If class more closely mimicked "real world scenarios": Exams would be open note, open classmate, open textbook, open internet, etc. A student that (without permission/notice) skipped five class sessions or came to class drunk would be expelled, possibly with no transcript. A student could do everything right and still fail an exam because of the performance of a classmate. Examples done in class would never directly apply to exams. Lectures would consist of an office politician trying to "sell" a project that would increase his budget, and use inaccurate-but-impractical-to-falsify information to do it. 50% - 90% of class time would be spent on stuff that had little to do with the class title, description or syllabus. Exams would often be on an entirely different subject with no warning to prepare. Grades would depend on vague criteria that can always be used to justify any grade the professor chose to give you.
The only reason you actually need an ungainly VGA connector on your laptop is if you either refuse to pay $30 for an adapter, or you expect that you might lose the adapter yet still have your laptop for that super-important presentation.
(bold added) Don't you ever do anything for convenience?
If you think that piece accurately reflects Card's views, you should do a little of your own research on original sources. Read what he actually wrote, without an additional layer of prejudice from someone that disagrees with him. You know, like you'd do for the words of a detractor of someone you agreed with.
Trying to measure age (or maturity) by $$ probably isn't a very good idea. Use years (or months, days, seconds, etc.) to measure age.
If you'd like to show that whether the developers are still in charge, neither age nor money is a good way to do it. Try something more direct, like a specific policy that all the developers (or the top developers) agree on and whether it's used or not in the face of non-developer opposition.
The entire computer industry is relatively young. The internet section of the computer industry is younger. Google is younger that that.
If you're still thinking Google isn't young, compare to Southwest Airlines (1967), Wal-Mart (1962), Browning Arms Company (1927), Ford Motor Company (1903), or something like JP Morgan Chase or Jim Beam from the 1700s.
Or compare to id software (1991), AOL (1991 for DOS), Electronic Arts (1982), Atari (1972), Intel (1968), or IBM (1896).
So, what gives you more right to define "community" for our nation than our elected officials? (Which you've done, in an inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical way.)
Also, I'd like to point out that: You've claimed that physical violence can be justified by name-calling, if the "names" fall in certain categories. You've also (perhaps out of ignorance) claimed that weekly shooting attacks by a national military don't justify military response.
Careful reading of your posts will help you understand your first implication. A little recent history (say 1990 - 2003) will help clear your second.
But all you just did was link to a book report by authors who only claim some type of conspiracy.
Of course that's not all I did.
I went through that whole page you linked to, link by link, and practically none of the conclusions leaped to by NewScientist were backed up with peer-reviewed anything. There were buried links to actual research (i.e. none of the links on your first page, and a small minority of the links on the linked pages), but they were sidelines, not support for NewScientist's theories. Paragraph after paragraph, I showed how they made claims which they immediately contradicted, set up straw-men and barely were able to shoot them down, and performed all the kinds of wild leaps they accuse their hypothetical adversaries of.
You told me you'd given me a link to a "many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources." Strictly speaking, you were right, but the impression you gave was different that what was on the link. The link wasn't science review, or logical conclusions following research. It was opinion editorials with tangential mentions of non-supporting research.
Please note, that I haven't claimed that NewScientist's conclusions are wrong. Thus I my conclusion needs no evidence that NS is wrong. I have only claimed they're biased and unscientific. You ask me to support my conclusion. I have. My conclusion (stated in the gggp?) was that NewScientist is biased. My support is NewScientist itself. If you see their conclusions as unbiased and scientific, rather than sensational editorializing, please show me how. Because what you gave me doesn't work.
The net effect is not, as you suggest, a shining edifice of peer-reviewed literature showing the unvarnished truth, but rather a steaming pile of speculation by NewScientist with a few peer-reviewed studies attached to give an illusion of science. In all the articles I read, averages were often given, and extreme cases were often pointed out. But, although NewScientist subtly, reluctantly and guardedly admitted (and cited peer review that supported) that AGW might not really be, ALL their speculations of extremes were in favor of AGW. This is understandable because NewScientist's purpose isn't to do science, but to sell advertising.
The linked articles constantly refer to "the models" as if it's a magic word. Well, I work as an actuary and I can tell you that there's no magic. They might as well use "scientists say"* as was done in children's science books from the '50s (oops, sorry, the articles do that, too), since those particular models aren't presented for our scrutiny when used as support for NewScientist's speculations.
-The pinball machine as an analogy to the chaos of climate is stupid, and misused. The discussion of predicting chaotic systems is acceptable, as a discussion of chaotic systems, but says nothing about the reality of AGW. -Under "Climate myths: We can't trust computer models" the linked study actually confirms that we can't trust computer models. The (linked, presumably peer-reviewed) study shows that models will only be able to achieve so much accuracy, and no more. And there are no links there that justify the statement, "...there is no doubt that there will be warming." -NewScientist claims that the idea that global cooling was hyped in the '70s was just a myth in the title of one of the articles. However, in the body of the article, NewScientist confirms that "myth". Then the article (not in a peer reviewed study) says, in essence, "This time we didn't make that mistake." Any scientist should know better than to say such a thing. For that matter, any movie-goer should know better. -At at least one link went to another NewScientist article which contained a link to an IPCC report that says that AGW is likely. Although I'm familiar with some of IPCC's track record for making wild claims for political purposes, I'm disposed to accept that there's a lot of truth in the 21-page summary that I read. -There's the link to the NewScientist (like most of the links, non-peer-reviewed) piece, "Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming." In discussing the very common lag between increased temperatures and the following increase in CO2, and the obvious conclusion that increased CO2 wasn't the "trigger" to end those ice ages, NewScientist states that no scientist has claimed otherwise. This is disingenuous at best, as that's not the claim that I've usually heard in connection with that data, and the "myth" in the title isn't the same as either. Further, nothing they say, or link to, in the paragraphs following that supports that CO2 is as "powerful" as they claim. Just more speculation. -Time and time again, NewScientist uses the fallacy of Correlation = Causation, and even goes so far as to practically state it in the piece titled "Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell" -In "Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming," NewScientist "debunks" the "myth" by spouting a bunch of speculation as if it were fact, then uses an "UPDATE" with new speculation in the last paragraph to debunk their own speculation (without acknowledging that they just did), and then they immediately claim that their new speculation is fact. -NewScientist claims that the Mann study being proven wrong was a myth, then shows that the study really was proven wrong. Then, NewScientist pretends that the Mann study and report wasn't intentionally misleading, when it obviously was. If I tried to rate insurance that way (modeling that interpreted random data to mean somethin
I learned that you're pretty gullible if you think that contains any real information about Mother Teresa. Whoever wrote that stuff is expecting you to read it without thinking. There's nothing there but vague assertions and accusations without accompanying foundation.
As much as there may be some evidence for AGW, pretending that one can get a semblance of unhyped or unbiased science from NewScientist.com isn't going to get you points with people that think critically.
It's not as bad as citing Mises.org as if there's original or insightful thought there, but it's pretty bad.
If you are just trying to make sure everyone knows you are a witless moron, you sure are doing a great job of it. If he had wanted us to know anything about him, he wouldn't have posted anonymously.
Slashdot Mirror
Most situations are "contrived" in some sense.
Now split-second emergencies aren't always purposely contrived, but notes aren't much use then, either.
If class more closely mimicked "real world scenarios":
Exams would be open note, open classmate, open textbook, open internet, etc.
A student that (without permission/notice) skipped five class sessions or came to class drunk would be expelled, possibly with no transcript.
A student could do everything right and still fail an exam because of the performance of a classmate.
Examples done in class would never directly apply to exams.
Lectures would consist of an office politician trying to "sell" a project that would increase his budget, and use inaccurate-but-impractical-to-falsify information to do it.
50% - 90% of class time would be spent on stuff that had little to do with the class title, description or syllabus.
Exams would often be on an entirely different subject with no warning to prepare.
Grades would depend on vague criteria that can always be used to justify any grade the professor chose to give you.
Because we all want cars that look like they were manufactured by Mattel.
Not me. I want one that looks like it was built from Lego bricks.
The only reason you actually need an ungainly VGA connector on your laptop is if you either refuse to pay $30 for an adapter, or you expect that you might lose the adapter yet still have your laptop for that super-important presentation.
(bold added)
Don't you ever do anything for convenience?
You're right.
I was responding to what I percieved as an attempt to imply that the correlation means something.
If there was no attempt to imply such, I apoligize.
You've fallen victim to THE classic statistical fallacy.
Now, repeat after me, "Correlation is not causation."
So, when people at work call you Frankenstein, do you remind them that Frankenstein was the doctor, not the guy made out of dead bodies?
Then it's not much of a murder weapon. Might as well just buy them an extra beer after work for a couple of years and hope they die in a car accident.
He's not.
Using that article to understand Orson Scott Card is like using Rush Limbaugh to understand Barack Obama.
If you think that piece accurately reflects Card's views, you should do a little of your own research on original sources. Read what he actually wrote, without an additional layer of prejudice from someone that disagrees with him. You know, like you'd do for the words of a detractor of someone you agreed with.
drug use is a victimless crime
You'd be a lot closer to credible if you didn't say things like that.
That was the one I was thinking of.
Not one of his better books, IMO.
Trying to measure age (or maturity) by $$ probably isn't a very good idea.
Use years (or months, days, seconds, etc.) to measure age.
If you'd like to show that whether the developers are still in charge, neither age nor money is a good way to do it. Try something more direct, like a specific policy that all the developers (or the top developers) agree on and whether it's used or not in the face of non-developer opposition.
The entire computer industry is relatively young.
The internet section of the computer industry is younger.
Google is younger that that.
If you're still thinking Google isn't young, compare to Southwest Airlines (1967), Wal-Mart (1962), Browning Arms Company (1927), Ford Motor Company (1903), or something like JP Morgan Chase or Jim Beam from the 1700s.
Or compare to id software (1991), AOL (1991 for DOS), Electronic Arts (1982), Atari (1972), Intel (1968), or IBM (1896).
Even Yahoo's older (1994)
So, what gives you more right to define "community" for our nation than our elected officials? (Which you've done, in an inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical way.)
Also, I'd like to point out that:
You've claimed that physical violence can be justified by name-calling, if the "names" fall in certain categories.
You've also (perhaps out of ignorance) claimed that weekly shooting attacks by a national military don't justify military response.
Careful reading of your posts will help you understand your first implication. A little recent history (say 1990 - 2003) will help clear your second.
-End of Line-
Or the people in the world that are threatened by terrorism, religious extremeism, murderous dictatorships, etc.
I don't think I've ever heard a justification of our current wars quite like yours before. Thank you for the insight.
Reference noted. That was one of The Frantics' best skits.
But all you just did was link to a book report by authors who only claim some type of conspiracy.
Of course that's not all I did.
I went through that whole page you linked to, link by link, and practically none of the conclusions leaped to by NewScientist were backed up with peer-reviewed anything. There were buried links to actual research (i.e. none of the links on your first page, and a small minority of the links on the linked pages), but they were sidelines, not support for NewScientist's theories.
Paragraph after paragraph, I showed how they made claims which they immediately contradicted, set up straw-men and barely were able to shoot them down, and performed all the kinds of wild leaps they accuse their hypothetical adversaries of.
You told me you'd given me a link to a "many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources." Strictly speaking, you were right, but the impression you gave was different that what was on the link. The link wasn't science review, or logical conclusions following research. It was opinion editorials with tangential mentions of non-supporting research.
Please note, that I haven't claimed that NewScientist's conclusions are wrong. Thus I my conclusion needs no evidence that NS is wrong. I have only claimed they're biased and unscientific. You ask me to support my conclusion. I have. My conclusion (stated in the gggp?) was that NewScientist is biased. My support is NewScientist itself. If you see their conclusions as unbiased and scientific, rather than sensational editorializing, please show me how. Because what you gave me doesn't work.
The net effect is not, as you suggest, a shining edifice of peer-reviewed literature showing the unvarnished truth, but rather a steaming pile of speculation by NewScientist with a few peer-reviewed studies attached to give an illusion of science. In all the articles I read, averages were often given, and extreme cases were often pointed out. But, although NewScientist subtly, reluctantly and guardedly admitted (and cited peer review that supported) that AGW might not really be, ALL their speculations of extremes were in favor of AGW. This is understandable because NewScientist's purpose isn't to do science, but to sell advertising.
The linked articles constantly refer to "the models" as if it's a magic word. Well, I work as an actuary and I can tell you that there's no magic. They might as well use "scientists say"* as was done in children's science books from the '50s (oops, sorry, the articles do that, too), since those particular models aren't presented for our scrutiny when used as support for NewScientist's speculations.
-The pinball machine as an analogy to the chaos of climate is stupid, and misused. The discussion of predicting chaotic systems is acceptable, as a discussion of chaotic systems, but says nothing about the reality of AGW.
-Under "Climate myths: We can't trust computer models" the linked study actually confirms that we can't trust computer models. The (linked, presumably peer-reviewed) study shows that models will only be able to achieve so much accuracy, and no more. And there are no links there that justify the statement, "...there is no doubt that there will be warming."
-NewScientist claims that the idea that global cooling was hyped in the '70s was just a myth in the title of one of the articles. However, in the body of the article, NewScientist confirms that "myth". Then the article (not in a peer reviewed study) says, in essence, "This time we didn't make that mistake." Any scientist should know better than to say such a thing. For that matter, any movie-goer should know better.
-At at least one link went to another NewScientist article which contained a link to an IPCC report that says that AGW is likely. Although I'm familiar with some of IPCC's track record for making wild claims for political purposes, I'm disposed to accept that there's a lot of truth in the 21-page summary that I read.
-There's the link to the NewScientist (like most of the links, non-peer-reviewed) piece, "Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming." In discussing the very common lag between increased temperatures and the following increase in CO2, and the obvious conclusion that increased CO2 wasn't the "trigger" to end those ice ages, NewScientist states that no scientist has claimed otherwise. This is disingenuous at best, as that's not the claim that I've usually heard in connection with that data, and the "myth" in the title isn't the same as either. Further, nothing they say, or link to, in the paragraphs following that supports that CO2 is as "powerful" as they claim. Just more speculation.
-Time and time again, NewScientist uses the fallacy of Correlation = Causation, and even goes so far as to practically state it in the piece titled "Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell"
-In "Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming," NewScientist "debunks" the "myth" by spouting a bunch of speculation as if it were fact, then uses an "UPDATE" with new speculation in the last paragraph to debunk their own speculation (without acknowledging that they just did), and then they immediately claim that their new speculation is fact.
-NewScientist claims that the Mann study being proven wrong was a myth, then shows that the study really was proven wrong. Then, NewScientist pretends that the Mann study and report wasn't intentionally misleading, when it obviously was. If I tried to rate insurance that way (modeling that interpreted random data to mean somethin
Then, it's a book review written with the expectation that the reader won't think about it.
I clicked your link hoping to learn something.
I learned that you're pretty gullible if you think that contains any real information about Mother Teresa. Whoever wrote that stuff is expecting you to read it without thinking. There's nothing there but vague assertions and accusations without accompanying foundation.
As much as there may be some evidence for AGW, pretending that one can get a semblance of unhyped or unbiased science from NewScientist.com isn't going to get you points with people that think critically.
It's not as bad as citing Mises.org as if there's original or insightful thought there, but it's pretty bad.
You forgot the whining, complaining, and bad jokes.
redundant stupid redudancy dumbness
That first image reminded me of Tron.