Err.... can you read, or do you just post when you read specific sentences? Sort of like a pavlovian poster?
The very next sentence says: "The only time a civilian militia can defeat a modern professional army is when the modern professional army doesn't want to kill every civilian in sight." Which is exactly what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can win in those places. We are just not barbaric enough to go all the way.
What you're missing is that no information travels faster than the speed of light. None. As a result, it is completely irrelevant to actual people existing in this universe that all stars go out at the same time - because no one can actually notice them going out at the same time.
You're right that it is not time inverting itself, because that makes no sense. What it is is two separate reference frames influencing the experience - i.e., the results - of the same event.
Because a few handguns and assault rifles are going to work against tanks, choppers and nukes. Right.... The only time a civilian militia can defeat a modern professional army is when the modern professional army doesn't want to kill every civilian in sight - i.e., a bit of civility. Don't think for a second that the same thing is not possible in the US, because the same shit is going on right now.
Congrats on coming back - hopefully without something like PTSD or TBI.
Whether it feels like it or not is irrelevant. Many Europeans claim that their healthcare is free - it isn't, it just feels like it because they never even see the part of the pay check that goes towards taxes. It's the same with external costs like wars to secure enough oil. To some extent, the calculation is straightforward: take the sum of the cost of all the gulf wars, divide by the total of americans that have lived during that time span, and you have your personal cost. I'd rather not do it, it'll just depress me.
As an American, I believe I pay less than half of what Europeans pay for gas.
How much have the various gulf wars cost you? That was the point of the previous comment: you might not pay directly in taxes, but you're paying in many other ways.
Because it is logically inconsistent to grant freedom to indivivduals while simultaneously denying freedom to groups of individuals.
Newsflash - a set is different from a component of a set. Furthermore, corporations have rights that individuals do not. Look up the concept of piercing the corporate veil and why it is necessary in the first place.
If you oppose corporate freedoms then, logically, you oppose individual freedom.
Nice sentiment, but completely, utterly wrong. For the same reason that government freedoms are distinct from individual freedoms.
Seriously, what's with people railing against one collection of individuals (government), while supplicating at the altar of another (corporations)? There is no difference between a corporation and an autocracy, except that the corporation has to obey the laws of the country it operates in. If it doesn't, there is absolutely no difference between the two.
Until the US does something to curb this blatant BS that Fox, Rush L. and the other ultra conservative groups put out, the US will continue to spiral into hell and eliminate the dream that every American lives for.
And the only way that is going to happen is if people actually stop to listen to Rush and Beck. Outlawing them is just going to make things worse.
Can they even imagine a world where every single place you went, every single thing you did, was subject to a zillion different whims?
They can't, for a simple reason: they're either white, and therefore part of the current power structure in the US, or wealthy, and therefore part of the power structure anywhere in the world. They're unable to understand that their life isn't what everyone else has, and that they aren't solely responsible for their position in life.
In short, they're small-minded people who mistake luck for skill.
I've actually argued this point with you before, so I'll just summarize my argument: you're conveniently forgetting the concept of natural monopolies, of which Telecoms, like Railroads, are the prime examples.
I won't bother with the details, since you clearly have no interest in an honest discussion, but rather in trumpeting your point of view. The only thing that bothers me in this is that you actually might vote, and I might have to deal with your self-selected dystopia of corporations in complete control.
Because sometimes, the AC who is at -1 when you're coming across the reply was sitting at +5 earlier. Mods aren't perfect. Including me. Occasionally, it's worth it to point out a modding mistake.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Furthermore, you want to be careful playing that game - because otherwise, we just had proof that global warming is real.
The sun is known to be a driver. About 25% or so of what's known as the overall temperature forcing. It's in the IPCC report, if you want to read more about it. CO2 is a driver and water vapor is not because water vapor follows the temperature, not the other way around. In other words, as temperatures go up, water vapor concentration rises. As temperatures go down, water vapor condenses into rain. CO2, on the other hand, only forces temperatures up, temperatures don't influence CO2 concentrations (neglecting for a second second and third-order effects like plant growth). That's why CO2 concentrations are important in modeling long-term temperature fluctuations, and water vapor is not.
Anything else I can explain to you that has been known for about 100 years or so? The fact that you don't know these points, yet participate in these discussions, indicates that you are aware of them, but choose to ignore them.
why is it when I point to localised evidence of cooling as proof AGW is bullshit, AGW supporters give me a line about global temps being the only valid data. but when there's some local event like ice melting on a mountain, it's considered rockhard evidence by AGW supporters?!
Because you are trying to use anecdote in place of data. These people place anecdotes in the context of data.
i'll tell you why. it's because most of popular climate change "science" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and it's agenda is run by hypocrites.
No. It's because you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and any evidence that clashes with your current world view merely reinforces it. In other words, you are walking case example of neuroscience at work.
And you've never worked in customer support that goes beyond a bug DB. Never, ever, ever trust what the person on the other line is saying to you. If they tell you the sky is blue, nod, say I'm sure it is, then go outside and verify.
Maybe 10% of the people calling in know what they're doing, and can be trusted to turn on the power correctly. And even then, they might have forgotten. Which means that when you do your troubleshooting, you do not take anything for granted.
Based on my experience in customer support, I'm quite happy to believe that every case of unintended acceleration was user error. The main issue is that only one person called while the bug was in action, and he was found to have been lying through his teeth, while having a history of lying through his teeth.
You're engaging in intellectual laziness that masquerades as sophistication. Accusing someone of being partial and biased is like accusing water of being wet. At some point, everything comes back to initial preferences. You're just stating the obvious.
If you actually want to contribute to the discussion, rather than just voice platitudes, you could, for example, describe why you think that they only keep a cover of impartiality and only display a supposed lack of sensationalism. Or is that too hard?
And here we have exhibit B in random schmoes from the street who have no idea what scientific research has been done in a field, and think that watching TV is a substitute for actual research.
Specifically, your last paragraph indicates you have no idea about the current state of affairs.
And..... anecdote is not data. Otherwise the question of whether the planet is undergoing record heat increases would have been settled long ago. In 98, to be exact.
A) Wrong. Feel free to provide some sources to support your claim. B) Even assuming you're right: Right around that time, scientific consensus laid the foundation for the atomic bomb. What's your point again?
I can't tell from this post if you're ironic or not, but I'm pretty sure from your history that you're not. It's the perfect example of how ill-equipped the blogosphere, and the public at large, is to analyze the data collected by NASA, NOAA and co.
Releasing the data and making science more transparent is going to do very little to convince naysayers, because they're completely blind to confirmation bias. The reason you want to make science transparent is so that if one scientist makes a mistake, another scientist can catch it and correct it.
The argument that a person from the street has a higher likelihood to be unbiased and rational than a scientist in the field is completely humbug. It's quite possible that some can be, but the odds are completely against it.
Bullshit yourself. Yes, economists are aware that the idealized benefits of a free market come from a free market that exists as much as a frictionless surface of uniform gravity. However, when conservatives trot out the mantra that the free market will fix itself because Smith's invisible hand will guide it, they do conveniently the two requirements for that invisible hand: zero barrier to entry for sellers and complete information available to buyers. As these two criteria degrade, so does the ability of the invisible hand to do its work in a free market.
That's the key part. There's also a difference between a market functioning "well" (for whom?), and efficiently. Logic and Reason is nothing without knowledge to which to apply Logic and Reason.
Correction. I'm a copyright infringer, and getting prouder by the day. Robin Hood is not a bad analogy. How do you think Robin Hood toppled the Sheriff of Nottingham? Because even though he was a criminal in the eyes of the law, the population knew he was on the right side of morality.
Just because some regulation is good doesn't mean more is better. Just because some regulation is bad doesn't mean less is better. It's an implementation problem, not a process problem.
I am told there is a world of difference between what scientists publish in peer reviewed journals and what they say (or what is attributed to them) in the popular media.
Correct.
If you don't read the science papers, why do you argue about what the scientists are saying? You don't have to believe me when I say that the press tends to distort scientific findings, since you can check it for yourself. I find it intellectually lazy though to not read the science papers, but to still argue about what the scientists are saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Err.... can you read, or do you just post when you read specific sentences? Sort of like a pavlovian poster?
The very next sentence says: "The only time a civilian militia can defeat a modern professional army is when the modern professional army doesn't want to kill every civilian in sight." Which is exactly what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can win in those places. We are just not barbaric enough to go all the way.
What you're missing is that no information travels faster than the speed of light. None. As a result, it is completely irrelevant to actual people existing in this universe that all stars go out at the same time - because no one can actually notice them going out at the same time.
You're right that it is not time inverting itself, because that makes no sense. What it is is two separate reference frames influencing the experience - i.e., the results - of the same event.
Because a few handguns and assault rifles are going to work against tanks, choppers and nukes. Right.... The only time a civilian militia can defeat a modern professional army is when the modern professional army doesn't want to kill every civilian in sight - i.e., a bit of civility. Don't think for a second that the same thing is not possible in the US, because the same shit is going on right now.
Ah yes - the Dust to Dust report by marketing agency CNW. Debunked in many places, one of them here: http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
Congrats on coming back - hopefully without something like PTSD or TBI.
Whether it feels like it or not is irrelevant. Many Europeans claim that their healthcare is free - it isn't, it just feels like it because they never even see the part of the pay check that goes towards taxes. It's the same with external costs like wars to secure enough oil. To some extent, the calculation is straightforward: take the sum of the cost of all the gulf wars, divide by the total of americans that have lived during that time span, and you have your personal cost. I'd rather not do it, it'll just depress me.
As an American, I believe I pay less than half of what Europeans pay for gas.
How much have the various gulf wars cost you? That was the point of the previous comment: you might not pay directly in taxes, but you're paying in many other ways.
Because it is logically inconsistent to grant freedom to indivivduals while simultaneously denying freedom to groups of individuals.
Newsflash - a set is different from a component of a set. Furthermore, corporations have rights that individuals do not. Look up the concept of piercing the corporate veil and why it is necessary in the first place.
If you oppose corporate freedoms then, logically, you oppose individual freedom.
Nice sentiment, but completely, utterly wrong. For the same reason that government freedoms are distinct from individual freedoms.
Seriously, what's with people railing against one collection of individuals (government), while supplicating at the altar of another (corporations)? There is no difference between a corporation and an autocracy, except that the corporation has to obey the laws of the country it operates in. If it doesn't, there is absolutely no difference between the two.
Until the US does something to curb this blatant BS that Fox, Rush L. and the other ultra conservative groups put out, the US will continue to spiral into hell and eliminate the dream that every American lives for.
And the only way that is going to happen is if people actually stop to listen to Rush and Beck. Outlawing them is just going to make things worse.
Yeah, I pretty much think we're fucked.
As someone else said - just when I think that you and I can't disagree more, you redeem yourself. ;)
Can they even imagine a world where every single place you went, every single thing you did, was subject to a zillion different whims?
They can't, for a simple reason: they're either white, and therefore part of the current power structure in the US, or wealthy, and therefore part of the power structure anywhere in the world. They're unable to understand that their life isn't what everyone else has, and that they aren't solely responsible for their position in life.
In short, they're small-minded people who mistake luck for skill.
I've actually argued this point with you before, so I'll just summarize my argument: you're conveniently forgetting the concept of natural monopolies, of which Telecoms, like Railroads, are the prime examples.
I won't bother with the details, since you clearly have no interest in an honest discussion, but rather in trumpeting your point of view. The only thing that bothers me in this is that you actually might vote, and I might have to deal with your self-selected dystopia of corporations in complete control.
Because sometimes, the AC who is at -1 when you're coming across the reply was sitting at +5 earlier. Mods aren't perfect. Including me. Occasionally, it's worth it to point out a modding mistake.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Furthermore, you want to be careful playing that game - because otherwise, we just had proof that global warming is real.
The sun is known to be a driver. About 25% or so of what's known as the overall temperature forcing. It's in the IPCC report, if you want to read more about it. CO2 is a driver and water vapor is not because water vapor follows the temperature, not the other way around. In other words, as temperatures go up, water vapor concentration rises. As temperatures go down, water vapor condenses into rain. CO2, on the other hand, only forces temperatures up, temperatures don't influence CO2 concentrations (neglecting for a second second and third-order effects like plant growth). That's why CO2 concentrations are important in modeling long-term temperature fluctuations, and water vapor is not.
Anything else I can explain to you that has been known for about 100 years or so? The fact that you don't know these points, yet participate in these discussions, indicates that you are aware of them, but choose to ignore them.
why is it when I point to localised evidence of cooling as proof AGW is bullshit, AGW supporters give me a line about global temps being the only valid data. but when there's some local event like ice melting on a mountain, it's considered rockhard evidence by AGW supporters?!
Because you are trying to use anecdote in place of data. These people place anecdotes in the context of data.
i'll tell you why. it's because most of popular climate change "science" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and it's agenda is run by hypocrites.
No. It's because you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and any evidence that clashes with your current world view merely reinforces it. In other words, you are walking case example of neuroscience at work.
And you've never worked in customer support that goes beyond a bug DB. Never, ever, ever trust what the person on the other line is saying to you. If they tell you the sky is blue, nod, say I'm sure it is, then go outside and verify.
Maybe 10% of the people calling in know what they're doing, and can be trusted to turn on the power correctly. And even then, they might have forgotten. Which means that when you do your troubleshooting, you do not take anything for granted.
Based on my experience in customer support, I'm quite happy to believe that every case of unintended acceleration was user error. The main issue is that only one person called while the bug was in action, and he was found to have been lying through his teeth, while having a history of lying through his teeth.
You're engaging in intellectual laziness that masquerades as sophistication. Accusing someone of being partial and biased is like accusing water of being wet. At some point, everything comes back to initial preferences. You're just stating the obvious.
If you actually want to contribute to the discussion, rather than just voice platitudes, you could, for example, describe why you think that they only keep a cover of impartiality and only display a supposed lack of sensationalism. Or is that too hard?
And here we have exhibit B in random schmoes from the street who have no idea what scientific research has been done in a field, and think that watching TV is a substitute for actual research.
Specifically, your last paragraph indicates you have no idea about the current state of affairs.
And..... anecdote is not data. Otherwise the question of whether the planet is undergoing record heat increases would have been settled long ago. In 98, to be exact.
A) Wrong. Feel free to provide some sources to support your claim.
B) Even assuming you're right: Right around that time, scientific consensus laid the foundation for the atomic bomb. What's your point again?
I can't tell from this post if you're ironic or not, but I'm pretty sure from your history that you're not. It's the perfect example of how ill-equipped the blogosphere, and the public at large, is to analyze the data collected by NASA, NOAA and co.
Releasing the data and making science more transparent is going to do very little to convince naysayers, because they're completely blind to confirmation bias. The reason you want to make science transparent is so that if one scientist makes a mistake, another scientist can catch it and correct it.
The argument that a person from the street has a higher likelihood to be unbiased and rational than a scientist in the field is completely humbug. It's quite possible that some can be, but the odds are completely against it.
To me, it seems like we have the solution to the problem.
Yes, it's called sitting farther away from the screen. Works like a charm.
Bullshit yourself. Yes, economists are aware that the idealized benefits of a free market come from a free market that exists as much as a frictionless surface of uniform gravity. However, when conservatives trot out the mantra that the free market will fix itself because Smith's invisible hand will guide it, they do conveniently the two requirements for that invisible hand: zero barrier to entry for sellers and complete information available to buyers. As these two criteria degrade, so does the ability of the invisible hand to do its work in a free market.
That's the key part. There's also a difference between a market functioning "well" (for whom?), and efficiently. Logic and Reason is nothing without knowledge to which to apply Logic and Reason.
You're a thief, plain and simple.
Correction. I'm a copyright infringer, and getting prouder by the day. Robin Hood is not a bad analogy. How do you think Robin Hood toppled the Sheriff of Nottingham? Because even though he was a criminal in the eyes of the law, the population knew he was on the right side of morality.
Just because some regulation is good doesn't mean more is better. Just because some regulation is bad doesn't mean less is better. It's an implementation problem, not a process problem.
I am told there is a world of difference between what scientists publish in peer reviewed journals and what they say (or what is attributed to them) in the popular media.
Correct.
If you don't read the science papers, why do you argue about what the scientists are saying? You don't have to believe me when I say that the press tends to distort scientific findings, since you can check it for yourself. I find it intellectually lazy though to not read the science papers, but to still argue about what the scientists are saying.