I didn't cut and paste anything. I really did do my own checking on the USHCN and GHCN a while back.
He accused all climate skeptics of not caring about the facts, just about their agenda. That is demonization. The following "an entire field of scientists doing their utmost to produce the most accurate models of climate change" would be Angelization I guess... which you'll note that I did not do on behalf of all skeptics. Some of them really are dodgy.
That's where it gets into underlying defintions of things which are not part of the definition of Liberty. If a fetus or embryo is a person, than it is murder. If it isn't a person, than it's the mother's to do with as she pleases. The classification "Libertarian" does not include whether or not a fetus is a person or not. But they still recognize a general right to be free from the interference from others, which causes lots of practical distinctions from the 2 major parties in the US
Property doesn't grant or hold rights. It does measure a form of power or ability to act, which is not the same thing. I think companies and landlords could do those things, but that it would be a stupid idea which would lose out to competitors. They are free to condition any efforts they exert on your behalf on whatever constraints they would like. Worst case is they do nothing for no one... which means no one is doing anything for them either. Life without cooperation really is nasty, brutish, and short. It dependson your definition of "rule". Since conditional assistance is not force or coercion, they aren't ruling you by opting not to work with you unless you do what they want, no matter how onerous those wants are.
My short form libertarian philosophy: There are no actual rights, they are entirely illusionary. However, since I don't particularly like being subject to random assault and battery, I'll recognize everyone else's right to be free from force as long as they do the same for me. Existence demonstrates that I can assume everyone else is ok with this until proven otherwise. It's natural (but sometimes foolish) to assume other people are willing to leave me the hell alone as long as I do the same, so anything compatible with equal rights can be called natural rights. Anything which requires the initiation of force is inherently not compatible with equal rights. Everything called a positive right requires the use of force. Taking the product of my labor without consent is force. Once you have demonstrated that you don't respect other people's rights, you have voluntarily given up your own parallel rights. Please accept that in the short form here, there are limitations, but I think this is sufficient to get the idea across.
Short short form: An it harm none, do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. Alternately, the golden rule.
"Libertarian dictator" is a null concept. By being a dictator, they cease to be libertarian. There are natural limitations to what can be accomplished without the initiation of force. One caveat: it depends on flavor of libertarian. Libertarians are not anarchists... but often that's for the pragmatic reason that government is inevitable, not because they recognize any right to initiate force.
Many people conflate failure to help with causing harm so that they can justify the use of force to make others do what they want. Most of the ways in which individuals are accused of controlling others is actually a form failure to help. Your rhetoric strongly suggests you don't understand that distinction, but I could be wrong.
Because he has since forgotten all of his algebra skills OR holding basic skills doesn't mean you can teach them. And despite what education degree holders will claim, having a teaching degree doesn't actually make it possible to teach anything you know. Teaching algebra is not the same as teaching writing, which is also not the same as teaching art, etc.
Vote libertarian. Democrats and Republicans both believe the government has a fundamental right to control your life, just disagreeing about in which areas and how effective it can be. At least the libertarians recognize that freedom includes the right to make choices they personally disagree with.
She was speaking at a government panel. There's a strongly implied "I'd like to have governement fix this" there. We won't get into the substance of her testimony, why she should or shouldn't have been allowed in the first one, etc.
No Child Left Behind legally prohibits teachers from doing their job. Period.
Please explain. My default response was that you are wrong, and I have some familiartiy with this law. Maybe I've missed something though. It was a poor attempt to fix the end result of poorly crafted government incentives instead of fixing the incentives, and is flawed in numerous ways, but it doesn't actually prohibit teachers from teach AFAIK.
Even as written, it could have been implemented better. Instead of tracking, say, 5th graders from year to year to guage AYP, schools could have grouped students by year of starting school and retired groups from tracking when the numbers got too low. Which would have been far more sensible as you'd mostly be comparing the same kids to the same kids, and could show progress no matter how bad the students were as long each student was improving from year to year. That was a suggestion I heard back when it was being debated, but of course no one actually does it that way. Could have missed a clause in there, I've only skimmed the thing.
Could you possibly pack more misinformation into one post? The banking sector was not, on the whole, deregulated over the last few years. Nor did they fail to need to document their provision of loans. I'd normally ingnore a post like yours, but it got a +5 interesting from mods who don't have a clue and want to blame bankers, and only bankers, for the economic crash.
Way to demonize the actual skeptics out there. Some of it is being contested because it's actually dodgy. Example: The USHCN provides both raw and adjusted monthly average temperatures for weather stations. Calculating the adjustments and averaging across all stations (simple average, no station weighting) for the last century, the adjustments follow a neat parabolic curve. Specfically, the Time of observation adjustments have a parabolic curve with it's low point in the 30's, and climbing before and after. The other adjustments, which aren't broken out into individual types, aren't as neat. No trend until the 40's, then a definite linear climb from then on. The linear fit of all adjustments show the adjustments climbing faster than the raw data. This should make anyone who is aware of it suspicious, especially as no one has provided an explanation for why there should be such a smooth curve. I'm leaning towards a mathematical artifact in how they determine what needs adjusting. But if so, that should have been caught if they had done any sanity checking on the effect of the adjustments.
The GHCN on the other hand just has a nice upward linear trend in adjustments from about 1900 on. The trend in adjustments is greater than the trend in the raw data. Without a coherent explanation of all adjustments, it looks like they are cooking the books.
If you're wondering, I did my own checking after Watts picked out a particular station with inexplicable adjustments, RealClimate proceeded to accuse him of cherry picking, then cherry picked their own set of stations. Choosing the entire set of station wasn't actually difficult.
That is simply not true. They held him for questioning for 5 hours, investigated and found physical evidence and witness testimony the was compatible with it and no evidence to contradict it, and found that they had no probable cause to arrest him. Not exactly pro cop here, but they did more than just take him at his word.
The problem is, blacks are in fact disproportionately criminal offenders. For homicides they committed more of them by actual counts than whites did, up until age 34, after which it remains disproportionate. IIRC, this is true even going solely by victim reports, but the site I was trying to look it up on, the USDOJ.gov, was down at the time i wrote this. Victim reports would point to an actual incidence rate issue not a criminal justice issue.
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming Blacks are inherently (key word there) more violent, just that for whatever reason in the US they commit more than their fair share of crime. Stating that fact is not, in and of itself, racist. Exploring why that is beyond the scope of this argument so do not assume I am taking any particular position in response. If, as derbyshire indicated in his article, I used that fact in situations when I have no other information other than the race of the people involved, that would simply be rational. It's when people hold onto a guess in the face of contrary evidence that it becomes despicable racism. People aught to be judged based on their own choices and actions, not a factor over which they have neither control nor responsibility.
Sikque claimed that by zimmerman's account, SYG justified Martin attacking. I was just pointing out that he was wrong. Your post was correct but irrelevant to this particular subthread.
IF (really, keep that word in mind please) Zimmerman's account is accurate, he harassed but did not threaten Trayvon, and Trayvon escalated to physical violence first, and did so in such a way that Zimmerman COULDN'T retreat. Trayvon was responsible for the initiation of physical violence and gave up any right to be free from it himself in doing so. It wasn't all Zimmerman's fault, because Trayvon was the one to actually attack. Fighting words don't actually free the person responding to them by fighting from responsibility for their response. At most, they can hope for a more lenient sentence because of the provocation.
I'm not saying that Zimmerman's account is necessarily accurate. But if it is your shouted description is not the least bit relevant.
Stand your ground is a completenon-factor in this case, because the claim is that Trayvon tackled Zimmerman. The media hypes on it, because they don't like stand your ground laws. There aren't many well established facts in this case, and among those is whether Trayvon attacked the guy who had been following him or not.
You provided no cite for your value of 98%. I've not seen that one in the past. I have seen 97% cited, and I assumed (and I probably should have asked but you have yet to produce any evidence for a particular value in this thread) that you were using one of the many cites to that value. The study that provided that number were flawed, and I linked to articles critiquing it and suggesting a lower amount of consensus. If you had actually backed up your claim in any way, I could have dug into that, but you failed to do so. You have still not provided evidence for 98% in particular, but if you would like to do so feel free.
If your argument is "A therefore B" and I can disprove A, I don't actually have to provide some counter argument B' in order for my critique to be correct. It stands on it's own.
Note that I never claimed that there isn't a consensus at all.
The repeal of Glass-Stegall, inasmuch as it affected the mortgage bubble at all, reduced the impact. The banks which took advantage of being able to diversify were the least effected by the crash. Which is what you would expect.
Fair enough. It's worth noting that their are real flaws in many Microsoft products, and for people who have to troubleshoot them every day it's easy to assume they are worse than other companies in that regard. The one I noted has been around forever (unless it's been fixed since my employer dropped exchange). Your initial post seemed to suggest that Microsoft doesn't leave any bugs lying around unfixed, rather than just being a challenge to that commenter to prove that he was actually familiar with MS products. It would have been worth adding "If you can't name them without googling them, you don't actually know what you are talking about."
I did have some real technical issue with the switch to Vista/windows 7 from XP (profile stuff mostly) but I decline to enumerate them all. Some of the changes may have been necessary for various reasons I'm unaware of, but they still caused work for me.
No, they don't. The most common cite is 97%. That came from a veryflawed study. Among other things, they pared down the original set of respondents down to 79 from over 3000 respondents in order to bring the percentage up. Selection bias much?
Except that's it's true at this vary moment. Cheapest macbook with a 17 inch screen direct from apple is 2500, while I can buy an acer aspire with a slightly slower cpu (2.2 vs 2.4 GHZ) for 900. Those are similar hardware, and the extra speed is not cost effective to purchase right now.
It does leave out any groups that would actually need to check competing products. If IT uses a third pary app for management, that's a serious sign that Microsoft should be adding or reconfiguring something in their own software.
For most of my stint as a computer tech, Jobs was in again, and yes it WAS more expensive to buy a Mac with similar hardware than to buy a windows box, except that the windows box generally wouldn't have things like Firewire which we didn't actually have a use for. Maybe that little missing piece of hardware is why... but to get a computer with a good enough processor, memory, hard drive, and graphics card, windows was cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't cut and paste anything. I really did do my own checking on the USHCN and GHCN a while back.
He accused all climate skeptics of not caring about the facts, just about their agenda. That is demonization. The following "an entire field of scientists doing their utmost to produce the most accurate models of climate change" would be Angelization I guess... which you'll note that I did not do on behalf of all skeptics. Some of them really are dodgy.
That's where it gets into underlying defintions of things which are not part of the definition of Liberty. If a fetus or embryo is a person, than it is murder. If it isn't a person, than it's the mother's to do with as she pleases. The classification "Libertarian" does not include whether or not a fetus is a person or not. But they still recognize a general right to be free from the interference from others, which causes lots of practical distinctions from the 2 major parties in the US
Property doesn't grant or hold rights. It does measure a form of power or ability to act, which is not the same thing. I think companies and landlords could do those things, but that it would be a stupid idea which would lose out to competitors. They are free to condition any efforts they exert on your behalf on whatever constraints they would like. Worst case is they do nothing for no one... which means no one is doing anything for them either. Life without cooperation really is nasty, brutish, and short. It dependson your definition of "rule". Since conditional assistance is not force or coercion, they aren't ruling you by opting not to work with you unless you do what they want, no matter how onerous those wants are.
My short form libertarian philosophy: There are no actual rights, they are entirely illusionary. However, since I don't particularly like being subject to random assault and battery, I'll recognize everyone else's right to be free from force as long as they do the same for me. Existence demonstrates that I can assume everyone else is ok with this until proven otherwise. It's natural (but sometimes foolish) to assume other people are willing to leave me the hell alone as long as I do the same, so anything compatible with equal rights can be called natural rights. Anything which requires the initiation of force is inherently not compatible with equal rights. Everything called a positive right requires the use of force. Taking the product of my labor without consent is force. Once you have demonstrated that you don't respect other people's rights, you have voluntarily given up your own parallel rights. Please accept that in the short form here, there are limitations, but I think this is sufficient to get the idea across.
Short short form: An it harm none, do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. Alternately, the golden rule.
"Libertarian dictator" is a null concept. By being a dictator, they cease to be libertarian. There are natural limitations to what can be accomplished without the initiation of force. One caveat: it depends on flavor of libertarian. Libertarians are not anarchists... but often that's for the pragmatic reason that government is inevitable, not because they recognize any right to initiate force.
Many people conflate failure to help with causing harm so that they can justify the use of force to make others do what they want. Most of the ways in which individuals are accused of controlling others is actually a form failure to help. Your rhetoric strongly suggests you don't understand that distinction, but I could be wrong.
Because he has since forgotten all of his algebra skills OR holding basic skills doesn't mean you can teach them. And despite what education degree holders will claim, having a teaching degree doesn't actually make it possible to teach anything you know. Teaching algebra is not the same as teaching writing, which is also not the same as teaching art, etc.
Vote libertarian. Democrats and Republicans both believe the government has a fundamental right to control your life, just disagreeing about in which areas and how effective it can be. At least the libertarians recognize that freedom includes the right to make choices they personally disagree with.
She was speaking at a government panel. There's a strongly implied "I'd like to have governement fix this" there. We won't get into the substance of her testimony, why she should or shouldn't have been allowed in the first one, etc.
Please explain. My default response was that you are wrong, and I have some familiartiy with this law. Maybe I've missed something though. It was a poor attempt to fix the end result of poorly crafted government incentives instead of fixing the incentives, and is flawed in numerous ways, but it doesn't actually prohibit teachers from teach AFAIK.
Even as written, it could have been implemented better. Instead of tracking, say, 5th graders from year to year to guage AYP, schools could have grouped students by year of starting school and retired groups from tracking when the numbers got too low. Which would have been far more sensible as you'd mostly be comparing the same kids to the same kids, and could show progress no matter how bad the students were as long each student was improving from year to year. That was a suggestion I heard back when it was being debated, but of course no one actually does it that way. Could have missed a clause in there, I've only skimmed the thing.
What irony? Holding the defender and attacker equally responsible is very much an outcome of zero tolerance, and is very stupid.
Could you possibly pack more misinformation into one post? The banking sector was not, on the whole, deregulated over the last few years. Nor did they fail to need to document their provision of loans. I'd normally ingnore a post like yours, but it got a +5 interesting from mods who don't have a clue and want to blame bankers, and only bankers, for the economic crash.
Way to demonize the actual skeptics out there. Some of it is being contested because it's actually dodgy. Example: The USHCN provides both raw and adjusted monthly average temperatures for weather stations. Calculating the adjustments and averaging across all stations (simple average, no station weighting) for the last century, the adjustments follow a neat parabolic curve. Specfically, the Time of observation adjustments have a parabolic curve with it's low point in the 30's, and climbing before and after. The other adjustments, which aren't broken out into individual types, aren't as neat. No trend until the 40's, then a definite linear climb from then on. The linear fit of all adjustments show the adjustments climbing faster than the raw data. This should make anyone who is aware of it suspicious, especially as no one has provided an explanation for why there should be such a smooth curve. I'm leaning towards a mathematical artifact in how they determine what needs adjusting. But if so, that should have been caught if they had done any sanity checking on the effect of the adjustments.
The GHCN on the other hand just has a nice upward linear trend in adjustments from about 1900 on. The trend in adjustments is greater than the trend in the raw data. Without a coherent explanation of all adjustments, it looks like they are cooking the books.
If you're wondering, I did my own checking after Watts picked out a particular station with inexplicable adjustments, RealClimate proceeded to accuse him of cherry picking, then cherry picked their own set of stations. Choosing the entire set of station wasn't actually difficult.
That is simply not true. They held him for questioning for 5 hours, investigated and found physical evidence and witness testimony the was compatible with it and no evidence to contradict it, and found that they had no probable cause to arrest him. Not exactly pro cop here, but they did more than just take him at his word.
Except, of course, it wasn't.
The problem is, blacks are in fact disproportionately criminal offenders. For homicides they committed more of them by actual counts than whites did, up until age 34, after which it remains disproportionate. IIRC, this is true even going solely by victim reports, but the site I was trying to look it up on, the USDOJ.gov, was down at the time i wrote this. Victim reports would point to an actual incidence rate issue not a criminal justice issue.
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming Blacks are inherently (key word there) more violent, just that for whatever reason in the US they commit more than their fair share of crime. Stating that fact is not, in and of itself, racist. Exploring why that is beyond the scope of this argument so do not assume I am taking any particular position in response. If, as derbyshire indicated in his article, I used that fact in situations when I have no other information other than the race of the people involved, that would simply be rational. It's when people hold onto a guess in the face of contrary evidence that it becomes despicable racism. People aught to be judged based on their own choices and actions, not a factor over which they have neither control nor responsibility.
Sikque claimed that by zimmerman's account, SYG justified Martin attacking. I was just pointing out that he was wrong. Your post was correct but irrelevant to this particular subthread.
Except Zimmerman hadn't actually threatened him. SYG only applies to the threat or use of actual force. Stalking does not qualify.
IF (really, keep that word in mind please) Zimmerman's account is accurate, he harassed but did not threaten Trayvon, and Trayvon escalated to physical violence first, and did so in such a way that Zimmerman COULDN'T retreat. Trayvon was responsible for the initiation of physical violence and gave up any right to be free from it himself in doing so. It wasn't all Zimmerman's fault, because Trayvon was the one to actually attack. Fighting words don't actually free the person responding to them by fighting from responsibility for their response. At most, they can hope for a more lenient sentence because of the provocation.
I'm not saying that Zimmerman's account is necessarily accurate. But if it is your shouted description is not the least bit relevant.
Stand your ground is a complete non-factor in this case, because the claim is that Trayvon tackled Zimmerman. The media hypes on it, because they don't like stand your ground laws. There aren't many well established facts in this case, and among those is whether Trayvon attacked the guy who had been following him or not.
You provided no cite for your value of 98%. I've not seen that one in the past. I have seen 97% cited, and I assumed (and I probably should have asked but you have yet to produce any evidence for a particular value in this thread) that you were using one of the many cites to that value. The study that provided that number were flawed, and I linked to articles critiquing it and suggesting a lower amount of consensus. If you had actually backed up your claim in any way, I could have dug into that, but you failed to do so. You have still not provided evidence for 98% in particular, but if you would like to do so feel free.
If your argument is "A therefore B" and I can disprove A, I don't actually have to provide some counter argument B' in order for my critique to be correct. It stands on it's own.
Note that I never claimed that there isn't a consensus at all.
The repeal of Glass-Stegall, inasmuch as it affected the mortgage bubble at all, reduced the impact. The banks which took advantage of being able to diversify were the least effected by the crash. Which is what you would expect.
Fair enough. It's worth noting that their are real flaws in many Microsoft products, and for people who have to troubleshoot them every day it's easy to assume they are worse than other companies in that regard. The one I noted has been around forever (unless it's been fixed since my employer dropped exchange). Your initial post seemed to suggest that Microsoft doesn't leave any bugs lying around unfixed, rather than just being a challenge to that commenter to prove that he was actually familiar with MS products. It would have been worth adding "If you can't name them without googling them, you don't actually know what you are talking about."
I did have some real technical issue with the switch to Vista/windows 7 from XP (profile stuff mostly) but I decline to enumerate them all. Some of the changes may have been necessary for various reasons I'm unaware of, but they still caused work for me.
No, they don't. The most common cite is 97%. That came from a very flawed study. Among other things, they pared down the original set of respondents down to 79 from over 3000 respondents in order to bring the percentage up. Selection bias much?
Except that's it's true at this vary moment. Cheapest macbook with a 17 inch screen direct from apple is 2500, while I can buy an acer aspire with a slightly slower cpu (2.2 vs 2.4 GHZ) for 900. Those are similar hardware, and the extra speed is not cost effective to purchase right now.
Troll? I would have modded this funny myself. Maybe you weren't intending to be funny, but I mentally heard a rimshot at the end of it. :)
It does leave out any groups that would actually need to check competing products. If IT uses a third pary app for management, that's a serious sign that Microsoft should be adding or reconfiguring something in their own software.
For most of my stint as a computer tech, Jobs was in again, and yes it WAS more expensive to buy a Mac with similar hardware than to buy a windows box, except that the windows box generally wouldn't have things like Firewire which we didn't actually have a use for. Maybe that little missing piece of hardware is why... but to get a computer with a good enough processor, memory, hard drive, and graphics card, windows was cheaper.