don't know where you got those things from but stop putting words in the mouths of people you consider your opponents, it's better to actually try to see what they say.
:)
As for PCA's validity etc. you don't seem to be too preoccupied by science being done right, did you read the link and the links in that text or did you just gloss over it?
Observing a vagrant squid tells us a lot less scientifically than a major flaw being discovered in some of the most used data in scientifically arguing for global warming (and implicitly for the warming to be manmade). Try reading the links again
It is interesting and here's the likely reason:
:)
news media is heavily slanted towards bullshit
Of course your leftleaning person will automatically identify bullshit as rightleaning and your rightleaning person will automatically identify bullshit as leftleaning
I'm european as well, and pro Bush, but I hope more and more people will realize that media (all over the world) is leaning towards bullshit so we some day can get back at discussing our different thought-patterns and logic/analysis on the topics at hand instead of getting bugged down in monkey and horse jokes (Bush and Kerry).
I agree however BBC has its share of spin as well so the absolutely best is to view unedited broadcasts for example directly from the public parts of UN security council sessions (BBC showed some of those), however I've found over time that CNN (europe) actually shows far more unedited broadcasts from US politics than BBC (stuff like the state of the union address, press conferences etc.).
It's priceless to be able to base ones own opinions directly on what a person or group said rather than what someone else thinks they said. Also it's priceless for discovering which way different media tends to spin. Nothing beats straight from the horses mouth.
Henry Kissinger (most of the world considers him a war criminal)
I'd like a link to a properly documented source for this one, or is it just your friends and aquaintances who tell you this?
But it really does say something about the current state of our media
Sadly it doesn't just say something about your (I read that as US) media, it is the same all over the world wherever one has freedom of expression. Making a quick joke or playing to peoples preconceptions (usually based on a history of other jokes treated as news and facts) is the way for media to make a quick buck, ok if it's pure entertainment but not in news reporting. How else to explain that a crease on the presidents suit makes headlines? How else to explain that Fahrenheit 9/11 gets documentary awards? There actually are bigger and more important real news out there.
I enjoy the occasional Bush joke as much as the next person, and Michael Moore was entertaining to watch when he was doing his tv show (but I hate his propaganda films). However the jokes stop being funny when people swear to them as facts, it becomes the same kind of stupid mob rule that empowered the big evils of last century (facism/communism).
Jon Stewart was not funny in this "interview" even though the "stupid majority" automatically laugh. He was dead serious and the only way to support him and make the world a better place is to reflect on his point and try to take it to heart no matter what your political colour is. Or will democracy die by laughter?