Exactly, even if the insurance companies come to the conclusion something weatherwise is happening and their risk is going up... why the hell would they care who or what is causing it?
That's an easy one: they would care, because their profit depends on accurate prediction of the effects. If they misunderstand the causes, then they have more trouble predicting the effects accurately.
They are much too deep in the Kool-Aid, and almost always deathly afraid of approaching any information that may change their minds.
That seems to be about right.. I am not an anthropologist or sociologist, but the following e-book that is free to download gave me some insight into how that works:
Bob Altemeyer - The Authoritarians (PDF) It is indeed bizarre, but maybe it has to do with first stating your beliefs and then trying to rationalize what you see in the world around you to fit those beliefs, as opposed to approaching the physical world in a more rational, flexible way. Changing your mind is painful, because you may have to update your beliefs, which is distressing to all of us.
Maybe authoritarian followers just find it a little bit more painful than the others. Maybe the tuning parameters of the E-step and M-stip in the EM algorithm in their head are different. Assuming we have an EM algorithm in our head. Actually I have trouble understanding the EM algorithm is it is.. Anyway.. please let me share, if this idea makes you filthy rich..
If you read the book please consider: he has put large footnotes in about 2/3 of the book. It is a lot thinner if you skip the 30-odd pages of notes between the chapters.
And then finally, the still hold the largest patent portfolio in wireless communications from infrastructure to devices and protocols, etc.
I thought that was all sold for an apple and an egg to some unknown American company called "Vringo"? We'll see where those patents (or rather patent lawsuits) surface again..
Yes, I was kind of hoping that some insider from NASA or Ad Astra or another ISS participant would comment about what progress has been made since June 2012 which is 15 months ago.
Well, I can't put into words perfectly well what I mean, but I meant something like this: "believing in stuff that isn't real, because it feels good" is a very large part of "culture", which is a large superset of religion. Also many of the ideas that you believe in because they make you feel good are so pervasive that the questions are almost never actually asked, because everybody you grew up with already has the same cultural values in place as you; e.g. a belief that the economic growth of the last 100 years is because that is a normal systemic behaviour, as opposed to somethihg caused for a large part by a petroleum economy fueled one-off EROEI-bonus that is petering out since 2005.
If you put your money into a bank savings account, this is because you believe that the bank will use your money, conjure up a profit from investing in areas of economic growth, cream off a large part of the profit and give the rest to you as interest on your savings. It only works as long as economic growth is real!
Has there been any rabbi or Jew writing about teleology in the inspiring way that the Christian priest Teilhard de Chardin has? Where we're going is at least as interesting as where we're coming from.
A personal question: do you believe in the existence of exponential economic growth (which is a necessary prerequisite to pay off state debts and loans)? Do you believe in the "science" of economy?
The point of faith is to believe that God cares about you, or that at least there is some kind of meaning or justice in the universe. Otherwise it's just the cold, unfeeling place that science tells us it is.
The problem is that every time science figures out some natural process and shows that it is in fact governed by hard, unfeeling laws or simple randomness it detracts from the idea that God cares. People start to realize that instead of just having faith that he will make things work out they have to try to understand the world and control it as best they can.
No, AmiMoJo, I believe that you are wrong in your second paragraph. The apparent contradiction between God and science only occurs, because you draw the contours of God too small. I'm sorry that I'm not smart or religious enough to explain it in better words.. I'll give it a try but don't laugh too hard..
<rant>
Only for people who see God as some kind of demiurge that can be bribed by prayer to, as you say, "make things work out" are there expectations of the Deity that need to be fulfilled. Maybe the belief in the loa of Voudou is more like that than Christianity. It smacks of hubris. Humility to God is a prerequisite for stronger belief, I think: even if you pray in church every week and your atheist communist gay Homer Simpson neighbour doesn't, and *HE* wins the lottery instead of you, then that's still just God's will, and next time you're in church you should pray to thank God that He has given your neighbour such a nice prize.
On your idea that better science makes God "smaller": I'm convinced (no proof) that there are scores of scientists who, each time they learn that our Universe is more complex than they thought before, give a small prayer "thank you God for showing us more of the beauty of Your universe". Understanding of science is a good thing (the Catholic church has this view as well). Understanding of God is not necessary in the scientific sense; you don't need to be a exegete or theologian or read Aramaic to be religious, and there are lots of blessed mystics that have reached an understanding of God without much rationality, so that is obviously also not necessary.
It'd be interesting though to see if mystical experiences can be induced in humans by strong magnetic fields near our heads:-) That would be an example of science making God "bigger", to be sure. </rant>
What I'd love to see is reporting on climate change that presented facts without the hyperbole. I'm reasonably certain that I'm far from the only person that's fed up with having hyperbole rammed down my throat and would really rather just have the actual "science" reported.
Well, then you'll just have to wait another 10 days, and then you can download IPCC Workgroup 1 AR5 report from http://www.climatechange2013.org/. I'd suggest not reading any newspaper articles or watch any TV aboutit, before it has been officially published. This way you can keep yourself untainted, and just calmly read the actual report rather than all the spin around it. That's what I plan to do.
Please look at that cartoon: it has a caption "start here", which points at the scientist's research.
The research we're talking about, the next IPCC WG1 report, will be published *NEXT WEEK*
So why are we reading the newspapers or watching the TV shows ALREADY? Wouldn't it be a bit... saner... to wait 1-2 weeks until we have (A) downloaded the actual damn WG1 report from here, and (B) your favourite (see cartoon) "local eyewitless news" interpretation of it?
Thank you. Apologies for shouting, fellow Slashdotters.
That's a cultural misunderstanding. The USA has puritanical protestant roots; maybe your example would work there. See e.g. the scary but hilarious Ben Elton book "Blast from the Past"
Meanwhile in Europe, IIRC, when François Mitterand was once asked by a reporter: "Sir, is it true that you have an illegitimate daughter?", he responded: "Yes, and?", which I think is the only correct response for a politician.
According to the Russians, it had a positive effect on the Moscow-Tin-Can-nauts' psychological well-being. This is also mentioned of Pettit's Space Zucchini on the ISS, in TFA.
The Zarya module was launched in 1998, why did it take until 2013 for NASA to launch this VEGGIE program??? Obviously, food in space doesn't seem to have such a high priority in the ISS program.
During this six-month stay Pettit brought the space zucchini up with “two new crewmates” — broccoli and sunflower plants — as a personal project. He didn’t have fancy equipment, and only a little soil.
He gave the plants sun by shuttling them between space station windows, and grew them in a plastic bag, feeding them a liquid made from composted food scraps. The crew never tried eating the plants; Pettit jokes it would have felt like cannibalism.
“We considered them crew members,” he says. “It was delightful to have those plants around, to feel the little hairs on a leaf tickle your nose, to see that sunflower in full bloom. It changed our whole experience.”
I'm a bit shocked that it was this one astronaut's own project, and not an official mission objective.
Can any Russians reading this comment on why Roscosmos hasn't launched their "salad machine" from the IMBP?
4. pay me, and two other independent companies in differing countries, to make the package (e.g. in the form of a small, human-readable, debian/ patch file), and next
5. pay three other companies in three other countries to study and test the three patches, with a big fat bonus if any one of them finds anything suspicious.
All this without informing the contractors about his/her place in the scheme of things, and that their work is going to be thorougly reviewed and compared with others' .
Slashdot Mirror
That's an easy one: they would care, because their profit depends on accurate prediction of the effects. If they misunderstand the causes, then they have more trouble predicting the effects accurately.
I didn't understand this bit.
HA! Seen on Slashdot, but unfortunately un-attributed because I didn't save the link:
I don't know the two people you mentioned, but it is very reassuring that all this global warming insurance shit is just their fault. Thank you!
That seems to be about right.. I am not an anthropologist or sociologist, but the following e-book that is free to download gave me some insight into how that works:
Bob Altemeyer - The Authoritarians (PDF)
It is indeed bizarre, but maybe it has to do with first stating your beliefs and then trying to rationalize what you see in the world around you to fit those beliefs, as opposed to approaching the physical world in a more rational, flexible way. Changing your mind is painful, because you may have to update your beliefs, which is distressing to all of us.
Maybe authoritarian followers just find it a little bit more painful than the others. Maybe the tuning parameters of the E-step and M-stip in the EM algorithm in their head are different. Assuming we have an EM algorithm in our head. Actually I have trouble understanding the EM algorithm is it is.. Anyway.. please let me share, if this idea makes you filthy rich..
If you read the book please consider: he has put large footnotes in about 2/3 of the book. It is a lot thinner if you skip the 30-odd pages of notes between the chapters.
I have to buy more crisps for when "The Nokia Drama II: Where did those patents go?" starts.
I thought that was all sold for an apple and an egg to some unknown American company called "Vringo"? We'll see where those patents (or rather patent lawsuits) surface again..
Yes, I was kind of hoping that some insider from NASA or Ad Astra or another ISS participant would comment about what progress has been made since June 2012 which is 15 months ago.
What happened to the NASA/Ad Astra plan to launch an experimental 200 kW VASIMR, strap it to the ISS, and use it to boost the station to higher orbit?
Has it just not happened yet because it doesn't actually work, or because you'd need more solar panels for the required energy, or what?
Yeah, and they could call it .. I dunno... OPSEK or something. (Clever idea BTW to have the central Lego pieces be the most multi-functional)
What you say is not true.
Well, you started off a thoughful discussion somehow, so thanks anyway.
Well, I can't put into words perfectly well what I mean, but I meant something like this: "believing in stuff that isn't real, because it feels good" is a very large part of "culture", which is a large superset of religion.
Also many of the ideas that you believe in because they make you feel good are so pervasive that the questions are almost never actually asked, because everybody you grew up with already has the same cultural values in place as you; e.g. a belief that the economic growth of the last 100 years is because that is a normal systemic behaviour, as opposed to somethihg caused for a large part by a petroleum economy fueled one-off EROEI-bonus that is petering out since 2005.
If you put your money into a bank savings account, this is because you believe that the bank will use your money, conjure up a profit from investing in areas of economic growth, cream off a large part of the profit and give the rest to you as interest on your savings. It only works as long as economic growth is real!
Has there been any rabbi or Jew writing about teleology in the inspiring way that the Christian priest Teilhard de Chardin has? Where we're going is at least as interesting as where we're coming from.
A personal question: do you believe in the existence of exponential economic growth (which is a necessary prerequisite to pay off state debts and loans)? Do you believe in the "science" of economy?
No, AmiMoJo, I believe that you are wrong in your second paragraph. The apparent contradiction between God and science only occurs, because you draw the contours of God too small. I'm sorry that I'm not smart or religious enough to explain it in better words.. I'll give it a try but don't laugh too hard..
:-) That would be an example of science making God "bigger", to be sure.
<rant>
Only for people who see God as some kind of demiurge that can be bribed by prayer to, as you say, "make things work out" are there expectations of the Deity that need to be fulfilled. Maybe the belief in the loa of Voudou is more like that than Christianity. It smacks of hubris. Humility to God is a prerequisite for stronger belief, I think: even if you pray in church every week and your atheist communist gay Homer Simpson neighbour doesn't, and *HE* wins the lottery instead of you, then that's still just God's will, and next time you're in church you should pray to thank God that He has given your neighbour such a nice prize.
On your idea that better science makes God "smaller": I'm convinced (no proof) that there are scores of scientists who, each time they learn that our Universe is more complex than they thought before, give a small prayer "thank you God for showing us more of the beauty of Your universe". Understanding of science is a good thing (the Catholic church has this view as well). Understanding of God is not necessary in the scientific sense; you don't need to be a exegete or theologian or read Aramaic to be religious, and there are lots of blessed mystics that have reached an understanding of God without much rationality, so that is obviously also not necessary.
It'd be interesting though to see if mystical experiences can be induced in humans by strong magnetic fields near our heads
</rant>
Maybe they are economists with an understanding of Power law distributions? (I'm making this one up, BTW).
Are you sure this is always the case, even with e.g. Prenda Law?
:-(
I miss Groklaw
Well, then you'll just have to wait another 10 days, and then you can download IPCC Workgroup 1 AR5 report from http://www.climatechange2013.org/. I'd suggest not reading any newspaper articles or watch any TV aboutit, before it has been officially published. This way you can keep yourself untainted, and just calmly read the actual report rather than all the spin around it. That's what I plan to do.
Please look at that cartoon: it has a caption "start here", which points at the scientist's research.
... saner ... to wait 1-2 weeks until we have (A) downloaded the actual damn WG1 report from here, and (B) your favourite (see cartoon) "local eyewitless news" interpretation of it?
The research we're talking about, the next IPCC WG1 report, will be published *NEXT WEEK*
So why are we reading the newspapers or watching the TV shows ALREADY? Wouldn't it be a bit
Thank you. Apologies for shouting, fellow Slashdotters.
That's a cultural misunderstanding. The USA has puritanical protestant roots; maybe your example would work there. See e.g. the scary but hilarious Ben Elton book "Blast from the Past"
Meanwhile in Europe, IIRC, when François Mitterand was once asked by a reporter: "Sir, is it true that you have an illegitimate daughter?", he responded: "Yes, and?", which I think is the only correct response for a politician.
Maybe you Americans can impeach and convict him, and sentence him to become... a talkshow host!!!!
This is also mentioned of Pettit's Space Zucchini on the ISS, in TFA.
The Zarya module was launched in 1998, why did it take until 2013 for NASA to launch this VEGGIE program??? Obviously, food in space doesn't seem to have such a high priority in the ISS program.
I'm a bit shocked that it was this one astronaut's own project, and not an official mission objective.
Can any Russians reading this comment on why Roscosmos hasn't launched their "salad machine" from the IMBP?
Obligatory Dilbert
All this without informing the contractors about his/her place in the scheme of things, and that their work is going to be thorougly reviewed and compared with others' .