In looking at the Titan test, I see one very key point:
TIME LIMIT. There is no enforceable time limit, but one month would be a reasonable amount of time to spend on the test.
WTF? A month is a "reasonable" amount of time? Should I really devote a month of my life towards taking a test to prove to the world how smart I am? Already, by the very construction of this test, there will only be a small subset of the population that passes it, since in order to take it you either have to be motivated to spend a lot of time proving how smart you are or just really enjoy solving puzzles.
I can very much second this kind of story. Back in high school, in my home town of 10K, I was definitely one of the smartest if not the smartest kid in my class. In all subjects, the other kids would always ask me for help, and I thought I was top shit.
Fast-forward to college (I went to a big state school). All of a sudden, I'm still smart, but there are people around that can think circles around me. To make a long story short, it was very discouraging, and although I started college well, my grades slumped until I took it upon myself to start working hard.
Fast-forward again many years, and I am married to a woman who was once a high-school cheerleader and college drop-out. Right now, she is finishing up a PhD, thanks to a decision on her part to make something out of her life. I am also learning that although my skills in things like math and science are better than hers, my ability to deal with people is crap compared to her. She has really taught me how there are very different kinds of intelligence. There are times that she can see a social situation and immediately see things that take me a lot of thought and reflection to understand. Furthermore, in watching movies, reading books, the different subtexts, themes, etc. are also incredibly obvious to her - halfway through her first viewing of Bladerunner (the version without the voice-over) she asks me if Deckard is a replicant. I never saw that until someone pointed it out to me.
So, yeah, even though there is clearly a relationship between intelligence and success, there are by no means synonymous, especially given how people have be very intelligent in very different ways.
Biology is still making real progress, and has plenty of work ahead.
As someone working in biotech, I can very heartily second this sentiment. There are a lot of well-paying, satisfying careers in the biological sciences, especially if you also have programming/computer skills.
Also, from my perspective, I predict that the next century will see a biotech boom that is the analog of the computer boom in the last century and that advances in biotech will have some dramatic (and possibly terrifying) impacts on day to day life. The reason is that we are really only just now starting to have the technology available to even read the basic instructions of life (ie, DNA) in a cost-effective way. Combine that with improvements to DNA synthesis (ie, Venter's recent work), and there will be changes.
The smallest unit a carpenter ever measures is 1/16" which is 1.588 millimeters.
This is only true if you're a bad carpenter. Although it is true that the typical carpenter's tape measure only goes down to 1/16" increments, there are many times that this isn't precise enough. After all, how many buildings are put together perfectly without any human error? This problem is even more exaggerated if you do any furniture making. Although 1/16" doesn't sound like a lot when putting up a wall, if you're off by that when trying to fit a mortise and tenon, your joint is a total failure.
I grew up using imperial, and all of my woodworking tools are still imperial, simply because they're easier to get in the U.S. If there were metric tools easily available, I'd be happy to switch. It would just mean slight adjustments to the standard way of making things (ie, counters would no longer be 32", they'd be a close round number in metric), but I don't believe for an instant that the whole process would be harder.
Now, tax reform to simplify tax law, reduce loopholes, etc, I think is something both parties can get behind (though getting the politicians to actually vote for it against the wills of the lobbyists would be more difficult). And that, if done right, would actually help.
Yes, yes, and yes. We need more concrete suggestions like this. The extreme us vs. them mentality needs to stop.
I think the poster was more talking about switches like the one recently done by Newt Gingrich. Switches based upon reasoning and reflection are a good thing. I see none of that here.
Regardless, though, it isn't a fair comparison to equate the immoral actions of isolated, individual citizens with the actions of organized, powerful political parties.
One question for you, and I am not trolling here. I would sincerely like to hear an answer.
If giving more money to the wealthy is the way out of the recession, why are we in one? Over the past 30 years, the income gap between the rich and poor has widened more than ever, so what is going on? What is the cause?
From my perspective, the lack of spending money for the working class is a huge factor. More people with money to buy goods and services is what we need, and investing in the majority of people through investments in education and social services seems the best way to get things rolling again. The trouble is, though, that this is not a short-term fix. The short term fix is to slash the budgets, but where is that going to lead?
The truth of the matter is that our economic woes have a lot to do with stagnant wages of the working and middle class. The argument from the right is that the real trouble is that rich just don't have enough money. If that is true, then why is there a recession at all? The rich are richer than ever before in history, and I find it ridiculous to state that the solution out of this is to give them more money.
Too much socialism is a bad thing. No doubt about it, but don't kid yourself into thinking that we are even remotely close to such a scenario.
I find perplexing that you accuse me of not recognizing my prejudices when I fully admitted that my stance was an intolerant one. I have pulled back from any attempt to reason scientifically with you, since until we recognize and resolve the giant gulf in how we frame this question morally, there is no possibility of coming to any understanding. In other words, both of our stances with respect to any specific issue will be colored so strongly by our respective moral stances, finding common ground will be almost impossible.
To help clarify further, I fully recognize that my stance is a moral one, just like yours. Instead of just making your moral argument, though, you are framing your own moral stance as a well-reasoned, scientific one. It is not.
Also, to clarify, I have never once made the claim that homosexuality is "normal." The very use of the world "normal" immediately brings up a huge framework of moral judgment that I don't want to get into. My stance is not that homosexuality is "normal." My stance is that since homosexuality is not harmful to others, it should be fully allowed in society.
Your last line is rather insulting. Just as I know nothing of how you live your life, you know nothing of how I live mine. Although I have attacked your stance and your position, I have not engaged in any personal attacks. Please show me the same respect.
My point is this - given your very, very firm stance that "homosexuality is most definitely a disease," I very much doubt that anything that I say, no matter how clearly articulated, is going to change any part of your opinion. That is why I'm pulling back in this conversation. Until we can come to some kind of understanding on the major issue of how to classify homosexuality, it will be impossible to have any other meaningful discussions.
In fact, it is clear you are approaching this whole conversation with extreme prejudice. In your last paragraph, you use the phrase "the immoral action of having homosexual sex." That's a pretty big frame of reference, that I personally can neither understand or agree with. Given that huge gulf between our understandings, what chance does either one of us have of convincing the other on a small detail in the issue?
Also, given your stance that "reproduction is the main purpose of every biological organism," wouldn't that also make an altruistic self-sacrifice a defect? Wouldn't that also make the desire to enter the clergy to serve a community a defect? What about a person who decides to not have children themselves, but instead decides to adopt orphans and raise them? Wouldn't your stance make this person defective as well?
Your stance is not a scientific one. It is a moral one that is masquerading as a scientific one.
Is my attitude towards you intolerant? You bet it is. The thing is, though, that the ONLY thing that I don't accept is your intolerance. If you still didn't approve of homosexuals, but gave them the right to live their own lives as they saw fit, I would have no gripe with you. I would still disagree, but I would respect your right to your own opinions.
There obviously are mental or biological differences in the homosexual brain. Just like any other mental or physical problem, these defects can be corrected by adjusting the affected mental or physical structures to match those of a healthy brain
Ah, the truth emerges. I'm sorry, but I fail to see that these differences constitute "defects" that can be corrected. You can perhaps play a good verbal game, but it looks like there is a bit of bigotry and intolerance at the root of your arguments. You even go so far as to make the analogy of comparing homosexuality to AIDS.
Until this attitude changes, it is obvious that any of these smaller details of scientific vs. non-scientific statements is completely and totally moot.
I have known (and still know) several people who are homosexual, and guess what? The quality of person seems to be a very, very good match to the range of people in the world. In other words, they are people. Full stop. Please stop treating them and thinking of them as anything less.
Just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean it is impossible.
Absolutely true. At the same time, it just doesn't follow that "any hypothesis is fair play." A hypothesis comes about through either a well-structured theory or through some preliminary evidence that supports that hypothesis.
Think of it this way. Imagine that you go to turn on a light, but after you flip the switch, nothing happens. At this point, there is no clear evidence about what the problem may be, so you may start to form hypotheses. A clear hypothesis is that the bulb is burnt out. Another one is that the power is out. Still another says that rats chewed through the wires. Yet another says that CIA agents snuck into the house when you were away and sabotaged the wiring.
This is obviously a contrived example, but my point is that even absent evidence, it is not safe to say that "any hypothesis is fair play." The example of CIA agents is absurd, unless you also hear that there are muddy footprints on the rug and that the house belongs to some international criminal. In other words, that hypothesis only takes on real meaning in the context of additional evidence.
So, turning back to the issue at hand, what clear evidence is there that you can change sexual orientation, especially given the fact that there IS evidence (although not conclusive) to the contrary?
In the very same article that you cite, there is evidence that suggests that you cannot change sexual orientation. Where is the evidence that you can change it? In other words, other than religious, ideological ideals (which are, by definition, NOT scientific), what evidence/theory is the basis of the hypothesis that homosexuality can be changed?
Without SOME evidence or scientific theory, a hypothesis is not valid. So, until you can provide this, I regard the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" as not scientifically valid.
So claiming that homosexuality can be changed is not unscientific
Um, sorry. No. That isn't how science works. The lack of a conclusive study one way or the other does not give you carte blanche to make any kind of claim that you'd like. In the absence of a clear study that directly addresses the question, the scientific practice is to fall back on related items of knowledge. Turns out, a very informative bit of text lurked right after the quote you clipped:
Scientifically rigorous older work in this area found that s exual orientation (i.e., erotic attractions and sexual arousal oriented to one sex or the other, or both) was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Some individuals appeared to learn how to ignore or limit their attractions. However, this was much less likely to be true for people whose sexual attractions were initially limited to people of the same sex. Although sound data on the safety of SOCE are extremely limited, some individuals reported being harmed by SOCE. Distress and depression were exacerbated. Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image.
Hmm.. so in other words, although there isn't enough evidence to conclude absolutely whether or not these programs would work, there is a battery of evidence that suggests it is unlikely and that putting people through this kind of therapy is stressful and harmful. As a scientist myself, I would say that it looks like sexual orientation cannot be altered. Yes, this has not been proven absolutely, but it is the hypothesis that best fits the available data.
So, I'm going to have to say that the claim that homosexuality can be changed is unscientific.
If you disagree, guess what? The burden of proof is on you. You are claiming something is possible, so you need to show it.
The idea that government spending creates "growth" is, at best, arguable
Well, for the past 7 years, I've been gainfully employed in a private biotech company. The core technology was developed in a university setting under the funding of government research grants.
In this case, government spending has clearly led to economic opportunities. In fact, considering that a huge portion of fundamentally new technology comes from academic research, and that emerging technologies on the market can create huge economic growth, spending CAN directly lead to growth.
The trouble with the debate on government spending is that when the question is framed as an all-or-nothing to spend or not to spend issue, it is impossible to debate it. Instead, let's focus the debate on specific issues. There are a lot of cases where government spending leads to growth and a lot of cases where it just doesn't make any sense.
Keep in mind as well that if the government spends money, that money doesn't just disappear. Spending that goes into the pockets of workers, for example, gets churned back through the local economy.
Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that there is a ton of waste in government, just like there is a lot of waste in ANY large organization. The key is to make smart cuts, based upon careful, long-term thinking.
Perhaps the key mechanism of the placebo effect is the daily ritual. It could be that the mechanism involves something to do with thinking about an ailment and doing anything in response to that thought.
I'm just really, really glad to see research like this happening. Given that placebos seem to be pretty damn effective in treating all kinds of ailments, understanding that mechanism seems a fantastic idea.
Never mind, then. I thought for once the news sources provided me some real information instead of trumped up speculation.
Since I don't have any facts on which to form an opinion, I guess I should just go back to picking a media outlet and letting them dictate all of my opinions for me. What could possibly go wrong?
Funny enough, if you look at the bottom of another heavily slanted Fox article, you can find some actual information. The details seem much better than hinted at in the Huffington Post.
The rules would require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks -- including online calling services, Internet video and other Web applications that compete with their core businesses.
But the plan would give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic like spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.
Senior FCC officials stressed that unreasonable network discrimination would be prohibited.
They also noted that this category would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority... The proposal would... leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services are separate from the public Internet.
Public interest groups fear that exception could lead to a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane for companies that can pay for priority and a slow lane for everyone else.
The plan would prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices. It would require them to disclose their network management practices too.
But wireless companies would get more flexibility to manage data traffic as wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks.
Also, I would be very, very careful in holding any political view with words like "only" or "always" in them. The world is very complicated, and it is exceedingly rare for there to be any absolutes, especially when dealing with politics and economics.
I use this as a litmus test when listening to anybody speak. If they start making absolute statements, I start thinking more critically.
In practice this kind of dominance only comes about as a result of regulation
Only? How was Standard Oil created by government regulation? Reading their history, it sounds like it grew as a result of a lot of shrewd business sense, prompted by ethically dubious dealings with other private companies, in spite of regulations. Or, for the/. crowd, hasn't Microsoft's behavior prompted anti-trust action? How did these come about as a result of legislation?
You're making a very big claim with that statement, and without some strong evidence, I don't buy it. I'll grant you that poor legislation can lead to monopolies, but I highly doubt that this is the only way they can form.
Again, going back to my earlier statement, I believe that the right answer is some middle ground between pushing regulations down everywhere, and not imposing any. I would also be especially suspicious of any regulation that is not opposed by the largest companies in a field.
In general, whenever large groups of individuals focused on personal liberty (the EFF, the ACLU) are at odds with large companies regarding a piece of legislation, I find it easier to believe the group that doesn't have any financial interest.
Also, regarding net neutrality, I think that there is clear opportunity for a 1st amendment type law (yes, I know that it isn't a perfect analogy) regarding the throttling of network traffic. I am not a lawyer, so I will refrain from trying to offer any specific wording, but I think that you get what I'm getting at.
Yes, regulation is a form of control, which is why, when faced with any sort of regulation, we need to look very, very carefully at the consequences of imposing that regulation vs. not imposing that regulation. Also, the specific wording of regulations and laws is very important. Law is the playground of pedants.
Although I agree with those positions, I feel that you are making a very significant assumption in your argument:
If you do not regulate something then control will flow between companies naturally over time. But you will not have a focal point of control that never changes and through which changes must be processed.
In theory, you are entirely correct. In practice, though, it isn't this simple, for the simple fact that once a company starts to become a dominant player, it is really hard for any smaller companies to compete in any reasonable way. I think this is a pretty well-established fact, but question me on this if you think it is untrue.
This tendency for unregulated industries to develop monopolies (or oligopolies, as is more common) is the fundamental flaw with the Ayn Randian ideal. At that point, you have established all of the same difficulties in change, lack of personal choice, etc., etc. that is often talked about as the extreme extension of government regulations.
Like most things, the middle ground is the best place to be. A government run state, taken to the extreme, is horrible. Likewise, a totally unregulated system would rapidly form into concentrations of power.
This is especially dangerous when we start to talk about something as important as net neutrality. Without it, the ISP oligopoly can control what information people have. Yes, I know that there is always the newspaper, radio, tv, etc., but increasingly, people are getting more and more of their information from the internet. At the very least, it is common for people, upon hearing some bit of information, to "fact check" it with a quick google search.
I know that my arguments are toting out the extreme examples, but the point is that the system needs SOME kind of check and balance. Right now, the best group to do such a thing is the FCC, since they have the authority to enforce any neutrality regulation.
If you discard this regulation system, what is the check on abuse of power from these monopolies? I'm seriously asking this question, since I have not heard any practical, immediate way that this can happen. You claim that "control will flow between companies naturally over time," but I don't buy that claim. Monopolies form, and they do not end without either major economic upheavals or government intervention.
Re:My thoughts on Tron Legacy ....
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I saw Kevin Flynn's hideout as a nod to the room that David Bowman finds himself in at the end of 2001. A nice touch for the old sci-fi fans...
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Are we supposed to read those before posting? Maybe I should try that next time. :P
In looking at the Titan test, I see one very key point:
WTF? A month is a "reasonable" amount of time? Should I really devote a month of my life towards taking a test to prove to the world how smart I am? Already, by the very construction of this test, there will only be a small subset of the population that passes it, since in order to take it you either have to be motivated to spend a lot of time proving how smart you are or just really enjoy solving puzzles.
I can very much second this kind of story. Back in high school, in my home town of 10K, I was definitely one of the smartest if not the smartest kid in my class. In all subjects, the other kids would always ask me for help, and I thought I was top shit.
Fast-forward to college (I went to a big state school). All of a sudden, I'm still smart, but there are people around that can think circles around me. To make a long story short, it was very discouraging, and although I started college well, my grades slumped until I took it upon myself to start working hard.
Fast-forward again many years, and I am married to a woman who was once a high-school cheerleader and college drop-out. Right now, she is finishing up a PhD, thanks to a decision on her part to make something out of her life. I am also learning that although my skills in things like math and science are better than hers, my ability to deal with people is crap compared to her. She has really taught me how there are very different kinds of intelligence. There are times that she can see a social situation and immediately see things that take me a lot of thought and reflection to understand. Furthermore, in watching movies, reading books, the different subtexts, themes, etc. are also incredibly obvious to her - halfway through her first viewing of Bladerunner (the version without the voice-over) she asks me if Deckard is a replicant. I never saw that until someone pointed it out to me.
So, yeah, even though there is clearly a relationship between intelligence and success, there are by no means synonymous, especially given how people have be very intelligent in very different ways.
As someone working in biotech, I can very heartily second this sentiment. There are a lot of well-paying, satisfying careers in the biological sciences, especially if you also have programming/computer skills.
Also, from my perspective, I predict that the next century will see a biotech boom that is the analog of the computer boom in the last century and that advances in biotech will have some dramatic (and possibly terrifying) impacts on day to day life. The reason is that we are really only just now starting to have the technology available to even read the basic instructions of life (ie, DNA) in a cost-effective way. Combine that with improvements to DNA synthesis (ie, Venter's recent work), and there will be changes.
This is only true if you're a bad carpenter. Although it is true that the typical carpenter's tape measure only goes down to 1/16" increments, there are many times that this isn't precise enough. After all, how many buildings are put together perfectly without any human error? This problem is even more exaggerated if you do any furniture making. Although 1/16" doesn't sound like a lot when putting up a wall, if you're off by that when trying to fit a mortise and tenon, your joint is a total failure.
I grew up using imperial, and all of my woodworking tools are still imperial, simply because they're easier to get in the U.S. If there were metric tools easily available, I'd be happy to switch. It would just mean slight adjustments to the standard way of making things (ie, counters would no longer be 32", they'd be a close round number in metric), but I don't believe for an instant that the whole process would be harder.
Hi. Actual American scientist here. Despite what you may see on TV, every scientist I've ever worked with (I'm in the biotech world), uses metric.
Yes, yes, and yes. We need more concrete suggestions like this. The extreme us vs. them mentality needs to stop.
I think the poster was more talking about switches like the one recently done by Newt Gingrich. Switches based upon reasoning and reflection are a good thing. I see none of that here.
That's appalling behavior, but from what I could find, that was the act of one citizen. It should also be noted that this has also happened with the recall of a Republican senator.
Regardless, though, it isn't a fair comparison to equate the immoral actions of isolated, individual citizens with the actions of organized, powerful political parties.
One question for you, and I am not trolling here. I would sincerely like to hear an answer.
If giving more money to the wealthy is the way out of the recession, why are we in one? Over the past 30 years, the income gap between the rich and poor has widened more than ever, so what is going on? What is the cause?
From my perspective, the lack of spending money for the working class is a huge factor. More people with money to buy goods and services is what we need, and investing in the majority of people through investments in education and social services seems the best way to get things rolling again. The trouble is, though, that this is not a short-term fix. The short term fix is to slash the budgets, but where is that going to lead?
Good thing we're a long way from that point. In fact, the rich are doing just fine, especially when compared to the poor.
The truth of the matter is that our economic woes have a lot to do with stagnant wages of the working and middle class. The argument from the right is that the real trouble is that rich just don't have enough money. If that is true, then why is there a recession at all? The rich are richer than ever before in history, and I find it ridiculous to state that the solution out of this is to give them more money.
Too much socialism is a bad thing. No doubt about it, but don't kid yourself into thinking that we are even remotely close to such a scenario.
I find perplexing that you accuse me of not recognizing my prejudices when I fully admitted that my stance was an intolerant one. I have pulled back from any attempt to reason scientifically with you, since until we recognize and resolve the giant gulf in how we frame this question morally, there is no possibility of coming to any understanding. In other words, both of our stances with respect to any specific issue will be colored so strongly by our respective moral stances, finding common ground will be almost impossible.
To help clarify further, I fully recognize that my stance is a moral one, just like yours. Instead of just making your moral argument, though, you are framing your own moral stance as a well-reasoned, scientific one. It is not.
Also, to clarify, I have never once made the claim that homosexuality is "normal." The very use of the world "normal" immediately brings up a huge framework of moral judgment that I don't want to get into. My stance is not that homosexuality is "normal." My stance is that since homosexuality is not harmful to others, it should be fully allowed in society.
Your last line is rather insulting. Just as I know nothing of how you live your life, you know nothing of how I live mine. Although I have attacked your stance and your position, I have not engaged in any personal attacks. Please show me the same respect.
My point is this - given your very, very firm stance that "homosexuality is most definitely a disease," I very much doubt that anything that I say, no matter how clearly articulated, is going to change any part of your opinion. That is why I'm pulling back in this conversation. Until we can come to some kind of understanding on the major issue of how to classify homosexuality, it will be impossible to have any other meaningful discussions.
In fact, it is clear you are approaching this whole conversation with extreme prejudice. In your last paragraph, you use the phrase "the immoral action of having homosexual sex." That's a pretty big frame of reference, that I personally can neither understand or agree with. Given that huge gulf between our understandings, what chance does either one of us have of convincing the other on a small detail in the issue?
Also, given your stance that "reproduction is the main purpose of every biological organism," wouldn't that also make an altruistic self-sacrifice a defect? Wouldn't that also make the desire to enter the clergy to serve a community a defect? What about a person who decides to not have children themselves, but instead decides to adopt orphans and raise them? Wouldn't your stance make this person defective as well?
Your stance is not a scientific one. It is a moral one that is masquerading as a scientific one.
Is my attitude towards you intolerant? You bet it is. The thing is, though, that the ONLY thing that I don't accept is your intolerance. If you still didn't approve of homosexuals, but gave them the right to live their own lives as they saw fit, I would have no gripe with you. I would still disagree, but I would respect your right to your own opinions.
Ah, the truth emerges. I'm sorry, but I fail to see that these differences constitute "defects" that can be corrected. You can perhaps play a good verbal game, but it looks like there is a bit of bigotry and intolerance at the root of your arguments. You even go so far as to make the analogy of comparing homosexuality to AIDS.
Until this attitude changes, it is obvious that any of these smaller details of scientific vs. non-scientific statements is completely and totally moot.
I have known (and still know) several people who are homosexual, and guess what? The quality of person seems to be a very, very good match to the range of people in the world. In other words, they are people. Full stop. Please stop treating them and thinking of them as anything less.
Absolutely true. At the same time, it just doesn't follow that "any hypothesis is fair play." A hypothesis comes about through either a well-structured theory or through some preliminary evidence that supports that hypothesis.
Think of it this way. Imagine that you go to turn on a light, but after you flip the switch, nothing happens. At this point, there is no clear evidence about what the problem may be, so you may start to form hypotheses. A clear hypothesis is that the bulb is burnt out. Another one is that the power is out. Still another says that rats chewed through the wires. Yet another says that CIA agents snuck into the house when you were away and sabotaged the wiring.
This is obviously a contrived example, but my point is that even absent evidence, it is not safe to say that "any hypothesis is fair play." The example of CIA agents is absurd, unless you also hear that there are muddy footprints on the rug and that the house belongs to some international criminal. In other words, that hypothesis only takes on real meaning in the context of additional evidence.
So, turning back to the issue at hand, what clear evidence is there that you can change sexual orientation, especially given the fact that there IS evidence (although not conclusive) to the contrary?
In the very same article that you cite, there is evidence that suggests that you cannot change sexual orientation. Where is the evidence that you can change it? In other words, other than religious, ideological ideals (which are, by definition, NOT scientific), what evidence/theory is the basis of the hypothesis that homosexuality can be changed?
Without SOME evidence or scientific theory, a hypothesis is not valid. So, until you can provide this, I regard the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" as not scientifically valid.
Um, sorry. No. That isn't how science works. The lack of a conclusive study one way or the other does not give you carte blanche to make any kind of claim that you'd like. In the absence of a clear study that directly addresses the question, the scientific practice is to fall back on related items of knowledge. Turns out, a very informative bit of text lurked right after the quote you clipped:
Hmm.. so in other words, although there isn't enough evidence to conclude absolutely whether or not these programs would work, there is a battery of evidence that suggests it is unlikely and that putting people through this kind of therapy is stressful and harmful. As a scientist myself, I would say that it looks like sexual orientation cannot be altered. Yes, this has not been proven absolutely, but it is the hypothesis that best fits the available data.
So, I'm going to have to say that the claim that homosexuality can be changed is unscientific.
If you disagree, guess what? The burden of proof is on you. You are claiming something is possible, so you need to show it.
Well, for the past 7 years, I've been gainfully employed in a private biotech company. The core technology was developed in a university setting under the funding of government research grants.
In this case, government spending has clearly led to economic opportunities. In fact, considering that a huge portion of fundamentally new technology comes from academic research, and that emerging technologies on the market can create huge economic growth, spending CAN directly lead to growth.
The trouble with the debate on government spending is that when the question is framed as an all-or-nothing to spend or not to spend issue, it is impossible to debate it. Instead, let's focus the debate on specific issues. There are a lot of cases where government spending leads to growth and a lot of cases where it just doesn't make any sense.
Keep in mind as well that if the government spends money, that money doesn't just disappear. Spending that goes into the pockets of workers, for example, gets churned back through the local economy.
Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that there is a ton of waste in government, just like there is a lot of waste in ANY large organization. The key is to make smart cuts, based upon careful, long-term thinking.
Indeed, and most of us here love to keep looking at the differences
And we are united by our differences, as often as we can be.
Just to throw out an alternative hypothesis:
Perhaps the key mechanism of the placebo effect is the daily ritual. It could be that the mechanism involves something to do with thinking about an ailment and doing anything in response to that thought.
I'm just really, really glad to see research like this happening. Given that placebos seem to be pretty damn effective in treating all kinds of ailments, understanding that mechanism seems a fantastic idea.
Ugh. Really?
Never mind, then. I thought for once the news sources provided me some real information instead of trumped up speculation.
Since I don't have any facts on which to form an opinion, I guess I should just go back to picking a media outlet and letting them dictate all of my opinions for me. What could possibly go wrong?
Funny enough, if you look at the bottom of another heavily slanted Fox article, you can find some actual information. The details seem much better than hinted at in the Huffington Post.
The rules would require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks -- including online calling services, Internet video and other Web applications that compete with their core businesses.
But the plan would give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic like spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.
Senior FCC officials stressed that unreasonable network discrimination would be prohibited.
They also noted that this category would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority... The proposal would ... leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services are separate from the public Internet.
Public interest groups fear that exception could lead to a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane for companies that can pay for priority and a slow lane for everyone else.
The plan would prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices. It would require them to disclose their network management practices too.
But wireless companies would get more flexibility to manage data traffic as wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks.
Also, I would be very, very careful in holding any political view with words like "only" or "always" in them. The world is very complicated, and it is exceedingly rare for there to be any absolutes, especially when dealing with politics and economics.
I use this as a litmus test when listening to anybody speak. If they start making absolute statements, I start thinking more critically.
Only? How was Standard Oil created by government regulation? Reading their history, it sounds like it grew as a result of a lot of shrewd business sense, prompted by ethically dubious dealings with other private companies, in spite of regulations. Or, for the /. crowd, hasn't Microsoft's behavior prompted anti-trust action? How did these come about as a result of legislation?
You're making a very big claim with that statement, and without some strong evidence, I don't buy it. I'll grant you that poor legislation can lead to monopolies, but I highly doubt that this is the only way they can form.
Again, going back to my earlier statement, I believe that the right answer is some middle ground between pushing regulations down everywhere, and not imposing any. I would also be especially suspicious of any regulation that is not opposed by the largest companies in a field.
In general, whenever large groups of individuals focused on personal liberty (the EFF, the ACLU) are at odds with large companies regarding a piece of legislation, I find it easier to believe the group that doesn't have any financial interest.
Also, regarding net neutrality, I think that there is clear opportunity for a 1st amendment type law (yes, I know that it isn't a perfect analogy) regarding the throttling of network traffic. I am not a lawyer, so I will refrain from trying to offer any specific wording, but I think that you get what I'm getting at.
Yes, regulation is a form of control, which is why, when faced with any sort of regulation, we need to look very, very carefully at the consequences of imposing that regulation vs. not imposing that regulation. Also, the specific wording of regulations and laws is very important. Law is the playground of pedants.
Although I agree with those positions, I feel that you are making a very significant assumption in your argument:
In theory, you are entirely correct. In practice, though, it isn't this simple, for the simple fact that once a company starts to become a dominant player, it is really hard for any smaller companies to compete in any reasonable way. I think this is a pretty well-established fact, but question me on this if you think it is untrue.
This tendency for unregulated industries to develop monopolies (or oligopolies, as is more common) is the fundamental flaw with the Ayn Randian ideal. At that point, you have established all of the same difficulties in change, lack of personal choice, etc., etc. that is often talked about as the extreme extension of government regulations.
Like most things, the middle ground is the best place to be. A government run state, taken to the extreme, is horrible. Likewise, a totally unregulated system would rapidly form into concentrations of power.
This is especially dangerous when we start to talk about something as important as net neutrality. Without it, the ISP oligopoly can control what information people have. Yes, I know that there is always the newspaper, radio, tv, etc., but increasingly, people are getting more and more of their information from the internet. At the very least, it is common for people, upon hearing some bit of information, to "fact check" it with a quick google search.
I know that my arguments are toting out the extreme examples, but the point is that the system needs SOME kind of check and balance. Right now, the best group to do such a thing is the FCC, since they have the authority to enforce any neutrality regulation.
If you discard this regulation system, what is the check on abuse of power from these monopolies? I'm seriously asking this question, since I have not heard any practical, immediate way that this can happen. You claim that "control will flow between companies naturally over time," but I don't buy that claim. Monopolies form, and they do not end without either major economic upheavals or government intervention.
Personally, I saw Kevin Flynn's hideout as a nod to the room that David Bowman finds himself in at the end of 2001. A nice touch for the old sci-fi fans...