Post 9/11 people have willingly given up basic rights that the country was founded on that people fought and died to protect, all out of fear and others have capitalized on it.
Americans have given up basic rights after, and as a result of 9/11? Well, no they haven't, that is pretty much nonsense. Do Americans still vote despite 9/11? Yes. Can Americans still join the political party of their choice despite 9/11? The same as before, yes. Do Americans still exercise free speech despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still worship or not worship the god of their choice, if any, despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still have the right to pursue the legal occupation that they choose despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still have the right to run for office despite 9/11? Yes. Do American's still have the right to travel despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still enjoy a free press despite 9/1? Yes.
Do you have a right to communicate in private to Al Qaida? No. That has never been the case that you have a right to private communications with an enemy involved in armed conflict against the United States.
What about Guantanamo? Less than 1,000 people total have ever been held there as part of the war against Al Qaida. Contrary to slogans on protest posters, nobody went to Guantanamo for making a joke about Presidents Bush or Obama.
What about denial of habeas corpus? Only effected the prisoners of war until the Supreme Court created a new right for them. Historically they never had it.
What about indefinite detention? Only effects prisoners of war. Under treaty you can hold them until the conflict is over.
What about no declaration of war? The Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. Legally it is equivalent to a declaration of war.
In short, your claim that Americans have given up basic rights since, and as a result of 9/11, is pretty much nonsense. That doesn't mean there isn't a threat of that, though. We'll come back to that.
The Soviet Union had the KGB to "protect" it's citizens.
No, the KGB's main mission was to protect communist rule in the Soviet Union. In short, it was an organ of political oppression that spied internally and internationally. When a new country came under Soviet rule, as in Eastern Europe, the KBG was active there. It was always making plans for that, even for the US.
Nazi Germany had the Gestapo to "protect" their citizens.
No, the Gestapo's main mission was to protect Nazi rule in Nazi Germany by hunting down the opposition, although they also "protected" Germans by hunting down Jews to prevent "contamination."
And the US has homeland security. Of course, what are they protecting their citizens against?
The Department of Homeland Security is mainly a regrouping of previously existing Federal agencies, mainly involved in law enforcement, under a new headquarters. It is made up of: US Customs & Border Protection US Citizenship & Immigration Services US Coast Guard Federal Emergency Management Agency US Immigration & Customs Enforcement US Secret Service (Bodyguards for the President, anti-Counterfeiting, and some online crime.) Transportation Security Administration
Maybe at some point you could pick out the really sinister part of DHS?
The agencies that were regrouped under the new DHS headquarters continue the law enforcement missions that they had prior to 9/11. But you don't know why they were regrouped, and what it was they were regrouped to try and protect against? Really? Here is a reminder.
Terrorism plots, arrests, and convictions have continued over the years, as this sample shows:
In summary, the retina has developed its inverted shape to improve the directionality of intercepted light beams, to enhance vision acuity, increase immunity to scatter and clutter, concentrate more light into the cones, and overcome chromatic aberration. We are now assessing the effect of ocular aberrations on acuity to explore what happens when the beam hitting the retina is more spread and its phase is more random.
SPIE is an international society advancing an interdisciplinary approach to the science and application of light.
There are differences between vertebrate eyes and those of cephalopods. Perhaps the most surprising difference given the amazing ability of cephalopods to change color is that most cephalopods are completely color blind (Hanlon and Messenger 1996). How do we know? We can train octopuses to pick black objects over white objects, white objects over black objects, light grey objects over dark grey objects and vice versa but we can not train them to differentiate between colorful objects that look the same in grayscale (Hanlon and Messenger 1996). Also, most cephalopods only have one visual pigment. We have three.
If we had eyes like nearly all squids, we would be color blind. Does Dawkins think that is superior?
It isn't an idiot designer, as cephalopods have their eyes the right way around. The designer clearly can do it correctly, but chose not to do it with vertebrates. Furthermore, when looking at the way the world works, it becomes clear that the designer is evil, mad or both. All in all, Cthulhu is the best guess at a designer, given the evidence.
Yes, it's always the physicists and mathematicians for some reason who hold these ideas.
No, not always. If I recall correctly, engineers are most likely to believe in God, but I would think that all scientific disciplines are represented. Here are just a few.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that smart people can't be stupid.
Spending much time on Slashdot will disabuse you of that notion. What is smart and stupid can be an elusive quality, and you may find as you go through life that they will rearrange themselves at times. The phrase, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." exists for a reason. "Stupid" people can show up in surprising places, like the mirror. Everyone should check there, from time to time.
and the scientist then asked "So why is it in the literature you're selling in the lobby?"
I don't find that particularly persuasive, do you? Are all books with one or more superseded theories or now former "facts" gathered up and destroyed immediately as soon as one part of it is out of date? There is a bit of a problem keeping textbooks up to date with current science. I seem to recall a recent story that space science is particularly bad off in that regard with many books being 30-40 years out of date in some important areas. I don't find it any surprise that vendors don't throw their inventory on bonfires if it is dated, but rather prefer to sell them to get their money back. That is before you get into the question of classics in a field. Some of the classics in my fields are timeless, others have been superseded but still offer valuable insights into thinking about the problems, or approaches to consider. No, I don't find that a persuasive point at all.
I suspect it's something like the reason physicists don't feel a need to have Time Cube proponentists and historians don't need holocaust deniers.
Not, that isn't it. The problem with your quip is that physicists that ascribe to ID still do real physics. Chemists that ascribe to ID still do real chemistry. Biologists that ascribe to ID still do real biology. Doctors that ascribe to ID still do real medicine. The time cube guy probably needs (needed?) medication and therapy. Holocaust deniers are popular in Iran, and various parts of the Middle East, but not so much in the West.
This scientist clearly believes in God, perhaps he is even a Creationist. I don't think you can argue he hasn't made a solid contribution to science. He isn't alone, not by a long shot.
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. If you don't deal in facts, science doesn't need you.
Well, that always is one of the questions, isn't it? What are the facts? And do they support the theory? Some scientists prefer only friendly reviewers, and like minded theories.
The famous German physicist Max Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " He also said, "Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. "
Journals can be discriminatory, or captured by a particular faction in a debate and exclude solid papers by those they disagree with. The science around "climate change" is not a shining model of scientific process even if you agree with the theory of man-made global warming.
. . . a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research”
You are complaining to the wrong person. Make your complaint to Black Parrot or some of the other ones up thread. He started it off with a joke post involving ID, started the thread topic, and then made the inquiry I responded to. There are other posts about it as well. Complain to them. If it is OK for them to post on it, it is OK for me to post on it. Fair is fair. If it is just a matter of viewpoint discrimination - well, sorry, but I will continue to post on running topics, but do not agree to one sided discussions.
If you're bored with it, feel free to ignore the posts. I often ignore threads in a story, or even entire stories, in which the discussion is one in which I am uninterested, or at least find to be a lesser priority.
I don't think the ID community would agree that what they do either is, or has, spirituality as a central component to the day to day work. Many of them are working scientists as well. They just hold a particular view about what the ultimate source of everything is. Drop an anvil on your toe and a physicist that ascribes to ID will tell you it was gravity that pulled it to earth, not God's will. A chemist that ascribes to ID will tell you that the anvil is made of high carbon steel with traces of scandium, not "stuff that God holds together." A physician that ascribes to ID will still tell you that the toe has to be amputated. Don't make the mistake of thinking that people that believe either ID or associated beliefs must be stupid.
I know a PhD physicist that graduated from a major research university, is the head of an academic physics department (last I knew), and believed in either ID or Creationism, I forget which. Besides his academic duties, the good doctor does solid research for outside customers and is well regarded in that particular research community. Believing that God exists, created the universe, and established creation in a particular fashion is a very remote question from trying to understand a particular problem in surface physics.
I would think that evolutionary theory would predict, and even practically demand, the presence of ID theorists and Creationists of various flavors as part of the scientific community. Every scientific community, and they are segmented, is its own little ecosystem. It has sources of energy (grants), and consumers (scientists) and various forms of reproduction (ideas and new scientists, etc.). Some members of the ecosystem will consume resources, but give little back, or produce poor quality offspring. The herd only improves if the strongest survive. Think of the role of predators taking the weak in any animal stock. In this case it is weak theories and science. By the two communities engaging in adversarial struggle, the weak science is exposed and made stronger. What is passed over in silence by on community is exposed by the other and account demanded. Intellectual rigor increases. Their ways are strange to you, perhaps even irritating. But directly and indirectly they help real science grow stronger, and more innovative. They probably also bring additional funding into the scientific community that it otherwise wouldn't have. And without them, your droll post would have no meaning.
The evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium came about for a reason - to explain missing data - transitional forms, data that couldn't be found but evolutionary theory said should be there. It is certainly a bold approach to the problem - we can't find it because it doesn't exist so, never mind. In a way it brings to mind the Fermi Paradox.
Respect - for stating the facts. I write that not because I might support President Bush, but because my recollection is that you strongly oppose him but still stated the fact. If we can't keep the discussion centered on facts, even if they might be unpalatable to us, what do we have? Too many people here don't do that. Enjoy your weekend.
Was your knowledge of British History gleaned from Miss Marple whodunnits?
It might have been gathered from the newspapers. . .
From: Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 1977 Bobbies borrow guns to blast fugitive
RAINOW, England (AP) - Police cornered and killed an escaped prisoner who fled across snow-covered moorlands holding a woman hostage at knifepoint after allegedly killing four members of her family.
Police said the escapee, William Hughes, 30, was shot to death Friday night after the stolen car he was driving crashed into a wall at a police roadblock.
Some of the policemen earlier had to arm themselves with guns borrowed from residents of this central English village.
Today, 96 years ago, London was rocked by a terrorist outrage. Two Latvian anarchists, who had crossed the Channel after trying to blow up the president of France, attempted an armed wages robbery in Tottenham. Foiled at the outset when the intended victims fought back, the anarchists attempted to shoot their way out.
A dramatic pursuit ensued involving horses and carts, bicycles, cars and a hijacked tram. The fleeing anarchists fired some 400 shots, leaving a policeman and a child dead, and some two dozen other casualties, before they were ultimately brought to bay. They had been chased by an extraordinary posse of policemen and local people, armed and unarmed. Along the way, the police (whose gun cupboard had been locked, and the key mislaid) had borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by in the street, while other armed citizens joined the chase in person.
Today, when we are inured to the idea of armed robbery and drive-by shootings, the aspect of the "Tottenham Outrage" that is most likely to shock is the fact that so many ordinary members of the public at that time should have been carrying guns in the street. Bombarded with headlines about an emergent "gun culture" in Britain now, we are apt to forget that the real novelty is the notion that the general populace in this country should be disarmed.
. . . A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials". . . . Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver. . .
Now I'm curious, from where do you learn your British history? It seems to be an incomplete source.
After some considerable delay, while the terrorists milled about chatting, yes.
If a law abiding person at the scene had been armed, instead of just the terrorists, it might have ended before the terrorists were able to decapitate Drummer Rigby. Personally, I would have found that quite agreeable.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Murder is already very, very illegal. No new laws are needed. Planning murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed. Soliciting murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.
I believe that level of perfection in the law was reached by 1613. Are you suggesting that in the last 400 years that all subsequent new laws were unneeded? There was no need to ban guns, since killing people was already illegal? No need for any of the anti-terrorism laws, since killing people was already illegal? There was no opportunity to improve matters that are governed by law? No possibilities to improve evidence gathering? No possibilities to improve cooperation between different ministries and agencies? No limits on extremist activity that might inhibit the already far too many people in HM realm that are disposed to commit acts of terror. Also note, by your reasoning there should have been no reason to effectively ban self-defense, since murder is already illegal so no further laws are necessary. I don't think I can agree with that.
Starting from July 7/7/2005, an average of 7 people are killed per year due to terrorist attacks. That's on the same level as eye-wateringly obscure medical diseases.
I am unaware of any obscure medical diseases that might cause one to burst into thousands of pieces of steel shrapnel to kill dozens of people standing nearby. That is a constant threat of terrorism of the sort already seen in Britain. The absence of regular incidents of such is a result of convictions, not luck or magic stones.
Basically, any money put into preventing those is a complete waste: the money would be vastly better spent elsewhere, such as improving road safety.
Those numbers can change rather quickly if just one plot gets through.
No, I'll try and shoot them, just like the police shot at these murderers. And see, no new laws were needed.
That would be use of an offensive weapon. There are severe penalties for violating the Queens peace like that.
The quote doesn't say anything about guns, only freedom in general. But since you ask - you are a British subject, which says a lot. 100 years ago Britons were freer to own guns, and don't the crime statistics show lower crime then? I would guess your assessment would be that you would feel freer now than then despite the higher crime rate.
I notice HM is guarded by people with guns. I've even read a report that she has been known to carry a Webley. Do you suppose she feels less free because of it? Do you feel less free because of it?
Interesting that the terrorists had guns. (Isn't that theoretically impossible under current British law?) Apparently nobody but the police had one to stop them. Good thing they didn't decide to go on a bigger rampage - they would have been up against the defenseless. On the other hand, you feel free.
The prosecutor actually shook hands with Brevik because that's how they always do it and the hell some mass murdering bastard is going to make them give in and change their ways for the worse.
You have a rather special understanding of things if you think taking action to prevent the future murder of people enjoying the Queen's peace in Britain is somehow making things worse. Or is it that you are reacting in fear?
Will you welcome a new overlord from a foreign land if they simply offer you peace for submission?
WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups....
The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency.
IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is "unclear" whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day.
LOL - Yes, yes.;) . . . I guess we'll continue to play our respective roles in the current tragicomedy. To your point, Fox must have been dissatisfied by their results as well since they apparently changed their pollster in 2011. We'll see if it helps.
I would hope that this doesn't reach all the way to the President, but I'm circumspect as to the prospect of that.
By the way, have you heard the President's commencement speech at Morehouse College? The man can give a speech.
Well, I didn't dig that far into it, I just saw the long list of years that had been awarded. You made a fair comment although one could view it from different perspectives. Enjoy your day.
Well, two things. First, this is what the Wikipedia article says: " Established in the 1970s, honours are voted on..."
So maybe you could expand on your comment?
Second, as to Packard Bell, it was a new company that bought the name: "In 1986, Israeli investors bought the name for a newly formed personal computer manufacturer...."
Slashdot Mirror
Post 9/11 people have willingly given up basic rights that the country was founded on that people fought and died to protect, all out of fear and others have capitalized on it.
Americans have given up basic rights after, and as a result of 9/11? Well, no they haven't, that is pretty much nonsense. Do Americans still vote despite 9/11? Yes. Can Americans still join the political party of their choice despite 9/11? The same as before, yes. Do Americans still exercise free speech despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still worship or not worship the god of their choice, if any, despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still have the right to pursue the legal occupation that they choose despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still have the right to run for office despite 9/11? Yes. Do American's still have the right to travel despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still enjoy a free press despite 9/1? Yes.
Do you have a right to communicate in private to Al Qaida? No. That has never been the case that you have a right to private communications with an enemy involved in armed conflict against the United States.
What about Guantanamo? Less than 1,000 people total have ever been held there as part of the war against Al Qaida. Contrary to slogans on protest posters, nobody went to Guantanamo for making a joke about Presidents Bush or Obama.
What about denial of habeas corpus? Only effected the prisoners of war until the Supreme Court created a new right for them. Historically they never had it.
What about indefinite detention? Only effects prisoners of war. Under treaty you can hold them until the conflict is over.
What about no declaration of war? The Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. Legally it is equivalent to a declaration of war.
In short, your claim that Americans have given up basic rights since, and as a result of 9/11, is pretty much nonsense. That doesn't mean there isn't a threat of that, though. We'll come back to that.
The Soviet Union had the KGB to "protect" it's citizens.
No, the KGB's main mission was to protect communist rule in the Soviet Union. In short, it was an organ of political oppression that spied internally and internationally. When a new country came under Soviet rule, as in Eastern Europe, the KBG was active there. It was always making plans for that, even for the US.
Nazi Germany had the Gestapo to "protect" their citizens.
No, the Gestapo's main mission was to protect Nazi rule in Nazi Germany by hunting down the opposition, although they also "protected" Germans by hunting down Jews to prevent "contamination."
And the US has homeland security. Of course, what are they protecting their citizens against?
The Department of Homeland Security is mainly a regrouping of previously existing Federal agencies, mainly involved in law enforcement, under a new headquarters. It is made up of:
US Customs & Border Protection
US Citizenship & Immigration Services
US Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
US Immigration & Customs Enforcement
US Secret Service (Bodyguards for the President, anti-Counterfeiting, and some online crime.)
Transportation Security Administration
Maybe at some point you could pick out the really sinister part of DHS?
The agencies that were regrouped under the new DHS headquarters continue the law enforcement missions that they had prior to 9/11. But you don't know why they were regrouped, and what it was they were regrouped to try and protect against? Really? Here is a reminder.
Terrorism plots, arrests, and convictions have continued over the years, as this sample shows:
Sorry, I don't think it is based on the paper below, and the previous citation.
Light propagation explains our inverted retina
In summary, the retina has developed its inverted shape to improve the directionality of intercepted light beams, to enhance vision acuity, increase immunity to scatter and clutter, concentrate more light into the cones, and overcome chromatic aberration. We are now assessing the effect of ocular aberrations on acuity to explore what happens when the beam hitting the retina is more spread and its phase is more random.
SPIE is an international society advancing an interdisciplinary approach to the science and application of light.
Previous: Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?
Also, note:
Introduction to: Cephalopod Vision
There are differences between vertebrate eyes and those of cephalopods. Perhaps the most surprising difference given the amazing ability of cephalopods to change color is that most cephalopods are completely color blind (Hanlon and Messenger 1996). How do we know? We can train octopuses to pick black objects over white objects, white objects over black objects, light grey objects over dark grey objects and vice versa but we can not train them to differentiate between colorful objects that look the same in grayscale (Hanlon and Messenger 1996). Also, most cephalopods only have one visual pigment. We have three.
If we had eyes like nearly all squids, we would be color blind. Does Dawkins think that is superior?
It isn't an idiot designer, as cephalopods have their eyes the right way around. The designer clearly can do it correctly, but chose not to do it with vertebrates. Furthermore, when looking at the way the world works, it becomes clear that the designer is evil, mad or both. All in all, Cthulhu is the best guess at a designer, given the evidence.
Guess again?
Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?
It is clear, but is it correct?
Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?
Once again the scourge of viewpoint moderation come out.
Yes, it's always the physicists and mathematicians for some reason who hold these ideas.
No, not always. If I recall correctly, engineers are most likely to believe in God, but I would think that all scientific disciplines are represented. Here are just a few.
Francis Collins - Physician - director of the Human Genome Project
John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS - Physicist, author of From Physicist to Priest
Donald Knuth - Computer Scientist - Creator of TeX, and author of:
The Art of Computer Programming Availble on Amazon
Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About Available on Amazon
3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated Available on Amazon
There are many more.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that smart people can't be stupid.
Spending much time on Slashdot will disabuse you of that notion. What is smart and stupid can be an elusive quality, and you may find as you go through life that they will rearrange themselves at times. The phrase, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." exists for a reason. "Stupid" people can show up in surprising places, like the mirror. Everyone should check there, from time to time.
and the scientist then asked "So why is it in the literature you're selling in the lobby?"
I don't find that particularly persuasive, do you? Are all books with one or more superseded theories or now former "facts" gathered up and destroyed immediately as soon as one part of it is out of date? There is a bit of a problem keeping textbooks up to date with current science. I seem to recall a recent story that space science is particularly bad off in that regard with many books being 30-40 years out of date in some important areas. I don't find it any surprise that vendors don't throw their inventory on bonfires if it is dated, but rather prefer to sell them to get their money back. That is before you get into the question of classics in a field. Some of the classics in my fields are timeless, others have been superseded but still offer valuable insights into thinking about the problems, or approaches to consider. No, I don't find that a persuasive point at all.
I suspect it's something like the reason physicists don't feel a need to have Time Cube proponentists and historians don't need holocaust deniers.
Not, that isn't it. The problem with your quip is that physicists that ascribe to ID still do real physics. Chemists that ascribe to ID still do real chemistry. Biologists that ascribe to ID still do real biology. Doctors that ascribe to ID still do real medicine. The time cube guy probably needs (needed?) medication and therapy. Holocaust deniers are popular in Iran, and various parts of the Middle East, but not so much in the West.
This scientist clearly believes in God, perhaps he is even a Creationist. I don't think you can argue he hasn't made a solid contribution to science. He isn't alone, not by a long shot.
Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. If you don't deal in facts, science doesn't need you.
Well, that always is one of the questions, isn't it? What are the facts? And do they support the theory? Some scientists prefer only friendly reviewers, and like minded theories.
The famous German physicist Max Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " He also said, "Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. "
Journals can be discriminatory, or captured by a particular faction in a debate and exclude solid papers by those they disagree with. The science around "climate change" is not a shining model of scientific process even if you agree with the theory of man-made global warming.
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
. . . a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research”
You are complaining to the wrong person. Make your complaint to Black Parrot or some of the other ones up thread. He started it off with a joke post involving ID, started the thread topic, and then made the inquiry I responded to. There are other posts about it as well. Complain to them. If it is OK for them to post on it, it is OK for me to post on it. Fair is fair. If it is just a matter of viewpoint discrimination - well, sorry, but I will continue to post on running topics, but do not agree to one sided discussions.
If you're bored with it, feel free to ignore the posts. I often ignore threads in a story, or even entire stories, in which the discussion is one in which I am uninterested, or at least find to be a lesser priority.
I don't think the ID community would agree that what they do either is, or has, spirituality as a central component to the day to day work. Many of them are working scientists as well. They just hold a particular view about what the ultimate source of everything is. Drop an anvil on your toe and a physicist that ascribes to ID will tell you it was gravity that pulled it to earth, not God's will. A chemist that ascribes to ID will tell you that the anvil is made of high carbon steel with traces of scandium, not "stuff that God holds together." A physician that ascribes to ID will still tell you that the toe has to be amputated. Don't make the mistake of thinking that people that believe either ID or associated beliefs must be stupid.
I know a PhD physicist that graduated from a major research university, is the head of an academic physics department (last I knew), and believed in either ID or Creationism, I forget which. Besides his academic duties, the good doctor does solid research for outside customers and is well regarded in that particular research community. Believing that God exists, created the universe, and established creation in a particular fashion is a very remote question from trying to understand a particular problem in surface physics.
This appears to speak to your question, especially the last two paragraphs before the notes section.
The Peppered Moth Story: Vindicated!
A quick search appears to show they haven't folded their cards as yet.
About Irreducible Complexity
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
mouse trap illustration vs. 3-glasses-3-knives illustration — Irreducible Complexity, Depth of Integration
I would think that evolutionary theory would predict, and even practically demand, the presence of ID theorists and Creationists of various flavors as part of the scientific community. Every scientific community, and they are segmented, is its own little ecosystem. It has sources of energy (grants), and consumers (scientists) and various forms of reproduction (ideas and new scientists, etc.). Some members of the ecosystem will consume resources, but give little back, or produce poor quality offspring. The herd only improves if the strongest survive. Think of the role of predators taking the weak in any animal stock. In this case it is weak theories and science. By the two communities engaging in adversarial struggle, the weak science is exposed and made stronger. What is passed over in silence by on community is exposed by the other and account demanded. Intellectual rigor increases. Their ways are strange to you, perhaps even irritating. But directly and indirectly they help real science grow stronger, and more innovative. They probably also bring additional funding into the scientific community that it otherwise wouldn't have. And without them, your droll post would have no meaning.
The evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium came about for a reason - to explain missing data - transitional forms, data that couldn't be found but evolutionary theory said should be there. It is certainly a bold approach to the problem - we can't find it because it doesn't exist so, never mind. In a way it brings to mind the Fermi Paradox.
Of course the ID community has a view: Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record
Note to moderators: I am neither kidding nor trolling. Feel free to ignore the post.
Wrong president dummy, George W Bush gave them that money.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/17/david-plouffe/solyndra-loan-george-w-bush-david-plouffe/
Respect - for stating the facts. I write that not because I might support President Bush, but because my recollection is that you strongly oppose him but still stated the fact. If we can't keep the discussion centered on facts, even if they might be unpalatable to us, what do we have? Too many people here don't do that. Enjoy your weekend.
Was your knowledge of British History gleaned from Miss Marple whodunnits?
It might have been gathered from the newspapers. . .
From: Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 1977
Bobbies borrow guns to blast fugitive
There's only one way to protect ourselves – and here's the proof
Today, 96 years ago, London was rocked by a terrorist outrage. Two Latvian anarchists, who had crossed the Channel after trying to blow up the president of France, attempted an armed wages robbery in Tottenham. Foiled at the outset when the intended victims fought back, the anarchists attempted to shoot their way out.
A dramatic pursuit ensued involving horses and carts, bicycles, cars and a hijacked tram. The fleeing anarchists fired some 400 shots, leaving a policeman and a child dead, and some two dozen other casualties, before they were ultimately brought to bay. They had been chased by an extraordinary posse of policemen and local people, armed and unarmed. Along the way, the police (whose gun cupboard had been locked, and the key mislaid) had borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by in the street, while other armed citizens joined the chase in person.
Today, when we are inured to the idea of armed robbery and drive-by shootings, the aspect of the "Tottenham Outrage" that is most likely to shock is the fact that so many ordinary members of the public at that time should have been carrying guns in the street. Bombarded with headlines about an emergent "gun culture" in Britain now, we are apt to forget that the real novelty is the notion that the general populace in this country should be disarmed.
. . . A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials". . . . Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver. . .
Now I'm curious, from where do you learn your British history? It seems to be an incomplete source.
After some considerable delay, while the terrorists milled about chatting, yes.
If a law abiding person at the scene had been armed, instead of just the terrorists, it might have ended before the terrorists were able to decapitate Drummer Rigby. Personally, I would have found that quite agreeable.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Despite all your reasoning it is nonetheless true that American citizens are (somehow) able to use firearms to defend themselves on a regular basis.
In some countries this woman would probably have been badly hurt or killed. Do you know how she avoided it?
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder
Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI
I can see why you might be misled on the subject though: Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
On the other hand, HM seems to (second picture down) know what she likes.
Cheers
I believe that level of perfection in the law was reached by 1613. Are you suggesting that in the last 400 years that all subsequent new laws were unneeded? There was no need to ban guns, since killing people was already illegal? No need for any of the anti-terrorism laws, since killing people was already illegal? There was no opportunity to improve matters that are governed by law? No possibilities to improve evidence gathering? No possibilities to improve cooperation between different ministries and agencies? No limits on extremist activity that might inhibit the already far too many people in HM realm that are disposed to commit acts of terror. Also note, by your reasoning there should have been no reason to effectively ban self-defense, since murder is already illegal so no further laws are necessary. I don't think I can agree with that.
Starting from July 7/7/2005, an average of 7 people are killed per year due to terrorist attacks. That's on the same level as eye-wateringly obscure medical diseases.
I am unaware of any obscure medical diseases that might cause one to burst into thousands of pieces of steel shrapnel to kill dozens of people standing nearby. That is a constant threat of terrorism of the sort already seen in Britain. The absence of regular incidents of such is a result of convictions, not luck or magic stones.
Basically, any money put into preventing those is a complete waste: the money would be vastly better spent elsewhere, such as improving road safety.
Those numbers can change rather quickly if just one plot gets through.
No, I'll try and shoot them, just like the police shot at these murderers. And see, no new laws were needed.
That would be use of an offensive weapon. There are severe penalties for violating the Queens peace like that.
Since the IRA also engaged in terrorism, there seems to be a flaw in your understanding.
It was terrorism, treason, or both.
The attackers had guns, they pulled at least one on the crowd to keep them back while they went about beheading the soldier.
The quote doesn't say anything about guns, only freedom in general. But since you ask - you are a British subject, which says a lot. 100 years ago Britons were freer to own guns, and don't the crime statistics show lower crime then? I would guess your assessment would be that you would feel freer now than then despite the higher crime rate.
I notice HM is guarded by people with guns. I've even read a report that she has been known to carry a Webley. Do you suppose she feels less free because of it? Do you feel less free because of it?
Interesting that the terrorists had guns. (Isn't that theoretically impossible under current British law?) Apparently nobody but the police had one to stop them. Good thing they didn't decide to go on a bigger rampage - they would have been up against the defenseless. On the other hand, you feel free.
Cheers
Why can't we be more like Norway?
A year after Breivik's massacre, Norway tightens antiterror laws
The prosecutor actually shook hands with Brevik because that's how they always do it and the hell some mass murdering bastard is going to make them give in and change their ways for the worse.
You have a rather special understanding of things if you think taking action to prevent the future murder of people enjoying the Queen's peace in Britain is somehow making things worse. Or is it that you are reacting in fear?
Will you welcome a new overlord from a foreign land if they simply offer you peace for submission?
Your head still seems to be attached. The haircut couldn't have been that bad.
Not following the news (retractions) much? That same audit targeted liberal groups with equal opportunity -- it did focus on organizations with political-sounding names, but didn't pick bones about which side of the fence that organization was on.
I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong.
IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo
WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups. ...
Lawmakers say IRS targeted dozens more conservative groups than initially believed
The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency.
IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is "unclear" whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day.
0...: Chemspheres - a new and far more sinister threat.
LOL - Yes, yes. ;) . . . I guess we'll continue to play our respective roles in the current tragicomedy. To your point, Fox must have been dissatisfied by their results as well since they apparently changed their pollster in 2011. We'll see if it helps.
I would hope that this doesn't reach all the way to the President, but I'm circumspect as to the prospect of that.
By the way, have you heard the President's commencement speech at Morehouse College? The man can give a speech.
Cheers
Well, I didn't dig that far into it, I just saw the long list of years that had been awarded. You made a fair comment although one could view it from different perspectives. Enjoy your day.
Well, two things. First, this is what the Wikipedia article says: " Established in the 1970s, honours are voted on ..."
So maybe you could expand on your comment?
Second, as to Packard Bell, it was a new company that bought the name: "In 1986, Israeli investors bought the name for a newly formed personal computer manufacturer...."