This source is just part of the carbon cycle. Cows aren't sucking petroleum out of the depths of the Earth and converting it to greenhouse gases. True though that methane is a worse g.g. than the CO2 that plants remove from the atmosphere -- but IIRC it also is not as long-lived.
Where do you see a call to cease all carbon emissions? An effective strategy would be multi-pronged.
* Reduced growth (in population and in consumption) -- read up on the exponential function to understand why this is important
* Greater efficiency in energy conversion
* More use of renewable energy sources
* Various forms of sequestration (including reforestation)
Wow, that response is all over the map. Where to start? We weren't talking about thought crimes (Orwell coined this to describe the banning of ideas), but hate crimes (bias-motivated infringement on the rights of others). Juries are often instructed to take into account the defendant's state of mind. Get over it.
I can't tell what the first line of the second paragraph means, because it's not a complete sentence. What system is being undermined and how? And you jump off on a series of unrelated tangents after that, so your whole argument is lost in space.
False dichotomy. Read here first and get a clue of what a hate crime *is*.
If you hate someone so much because of what he said that you have to firebomb his house, it is a hate crime.
Wrong, because that isn't bias-motivated.
Religion is speech, crazy, weird, sick and hateful speech. If it is okay to hate someone because he is a racist or a bigot, and therefor firebombing his house is not hate crime but just crime against property, then it should be okay to hate someone because of his religion. By that logic, anti-jew or anti-muslim crimes, for example, should not be hate crime.
FT does an approximation of CFT, by first changing the input signal to discrete values (like 44,100 per second for music), calculating only discrete frequencies, (440 Hz, 441 Hz, 442 Hz...) and replacing the integral with a sum. So you calculate for each point the sum of (input signal times sine wave). For each of n inputs you add n values, for a total of n^2 products.
Er, that's not a Fourier transform (which is a continuous representation of a continuous signal) but a discrete Fourier transform (DFT).
Right...When we say something is private, it means we have an expectation of privacy, not that the privacy is guaranteed. Of course we can take any measures we deem practical and necessary to help ensure that privacy, if we are concerned (and have the know-how).
If you firebomb somebody because of there race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on, that is a hate crime. If you do so because you are offended by what they say about you, it's a crime, but not a *hate* crime.
Do those rules apply to wifi SSID? I've just assumed they were narrowly crafted rules to apply to traditional broadcast media (commercial broadcasting, amateur radio, citizens' band). You know, stuff that the children are likely to hear. Can someone who does know, enlighten me?
They are not more or less wrong because of the perpetrators reasons. All people are equal, its no more wrong for me to beat you because I hate what you are than it is for me to beat you for any other reason.
Equally wrong from a moral standpoint (excluding cases of self-defense and defense of others), but the law nevertheless has always made such distinctions. The differences among manslaughter and different degrees of murder often has to do with the state of mind of the accused. And as long as state of mind is a question of fact, subject to the findings of a jury, I'm okay with it, as it doesn't impinge on the rights of the accused.
This is supposed to be a nation of free people, that SHOULD include the freedom of some to hate. What its does not include is the freedom to act on that hate when it violates the rights and freedoms of others.
Obviously you are an authority on this evidence that we haven't heard of. I await your publication.
For the record, Darwinian evolution says nothing about *when* modern humans could have first existed. All we know about that is empirically derived from the fossil record, not from theoretical predictions.
you would want to do to disempower the people is to start teaching them that we don't have any semblance of a democratic system. Don't want to give them ideas that they can change things.
Eh, democracy has no requirement for majority rule, which often can't be had anyway (think what happens when number of alternatives > 2). You can start your education with the wikipedia article.
Theories in science are *never* proven, only tested.
At some point, something is so well tested that it become pointless to speak of it as a theory and it is regarded as a fact, which subsequent theories must conform to. This has happened, for example, with evolution. Nowadays a "theory of evolution" should properly only refer to those theories which conform to the fact of evolution.
Now perhaps someday someone will directly observe an instance of the FSM creating a new species, with original members that have no parents. Then we may have to revise evolution downward from "fact" to "hypothesis" (it still won't be disproven, but would be subject to testing all over again). Until that happens, we should feel free to call evolution a fact, and all biological theories must be consistent with that fact.
As for "string theory", a better term might be "string conjecture". But, for the record, I don't think conjectures are worthless. They can be the forerunners of hypotheses and eventually theories.
Well said. The worst sort of relativists are those who believe their own (relative) views are absolute:
They believe that their ideal of the traditional American way of life is the only truth, and that anything that contradicts that must not be true.
Face it, everyone is a relativist, whether they will acknowledge it or not. That doesn't have to get in the way of science. Good scientists are able to compartmentalize their ideologies and focus on the facts at hand.
I don't think AC was writing to criticize the article, I think his or her comment was directed at this statement from the summary: "Now New York Times has an article describing the latest chilling acts of the socially relativistic, postmodern loons." So I agree with that: it is a poor summary.
If someone ever actually comes up with a testable definition of a "soul" that can satisfy all participants of a debate, then it could be settled. The thing is that the positivists would want such a definition to be testable but the transcendentalists would want it *not* to be, so there you have it...it's not a deficiency of science, it's a deficiency in the framing of the debate.
Slashdot Mirror
This source is just part of the carbon cycle. Cows aren't sucking petroleum out of the depths of the Earth and converting it to greenhouse gases. True though that methane is a worse g.g. than the CO2 that plants remove from the atmosphere -- but IIRC it also is not as long-lived.
Where do you see a call to cease all carbon emissions? An effective strategy would be multi-pronged.
* Reduced growth (in population and in consumption) -- read up on the exponential function to understand why this is important
* Greater efficiency in energy conversion
* More use of renewable energy sources
* Various forms of sequestration (including reforestation)
Fast Times, anyone?
Wow, that response is all over the map. Where to start? We weren't talking about thought crimes (Orwell coined this to describe the banning of ideas), but hate crimes (bias-motivated infringement on the rights of others). Juries are often instructed to take into account the defendant's state of mind. Get over it.
I can't tell what the first line of the second paragraph means, because it's not a complete sentence. What system is being undermined and how? And you jump off on a series of unrelated tangents after that, so your whole argument is lost in space.
False dichotomy. Read here first and get a clue of what a hate crime *is*.
If you hate someone so much because of what he said that you have to firebomb his house, it is a hate crime.
Wrong, because that isn't bias-motivated.
Religion is speech, crazy, weird, sick and hateful speech. If it is okay to hate someone because he is a racist or a bigot, and therefor firebombing his house is not hate crime but just crime against property, then it should be okay to hate someone because of his religion. By that logic, anti-jew or anti-muslim crimes, for example, should not be hate crime.
Wrong, because that *is* bias-motivated.
FT does an approximation of CFT, by first changing the input signal to discrete values (like 44,100 per second for music), calculating only discrete frequencies, (440 Hz, 441 Hz, 442 Hz...) and replacing the integral with a sum. So you calculate for each point the sum of (input signal times sine wave). For each of n inputs you add n values, for a total of n^2 products.
Er, that's not a Fourier transform (which is a continuous representation of a continuous signal) but a discrete Fourier transform (DFT).
Right...When we say something is private, it means we have an expectation of privacy, not that the privacy is guaranteed. Of course we can take any measures we deem practical and necessary to help ensure that privacy, if we are concerned (and have the know-how).
If you firebomb somebody because of there race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on, that is a hate crime. If you do so because you are offended by what they say about you, it's a crime, but not a *hate* crime.
Do those rules apply to wifi SSID? I've just assumed they were narrowly crafted rules to apply to traditional broadcast media (commercial broadcasting, amateur radio, citizens' band). You know, stuff that the children are likely to hear. Can someone who does know, enlighten me?
The best one in my neighborhood is "stopstealingmywifi".
They are not more or less wrong because of the perpetrators reasons. All people are equal, its no more wrong for me to beat you because I hate what you are than it is for me to beat you for any other reason.
Equally wrong from a moral standpoint (excluding cases of self-defense and defense of others), but the law nevertheless has always made such distinctions. The differences among manslaughter and different degrees of murder often has to do with the state of mind of the accused. And as long as state of mind is a question of fact, subject to the findings of a jury, I'm okay with it, as it doesn't impinge on the rights of the accused.
This is supposed to be a nation of free people, that SHOULD include the freedom of some to hate. What its does not include is the freedom to act on that hate when it violates the rights and freedoms of others.
I'm in complete agreement with that statement.
Spongebob, is that you?
Obviously you are an authority on this evidence that we haven't heard of. I await your publication.
For the record, Darwinian evolution says nothing about *when* modern humans could have first existed. All we know about that is empirically derived from the fossil record, not from theoretical predictions.
you would want to do to disempower the people is to start teaching them that we don't have any semblance of a democratic system. Don't want to give them ideas that they can change things.
You can be two things.
Preaching to my sig, you are.
Eh, democracy has no requirement for majority rule, which often can't be had anyway (think what happens when number of alternatives > 2). You can start your education with the wikipedia article.
How about a CAPTCHA for Reply-All? That would certainly stop the autopilots.
they are finnished with it, then?
Theories in science are *never* proven, only tested.
At some point, something is so well tested that it become pointless to speak of it as a theory and it is regarded as a fact, which subsequent theories must conform to. This has happened, for example, with evolution. Nowadays a "theory of evolution" should properly only refer to those theories which conform to the fact of evolution.
Now perhaps someday someone will directly observe an instance of the FSM creating a new species, with original members that have no parents. Then we may have to revise evolution downward from "fact" to "hypothesis" (it still won't be disproven, but would be subject to testing all over again). Until that happens, we should feel free to call evolution a fact, and all biological theories must be consistent with that fact.
As for "string theory", a better term might be "string conjecture". But, for the record, I don't think conjectures are worthless. They can be the forerunners of hypotheses and eventually theories.
Well said. The worst sort of relativists are those who believe their own (relative) views are absolute:
They believe that their ideal of the traditional American way of life is the only truth, and that anything that contradicts that must not be true.
Face it, everyone is a relativist, whether they will acknowledge it or not. That doesn't have to get in the way of science. Good scientists are able to compartmentalize their ideologies and focus on the facts at hand.
I don't think AC was writing to criticize the article, I think his or her comment was directed at this statement from the summary: "Now New York Times has an article describing the latest chilling acts of the socially relativistic, postmodern loons." So I agree with that: it is a poor summary.
Oh, the oil companies will be very happy to fund you!
To be fair, he never said how many centuries ago.
If someone ever actually comes up with a testable definition of a "soul" that can satisfy all participants of a debate, then it could be settled. The thing is that the positivists would want such a definition to be testable but the transcendentalists would want it *not* to be, so there you have it...it's not a deficiency of science, it's a deficiency in the framing of the debate.