It's true that there's a well known publication bias in most industries which undertake scientific studies. This is a problem. On the other hand, the idea that non-industry studies show a consistent correlation between cell-phone usage and brain cancer... that's complete bullshit. Like with most pseudo-scientific claims, the well designed studies tend to show no effect, while the poorly designed studies show a minor effect. There is no significant controversy on this topic in the scientific community - it's only an issue amongst cranks and conspiracy theorists.
Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Cell phone's don't cause cancer" can be disproven by just one case where cancer is caused by a cell phone. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of cancer, and we'll never be completely sure.
Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Hillblillies aren't anally raped by Aliens from outer-space" can be disproven by just one case where a hillbilly is anally-raped by an alien from outer space. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of anal-rape, and we'll never be completely sure.
But, we don't do that; instead we reward the makers of GM crops for allowing their products to contaminate others' fields,
No, we don't. And if you try to support this statement by talking about that stupid farmer who intentionally kept GM seeds and then planted them in an effort to get a GM crop without having to pay for it, I'm going to beat you to death with your own keyboard. I've seen WAY too many twits trot out that old canard.
and allow everyone to sell GM products without informing the consumer.
OH NO!
Einstein, pretty much EVERY SINGLE FOOD WE CONSUME has been genetically modified by our species. You'd have to stick a label on everything. Tell me you're not one of those Ray Comfort adherents who think the Banana was designed by god.
Why? Because you'd have to charge less for GM food.
Sheer nonsense. Generally speaking, labels allow you to charge more. Observe:
"NEW! A specially designed combination of the ancient and venerable Pomelo and Mandarin varieties, our Natura-Organge(tm) oranges provides 5 times the Vitamin C content of competing brands, and over 50 times the anti-oxidants! Guaranteed to be more healthful than other types, our Oranges can be enjoyed on a daily basis, or used for a wide variety of home-remedies! Check out our websites for tips on using Natura-Orange oranges as a health supplement, hair-beautifier, and an additive for your favorite anti-wrinkle cream!"
The morons who buy food with "Organic" stickers on them would eat that shit up like there's no tomorrow. I could charge three times the price.
When a manufacturable resource is "unique", it means the maker didn't consider it valuable enough to make a second copy.
The hell? Hey, the US Navy is a unique resource for the American Military. Guess the whole Navy is just a hobby!
Seriously, you've raised some good points in the past, but this is just stupid. Along with your "single rover mission (two rovers)" nonsense earlier. So sending two rovers on two separate launches is a single mission? And having a third one in development, I suppose that's still the same mission, huh? When does it stop being a "unique" "hobby"? 10 rovers? 100? 1,000? Or just when you say so?
The topic of discussion is whether or not private industry would have created the Internet if the government hadn't created it for them, and the simple fact is that they wouldn't have because they didn't.
No, sorry, logic doesn't work that way. "X did not occur before Y, therefore X could not occur without Y" is a fallacy.
Without the Internet, those small ISPs wouldn't have had anything to Provide Service to.
Well, actually, yet, they would have. Ever hear of FidoNet? Well before the internet became available to the general public, thousands of BBS's - large and small - were cooperating to allow people on different sides of the planet to communicate, share files, and play games with each other.
The internet surpassed everything else because the infrastructure was funded by the government, and this gave it a massive advantage over other solutions which were (or may have been) developed. However, to claim that, without government involvement, we would never had anything like the net... that's just ignorant. It's a statement for which you have no serious evidence, and one which is directly contradicted by the available data. As an 11 year old I was already communicating with people all over the world, using BBS's. When the Internet became the next-best-thing, I didn't get what the big deal was - after all, it was just a small improvement on what I'd been doing for years.
I hope this thing, and any like them, gets shot out of the sky and destroyed by citizens who still care about the constitution.
I just think it's amazing that the Founders were prescient enough to write "Thou shalt not give remotely sensing flying doohickeys to thy local constabulary" into the Constitution.
Please don't pretend to speak for Canada. Just because you're incapable of critical thinking, doesn't mean the rest of us are the same. The Canadian government has the ability to "oppress" you far in excess of what the US government can do to it's citizens - since you're clearly not aware of this, I suggest you spend more time studying the Canadian legal system, and less time worrying about American politics.
If the police pursuit you at high speeds they are PERFECTLY WILLING TO RUN OVER CIVILIANS.
Well, yes, exactly. Why would this surprise you?
The difference is that the cops take that risk while attempting to serve the public good, whereas the criminal takes that risk in order to benefit himself. It's the difference between shooting at an armed suspect, knowing you might hit a bystander, or opening fire in a crowded theater because you want to get a better seat.
Are you honestly so dim that you can't understand why the former is ok, and the latter is not?
The smart thing is to cool the situation down rather than escalate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain - it's nice to see a cool head in these discussions!
We're not talking about a bunch of pissed off protesters here - we're talking about an armed-to-the-death mercenary force, many of whom have military training, operating at the behest of the most capitalistic drug-lords in existence. If you think you can "cool down" that "situation", you must be really abusing their product.
I can't tell whether you are serious or not.... Just as one example, building those wind farms is very expensive. Averaged over the expected life time of the turbines, it probably costs around 10 cents per watt - which, depending on where in the country you live - is probably more than you are paying now.
Hilarious thing is that over 90% of geothermal energy is generated by the fission of nuclear isotopes anyway. All it does differently is during disposal when the earth just kind of farts it out as Radon into our basements.
I have to admit I laughed, and admired the cleverness of your comment. However, the obvious response is that the earths core is going to continue doing what it's doing regardless of what the argumentative specks on the surface decide to do. We may as well tap into it, instead of creating MORE waste.
And that's coming from someone who's pro-nuclear. I think we're getting to the point where geothermal is almost a viable option for powering a large percentage of our electrical needs. This contribution by google gets us one step closer.
It's simple enough to say; it's a ridiculous thing to actually expect someone to do (and would be evil if it could actually be done, IMO, since it would completely eliminate all competition). The only reasonable moral guideline is "try to treat others the way they want to be treated".
Can I please say from anyone with two shreds of compassion for their fellow humans...
Fuck. You.
What's more compassionate - killing a billion in order to save the species... or doing nothing, allowing 6.5 billion to die, and having the remainder be left in a primitive state, living in fear and reverent awe of the god-like powers of their ancestors?
I don't actually agree with him - I think most of his assumptions are horribly flawed - but if it could be conclusively shown that the only way for the species to avoid extinction is to embark on a program of eugenics... I wouldn't let your idea of "compassion" get in the way. It's not a question of compassion - it's a question of what you believe.
That was BEAUTIFULLY written, and I commend you on both the style and the content of your writing. However, I must quibble on one point - it's not exactly accurate to state that avoiding the depletion of a particular resource (or transitioning gently to another) is unprecedented. After all, if the deforestation trends of the previous few centuries had continued, North America would be a barren wasteland today. Instead, we've reversed the trend and expanded our forests to an extent not seen in over a hundred years. It's true that deforestation is still a problem on a global level, but we've demonstrated the ability to deal responsibly with the issue on a large scale; now it's just a matter of using the same techniques globally.
No, the way of nature is you fight, and the strongest gets the food. If we were to follow the way of nature, we'd just grab a gun and a brick and start robbing our neighbours.
No, that's just a bastardized interpretation of "survival of the fittest". Competition and violence are part of nature, but so are compassion and cooperation. You're only seeing half of the picture.
Concepts such as "ownership", "justice" and "rights" are inventions we made to leave nature behind us.
Most mammalian species have a very well developed sense of the first two. The third item is merely an expression of the natural desire for self-control. It only requires codification when you start developing complex large-scale societies and oppressive ideologies; in small social groups, there's no need to write down or debate "rights" - you simply do what you want to do as long as it doesn't cause enough harm for the group to turn on you.
Those green technologies would be a lot cheaper if they got half the subsidies oil companies do.
Thats complete baloney, generally only pushed by people who either can't do math, or are being intentionally dishonest. The only way you can come to such a conclusion is if you compare total subsidies without bothering to account for the difference in output.
Naw, not oil and gas - those would still be around for decades. No, I'd go short on any "green" energy technologies (ie. windmills, solar panels). Those are the most expensive form of generation at the moment, and would be jettisoned almost immediately if we actually had workable fusion.
Why? What possibly impact do my beliefs have on my argument? If my argument is logical, it should stand on its own, regardless of what I believe. Contrariwise if it doesn't.
Your argument doesn't stand on it's own. Your beliefs are of interest because they tell us why you would propose a ludicrous "theory" with no explanatory power as an "explanation" for well udnerstood phenomena. If you're a true-believer, it tells us that you're almost certainly motivated by a faith-based ideology rather than an examination of the data. If you're not a true-believer, it tells us that you've probably managed to misinterpret the argument and the state of the science. If I were the one having this discussion with you, I would ask the same question; your response would dictate which approach I took in trying to explain to you where you've gone wrong.
The minute you claim to have it, people will jump all over you. They'll call you at home to call you a quack. They'll email. They'll stuff your mailbox. They'll picket you.
Says who? You got any evidence of this?
Why would you put yourself through that?
Because it's the right thing to do? Because that's what real scientists do every day? Or did you not hear about the guys who claim they've detected neutrinos which travel faster than light?
How many harassing letters and phone calls have those guys received, btw? I don't expect you to have the exact number, but a rough figure would be nice.
Wow, that is one of the most elitist things I've ever heard. Just because I'm not willing to bend over and take abuse, I'm suddenly not good enough to be a scientist.
Yep, pretty much. Someone who doesn't want to take orders isn't good enough to be a soldier. Someone who doesn't want to run into burning buildings isn't good enough to be a firefighter. And someone who isn't willing to publish controversial work in the face of opposition isn't good enough to be a scientist. You can call that "elitist", if you want, but anyone with an IQ above the boiling point of Ether will realize that you're just whining because you want to be granted the same kind of respect and deference without having to do any of the work that's required to get there.
Plus, the fact that you think "elitist" is a dirty word also suggests that you're not good enough to be a scientist.
If it is a scam, then why doesn't he ask for money?
What am I, psychic? There are plenty of possible reasons. Maybe he's trying to con a large company instead of cashing in on on thousands of small-time suckers. Since most of his dealings have been behind closed doors, we have no idea what he's been asking for. Or maybe he's waiting until he gets enough publicity. Or maybe he figures enough fame will create opportunities for making money all on it's own, regardless of whether his machine works.
You could ask the converse question - if he isn't looking to make money, why is he being so secretive about it? Why not just publish a paper and let everyone profit? Every day he delays means thousands of lives lost which might otherwise have been saved.
Who knows. I don't need to divine the complete workings of his mind to determine that he's almost certainly a quack, and probably fully aware that his device doesn't actually produce energy. I may be wrong about the latter, but I doubt it. Either way, the rational response to his claims is skepticism. Until he provides us with something tangible, there's no reason to take him seriously.
There are no taboo subjects. If you have evidence that your cold fusion device works, and are competent enough to write a real paper demonstrating that it works, you'll be getting handed the Nobel prize within a couple years, while raking in billions of dollars from the thousands of corporations which are licensing reactors based on your patented design. Your comment might be a reflection of how quacks rationalize their inability to show evidence, but it has no reflection on how inventors and scientists develop new products/theories.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that there's a well known publication bias in most industries which undertake scientific studies. This is a problem. On the other hand, the idea that non-industry studies show a consistent correlation between cell-phone usage and brain cancer ... that's complete bullshit. Like with most pseudo-scientific claims, the well designed studies tend to show no effect, while the poorly designed studies show a minor effect. There is no significant controversy on this topic in the scientific community - it's only an issue amongst cranks and conspiracy theorists.
Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Cell phone's don't cause cancer" can be disproven by just one case where cancer is caused by a cell phone. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of cancer, and we'll never be completely sure.
Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Hillblillies aren't anally raped by Aliens from outer-space" can be disproven by just one case where a hillbilly is anally-raped by an alien from outer space. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of anal-rape, and we'll never be completely sure.
But, we don't do that; instead we reward the makers of GM crops for allowing their products to contaminate others' fields,
No, we don't. And if you try to support this statement by talking about that stupid farmer who intentionally kept GM seeds and then planted them in an effort to get a GM crop without having to pay for it, I'm going to beat you to death with your own keyboard. I've seen WAY too many twits trot out that old canard.
and allow everyone to sell GM products without informing the consumer.
OH NO!
Einstein, pretty much EVERY SINGLE FOOD WE CONSUME has been genetically modified by our species. You'd have to stick a label on everything. Tell me you're not one of those Ray Comfort adherents who think the Banana was designed by god.
Why? Because you'd have to charge less for GM food.
Sheer nonsense. Generally speaking, labels allow you to charge more. Observe:
"NEW! A specially designed combination of the ancient and venerable Pomelo and Mandarin varieties, our Natura-Organge(tm) oranges provides 5 times the Vitamin C content of competing brands, and over 50 times the anti-oxidants! Guaranteed to be more healthful than other types, our Oranges can be enjoyed on a daily basis, or used for a wide variety of home-remedies! Check out our websites for tips on using Natura-Orange oranges as a health supplement, hair-beautifier, and an additive for your favorite anti-wrinkle cream!"
The morons who buy food with "Organic" stickers on them would eat that shit up like there's no tomorrow. I could charge three times the price.
When a manufacturable resource is "unique", it means the maker didn't consider it valuable enough to make a second copy.
The hell? Hey, the US Navy is a unique resource for the American Military. Guess the whole Navy is just a hobby!
Seriously, you've raised some good points in the past, but this is just stupid. Along with your "single rover mission (two rovers)" nonsense earlier. So sending two rovers on two separate launches is a single mission? And having a third one in development, I suppose that's still the same mission, huh? When does it stop being a "unique" "hobby"? 10 rovers? 100? 1,000? Or just when you say so?
The topic of discussion is whether or not private industry would have created the Internet if the government hadn't created it for them, and the simple fact is that they wouldn't have because they didn't.
No, sorry, logic doesn't work that way. "X did not occur before Y, therefore X could not occur without Y" is a fallacy.
Without the Internet, those small ISPs wouldn't have had anything to Provide Service to.
Well, actually, yet, they would have. Ever hear of FidoNet? Well before the internet became available to the general public, thousands of BBS's - large and small - were cooperating to allow people on different sides of the planet to communicate, share files, and play games with each other.
The internet surpassed everything else because the infrastructure was funded by the government, and this gave it a massive advantage over other solutions which were (or may have been) developed. However, to claim that, without government involvement, we would never had anything like the net ... that's just ignorant. It's a statement for which you have no serious evidence, and one which is directly contradicted by the available data. As an 11 year old I was already communicating with people all over the world, using BBS's. When the Internet became the next-best-thing, I didn't get what the big deal was - after all, it was just a small improvement on what I'd been doing for years.
I hope this thing, and any like them, gets shot out of the sky and destroyed by citizens who still care about the constitution.
I just think it's amazing that the Founders were prescient enough to write "Thou shalt not give remotely sensing flying doohickeys to thy local constabulary" into the Constitution.
Please don't pretend to speak for Canada. Just because you're incapable of critical thinking, doesn't mean the rest of us are the same. The Canadian government has the ability to "oppress" you far in excess of what the US government can do to it's citizens - since you're clearly not aware of this, I suggest you spend more time studying the Canadian legal system, and less time worrying about American politics.
You're a fool, you speak only lies, and I hope you choke on a peanut.
That is all.
If the police pursuit you at high speeds they are PERFECTLY WILLING TO RUN OVER CIVILIANS.
Well, yes, exactly. Why would this surprise you?
The difference is that the cops take that risk while attempting to serve the public good, whereas the criminal takes that risk in order to benefit himself. It's the difference between shooting at an armed suspect, knowing you might hit a bystander, or opening fire in a crowded theater because you want to get a better seat.
Are you honestly so dim that you can't understand why the former is ok, and the latter is not?
The smart thing is to cool the situation down rather than escalate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain - it's nice to see a cool head in these discussions!
We're not talking about a bunch of pissed off protesters here - we're talking about an armed-to-the-death mercenary force, many of whom have military training, operating at the behest of the most capitalistic drug-lords in existence. If you think you can "cool down" that "situation", you must be really abusing their product.
I can't tell whether you are serious or not.... Just as one example, building those wind farms is very expensive. Averaged over the expected life time of the turbines, it probably costs around 10 cents per watt - which, depending on where in the country you live - is probably more than you are paying now.
He must be one of the "99%".
Hilarious thing is that over 90% of geothermal energy is generated by the fission of nuclear isotopes anyway. All it does differently is during disposal when the earth just kind of farts it out as Radon into our basements.
I have to admit I laughed, and admired the cleverness of your comment. However, the obvious response is that the earths core is going to continue doing what it's doing regardless of what the argumentative specks on the surface decide to do. We may as well tap into it, instead of creating MORE waste.
And that's coming from someone who's pro-nuclear. I think we're getting to the point where geothermal is almost a viable option for powering a large percentage of our electrical needs. This contribution by google gets us one step closer.
"Love others as yourself" is simple enough
It's simple enough to say; it's a ridiculous thing to actually expect someone to do (and would be evil if it could actually be done, IMO, since it would completely eliminate all competition). The only reasonable moral guideline is "try to treat others the way they want to be treated".
Can I please say from anyone with two shreds of compassion for their fellow humans...
Fuck.
You.
What's more compassionate - killing a billion in order to save the species ... or doing nothing, allowing 6.5 billion to die, and having the remainder be left in a primitive state, living in fear and reverent awe of the god-like powers of their ancestors?
I don't actually agree with him - I think most of his assumptions are horribly flawed - but if it could be conclusively shown that the only way for the species to avoid extinction is to embark on a program of eugenics ... I wouldn't let your idea of "compassion" get in the way. It's not a question of compassion - it's a question of what you believe.
That was BEAUTIFULLY written, and I commend you on both the style and the content of your writing. However, I must quibble on one point - it's not exactly accurate to state that avoiding the depletion of a particular resource (or transitioning gently to another) is unprecedented. After all, if the deforestation trends of the previous few centuries had continued, North America would be a barren wasteland today. Instead, we've reversed the trend and expanded our forests to an extent not seen in over a hundred years. It's true that deforestation is still a problem on a global level, but we've demonstrated the ability to deal responsibly with the issue on a large scale; now it's just a matter of using the same techniques globally.
No, the way of nature is you fight, and the strongest gets the food. If we were to follow the way of nature, we'd just grab a gun and a brick and start robbing our neighbours.
No, that's just a bastardized interpretation of "survival of the fittest". Competition and violence are part of nature, but so are compassion and cooperation. You're only seeing half of the picture.
Concepts such as "ownership", "justice" and "rights" are inventions we made to leave nature behind us.
Most mammalian species have a very well developed sense of the first two. The third item is merely an expression of the natural desire for self-control. It only requires codification when you start developing complex large-scale societies and oppressive ideologies; in small social groups, there's no need to write down or debate "rights" - you simply do what you want to do as long as it doesn't cause enough harm for the group to turn on you.
Those green technologies would be a lot cheaper if they got half the subsidies oil companies do.
Thats complete baloney, generally only pushed by people who either can't do math, or are being intentionally dishonest. The only way you can come to such a conclusion is if you compare total subsidies without bothering to account for the difference in output.
I don't think you understand exponential growth.
I don't think you understand "hundred billion people".
take short positions in oil and gas?
Naw, not oil and gas - those would still be around for decades. No, I'd go short on any "green" energy technologies (ie. windmills, solar panels). Those are the most expensive form of generation at the moment, and would be jettisoned almost immediately if we actually had workable fusion.
Dr. Bob? Is that you?
Why? What possibly impact do my beliefs have on my argument? If my argument is logical, it should stand on its own, regardless of what I believe. Contrariwise if it doesn't.
Your argument doesn't stand on it's own. Your beliefs are of interest because they tell us why you would propose a ludicrous "theory" with no explanatory power as an "explanation" for well udnerstood phenomena. If you're a true-believer, it tells us that you're almost certainly motivated by a faith-based ideology rather than an examination of the data. If you're not a true-believer, it tells us that you've probably managed to misinterpret the argument and the state of the science. If I were the one having this discussion with you, I would ask the same question; your response would dictate which approach I took in trying to explain to you where you've gone wrong.
The minute you claim to have it, people will jump all over you. They'll call you at home to call you a quack. They'll email. They'll stuff your mailbox. They'll picket you.
Says who? You got any evidence of this?
Why would you put yourself through that?
Because it's the right thing to do? Because that's what real scientists do every day? Or did you not hear about the guys who claim they've detected neutrinos which travel faster than light?
How many harassing letters and phone calls have those guys received, btw? I don't expect you to have the exact number, but a rough figure would be nice.
Wow, that is one of the most elitist things I've ever heard. Just because I'm not willing to bend over and take abuse, I'm suddenly not good enough to be a scientist.
Yep, pretty much. Someone who doesn't want to take orders isn't good enough to be a soldier. Someone who doesn't want to run into burning buildings isn't good enough to be a firefighter. And someone who isn't willing to publish controversial work in the face of opposition isn't good enough to be a scientist. You can call that "elitist", if you want, but anyone with an IQ above the boiling point of Ether will realize that you're just whining because you want to be granted the same kind of respect and deference without having to do any of the work that's required to get there.
Plus, the fact that you think "elitist" is a dirty word also suggests that you're not good enough to be a scientist.
If it is a scam, then why doesn't he ask for money?
What am I, psychic? There are plenty of possible reasons. Maybe he's trying to con a large company instead of cashing in on on thousands of small-time suckers. Since most of his dealings have been behind closed doors, we have no idea what he's been asking for. Or maybe he's waiting until he gets enough publicity. Or maybe he figures enough fame will create opportunities for making money all on it's own, regardless of whether his machine works.
You could ask the converse question - if he isn't looking to make money, why is he being so secretive about it? Why not just publish a paper and let everyone profit? Every day he delays means thousands of lives lost which might otherwise have been saved.
Who knows. I don't need to divine the complete workings of his mind to determine that he's almost certainly a quack, and probably fully aware that his device doesn't actually produce energy. I may be wrong about the latter, but I doubt it. Either way, the rational response to his claims is skepticism. Until he provides us with something tangible, there's no reason to take him seriously.
There are no taboo subjects. If you have evidence that your cold fusion device works, and are competent enough to write a real paper demonstrating that it works, you'll be getting handed the Nobel prize within a couple years, while raking in billions of dollars from the thousands of corporations which are licensing reactors based on your patented design. Your comment might be a reflection of how quacks rationalize their inability to show evidence, but it has no reflection on how inventors and scientists develop new products/theories.