No, if it's not patented it'll never be mass-produced. Testing four of five different applications of a medical device costs over a billion dollars to ensure the minimum safety and efffectiveness for mass production: if there's no guaranteed return then no one will do it.
I'd say it had something to do with the environmental lobby being fucking enormous and requiring a multitude of human-caused environmental problems to justify its existence. There's a bloody great lot of money in finding ways to blame various people for screwing up the environment, and money is a damned good ulterior motive.
The union of the republican and christian sets minus their intersection is nonempty. Same applies to the republican and intelligent design sets.
In conclusion, if you can't tell one group from another, no one's going to believe that you ahve the intelligence required to have a valid opinion on global warming.
The article you cite could use a good round of editing. The writer keeps making up words that are technically correct terms, but are crafted very awkwardly (tacking 'icity' to the end of every thrid word is annoying), and this combined with the stilted, poorly-assembled syntax makes the article almost unreadable. I know that internet writers generally aren't english majors or even people who passed high school english the first time they took it, but I could put my thoughts to paper more clearly than that in fifth grade. Bleh.
"more atmospheric energy implies more extreme weather"
As a Texan, I shrug apathetically. The weather does what it does, and people deal with it. Or they don't deal with it, if you happen to live in Louisiana.
Mock the pseudo-science of the global warming lobby, though, and watch your karma float gently away on a stream of negative moderation. The/. biases aren't half as organized as you make them out to be.
Well, science helps you understand what god's talking about. Always better to get it direct from the source rather than that third-degree bible crap whenever possible.
Eh, the extreme backward extrapolation of evolution, i.e. spontaneous generation, is not 'proved', quite. The fact that stuff evolves is just that, a fact. Empirically tested, demonstrated, observed.
Perhaps you're referring to the theory of evolution, i.e. the current predicative model to explain the mechanism of evolution? Yeah, that would be inherently unprovable, in the sense that predicative models can only be disproved, by demonstrating a repeatable series of events which actually occurs that contradicts the prediction of the model.
To make a 'theory' involving god, you would need to create a model (using god, of course) that, when applied to a given set of circumstances, predicts correctly the actual outcome. Since the actual outcome is that 'the traits of populations change in x manner over time in response to y natural pressures'. If you input 'y' circumstances into your model and don't get x, your theory is insufficient, i.e. disproven.
The reason both intelligent design and evolutonary theory are not generally taught in science class is that intelligent design isn't a theory: it doesn't predict anything (and the few variations on it that do predict things generally don't get them right, and are thus disproved). While 'god did it' certainly has a place in the educational system, it's in the philosophy or history department, where the truth sought is the logical conclusion and the blame game, repectively. It doesn't belong in the science department, where the truth sought is empirical and predicative.
The fact that you didn't already know this highlights the real problem with our secondary education system: it's not that we don't allow enough opinions into the classroom, it's that we don't impart an actual understanding of what is being taught to the students. If kids have to learn what science is in college, then all of the scientific conclusions they were taught in high school are pretty much guaranteed to be misapplied.
Eh, he's right, you know. Nothing as fragmented and lacking in a unified value set as the Christian religion is particularly able to control anything. They can't even control themselves... seriously, you're assuming a level of competence here that doesn't exist.
Yeah, I have issues with the argument as well... it's too long. He should have just said "violence being an effective solution to a problem is unrelated to wether you like violence or not." Maybe followed it up with an example, like "I don't have enough land. I kill some guy and take his land. Like it or not, moral or not, the problem is solved."
Since the grandparent didn't say it, I will: violence quite definitely solves things. Wether violence itself is a good thing is an arbitrary value assessment on the part of the viewer. But since 'solve' is a quite empirically verifiable term in most cases, and there are cases where violence has resolved problems, the cliche "violence never solves anything" is, by the rules of logic, patently false.
I would also argue that violence is good in many cases, but as this of course comes down to a set of arbitrary value assessments on my part, and is a completely separate issue, I won't bore you with the details.
Ok, made the post the requisite 3 times in [indirect], [direct], and [flippant] modes, signing off now.
Ordered list... six tags for the current example, or (2 + 2*number of items). Line breaks with extra space on each end... five tags in this example, or (3+number of items). The individual tags are the same length... making the line breaks more efficient for any number of entries greater than one... So you're accusing the man of idiocy for using markup language more efficiently than you would? I think you might want to go see a doctor about one of them 'vasectomy' thingies about now, after all.
The public isn't supposed to vote in presidential elections. They exercise influence on those elections through their state governments, who select the electors. The electors aren't even really supposed to have their minds made up in advance, either, that's kind of a corruption of the system resulting from the unforseen rise of political parties. It still bothers me that people tend to complain only when there are vague signs of the system working as intended (i.e. when the results don't match public opinion perfectly) and not when political parties twist the system to their own benefit. Oh, well, I guess I'm about 200 years to late to really do anything about it.
Anyhow, these laws apply to congressional elections as well, which are where the money is at in any case.
Right. Teen violence is greater in the US than in certain african countries (which shall remain nameless) where joining the army can be done at 13 if you're even slightly clever, and involves butchering civillians by the truckload. Yeeeeeah....
I think you've got it backward. The democrats were the party that most of the annoying 'progressive party' people moved to, and they were responsible for the 'social programs' bullshit under FDR. I would call forcing me to forfeit a portion of my paycheck to poor people and another portion to 'save for my old age' is pretty fucking invasive of my private life, thanks.
I guess the Republican "you can't have slaves" was a bit invasive, but I still wouldn't put it in quite the same league as "you can't own a gun to defend yourself" or "we're giving part of your paycheck to that dude with the nasty goatee who spends his days selling pot on the street corner". Then, I guess I don't have any slaves to be attached to...
The generalization is not entirely invalid. the democratic party has historically been the "control people's private lives, because we can" party. They still haven't shaken off the influence of the progressive party blending into them back in the day (the prohibition guys, you remember them). Currently they still push for things like gun control and such, and the ACLU, a pretty much entirely Democrat organization, is pretty much entirely devoted to sticking their noses into people's private lives. The fact that the Republicans are taking a similar path nowadays doesn't mean the Democrats ever managed to get off of it.
The libertarians are a bit nuts, but they do have a point.
The sum populations of the companies supporting this is probably much larger than the sum of the populations of women's lib organizations, including the women in them (probably even in terms of percentage of total population). Major law shifts generally pass through an apathetic or generally amicable majority, not through enormous active support. All that is required for evil to win is that good men do nothing, and vice versa.
Also, your grasp of history is somewhat lacking: you attribute a widespread desire in women to vote in the 1800s that has no basis in reality. Note that most people still don't bother to vote, eh.
Yeah, Switzerland has weathered very well all those numerous opportunities to screw up in the eyes of the world due to their position as a major player in the world market and political stage... oh, wait.
As a resident of California, I find that just citing 'California' in these arguments doesn't quite win the argument effectively. I reccommend "chinese exclusion act": as most people around here have at least a bit of asian blood, that usually gets 'em.
Yeah, from history, I've gotten the impression that this is the general rule of thumb:
population population >1000 voters, non-homogenous (example: you want women to vote for some reason): not so much. Try a republic or strict constitution.
Actually, when it's a real issue, they make sure Joe Idiot.. uh, i mean Public... is out yelling about abortion or evolution or some other issue that was pretty much settled half a century ago and is relatively unimportant. Then they go do what they feel is right while no one is watching. Unless they're corrupt, in which case they do whatever they feel will benefit them most while no one is watching. In all honesty, I figure this is a marginally better system than the referendum/initiative nonsense, corruption notwithstanding: just look at some of the shit that California has passed under referendum.
Eh, might motivate those physics types to go over their math a little more closely, recheck it all. It'll give them something to do, anyhow. Since all the evidence is mathematical rather than empirical, that's probably a good idea anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if it's not patented it'll never be mass-produced. Testing four of five different applications of a medical device costs over a billion dollars to ensure the minimum safety and efffectiveness for mass production: if there's no guaranteed return then no one will do it.
I'd say it had something to do with the environmental lobby being fucking enormous and requiring a multitude of human-caused environmental problems to justify its existence. There's a bloody great lot of money in finding ways to blame various people for screwing up the environment, and money is a damned good ulterior motive.
The union of the republican and christian sets minus their intersection is nonempty. Same applies to the republican and intelligent design sets.
In conclusion, if you can't tell one group from another, no one's going to believe that you ahve the intelligence required to have a valid opinion on global warming.
The article you cite could use a good round of editing. The writer keeps making up words that are technically correct terms, but are crafted very awkwardly (tacking 'icity' to the end of every thrid word is annoying), and this combined with the stilted, poorly-assembled syntax makes the article almost unreadable. I know that internet writers generally aren't english majors or even people who passed high school english the first time they took it, but I could put my thoughts to paper more clearly than that in fifth grade. Bleh.
"And now to achieve victory over my biggest source of competition... the sun!" (paraphrase)
"more atmospheric energy implies more extreme weather"
As a Texan, I shrug apathetically. The weather does what it does, and people deal with it. Or they don't deal with it, if you happen to live in Louisiana.
Ha ha, (3: informative). This place is hilarious.
Mock the pseudo-science of the global warming lobby, though, and watch your karma float gently away on a stream of negative moderation. The /. biases aren't half as organized as you make them out to be.
Well, science helps you understand what god's talking about. Always better to get it direct from the source rather than that third-degree bible crap whenever possible.
Eh, the extreme backward extrapolation of evolution, i.e. spontaneous generation, is not 'proved', quite. The fact that stuff evolves is just that, a fact. Empirically tested, demonstrated, observed.
Perhaps you're referring to the theory of evolution, i.e. the current predicative model to explain the mechanism of evolution? Yeah, that would be inherently unprovable, in the sense that predicative models can only be disproved, by demonstrating a repeatable series of events which actually occurs that contradicts the prediction of the model.
To make a 'theory' involving god, you would need to create a model (using god, of course) that, when applied to a given set of circumstances, predicts correctly the actual outcome. Since the actual outcome is that 'the traits of populations change in x manner over time in response to y natural pressures'. If you input 'y' circumstances into your model and don't get x, your theory is insufficient, i.e. disproven.
The reason both intelligent design and evolutonary theory are not generally taught in science class is that intelligent design isn't a theory: it doesn't predict anything (and the few variations on it that do predict things generally don't get them right, and are thus disproved). While 'god did it' certainly has a place in the educational system, it's in the philosophy or history department, where the truth sought is the logical conclusion and the blame game, repectively. It doesn't belong in the science department, where the truth sought is empirical and predicative.
The fact that you didn't already know this highlights the real problem with our secondary education system: it's not that we don't allow enough opinions into the classroom, it's that we don't impart an actual understanding of what is being taught to the students. If kids have to learn what science is in college, then all of the scientific conclusions they were taught in high school are pretty much guaranteed to be misapplied.
Eh, he's right, you know. Nothing as fragmented and lacking in a unified value set as the Christian religion is particularly able to control anything. They can't even control themselves... seriously, you're assuming a level of competence here that doesn't exist.
Yeah, I have issues with the argument as well... it's too long. He should have just said "violence being an effective solution to a problem is unrelated to wether you like violence or not." Maybe followed it up with an example, like "I don't have enough land. I kill some guy and take his land. Like it or not, moral or not, the problem is solved."
Since the grandparent didn't say it, I will: violence quite definitely solves things. Wether violence itself is a good thing is an arbitrary value assessment on the part of the viewer. But since 'solve' is a quite empirically verifiable term in most cases, and there are cases where violence has resolved problems, the cliche "violence never solves anything" is, by the rules of logic, patently false.
I would also argue that violence is good in many cases, but as this of course comes down to a set of arbitrary value assessments on my part, and is a completely separate issue, I won't bore you with the details.
Ok, made the post the requisite 3 times in [indirect], [direct], and [flippant] modes, signing off now.
Ordered list... six tags for the current example, or (2 + 2*number of items). Line breaks with extra space on each end... five tags in this example, or (3+number of items). The individual tags are the same length... making the line breaks more efficient for any number of entries greater than one... So you're accusing the man of idiocy for using markup language more efficiently than you would? I think you might want to go see a doctor about one of them 'vasectomy' thingies about now, after all.
The public isn't supposed to vote in presidential elections. They exercise influence on those elections through their state governments, who select the electors. The electors aren't even really supposed to have their minds made up in advance, either, that's kind of a corruption of the system resulting from the unforseen rise of political parties. It still bothers me that people tend to complain only when there are vague signs of the system working as intended (i.e. when the results don't match public opinion perfectly) and not when political parties twist the system to their own benefit. Oh, well, I guess I'm about 200 years to late to really do anything about it.
Anyhow, these laws apply to congressional elections as well, which are where the money is at in any case.
Right. Teen violence is greater in the US than in certain african countries (which shall remain nameless) where joining the army can be done at 13 if you're even slightly clever, and involves butchering civillians by the truckload. Yeeeeeah....
That would have cut a lot harder if you could spell 'divisive'.
I think you've got it backward. The democrats were the party that most of the annoying 'progressive party' people moved to, and they were responsible for the 'social programs' bullshit under FDR. I would call forcing me to forfeit a portion of my paycheck to poor people and another portion to 'save for my old age' is pretty fucking invasive of my private life, thanks.
I guess the Republican "you can't have slaves" was a bit invasive, but I still wouldn't put it in quite the same league as "you can't own a gun to defend yourself" or "we're giving part of your paycheck to that dude with the nasty goatee who spends his days selling pot on the street corner". Then, I guess I don't have any slaves to be attached to...
The generalization is not entirely invalid. the democratic party has historically been the "control people's private lives, because we can" party. They still haven't shaken off the influence of the progressive party blending into them back in the day (the prohibition guys, you remember them). Currently they still push for things like gun control and such, and the ACLU, a pretty much entirely Democrat organization, is pretty much entirely devoted to sticking their noses into people's private lives. The fact that the Republicans are taking a similar path nowadays doesn't mean the Democrats ever managed to get off of it.
The libertarians are a bit nuts, but they do have a point.
The sum populations of the companies supporting this is probably much larger than the sum of the populations of women's lib organizations, including the women in them (probably even in terms of percentage of total population). Major law shifts generally pass through an apathetic or generally amicable majority, not through enormous active support. All that is required for evil to win is that good men do nothing, and vice versa.
Also, your grasp of history is somewhat lacking: you attribute a widespread desire in women to vote in the 1800s that has no basis in reality. Note that most people still don't bother to vote, eh.
Yeah, Switzerland has weathered very well all those numerous opportunities to screw up in the eyes of the world due to their position as a major player in the world market and political stage... oh, wait.
As a resident of California, I find that just citing 'California' in these arguments doesn't quite win the argument effectively. I reccommend "chinese exclusion act": as most people around here have at least a bit of asian blood, that usually gets 'em.
doh. I am an idiot. first comparative reads:
population (less than) 1000 voters, homogenous: pure democracy works out fine.
Yeah, from history, I've gotten the impression that this is the general rule of thumb:
population
population >1000 voters, non-homogenous (example: you want women to vote for some reason): not so much. Try a republic or strict constitution.
Actually, when it's a real issue, they make sure Joe Idiot.. uh, i mean Public... is out yelling about abortion or evolution or some other issue that was pretty much settled half a century ago and is relatively unimportant. Then they go do what they feel is right while no one is watching. Unless they're corrupt, in which case they do whatever they feel will benefit them most while no one is watching. In all honesty, I figure this is a marginally better system than the referendum/initiative nonsense, corruption notwithstanding: just look at some of the shit that California has passed under referendum.
Eh, might motivate those physics types to go over their math a little more closely, recheck it all. It'll give them something to do, anyhow. Since all the evidence is mathematical rather than empirical, that's probably a good idea anyhow.