Forgot this example: New York was the first state to enforce religious-based food laws - NOT that the state decided what was kosher, or halal, but the state enforced that if a store *claimed* to be kosher or halal then the store had to have a certificate from an appropriate religious agency confirming it. It's up to the customer to decide whether they trust that particular agency, but at least the customer has the appropriate information to make a decision. Truth in labeling.
Confused. Are you suggesting that caffeine doesn't work? Because to me, that would be a prime example of a plant-derived substance that works just great, but is not considered a drug. Plus it's not about whether they work or not, it's about truth in labeling.
It's not about whether the stuff works or not; the customer should get what they pay for, and not get extraneous crap they may be allergic to.
Same goes for ratings on movies, books, etc. - if a customer wants something, or wants to avoid something, it's not about passing judgement on the customer's interests, but about making sure that people can get what they want AND avoid what they don't want.
Problem is, this could go right up next to the "common folks'" belief in "common sense over so-called science", and derision of "experts" of any sort. Degrees and certificates do not necessarily impart wisdom; many without degrees or certificates have wisdom; and neither paperwork nor wisdom are necessarily combined with an ability to instruct others, in either positive or negative correlation. OTOH, the Youtube attitude that "lots of people can make an entertaining performance video" does not mean that all of them are of good quality (either the video or the performance or both), and certainly does not mean that "anybody can make an instructional video too". Most Americans profess to speak English, but an immigrant seeking to learn English would get wildly varying results picking one at random as an instructor.
The center of the storm was off by only 35 to 50 miles. If the snow dumped on Long Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had fallen more directly on NYC, the Jersey coast to the west, and the two northern counties up the Hudson, it would have been a much higher population density. This could easily have been a wintertime Hurricane Sandy, rather than Hurricane Irene (which also shifted to Long Island).
The sweetheart deals should have been considered regulated utilities. But that would be socialism, or some other hysteria-inducing buzzword. Somehow it was obvious years ago that it would be inefficient to have multiple water companies with multiple sets of pipes, or multiple power companies with multiple sets of wires, so it became a monopoly - but regulated. By the time we got around to cable, the politics had changed - not the economic realities.
Jeremy, on Top Gear, is so fond of the "symphony of power" and comparisons to fighter planes. The idea that external sound represents wasted power is so . . . . abstract.
It is obvious that nobody would install a brand new system with such old technology. It should be equally obvious, though, that just as one expects old buildings to "just stay up" (with a little maintenance), there are plenty of old technology systems still up and running just fine for whatever they do. Lots of people in big cities have 75-year-old telephone wiring which works fine for what it always did (though it can't handle DSL), and the same thing will happen to the brandy-newest fiber optic cable when someone comes up with an LED laser frequency that needs a different glass with different chromatic aberration. There are lots of industrial and scientific devices out there that never got updated drivers past (whatever release of whatever system), and they cost a lot of money at the time, and they still work.
(Though I admit that, while they may be worth maintaining, at some point one has to give up on trying to update them.)
"Round up the usual suspects!" So the school will require everyone's passwords . . . in a sealed envelope, of course, "just for emergencies". And then they'll get lost or misplaced or stolen. Or even better, some prankster will set up a fake account in someone else's name. Hey, what are people supposed to do if they don't have accounts? Of course the school won't believe that.
Doesn't have to be evil. Could be more along the lines of, "Hey, we have to treat our waste water in the US and Europe, but our competitors are cheaper partly because they don't have to spend on that treatment, and look at the mess they're making!" Not "We need subsidy and protection", more like "They're cheating!"
One would like to restrict what one says to "That's a stupid idea", and - if only out of politeness - refrain from the next step of saying "You are a stupid person (for holding that idea)". However, I bet every single person who hears "That's a stupid idea" infers the latter part immediately.
Politeness does count. One can say "I do not follow (insert religion name here), and I feel that extremism in the cause of *any* religion contradicts and denigrates, rather than supports, the religion" without saying "(insert founder name here) did naughty things with (insert inappropriate animal name here)". This is TOTALLY SEPARATE from the idea that anyone perpetrating criminal violence should be opposed violently at the time, and punished violently afterwards.
Unfortunately, when scientist and engineers say things like "science is never anything but a best guess", meaning to be modest about how humans can at best asymptotically approach the truths about reality, anti-science and religionists pounce and say "See? They admit they don't know for certain. WE know for certain, so WE have a better answer." Besides, it's a lot better than a "best guess", it's a carefully researched and analyzed best fit solution. Plus, XKCD. http://xkcd.com/54/
No, as in Carl Sagan and Niel deGrasse Tyson doing more harm than good...
Umm . . . How so? Sagan was melodramatic, but at least he gave mundanes the idea that people should get excited about complicated ideas. Tyson explains things well, speaks well, shows that one can be a science geek and entertaining all at the same time, and is a living poster child for rational thought (not to mention being a poster child against various forms of prejudice). What do you not like here?
Ah. Then I did not state my position clearly. I think he does believe this position, and I also think that he has multiple reasons for believing it - some religious, some secular and practical, some political. In order to modernize in the secular world, one must modernize people's attitudes about the world in general, and since religion is a serious component of those attitudes, religion faces (as I see it) two options: it can modernize as well, or it will be left behind. Young people in the US do not explicitly "leave" their parents' religious teachings; but they make less and less effort to follow them actively, or to belong to religious organizations - EXCEPT for the most fervent, who seem stronger than ever. Extremists in ALL religions seem to do well because they offer certainty and simplicity in a complex world. But those certainties tend to be rooted not just in old ideas, but in old interpretations of those old ideas. Old ideas may be perfectly valid - many of Plato's quotes still resonate - but old interpretations and attitudes may pass from usefulness, yet be maintained simply out of dedication to "tradition". "Women must be protected" - yes, very chivalrous, but "protected" doesn't have to mean "restricted", and in a knowledge economy where mens' physical strength is not the only form of labor and value, a society can't afford to handicap itself by eliminating half of its potential brain pool. So the interpretations of five hundred years ago - which are *only* interpretations, not the original text! - could be reviewed, and rethought, and reinterpreted . . . except that the elders of ALL religions always deprecate ANY thought of changing "sacred tradition", whether it comes from the original text, or some one particular scholar's thinking about one particular case at one particular time and place and social situation. Many cultures used slavery, and thought it was acceptable, if only for prisoners of war; most societies decided over time that it was not acceptable. If "religion" is about living a good and moral life, then so many issues of ritual and tradition should be similarly reviewed in the light of changing times and technology. So . . . to somehow come back to the original point . . . it is completely sensible to take a position for modernizing religion based on both religious, and secular, and even political BENEFITS to the society, rather than allow "tradition" to be a straightjacket locked to the past, *and* rather than allow all tradition to be discredited and lost. We can still cook Grandmother's recipe, but now we can do it with stainless-steel pots and utensils, with pure water and pasteurized ingredients; just so we can still give honor to ancient texts and traditions, in a manner consistent with modern understanding.
Ummm . . . Not sure why you're attacking *me*. I'm not even disagreeing with you; just pointing out that in this society where religion is such an integral part of society and authority, there are both religious and political angles to consider. As it happens, I'm a member of a religious minority in my own country, and very used to going along with (for example) the public school chorus that I was in singing lots of songs for the majority religious festivals - of which I was an unbeliever.
Of course not, they're totally different scores, you can find the discussion on any RPG site. "Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad!"
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't matter. If it says "parsley", which does nothing, then the rule is it's supposed to be parsley and nothing but parsley.
Also no surrender, no retreat.
Forgot this example: New York was the first state to enforce religious-based food laws - NOT that the state decided what was kosher, or halal, but the state enforced that if a store *claimed* to be kosher or halal then the store had to have a certificate from an appropriate religious agency confirming it. It's up to the customer to decide whether they trust that particular agency, but at least the customer has the appropriate information to make a decision. Truth in labeling.
Confused. Are you suggesting that caffeine doesn't work? Because to me, that would be a prime example of a plant-derived substance that works just great, but is not considered a drug. Plus it's not about whether they work or not, it's about truth in labeling.
It's not about whether the stuff works or not; the customer should get what they pay for, and not get extraneous crap they may be allergic to.
Same goes for ratings on movies, books, etc. - if a customer wants something, or wants to avoid something, it's not about passing judgement on the customer's interests, but about making sure that people can get what they want AND avoid what they don't want.
Problem is, this could go right up next to the "common folks'" belief in "common sense over so-called science", and derision of "experts" of any sort. Degrees and certificates do not necessarily impart wisdom; many without degrees or certificates have wisdom; and neither paperwork nor wisdom are necessarily combined with an ability to instruct others, in either positive or negative correlation. OTOH, the Youtube attitude that "lots of people can make an entertaining performance video" does not mean that all of them are of good quality (either the video or the performance or both), and certainly does not mean that "anybody can make an instructional video too". Most Americans profess to speak English, but an immigrant seeking to learn English would get wildly varying results picking one at random as an instructor.
The center of the storm was off by only 35 to 50 miles. If the snow dumped on Long Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had fallen more directly on NYC, the Jersey coast to the west, and the two northern counties up the Hudson, it would have been a much higher population density. This could easily have been a wintertime Hurricane Sandy, rather than Hurricane Irene (which also shifted to Long Island).
That's not "false flag", that's "backfired shortsighted policy".
The sweetheart deals should have been considered regulated utilities. But that would be socialism, or some other hysteria-inducing buzzword. Somehow it was obvious years ago that it would be inefficient to have multiple water companies with multiple sets of pipes, or multiple power companies with multiple sets of wires, so it became a monopoly - but regulated. By the time we got around to cable, the politics had changed - not the economic realities.
Jeremy, on Top Gear, is so fond of the "symphony of power" and comparisons to fighter planes. The idea that external sound represents wasted power is so . . . . abstract.
It is obvious that nobody would install a brand new system with such old technology. It should be equally obvious, though, that just as one expects old buildings to "just stay up" (with a little maintenance), there are plenty of old technology systems still up and running just fine for whatever they do. Lots of people in big cities have 75-year-old telephone wiring which works fine for what it always did (though it can't handle DSL), and the same thing will happen to the brandy-newest fiber optic cable when someone comes up with an LED laser frequency that needs a different glass with different chromatic aberration. There are lots of industrial and scientific devices out there that never got updated drivers past (whatever release of whatever system), and they cost a lot of money at the time, and they still work. (Though I admit that, while they may be worth maintaining, at some point one has to give up on trying to update them.)
"Round up the usual suspects!" So the school will require everyone's passwords . . . in a sealed envelope, of course, "just for emergencies". And then they'll get lost or misplaced or stolen. Or even better, some prankster will set up a fake account in someone else's name. Hey, what are people supposed to do if they don't have accounts? Of course the school won't believe that.
Doesn't have to be evil. Could be more along the lines of, "Hey, we have to treat our waste water in the US and Europe, but our competitors are cheaper partly because they don't have to spend on that treatment, and look at the mess they're making!" Not "We need subsidy and protection", more like "They're cheating!"
I might not be. :-) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :-) :-)
... which I remember was a post on Slashdot when Radio Shack failed to modernize to some *previous* definition of modern.
Or are you just pathetically weak of mind that you would fall for that tripe again?
Past behavior is not necessarily a guarantee of future behavior, but it's certainly a useful starting point . . .
Mod parent up (if only I had mod points at the moment)
Politeness, please. I can agree with your statement while still suggesting that the expletive is unnecessary.
One would like to restrict what one says to "That's a stupid idea", and - if only out of politeness - refrain from the next step of saying "You are a stupid person (for holding that idea)". However, I bet every single person who hears "That's a stupid idea" infers the latter part immediately.
Politeness does count. One can say "I do not follow (insert religion name here), and I feel that extremism in the cause of *any* religion contradicts and denigrates, rather than supports, the religion" without saying "(insert founder name here) did naughty things with (insert inappropriate animal name here)". This is TOTALLY SEPARATE from the idea that anyone perpetrating criminal violence should be opposed violently at the time, and punished violently afterwards.
Unfortunately, when scientist and engineers say things like "science is never anything but a best guess", meaning to be modest about how humans can at best asymptotically approach the truths about reality, anti-science and religionists pounce and say "See? They admit they don't know for certain. WE know for certain, so WE have a better answer." Besides, it's a lot better than a "best guess", it's a carefully researched and analyzed best fit solution. Plus, XKCD. http://xkcd.com/54/
One word: Kardashian.
No, as in Carl Sagan and Niel deGrasse Tyson doing more harm than good ...
Umm . . . How so? Sagan was melodramatic, but at least he gave mundanes the idea that people should get excited about complicated ideas. Tyson explains things well, speaks well, shows that one can be a science geek and entertaining all at the same time, and is a living poster child for rational thought (not to mention being a poster child against various forms of prejudice). What do you not like here?
Ah. Then I did not state my position clearly. I think he does believe this position, and I also think that he has multiple reasons for believing it - some religious, some secular and practical, some political. In order to modernize in the secular world, one must modernize people's attitudes about the world in general, and since religion is a serious component of those attitudes, religion faces (as I see it) two options: it can modernize as well, or it will be left behind. Young people in the US do not explicitly "leave" their parents' religious teachings; but they make less and less effort to follow them actively, or to belong to religious organizations - EXCEPT for the most fervent, who seem stronger than ever. Extremists in ALL religions seem to do well because they offer certainty and simplicity in a complex world. But those certainties tend to be rooted not just in old ideas, but in old interpretations of those old ideas. Old ideas may be perfectly valid - many of Plato's quotes still resonate - but old interpretations and attitudes may pass from usefulness, yet be maintained simply out of dedication to "tradition". "Women must be protected" - yes, very chivalrous, but "protected" doesn't have to mean "restricted", and in a knowledge economy where mens' physical strength is not the only form of labor and value, a society can't afford to handicap itself by eliminating half of its potential brain pool. So the interpretations of five hundred years ago - which are *only* interpretations, not the original text! - could be reviewed, and rethought, and reinterpreted . . . except that the elders of ALL religions always deprecate ANY thought of changing "sacred tradition", whether it comes from the original text, or some one particular scholar's thinking about one particular case at one particular time and place and social situation. Many cultures used slavery, and thought it was acceptable, if only for prisoners of war; most societies decided over time that it was not acceptable. If "religion" is about living a good and moral life, then so many issues of ritual and tradition should be similarly reviewed in the light of changing times and technology. So . . . to somehow come back to the original point . . . it is completely sensible to take a position for modernizing religion based on both religious, and secular, and even political BENEFITS to the society, rather than allow "tradition" to be a straightjacket locked to the past, *and* rather than allow all tradition to be discredited and lost. We can still cook Grandmother's recipe, but now we can do it with stainless-steel pots and utensils, with pure water and pasteurized ingredients; just so we can still give honor to ancient texts and traditions, in a manner consistent with modern understanding.
Ummm . . . Not sure why you're attacking *me*. I'm not even disagreeing with you; just pointing out that in this society where religion is such an integral part of society and authority, there are both religious and political angles to consider. As it happens, I'm a member of a religious minority in my own country, and very used to going along with (for example) the public school chorus that I was in singing lots of songs for the majority religious festivals - of which I was an unbeliever.
Of course not, they're totally different scores, you can find the discussion on any RPG site. "Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad!"