There is a movement today to advocate strict suppression of all ideas that don't agree with the consensus or "approved" view of things.
No matter how wrong those "alternative" ideas may be, that truly is the path to disaster.
The correct path is to teach everyone logic and scientific thought so that people can effectively determine the truth for themselves.
Instead, we seem to treat students as if they were all idiots who must be "protected" from "wrong information". You can't do that without creating obedient sheep. You may be one of those who think obedient sheep would be a good thing, until someone else, with completely wacky ideas, starts leading your sheep off into the hinterlands.
Instead of trying to suppress all the information we think is wrong, we should teach people how to think and how to evaluate information. That really is the only way to effectively protect them.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
What exactly is a "climate change denier"? Is that someone who denies that the climate changes? Would you be so kind as to point to a specific example of someone who has actually said the climate hasn't changed, isn't changing and won't change? I certainly don't know of anyone who is that stupid.
(Although, it does seem that some people think the climate shouldn't change and that, because it is changing, that's a Bad Thing. But those aren't the skeptics.)
Or by "climate change denier" do you mean someone who doesn't believe in future predictions of disaster? If so, could you explain how someone "denies" a future prediction? One either believes a prediction or doesn't believe it but it hasn't happened so there is nothing to "deny" or "accept".
Do the editors, marketers and the rest have to work harder if more books are sold? How does pricing ebooks at $15+ or $10 affect what editors, marketers and such make? The only ones who would be affected by the pricing and quantities sold are author and publisher.
Pricing ebooks at 15+ is a ripoff and the consumers know it. There is no manufacturing, no distribution, no storage, no over-printing, no loss from damage/theft. It's almost all profit. If you sell a dozen or a million, the costs to "manufacture" and "distribute" all the ebooks sold is just about the same. Unlike physical books the "manufacturing" and "distribution" costs do not increase as quantities rise.
So why not price them to sell more?
Oh, no! We have to protect the old way of doing business! To hell with the readers. To hell with authors getting their books into the hands of more readers. To hell with the future. The past has worked very well, thank you very much.
In case someone doesn't understand why their chapter on "Climate Change" is so very bad, let me quote from the report itself (which, outside of the chapter on climate, is not bad at all):
From its inception, one of the principal goals of science education has been to cultivate students’ scientific habits of mind, develop their capability to engage in scientific inquiry, and teach them how to reason in a scientific context. There has always been a tension, however, between the emphasis that should be placed on developing knowledge of the content of science and the emphasis placed on scientific practices. A narrow focus on content alone has the unfortunate consequence of leaving students with naive conceptions of the nature of scientific inquiry and the impression that science is simply a body of isolated facts.
No matter what one's view is on Climate Change, everyone should object to this chapter's deliberate failure to encourage students to question, investigate, analyze and evaluate the actual data for themselves.
The recommendations start well. They introduce their chapter on scientific and engineering practices by saying
From its inception, one of the principal goals of science education has been to cultivate students’ scientific habits of mind, develop their capability to engage in scientific inquiry, and teach them how to reason in a scientific context.
The idea, they say, is to stress "the importance of developing students’ knowledge of how science and engineering achieve their ends while also strengthening their competency with related practices."
Their "practices for K-12 science classrooms" include things like:
"Asing questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)"
"Planning and carrying out investigations"
"Analyzing and interpreting data."
"Engaging in argument from evidence"
But, when they get to the section on "Climate Change", all that goes out the window.
By the end of grade 12, they want students to "know" that
Global climate models are often used to understand the process of climate change because these changes are complex and can occur slowly over Earth’s history. Though the magnitudes of humans’ impacts are greater than they have ever been, so too are humans’ abilities to model, predict, and manage current and future impacts. Through computer simulations and other studies, important discoveries are still being made about how the ocean, the atmosphere, and the biosphere interact and are modified in response to human activities, as well as to changes in human activities. Thus science and engineering will be essential both to understanding the possible impacts of global climate change and to informing decisions about how to slow its rate and consequences—for humanity as well as for the rest of the planet.
How does that stack up with actually teaching science:
How are students supposed to question computer models?
How are students going to investigate computer models?
How are students going to analyze and interpret computer models?
How are students going to engage in argument from computer models?
This is not teaching science. This is teaching trust in authority and their mysterious "climate models". Trust us. Trust our "climate models".
OK. I'm sorry. You will probably misinterpret what I said and continue this silly discussion. I'm sorry you took offense. All I wanted to do was help improve your response to the skeptic. I felt it was weak and, as I said, not responsive to the actual comment. It would have been more effective to have challenged them to prove their assertions or provided your own facts to disprove their assertions, or both. Your response was more like "Yeah? Well, well... your mother wears army boots!" I was trying to help. Sorry I wasn't able to. Please disregard all my posts to you on this. Never mind.
Interesting. The thread is about the IPCC and someone posted a comment about the IPCC and you went off topic to attack someone entirely unrelated to the IPCC. I understand why you did that, and I understand it was perfectly reasonable and justified in your opinion. I also understand why you falsely assumed I had expressed an opinion about global warming or was aligned with any earlier commenter. I get it. Fine. No problem.
This has nothing to do with Chris Monkton or Anthony Watts.
There are people here who are posting opinions and facts here. You did not respond to the opinions and facts posted here. Instead, you avoided what was posted here and made personal attacks against people who are not here and who cannot respond.
That's pretty safe, isn't it? You don't have to provide facts, you don't have to express an opinion about what was said here and defend it.
As I said in the beginning - that isn't very responsive to the discussion here by people here is it?
Do you really think that ad hominem attacks are responsive? In my opinion, the person who feels they must resort to ad hominem attacks has admitted they have lost the argument.
"The new technology will destroy civilization as we know it!!!1!!!!"
Why is this stupid article even considered news? Someone will always predict the End of Civilization as We Know It when new technology disrupts the old, Right Way to Do Things, technology.
And they are always wrong. Things change. Deal with it.
(Protip: The destruction of the middle class has nothing to do with the Internet).
Answer this question: Is there any data that you want to be **completely unavailable** to law enforcement with **proper warrant**?
Definitely! There are protections, or used to be, that made certain information totally off limits to law enforcement no matter what kind of "proper warrant" they might have. One example: conversations between husband and wife.
In your world, there would be no such protections.
Our military and law enforcement absolutely must be able to use all means to catch the bad guys.
So now everybody is a "bad guy" - and the military and law enforcement can do anything to us?
It is important, very, very important that we keep in mind that you can't "catch the bad guys" if you become the bad guys. If the military and law enforcement break the law to gather information, then they are the bad guys!
In general, the mega-study found no significant benefits specifically for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cognitive function. And "mortality".
From that, they claim there are absolutely zero health benefits from supplements.
That just doesn't follow. There is a huge area outside of "cardiovascular disease, cancer, cognitive function and 'mortality'" that could come under "better health".
Talk about drawing vast, generalized conclusions from narrowly defined studies.
Scott Adams did not "threaten to kill someone". Read what he wrote. He only wished that those who actively oppose assisted suicide be condemned to experience the same agony and suffering they have imposed on others. Actually, I think that's probably exactly what's going to happen for some of them.
What I always did with change requests:
The rule was, you must get an estimate and approval for ALL changes.
The estimate would include how long it would take -- and I was real good at estimating that.
The approval would explicitly be for the additional time required for the change -- meaning how much that change would push back the schedule.
Most "urgent changes" became "oh, never mind". Any that survived and got approved automatically adjusted the budget and schedule to accommodate the change - so I remained on schedule and on budget.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see it now, "If you don't pay me money, I'll leak all your Ashley Madison information on the internet ... um, well, oh, ... nevermind."
There is a movement today to advocate strict suppression of all ideas that don't agree with the consensus or "approved" view of things. No matter how wrong those "alternative" ideas may be, that truly is the path to disaster.
The correct path is to teach everyone logic and scientific thought so that people can effectively determine the truth for themselves.
Instead, we seem to treat students as if they were all idiots who must be "protected" from "wrong information". You can't do that without creating obedient sheep. You may be one of those who think obedient sheep would be a good thing, until someone else, with completely wacky ideas, starts leading your sheep off into the hinterlands.
Instead of trying to suppress all the information we think is wrong, we should teach people how to think and how to evaluate information. That really is the only way to effectively protect them.
of climate change deniers.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
What exactly is a "climate change denier"? Is that someone who denies that the climate changes? Would you be so kind as to point to a specific example of someone who has actually said the climate hasn't changed, isn't changing and won't change? I certainly don't know of anyone who is that stupid.
(Although, it does seem that some people think the climate shouldn't change and that, because it is changing, that's a Bad Thing. But those aren't the skeptics.)
Or by "climate change denier" do you mean someone who doesn't believe in future predictions of disaster? If so, could you explain how someone "denies" a future prediction? One either believes a prediction or doesn't believe it but it hasn't happened so there is nothing to "deny" or "accept".
"Deniers will apparently just claim that "95%" of science is bogus"
They will? What's your source on that?
Or is that just a "prediction" based on a computer model?
Remove science, add emotion - GO!
... aaaaand there goes anonymity.
I assume that would be one of the primary goals of the government.
I don't think you understood what I wrote or even what the debate is about.
Do the editors, marketers and the rest have to work harder if more books are sold? How does pricing ebooks at $15+ or $10 affect what editors, marketers and such make? The only ones who would be affected by the pricing and quantities sold are author and publisher.
Pricing ebooks at 15+ is a ripoff and the consumers know it. There is no manufacturing, no distribution, no storage, no over-printing, no loss from damage/theft. It's almost all profit. If you sell a dozen or a million, the costs to "manufacture" and "distribute" all the ebooks sold is just about the same. Unlike physical books the "manufacturing" and "distribution" costs do not increase as quantities rise.
So why not price them to sell more?
Oh, no! We have to protect the old way of doing business! To hell with the readers. To hell with authors getting their books into the hands of more readers. To hell with the future. The past has worked very well, thank you very much.
In other words, nothing significant happened, nothing significant was ever going to happen with this bill -- "Oh, my God! The horrors! The horrors!"
But why is it "just weather" during a couple of very cold months and "global warming" during a few warm months?
No matter what one's view is on Climate Change, everyone should object to this chapter's deliberate failure to encourage students to question, investigate, analyze and evaluate the actual data for themselves.
The idea, they say, is to stress "the importance of developing students’ knowledge of how science and engineering achieve their ends while also strengthening their competency with related practices."
Their "practices for K-12 science classrooms" include things like:
"Asing questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)"
"Planning and carrying out investigations"
"Analyzing and interpreting data."
"Engaging in argument from evidence"
But, when they get to the section on "Climate Change", all that goes out the window.
By the end of grade 12, they want students to "know" that
How does that stack up with actually teaching science:
How are students supposed to question computer models?
How are students going to investigate computer models?
How are students going to analyze and interpret computer models?
How are students going to engage in argument from computer models?
This is not teaching science. This is teaching trust in authority and their mysterious "climate models". Trust us. Trust our "climate models".
OK. I'm sorry. You will probably misinterpret what I said and continue this silly discussion. I'm sorry you took offense. All I wanted to do was help improve your response to the skeptic. I felt it was weak and, as I said, not responsive to the actual comment. It would have been more effective to have challenged them to prove their assertions or provided your own facts to disprove their assertions, or both. Your response was more like "Yeah? Well, well ... your mother wears army boots!" I was trying to help. Sorry I wasn't able to. Please disregard all my posts to you on this. Never mind.
LOL. Never mind.
Interesting. The thread is about the IPCC and someone posted a comment about the IPCC and you went off topic to attack someone entirely unrelated to the IPCC. I understand why you did that, and I understand it was perfectly reasonable and justified in your opinion. I also understand why you falsely assumed I had expressed an opinion about global warming or was aligned with any earlier commenter. I get it. Fine. No problem.
This has nothing to do with Chris Monkton or Anthony Watts.
There are people here who are posting opinions and facts here. You did not respond to the opinions and facts posted here. Instead, you avoided what was posted here and made personal attacks against people who are not here and who cannot respond.
That's pretty safe, isn't it? You don't have to provide facts, you don't have to express an opinion about what was said here and defend it.
As I said in the beginning - that isn't very responsive to the discussion here by people here is it?
"Oh for goodness sake", why don't you argue the issues instead of attacking random people? You should be embarrassed.
Do you really think that ad hominem attacks are responsive? In my opinion, the person who feels they must resort to ad hominem attacks has admitted they have lost the argument.
"The new technology will destroy civilization as we know it!!!1!!!!"
Why is this stupid article even considered news? Someone will always predict the End of Civilization as We Know It when new technology disrupts the old, Right Way to Do Things, technology.
And they are always wrong. Things change. Deal with it.
(Protip: The destruction of the middle class has nothing to do with the Internet).
Answer this question: Is there any data that you want to be **completely unavailable** to law enforcement with **proper warrant**?
Definitely! There are protections, or used to be, that made certain information totally off limits to law enforcement no matter what kind of "proper warrant" they might have. One example: conversations between husband and wife.
In your world, there would be no such protections.
Our military and law enforcement absolutely must be able to use all means to catch the bad guys.
So now everybody is a "bad guy" - and the military and law enforcement can do anything to us?
It is important, very, very important that we keep in mind that you can't "catch the bad guys" if you become the bad guys. If the military and law enforcement break the law to gather information, then they are the bad guys!
In general, the mega-study found no significant benefits specifically for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cognitive function. And "mortality".
From that, they claim there are absolutely zero health benefits from supplements.
That just doesn't follow. There is a huge area outside of "cardiovascular disease, cancer, cognitive function and 'mortality'" that could come under "better health".
Talk about drawing vast, generalized conclusions from narrowly defined studies.
Ah, did you miss that "I won't do that" part of that quote? I'm trying to figure out how "I won't do that" is a threat. Trying... Nope, not happening.
Scott Adams did not "threaten to kill someone". Read what he wrote. He only wished that those who actively oppose assisted suicide be condemned to experience the same agony and suffering they have imposed on others. Actually, I think that's probably exactly what's going to happen for some of them.
What I always did with change requests: The rule was, you must get an estimate and approval for ALL changes. The estimate would include how long it would take -- and I was real good at estimating that. The approval would explicitly be for the additional time required for the change -- meaning how much that change would push back the schedule. Most "urgent changes" became "oh, never mind". Any that survived and got approved automatically adjusted the budget and schedule to accommodate the change - so I remained on schedule and on budget.