That's pretty stupid. Why don't they do the logical thing, and ticket the owner of the car - who then has to say who was driving if s/he wasn't at the time? After all, the vehicle's owner should have control over who is driving the vehicle, unless they have reported it stolen.
Sounds like they need to get the stigma back. I think they should actually take driving licenses away after a fairly low number of points. Then you'll see the number of speeders decrease.
Why is it a good idea to massively generate tickets and have the courts handle them? It is a waste of time and tax payers' money.
Hang on, I thought it was a massive revenue-raising scheme. the fact is that most people won't go to court, because they know they were breaking the law. Like I said, the machines are very accurate. Such systems actually save taxpayers money.
First, someone has to show up as defense. Second, you can always request the tape to be shown. If one of these are not present, then you win by default. Easy.
That doesn't make any sense. The offender is the defense. If you don't show up as defense, then you will not win. Why would you win by not showing up to court?
Secondly, these machines give photographic evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "the tape," as it is usually a still photograph (either on film, or a digital image) and the machines are certified and accepted as evidence in court. Why would there be no evidence, when you have been given the ticket based on evidence? if that didn't exist, you wouldn't get the ticket in the first place.
#1. Any time an application is launched by clicking on a file INSTEAD of going through the menu bar throw up a warning.
This just worsens the problem. If you throw warnings and dialog boxes at people constantly, then they just stop reading them, and always click "Ok" or "Yes." It's not just a terrible idea, it's actually counterproductive. It's a massive problem with Windows, which seems to throw dialog boxes at you every 5 seconds for the most trivial of operations. I've seen "Are you sure you want to do the command you just asked me to do" boxes on the most stupid things.
If all this compliaince BS was actually to HELP developers, the OSS community would've adopted IE settings as the standard. I mean, why not?
Because the standards are there for a reason, and IE's implementation is broken. It might not be a big deal in the short-term - but if we pander to people who break the standards, where does it end? In 10 years, we have a thoroughly broken "box model" just because Microsoft uses a broken model today? It's about consistency and logic, not expedience. And if we start caving to Microsoft today, what does that bode for the future? they will just be more brazen, because they can expect any changes they make to be be added to the standards.
No is doesn't. Unless by 'works' you mean generates more revenue.
No, I mean that it works. In that, it is very accurately detects speed, and photographs the offending vehicle. Very accurate. None of this "I saw you driving too fast... and by the way you are black" stuff. None of that "I didn't see you speeding, Mr. Mayor" stuff either.
Some state ticket the vehical when using cameras, not the person breaking the law.
In that case, you declare who was driving the vehicle at the time, and they go after them instead.
In most(if not all) cases the yellow light is shortened to specifically generate more tickets.
Evidence? I heard that happened in some cases, but I believe that was dealt with in court. Where do you get the idea that it happens in a majority of cases?
The do not reduce traffic accidents or violators.
It still catches people who are violating the law. It probably would lead to fewer violations if they started cancelling licenses belonging to repeat offenders.
They do not take into account unusual events thay may have lead to someone runing a light.
Firstly, what are those "unusual events"? Secondly, why can't that be dealt with by appeal to the courts? You don't have to accept an automated ticket - you can appeal.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. They already go after speeding and drunk driving. It's not like they are going to stop doing that and only go after cellphone users.
Where is the system to detect an intense conversation with a passenger, changing the radio station, fumbling with the A/C controls in a rental car, a crying baby in the back seat....
I think that system is called "patrol cars," and yes, they are underused. They should do something about that as well.
A driver should be able to call the police when they drive by someone who is in trouble.
What's wrong with stopping to make the call? Or, heaven forbid, stopping to give assistance?
You only have control of your own situation. A thousand laws won't give you control over someone else.
but it could reduce the number of dangerous drivers on the road.
Doesn't civil law amply address the issue of irresponsible people who cause accidents when talking on their cell phone
Not really, because those accidents are far too common - and few people are prosecuted because of it. I think the idea is to reduce the accidents in the first place. Civil law after the fact can't bring victims back to life, so it doesn't really address the problem at all.
What we need to be doing is including talking on a mobile phone while staying safe on driving tests.
So, you penalize safety-conscious people who don't use mobile phones while driving, and at the same time, encourage driving with a phone? That doesn't sound very productive.
Drivers should be taught to focus on driving and minimize distractions. Using the phone is not necessary while driving. It has nothing to do with the operational radio communications that a pilot performs. And the phone system is not optimized for driving, like the radio system is for flying. Aircraft also tend not to fly in close proximity to one another, with hundreds of them mashed up together in lanes.
So, how do you prove that someone was talking ona phone while driving? That's much harder to do than detecting speeding or blood alcohol levels.
Anyway, what is wrong with "automatic law enforcement"? It works very well with speed cameras - the automatic systems are much more accurate and fair than the manual ones.
Good thing this isn't about speeding, then. Talking on a phone while driving is probably more dangerous than drunk driving. Yet it is extremely difficult to enforce. People who drink-drive are often subject to confiscation of license, and jail time. Why shouldn't people who engage in activities as dangerous as that also be penalized.
If you want to avoid this (and other) "taxes" - then all you have to do is obey the road laws. It's hardly a "tax" if it is easily avoidable. You don't need to speed, and you don't need to talk while you are driving. So, what's the problem? Talking on the phone while driving was never a right. Driving is a privilege, and you have to follow the rules to earn that privilege.
If people weren't doing stupid shit on the roads, then their power would be impotent.
When he looks at the global warming debate, what he sees is this: a whole, big bunch of people on one side, and only a few on the other (I doubt you'd disagree that the majority DO believe in global warming).
Frankly, no. Among educated and informed people, perhaps. But the majority of the population? Not particularly confident in that. Just look at all the people who think along the lines of "It was colder this year than last, so global warming can't be happening"
In any case Klaus appears to be unsure of that himself, because he says:
Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
Firstly, the "loud minority" in this case would actually be the "anti" global warming crowd who like to scream and rant about the global warming debate, rather than having a rational discussion. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense. Gravity and the laws of physics are scientific consensus - but those are hardly views perpetrated by a "loud minority." But he contradicts himself:
I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the "established" truth, although a lot of people - including top-class scientists - see the issue of climate change entirely differently
Of course, he doesn't say who these "top-class" scientists are, and instead quotes a science-fiction writer.
The man has lived his entire life under the yoke of communism. Enforced group think. If you don't believe what you're told, you get to move to Siberia.... if you're lucky and don't wind up in a re-education camp, or just hauled out and shot. This was his reality. This is how he grew up.
And that is what is so insane about his article. He has this strange idea that global warming advocates are opposed to democracy, and want to start a totalitarian regime and send people to re-education camps. What an utter fabrication. It's actually a more accurate depiction of the "anti" side - some of whom would happy lock up environmentalists or left-wingers. Some of whom have police infiltrate environmental groups or add them to terrorist lists. In the case of the Whitehouse, have censored scientific findings.
He's not trolling. He's not spreading FUD. He's expressing what is in all probability a common - and maybe even the majority - opinion in his country of the debate. And you'll note that it is NOT based on the science, or that data - but on the behaviour of those arguing the data. So he dismisses the debate out of hand, and says it's useless.
So, how is he trying to depoliticize science, if he's using politics to dismiss the science? Worse, his distaste for the debate is based mostly on exagerrated straw men. This image of all global warming advocates as a bunch of extremists who oppose freedom has little bearing on reality. And that image was largely created by propagandists on his own side.
You say emphatically that he's not spreading FUD. How does that square with the article, which is fulling of trolling and nonsensical attacks? The majority of the global warming advocates are very moderate. Most of the extremists are not on that side, they are on the side screaming about environmentalists being evil incarnate.
On this point, I agree with him 100%. FUD doesn't work, and it never has. It will give you gains in the short term, but it always looses out long-term. And the debate, as it is currently being conducted, IS useless and a waste of time
So, it looks like he wants that situation to continue, seeing as he speaks entirely in FUD. But it's also an incorrect characterization of the debate. There's plenty of rational discussion going on. But he chooses to ignore it, based mostly on fantasy. Why doesn't he look at the moderate sec
So. One person, who isn't even one of the scientists in question. Someone who most environmentalists have never even heard of. How does this get people to dismiss an entire debate and all the scientific evidence? The magazine bills itself as:
Gloom and doom with a sense of humor
Yeah, they're really clutching at straws to demonize this whole global warming thing, aren't they?
Well, those "ambitious" environmentalists are surely a tiny group, with very little power. So why spend such an inordinate amount of the discussion on them? And if he doesn't have a problem with environmentalism in general, then why doesn't he say that? Why does he instead say how much he agrees with people who write things like "environmentalism is a religion"? Why doesn't he call for a moderate environmentalism, rather than a total dismissal of the idea?
And surely there are bigger threats to freedom, like totalitarian regimes and wars, than a small group of environmentalists? The funny thing is that I would say that even the most extreme of environmentalists are usually strong supporters of freedom. Most are just asking that we don't destroy the place, so we can enjoy our lives in peace and freedom. But again we get the propaganda that they want some sort of communist regime, which is largely bullshit. What about all the religious extremists with a great deal of power? Surely they pose a somewhat larger threat than a few hippy anarchists?
What he's saying is pretty simple, straightforward, and clear. I'm reading what he said, and not trying to read things that aren't there.
It actually doesn't sound like you read the article at all. About the only thing it says about avoiding the politicization of science is in a small dot-point down the bottom. But he spends most of the article politicizing science, and coming up with straw men.
As i said in an earlier post.... sometimes, people really DO say what they mean. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
But apparently some people don't even both reading what people write, and just make up their own interpretation. Did you miss 90% of the article?
I'm not misrepresenting what he's saying at all... I'm accepting it at face value. And I happen to agree with what he says.
Actually, you were... see point above. You made it sound like he was merely trying to depoliticize science. But you agree with all that other bullcrap he wrote? Wow. What makes you agree with outlandish trolling?
No, he SAYS - and I agree with him - that if their biases are revealed, we will ALL be better able to take those biases into account
And that is a tiny point, which he uses to validate a bunch of other propaganda with no evidence. For example: "I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem." What hysteria is he referring to here? And he goes on: "They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities." Arrogance? What the fuck? Those who have studied global warming and believe it is linked to human activity are just doing it out of arrogance? He also says: "Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years?" What kind of meaningless drivel is this? Has he even looked at the science? He's basically implying we shouldn't even be talking about it. In the dot points below, he says we shouldn't even speak of the environment at all.
Even if he is correct in his accusations of hysteria and arrogance, how can this be the biggest threat to freedom? And what's the big deal about discussing the issue?
I find it interesting that you assume that because he is a politician, he can't have any honest opinions. I could argue that that shows YOUR bias.
The main reason I think his position is dishonest, is because his article is fundamentally dishonest. I guess there's a chance he believes what he writes, but in that case, he is delusional. Seriosuly, how can it be an honest position when he uses so many strawmen, and draws on people like Michael Crichton and Al gore to make his point? When you add that to him being a politician and leader of a country, the motivation for his article becomes much clearer. He just doesn't want to have to deal with the problem. He probably fears that doing anything about emissions might affect his economy and his power.
BOTH sides are over the top. BOTH sides have politicized the issue.
That's really overstating things. It's really industry and the politicians who denied any possibility of global warming that have politicized the issue. The environmentalists and scientists have been warning of a potential problem for years, and trying to dicuss the issue - and suggesting more sustainable solutions. This was met with vicious attacks and propaganda. Now that the scientific evidence is mounting, those people have gone into spin-control mode. If this had been taken seriously all those years ago, we would have been in a better position to deal with it. But now the writing is pretty much on the wall, they are scrambling to retard the debate and engage in mud-slinging.
That we must fit the data into the theory that global warming exists, global warming is going to destroy humanity, and USA is the sole perpetrator of global warming.
Say what? Who is saying that the USA is the sole perpetrator of global warming, and who are these scientists who "must" fit the data into the theory?
It's not. Does that mean you don't try to eliminate as much as possible?
If it's not, then why did you write in your previous post "eliminate *all* bias"?
One more time, folks. The point to knowing the biases is to enable to you to ELIMINATE the biases from the question when evaluating what they say, not to base your decision ON them.
Which is where you are totally misinterpreting what Klaus is saying. He wants scientists to "reveal their biases," so people like him can ignore the science, start a witch hunt and use ad hominems, based on their political views. he is a politician, and that is what politicians do. You somehow believe that he is doing this out of an altruistic love of the sciences, and not a desire to demonize scientists?
You must be rather out of touch with the mainstream public. They won't use such declarations of bias in the way that you propose. They'll say "He's a communist, how can we believe anything he says?" They will use it as a way of ignoring science.
It wouldn't - and neither the TFA author nor I say that you should.
It appears you are the one who didn't comprehend the article. This is exactly what he is proposing. The article is actually saying that global warming should be dismissed because of 'hysterics' and that environmentalism is a threat to freedom. I'm not sure where you're getting this "eliminate bias" angle from. He is saying we need to be more biased about this issue, and he is invoking sterotypes and propaganda to do it. It's really out there in crazy-land. I'm not sure how you spin that into a call for a more balanced approach to science.
The whole point to the scientific method is to separate personal belief from the pursuit of knowledge, and to only accept that which is objective and can be proven or disproven.
Right. Which is what I've been saying all along, while you were the one mentioning eliminating bias. But if you believe the above quote, then why are you championing Klaus, who is calling for more bias to be introduced to the global warming discussion?
All the author of TFA is that global warming is highly politicized (I doubt ANYBODY would disagree with that), and that he thinks it would be a good idea if the scientists involved divulged their personal biases on the subject when talking about it, so that their opinions could be filtered and weighed accordingly.
Translation: so that people who disagree with him can be hounded for their political beliefs. Notice how all his examples are of the "pro-global-warming" side? Somehow I doubt he thinks this should apply to those who believe the same as he does. The fact is that it is people like him who are making it more politicized. It wasn't politicized by those who made scientific findings about global warming. It was politicized by the people who attacked them, and call anybody who thinks something should be done "hysterical." It was politicized by industries and politicians running scare campaigns. Just like Klaus is trying to do. "Environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom"? Yeah, that's really level-headed, scientific and apolitical.
Since the goal of a camera is to faithfully reproduce the color in the scene as visible to the human eye, not putting an IR filter in defeats that purpose.
Not all cameras have the same goals. An X-Ray camera is designed to be sensitive to X-Rays, not visible light. Likewise, many photographers want to use the IR spectrum - so putting an IR filter in defeats that goal. Likewise, many photographers work in black-and-white, color reproduction is not an issue for them, but tonal reproduction is.
Why do you think that all cameras have the same objective?
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty stupid. Why don't they do the logical thing, and ticket the owner of the car - who then has to say who was driving if s/he wasn't at the time? After all, the vehicle's owner should have control over who is driving the vehicle, unless they have reported it stolen.
Sounds like they need to get the stigma back. I think they should actually take driving licenses away after a fairly low number of points. Then you'll see the number of speeders decrease.
Hang on, I thought it was a massive revenue-raising scheme. the fact is that most people won't go to court, because they know they were breaking the law. Like I said, the machines are very accurate. Such systems actually save taxpayers money.
First, someone has to show up as defense. Second, you can always request the tape to be shown. If one of these are not present, then you win by default. Easy.That doesn't make any sense. The offender is the defense. If you don't show up as defense, then you will not win. Why would you win by not showing up to court?
Secondly, these machines give photographic evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "the tape," as it is usually a still photograph (either on film, or a digital image) and the machines are certified and accepted as evidence in court. Why would there be no evidence, when you have been given the ticket based on evidence? if that didn't exist, you wouldn't get the ticket in the first place.
Distracted driving is, though...
This just worsens the problem. If you throw warnings and dialog boxes at people constantly, then they just stop reading them, and always click "Ok" or "Yes." It's not just a terrible idea, it's actually counterproductive. It's a massive problem with Windows, which seems to throw dialog boxes at you every 5 seconds for the most trivial of operations. I've seen "Are you sure you want to do the command you just asked me to do" boxes on the most stupid things.
Because the standards are there for a reason, and IE's implementation is broken. It might not be a big deal in the short-term - but if we pander to people who break the standards, where does it end? In 10 years, we have a thoroughly broken "box model" just because Microsoft uses a broken model today? It's about consistency and logic, not expedience. And if we start caving to Microsoft today, what does that bode for the future? they will just be more brazen, because they can expect any changes they make to be be added to the standards.
No, I mean that it works. In that, it is very accurately detects speed, and photographs the offending vehicle. Very accurate. None of this "I saw you driving too fast... and by the way you are black" stuff. None of that "I didn't see you speeding, Mr. Mayor" stuff either.
Some state ticket the vehical when using cameras, not the person breaking the law.In that case, you declare who was driving the vehicle at the time, and they go after them instead.
In most(if not all) cases the yellow light is shortened to specifically generate more tickets.Evidence? I heard that happened in some cases, but I believe that was dealt with in court. Where do you get the idea that it happens in a majority of cases?
The do not reduce traffic accidents or violators.It still catches people who are violating the law. It probably would lead to fewer violations if they started cancelling licenses belonging to repeat offenders.
They do not take into account unusual events thay may have lead to someone runing a light.Firstly, what are those "unusual events"? Secondly, why can't that be dealt with by appeal to the courts? You don't have to accept an automated ticket - you can appeal.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. They already go after speeding and drunk driving. It's not like they are going to stop doing that and only go after cellphone users.
Where is the system to detect an intense conversation with a passenger, changing the radio station, fumbling with the A/C controls in a rental car, a crying baby in the back seat....I think that system is called "patrol cars," and yes, they are underused. They should do something about that as well.
A driver should be able to call the police when they drive by someone who is in trouble.What's wrong with stopping to make the call? Or, heaven forbid, stopping to give assistance?
You only have control of your own situation. A thousand laws won't give you control over someone else.but it could reduce the number of dangerous drivers on the road.
Not really, because those accidents are far too common - and few people are prosecuted because of it. I think the idea is to reduce the accidents in the first place. Civil law after the fact can't bring victims back to life, so it doesn't really address the problem at all.
So, you penalize safety-conscious people who don't use mobile phones while driving, and at the same time, encourage driving with a phone? That doesn't sound very productive.
Drivers should be taught to focus on driving and minimize distractions. Using the phone is not necessary while driving. It has nothing to do with the operational radio communications that a pilot performs. And the phone system is not optimized for driving, like the radio system is for flying. Aircraft also tend not to fly in close proximity to one another, with hundreds of them mashed up together in lanes.
So, how do you prove that someone was talking ona phone while driving? That's much harder to do than detecting speeding or blood alcohol levels.
Anyway, what is wrong with "automatic law enforcement"? It works very well with speed cameras - the automatic systems are much more accurate and fair than the manual ones.
Good thing this isn't about speeding, then. Talking on a phone while driving is probably more dangerous than drunk driving. Yet it is extremely difficult to enforce. People who drink-drive are often subject to confiscation of license, and jail time. Why shouldn't people who engage in activities as dangerous as that also be penalized.
If you want to avoid this (and other) "taxes" - then all you have to do is obey the road laws. It's hardly a "tax" if it is easily avoidable. You don't need to speed, and you don't need to talk while you are driving. So, what's the problem? Talking on the phone while driving was never a right. Driving is a privilege, and you have to follow the rules to earn that privilege.
If people weren't doing stupid shit on the roads, then their power would be impotent.
When he looks at the global warming debate, what he sees is this: a whole, big bunch of people on one side, and only a few on the other (I doubt you'd disagree that the majority DO believe in global warming).
Frankly, no. Among educated and informed people, perhaps. But the majority of the population? Not particularly confident in that. Just look at all the people who think along the lines of "It was colder this year than last, so global warming can't be happening"
In any case Klaus appears to be unsure of that himself, because he says:
Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
Firstly, the "loud minority" in this case would actually be the "anti" global warming crowd who like to scream and rant about the global warming debate, rather than having a rational discussion. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense. Gravity and the laws of physics are scientific consensus - but those are hardly views perpetrated by a "loud minority." But he contradicts himself:
I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the "established" truth, although a lot of people - including top-class scientists - see the issue of climate change entirely differently
Of course, he doesn't say who these "top-class" scientists are, and instead quotes a science-fiction writer.
The man has lived his entire life under the yoke of communism. Enforced group think. If you don't believe what you're told, you get to move to Siberia .... if you're lucky and don't wind up in a re-education camp, or just hauled out and shot. This was his reality. This is how he grew up.
And that is what is so insane about his article. He has this strange idea that global warming advocates are opposed to democracy, and want to start a totalitarian regime and send people to re-education camps. What an utter fabrication. It's actually a more accurate depiction of the "anti" side - some of whom would happy lock up environmentalists or left-wingers. Some of whom have police infiltrate environmental groups or add them to terrorist lists. In the case of the Whitehouse, have censored scientific findings.
He's not trolling. He's not spreading FUD. He's expressing what is in all probability a common - and maybe even the majority - opinion in his country of the debate. And you'll note that it is NOT based on the science, or that data - but on the behaviour of those arguing the data. So he dismisses the debate out of hand, and says it's useless.
So, how is he trying to depoliticize science, if he's using politics to dismiss the science? Worse, his distaste for the debate is based mostly on exagerrated straw men. This image of all global warming advocates as a bunch of extremists who oppose freedom has little bearing on reality. And that image was largely created by propagandists on his own side.
You say emphatically that he's not spreading FUD. How does that square with the article, which is fulling of trolling and nonsensical attacks? The majority of the global warming advocates are very moderate. Most of the extremists are not on that side, they are on the side screaming about environmentalists being evil incarnate.
On this point, I agree with him 100%. FUD doesn't work, and it never has. It will give you gains in the short term, but it always looses out long-term. And the debate, as it is currently being conducted, IS useless and a waste of time
So, it looks like he wants that situation to continue, seeing as he speaks entirely in FUD. But it's also an incorrect characterization of the debate. There's plenty of rational discussion going on. But he chooses to ignore it, based mostly on fantasy. Why doesn't he look at the moderate sec
Why wouldn't Bayer-patterned sensors work for infrared photography, black-and-white, or astrophotography?
Unless astrophotographers started using point-and-shoots when I wasn't looking,What makes you think that only point-and-shoot cameras use Bayer patterns? High-end DSLRs also use them, as do many specialized cameras.
So. One person, who isn't even one of the scientists in question. Someone who most environmentalists have never even heard of. How does this get people to dismiss an entire debate and all the scientific evidence? The magazine bills itself as:
Gloom and doom with a sense of humorYeah, they're really clutching at straws to demonize this whole global warming thing, aren't they?
Well, those "ambitious" environmentalists are surely a tiny group, with very little power. So why spend such an inordinate amount of the discussion on them? And if he doesn't have a problem with environmentalism in general, then why doesn't he say that? Why does he instead say how much he agrees with people who write things like "environmentalism is a religion"? Why doesn't he call for a moderate environmentalism, rather than a total dismissal of the idea?
And surely there are bigger threats to freedom, like totalitarian regimes and wars, than a small group of environmentalists? The funny thing is that I would say that even the most extreme of environmentalists are usually strong supporters of freedom. Most are just asking that we don't destroy the place, so we can enjoy our lives in peace and freedom. But again we get the propaganda that they want some sort of communist regime, which is largely bullshit. What about all the religious extremists with a great deal of power? Surely they pose a somewhat larger threat than a few hippy anarchists?
What he's saying is pretty simple, straightforward, and clear. I'm reading what he said, and not trying to read things that aren't there .
It actually doesn't sound like you read the article at all. About the only thing it says about avoiding the politicization of science is in a small dot-point down the bottom. But he spends most of the article politicizing science, and coming up with straw men.
As i said in an earlier post .... sometimes, people really DO say what they mean. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
But apparently some people don't even both reading what people write, and just make up their own interpretation. Did you miss 90% of the article?
I'm not misrepresenting what he's saying at all ... I'm accepting it at face value. And I happen to agree with what he says.
Actually, you were ... see point above. You made it sound like he was merely trying to depoliticize science. But you agree with all that other bullcrap he wrote? Wow. What makes you agree with outlandish trolling?
No, he SAYS - and I agree with him - that if their biases are revealed, we will ALL be better able to take those biases into account
And that is a tiny point, which he uses to validate a bunch of other propaganda with no evidence. For example: "I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem." What hysteria is he referring to here? And he goes on: "They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities." Arrogance? What the fuck? Those who have studied global warming and believe it is linked to human activity are just doing it out of arrogance? He also says: "Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years?" What kind of meaningless drivel is this? Has he even looked at the science? He's basically implying we shouldn't even be talking about it. In the dot points below, he says we shouldn't even speak of the environment at all.
Even if he is correct in his accusations of hysteria and arrogance, how can this be the biggest threat to freedom? And what's the big deal about discussing the issue?
I find it interesting that you assume that because he is a politician, he can't have any honest opinions. I could argue that that shows YOUR bias.
The main reason I think his position is dishonest, is because his article is fundamentally dishonest. I guess there's a chance he believes what he writes, but in that case, he is delusional. Seriosuly, how can it be an honest position when he uses so many strawmen, and draws on people like Michael Crichton and Al gore to make his point? When you add that to him being a politician and leader of a country, the motivation for his article becomes much clearer. He just doesn't want to have to deal with the problem. He probably fears that doing anything about emissions might affect his economy and his power.
BOTH sides are over the top. BOTH sides have politicized the issue.
That's really overstating things. It's really industry and the politicians who denied any possibility of global warming that have politicized the issue. The environmentalists and scientists have been warning of a potential problem for years, and trying to dicuss the issue - and suggesting more sustainable solutions. This was met with vicious attacks and propaganda. Now that the scientific evidence is mounting, those people have gone into spin-control mode. If this had been taken seriously all those years ago, we would have been in a better position to deal with it. But now the writing is pretty much on the wall, they are scrambling to retard the debate and engage in mud-slinging.
If you think the pol
Hello? No, I didn't order a repair man... hey, what are you doing with that wrench? That... that's not dishwasher safe! Aaaaarrrrrrgh!
Your dishwasher is wrong.
Why? Air dry is a perfectly acceptable term. It means "dry in the air" as opposed to using a towel or a mechanical dryer.
Say what? Who is saying that the USA is the sole perpetrator of global warming, and who are these scientists who "must" fit the data into the theory?
So, you're hearing it how you want to hear it.
It's not. Does that mean you don't try to eliminate as much as possible?If it's not, then why did you write in your previous post "eliminate *all* bias"?
One more time, folks. The point to knowing the biases is to enable to you to ELIMINATE the biases from the question when evaluating what they say, not to base your decision ON them.Which is where you are totally misinterpreting what Klaus is saying. He wants scientists to "reveal their biases," so people like him can ignore the science, start a witch hunt and use ad hominems, based on their political views. he is a politician, and that is what politicians do. You somehow believe that he is doing this out of an altruistic love of the sciences, and not a desire to demonize scientists?
You must be rather out of touch with the mainstream public. They won't use such declarations of bias in the way that you propose. They'll say "He's a communist, how can we believe anything he says?" They will use it as a way of ignoring science.
It wouldn't - and neither the TFA author nor I say that you should.It appears you are the one who didn't comprehend the article. This is exactly what he is proposing. The article is actually saying that global warming should be dismissed because of 'hysterics' and that environmentalism is a threat to freedom. I'm not sure where you're getting this "eliminate bias" angle from. He is saying we need to be more biased about this issue, and he is invoking sterotypes and propaganda to do it. It's really out there in crazy-land. I'm not sure how you spin that into a call for a more balanced approach to science.
The whole point to the scientific method is to separate personal belief from the pursuit of knowledge, and to only accept that which is objective and can be proven or disproven.Right. Which is what I've been saying all along, while you were the one mentioning eliminating bias. But if you believe the above quote, then why are you championing Klaus, who is calling for more bias to be introduced to the global warming discussion?
All the author of TFA is that global warming is highly politicized (I doubt ANYBODY would disagree with that), and that he thinks it would be a good idea if the scientists involved divulged their personal biases on the subject when talking about it, so that their opinions could be filtered and weighed accordingly.Translation: so that people who disagree with him can be hounded for their political beliefs. Notice how all his examples are of the "pro-global-warming" side? Somehow I doubt he thinks this should apply to those who believe the same as he does. The fact is that it is people like him who are making it more politicized. It wasn't politicized by those who made scientific findings about global warming. It was politicized by the people who attacked them, and call anybody who thinks something should be done "hysterical." It was politicized by industries and politicians running scare campaigns. Just like Klaus is trying to do. "Environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom"? Yeah, that's really level-headed, scientific and apolitical.
Not all cameras have the same goals. An X-Ray camera is designed to be sensitive to X-Rays, not visible light. Likewise, many photographers want to use the IR spectrum - so putting an IR filter in defeats that goal. Likewise, many photographers work in black-and-white, color reproduction is not an issue for them, but tonal reproduction is.
Why do you think that all cameras have the same objective?
You can't eat software.
Since when was Tri-X a reversal film? It's a negative film. The Fujichrome you refer to is the reversal film. So, your heading is incorrect.