So, if one study takes the data from the group selected at random, it would correctly determine that there is a causal relationship... But, you claim, a second study... which also includes a separate look at a self-selected "sensitive" group, would determine there is no causal relationship. No, you can't have it both ways.
No, that's not what I'm saying. The primary study would indicate a correlation. It wouldn't determine that there is one. In order to determine that there is a correlation, you'd need a larger study. However, the small group of self-identified sensitives doing so poorly tends to suggest that there was no correlation in the initial study because you would expect such a group to do better if there really were such a thing as EM sensitivity.
The same goes for testing, say, "psychic" phenomena. Let's say you go out and get a group of 50 professional psychics. You also go and pick 150 people at random from the streets. You tell them all to pick a number between 1 and 50. When you tabulate the results, you find that 5 normal people guessed the right number, and 2 "psychics" guessed right. So what does that result tell you?
If you had only selected a group of normal people, you might assume that some of us really are psychic since the numbers you got were higher than dictated by chance. On the other hand, if some of us really were psychic, you'd expect the group of "professional" psychics to score much higher since they're out there making a living doing this stuff. The fact that they score so poorly tends to indicate that there's no such thing as psychic phenomena. It's not conclusive, mind-you, since your sample population is too small, but it certainly does suggest a conclusion which is different than what you'd get if you just tested the general population. At the very least, you could conclude that professional psychics are generally full of shit.
Does that make more sense?
Change the self selected group to "people who think they'll get hit by a car next March" and the control to a random selection. When next March comes along, come back and tell us all how because the same percentage of each group got hit by a car, no one did.
If you truly are sensitive to EM, you would have symptoms which you would notice. That's what would make you self-identify as a person who is sensitive to EM. On the other hand, if you're guessing about whether you're going to be hit by a car next march, you're not going to have any symptoms. You're never going to get a group suing the government (or anyone else) because they think they might get hit by a car next march.
That the point - the self-selected group is clearly NOT experiencing any symptoms of EM sensitivity, or at least not at a greater rate than the general population.
I'm not sure why you're having a tough time understanding this.
Which is the logical next step, at least in the location where the cities have the ability to respond to lawsuits by flexing their tax authority.
Not really - a single plaintiff receiving millions in compensation might encourage the city to start a new tax, but how does that help anyone else? Moreover, it sets a precedent meaning that others would be more likely to receive large settlements - however, the majority of people will never engage in such lawsuits, so the majority of people will never benefit from it.
If you really wanted an effective system, you could create a new tax but ban air-pollution lawsuits. Then use the entire tax on gasoline to fund the medical system. Or, in the case of the US, use it to offset the cost of medical insurance for all citizens. But as long as you're taxing people at the pumps and then using that money to pay off a handful of litigants, you're just robbing the general population to fund the greed of a few.
You are making the unreasonable assumption that either everyone is sensitive, or no one is. It is much more realistic for some fraction of the population to be sensitive (as is the case with "real" allergies, like pollen).
You're absolutely right - however, the nail in the coffin for this particular theory is that both the self-identified group and the random group got nearly the same "score".
Now, if you simply had a group selected at random and you got a result that was double what you'd expect through random chance, then you might have a point in saying that perhaps some of the people are more sensitive. However, when you have a self-identified group of "sensitives", you'd expect them to score at least slightly higher than a randomly selected group. For instance, if you take a group of people who claim to have Asthma, and then take a random sample group from the general population, you'd expect the group of self-professed asthmatics to exhibit the symptoms of asthma at a much higher rate than the general population, right?
I know it's not conclusive, and you're right in saying that the only way to be certain is to do a study with a much larger test-group, however the implication of this study is quite clear.
Please refrain from further posting. I don't know much formal statistics, but I know enough to recognize that you're completely off base.
Yes, he was wrong, but that doesn't make you right:) Once again, consider the implications of a self-identified group scoring the same as a random sample of the general population.
I don't know about you, but I would certainly want a group of self-identified doctors to be better at performing surgery than a random sample of average people!
Re:No, it is the age of the farmer and miner
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Eh, not really. You think the oil workers are getting paid the big bucks or the nerdy engineers who work for exxon?
It depends where you are - supply and demand play a huge role in salaries for what would normally be considered low-end jobs. Out on the tar-sands projects in Alberta welders make $100 an hour, and most pipe-fitters rake in at least $30 an hour. The demand has exceeded supply by a huge margin, so the salaries have gone through the roof, and workers are coming in from all over the place. As a result, housing prices have skyrocketed (from less than 100k to 350k+ in the matter of a couple years), and even the local coffee shops have had to start paying their employees $15 per hour in order to compete for manpower.
On the other hand, if you're a basic worker employed on some almost-empty oil well in Texas, chances are you're not making much cash at all. That's because the supply of workers there either meets or exceeds the demands of the oil companies.
You want to create great opportunities for unskilled and semi-skilled labourers? Start drilling in the southern coastal waters, and open up Alaska too. It will create jobs and help the US economy recover, and reduce the amount of money being funnelled into the middle-east. Also, while it probably won't lower the price of gas for consumers, it will slow the climb. Frankly, I'm shocked that Bush hasn't been able to push through legislation to allow the exploitation of at least a few new areas.
Passing the cost of pollution back to polluters instead of letting it be carried by the commons would allow the market to solve the pollution problem. Let the invisible hand do the dirty work.
I agree, but how does suing the cities help with that? Even suing car manufacturers and oil companies isn't really fair. The vast majority of air pollution in large cities is generated by citizens like you, driving around in their vehicles. The only fair way to regulate that would be to tax gasoline.
I'm sure someone who knows statistics better than I will jump in, but 2/44 or 5/114 "correct" (even though better than chance) no doubt has little significance, given the small sample size.
Well the key there is that the "5 out of 144" were the control group for the experiment.
In other words of the people who claimed to be sensitive, only 4.5% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries. Meanwhile in the control group - the group of people who do not claim to be sensitive - 4.3% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries.
Draw from that what you will, but the only logical conclusion is that a group of people who claimed to be extremely sensitive to EM signals are no more sensitive than a random group drawn from the general population. It's like taking a group of people who claim to be NBA all stars and pitting them against a team of randomly selected people, and then having the game end in a tie.
Please read my comment again -- "Westboro types", in other words, "Christian Terrorists", or, if you prefer, "Christian Fundamentalists".
Then say what you mean, I'm not a mind reader.
Your approach is ridiculous anyway - you point out a case of two psychos killing abortion doctors, and use it to support your argument. I could point out ten times as many cases of terrorism every DAY in the Islamic world. Whether you want to admit it or not, the two whom you link to are exceptional exactly because they're so rare. Meanwhile fanatics like Bin Laden and Zarqawi are a dime a dozen in the middle east.
Oh no no no NO... I am not the one saying that Islam is part of some weird plot to make boarding schools to indoctrinate our youth, or that ex-cons who find Allah are somehow worse for us as a society then ex-cons who find YHWH.
Neither am I - personally I don't believe that there IS any such "plot" per say, but it is happening regardless. Islam isn't centralized enough to have an all-encompassing hierarchy which is systematically looking to subvert our society, but individual mosques and certain individual "religious leaders" certainly ARE looking to overthrow our governments, and bring the entire world to Islam, either through persuasion or by the sword.
I'm not sure if you're just uninformed, or if you're being wilfully naive. If the former, I can dig up some articles and statistics for you, but you can do the same just by googling for the info you want. Try Undercover Mosque for a start, and then go from there. If the latter... well, you're entitled to your opinions. I've never undestood why some people have no problem mocking, insulting, and demonizing Christian fundies, but then get all pissy when you suggest that maybe Islam is a bit of a threat. If you're one of those people, I'll welcome the opportunity to get some insight into your mindset, but I don't expect we'll ever agree on anything.
I don't have a god, so you can take your stereotypes and shove 'em. I'd say being an atheist makes me fairly well positioned to judge the relative merits of the various religions.
Besides which, this isn't even a question of the merits of either religions, but rather a question of the actions of their followers. A prisoner who "finds god" generally tries to reform his ways. A prisoner who finds Allah... not so much.
If I had to pick between living in a Christian neighbourhood or living in a Muslim neighbourhood, I wouldn't even have to think about it. If I make fun of Jesus, I get a bunch of people being mad at me and telling me I'll go to hell. If I make fun of Mohammed, my house gets burned down and I end up with a knife in my back. As much as the overzealous Christians might annoy me, I'll take them over Islamists any day. Even the particular offencive "God Hates Fags" idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church don't generally commit violent acts, and they've never killed anyone.
Sure! They just put Milosevic on trial for a laugh, like? And these two - http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm [un.org] . Whatever you say, a lot of civilians died at the hands of Serb army and militias during the Balkan conflicts.
The word "Kosovo" isn't mentioned once in the document to which you link. That's because the atrocities took place in Bosnia and Croatia. Kosovo was a totally different conflict.
If you're going to study history, it's good to have a basic knowledge of geography too. Otherwise you might find yourself saying silly things, like suggesting that WW2 was largely fought in Botswana.
Whilst it's a rather polarising issue I do think there is some validity in returning property to an owner if the owner is still around
But IS the original owner still around? Or are you just giving land to the great grand kids of the people who originally owned it? And if so, how does that make sense?
Of course, the other question is, what the hell do you do with the people who are there now. I mean, granted Australia isn't the most advanced society on earth, but I'd hate to lose ya anyway:)
Amazing, isn't it, given the ethnic cleansing of the native Albanian population by the Serbs under Milosevic.
What, 10,000 dead, of which 2,000 were Serb civilians? That's not genocide - that's war. Neither side was clean, that's for sure, but to blame the Serbs for the conflict is just ignorant.
May as well blame the US for the war in Afghanistan, and call THAT genocide!
Oh.... what's that? You already do? Well.... that explains a lot!
Both Serbia and Kosovo were part of Yugoslavia until relatively recently, which was not Serbia. Before that, Kosovo was part of the Kingdom of Serbia -- from 1912 onwards. Before that, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Where exactly do you get the idea that it should be part of Serbia?
Where do you think the Ottoman empire got Kosovo from? I'll give you three guesses, but I guarantee you'll only need one.
Anyway, your views on history are...."interesting". It's like you got all your information from reading PRAVDA, the KKK's monthly newsletter, and your framed copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I find it rather amusing that you speak with such self-certainty, when it's quite clear that you've never studied history from any credible sources.
Well, before being renamed, it was actually Land of Canaan inhabited by the Canaanites - the Israelites rolled down circa 1500BC with the breakup of the Egyptian empire:)
Quite true. I think the point is that ignorant comments such as "Israel would be returning to the people who originally lived there" serve no purpose other than to further entrench the various factions. Who gives a shit who lived there. Giving Israel back to the Palestinians, or to the Egyptians, or even to the Brits, would make about as much sense as demanding that the US be turned over to the Ojibwa, or the Mohawk. It is truly embarrassing to see otherwise intelligent and well educated people making such ridiculous arguments.
it doesnt happen with 'coup'. it happens with 'boarding schools' which take in children of ages 7 to 18. they run these 'charities' for children who cant afford a good education.
Not just boarding schools - US prisons have become indoctrination centres for Islam. So you get some guy who goes to jail for his 5th armed robbery, serves a couple years, and finds Islam. He then goes back to the ghetto and knocks up a couple more baby momma's, thereby producing more cannon-fodder for the mujahadeen. And you as a taxpayer get to fund the entire process from start to finish.
Don't ever let anyone say the islamists are stupid....
As a European (British) I would like to point out there is no chance of most of Europe turning into a muslim state.
Right. I'll bet the Serbs said the same thing about Kosovo - and now look at them. Post WW2 the population of Kosovo was about half Serbian and half Albanian Muslim. Today it's something like 97% Muslim, and more and more Serbs are forced out every day. Kosovo has gone from being a part of Serbia to being it's own mini-state which is more or less part of Albania. It's annexation through overpopulation.
Or look at Israel - a Jewish state which is facing the very real possibility that within a generation they may become majority Muslim. At which point they have the option of either ceasing to be a Jewish state, or ceasing to be a democracy.
If you really think it can't happen in England, you haven't been paying attention.
I certain would invalidate the entire western judicial system, though, because punishment or 'rehabilitation' both depend on the idea that it's legitimate to use force against someone in response to prior wrongful acts, when doing so would only add to the total amount of coercion in the world, rather than preemptively in anticipation of future acts.
Hrm.
I've had quite a few jobs in my life, some intellectual, some a bit less so. Three of them in particular taught me a lot about human nature and the relationship between power, benevolence, trust, and performance. The three jobs were:
1. Security guard. 2. Dog trainer. 3. Military Instructor.
In all three cases, the style of leadership or control could lead to vastly different outcomes:
1. If you treat people (or dogs) in a purely benevolent manner, with no thought to their conduct, they will almost invariably turn on you. In a human workplace this means decreased productivity, inappropriate behaviour on the part of employees, and, surprisingly, plummeting morale. 2. If you act like a fascist dictator, imposing punishment without ever rewarding good performance, you will inevitably create an environment where those whom you hold power over will be miserable, and have no desire to achieve anything. You will, in other words, get complete obedience, but no creativity or individual thought whatsoever. 3. The best way to get good performance out of people (or dogs) is to reward good performance, and punish bad performance, but also to do so consistently, without fail. The worst thing you can do is be inconsistent. In the extreme cases, inconsistent punishments and rewards will result in those whom you hold power over acting like paranoid neurotics. It's especially heartbreaking to see this type of behaviour in dogs.
One thing that really surprised me initially, though, is that humans and dogs generally respond identically when faced with these circumstances. It SHOULDN'T be surprising, since we are just another species of animal, but it did surprise me nonetheless.
What I've learned from these experiences is that we as a species crave order - and to have order, we need some level of discipline and control. At some deep level we want to reckognized and rewarded for our accomplishments, and we need to see that those who act contrary to the good of the group are held accountable and suffer as a result of their actions. Our entire concept of justice is based on the idea that "good" actions result in prosperity, while "bad" actions result in destitution. The only difference between societies seems to be in how we define "good" and "bad".
Every species on the planet exhibits systems of reward and punishment, so why should we be any different?
By the way, if you want a more intellectual argument rather than one based on personal experience, do some research on "Games Theory". In particular, "The Prisoner's Dilemma" does an excellent job of explaining exactly why a consistent system of reward and punishment works better than any other system.
Because other people's children are not their property or that of a 'village' to enforce (rather than advise) such standards on,
But they are. If they weren't, we would grant the same rights to 2 year olds that we do to adults. Likewise, we would not have different ways of pursuing legal charges against minors and adults, and we would most certainly not hold parents accountable for the actions of their children.
Clearly, children ARE the property of their parents - however, they are property over which society (partly through the government, partly through social interaction) also exercises some control. Children do not become free citizens until they reach the age of majority, and claim the same rights as the rest of society.
and further the 'It Takes a Village' presumes universal agreement on how to raise one's children and thus tends
solar could maybe provide 10% of our needs at most. it can't supply base load, which is something nuclear can do very well. don't tell the tree huggers that though, they want to continue to live in their dream world.
Just to be contrary: at least in theory, solar COULD supply base-load. All you need to do is integrate the Earth's power grids. Then you'd have a more or less constant amount of current available throughout the grid.
Of course, this isn't practical - even ignoring the political implications, transmission losses would create serious problems. Getting away from AC current and using DC for all grid transmission could fix part of that problem, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.
And yes, you're certainly right about nuclear. Realistically, it's our best option at this point in time. That's one thing that France got right.
I'm not inclined to endorse that sort of retributive and paternalistic system of ethics. IMHO, the shoplifting thing would be justifiable as defense of your property but not in terms of seeking punishment or revenge against the child in question.
Eh? Don't tell me you're of the "Rehabilitation Not Punishment!" mindset:) If you're saying that I don't have a right to demand retribution for the acts committed against me, then you're attempting to invalidate the entire western judicial system. That's a bit ambitious for a slashdot discussion!
Since in the smoking/drinking example there is no question of defending anything, I do not think I would make any particular response.
I dunno. I'm a fan of the "It Takes a Village..." line of thought. If I had children, I'd certainly want to be informed of something like that, so why would I turn a blind eye to it when it's someone elses kids?
Not my statement and not one I would be inclined to agree with. I'm with you about intent mattering rather than consequences.
Gotcha. I have a bad habit of not paying attention to usernames. Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm Norwegian, and when the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act was adopted, an elderly attorney here remarked that now he couldn't go to the US anymore. Back in 1944 he had carried the explosives to blow up a German installation in occupied Norway - which constitutes an act of terrorism for which there is no statute of limitation.
I don't suppose he quoted the relevant section of the act to you?
I'd appreciate it if you'd point them out. Thanks in advance!
Has anyone actually read that act and studied the myriad laws changed by it?
Oh I see. I guess you answered my question: neither of you bothered to read the damn thing; you both just figured that it was a Very Bad Thing, and assumed it would criminalize everything from cream cheese to nuclear weapons. Gotcha.
From what I've read of the act, it largely grants new abilities to federal agencies in order to improve their ability to communicate with each other. As for what other people know about it.... from my experience, every time someone start screaming about all the rights they've lost to the Patriot Act, chances are they have no friggin' clue what it actually says.
Wrong analogy. It's more like, "If you want to do business with us, shoot that dog". We know what Google will do in that situation.
Sure, why not. In that case you can consider:
1) Your responsibility to your shareholders.
2) The jobs which will be created by access to new markets.
3) The extra wealth which will be generated, both for yourself and for your nation.
4) The extra wealth and prosperity which will occur as a byproduct in your new market.
How do you think all those things stack up against the life of a dog? Or, in this case, the maltreatment of a man?
No matter what the circumstances, it's never a simple decision. How many lives are improved by Google continuing to operate in India? If they refused to cooperate, would the net result be more good, or more evil?
Only if you knew they would react that way, but the analogy fails regardless. You have a perfectly legitimate right to stop people from shoplifting in your store, whereas this guy didn't do anything wrong.
*shrug* Ok, so replace "shoplifting" with "smoking", or "drinking". There are plenty of activities which are criminalized in western society, yet aren't "wrong" per-say. In such a case I would certainly want the parents of the child to be aware of these acts - especially if they asked about it - but would not want such heavy-handed punishment inflicted on the child.
You're right, though, it depends on whether I was aware of the punishment which would be inflicted, and that was my point. Your original statement - that any actions which result in negative consequences are evil - was fatally flawed. When judging morality, intent matters as much as (if not more than) results.
A moral person (and at it's core, Google is simply a group of individual people working for a common cause) must refuse to cooperate with authorities when asked to do something unjust. "I was just following orders," is not and should not be justification for doing something immoral. Ever.
You're given the choice: "Shoot this dog, or we kill your entire family".
What do you do?
Stop pretending that right and wrong are so easily definable. In order to make the right decision, it's important to weight the positive and negative effects of your actions. EVERYTHING you do leads to some negative results. Driving your car to work increases violence in the middle east. Eating meat results in the killing of animals and the inefficient use of arable land. Eating soya and tofu leads to rain forests being burned to create plantations. BREATHING releases greenhouse gases!
Life is a series of trade-offs - the best we can do is to try and minimize our negative impact, while maximizing the positive.
But, I would have to say, when you actions lead to someone being beaten, jailed, and forced to use the same dish to eat and shit, then you can be sure your action was evil.
Really? So, say I catch some kid trying to shoplift. Out of the goodness of my heart, I decide not to press charges, and instead just tell his parents. His parents take him home, beat him, lock him in his room for a week, and force him to endure all sorts of humiliating punishments. You're saying what I did was evil?
Simple. Hardware isn't software... Confusing the two... won't now or in the future make "one thing" from "two separate" things.
Are you saying that a CD drive and a CPU are the same thing???
While desktop printers might also fall into the "hardware" category, I'd be pretty pissed off if every manufacturer I contacted refused to sell me a computer without an accompanying printer. Therefore your categories are meaningless. If I have the right to refuse a bundled piece of software, I should also have the right to refuse a bundled piece of hardware - ANY hardware! Or I should have neither right, and should have only the option to purchase what the manufacturer offers. Either way, let's have a little friggin' consistency here, eh?
As a side note, if you want a computer without a CD drive (I have several here at home), I'd suggest getting out more. Dell may be a large retailer/assembler, but the computer market is a lot bigger than you think, as are your choices.
I'm quite aware of that - I also know several local retailers who will gladly sell me a computer without windows on it, and make a $40 discount on the price. Which is yet one more reason why I think this judgement is retarded.
Hmm, before calling a judge a fool, maybe you should read the law. Then you should carry on and read Plato's The Republic, Machiavelli's The Prince and Rosseau's The Social Contract. By then, you'll have some rough idea of what is going on here.
Thank you, sir, for your helpful and timely response. You have made the entire matter much clearer. I only wish that other commenters on slashdot were as helpful as you are. I shall aspire to follow your example, and one day become an edumacated intermelectual such as yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's not what I'm saying. The primary study would indicate a correlation. It wouldn't determine that there is one. In order to determine that there is a correlation, you'd need a larger study. However, the small group of self-identified sensitives doing so poorly tends to suggest that there was no correlation in the initial study because you would expect such a group to do better if there really were such a thing as EM sensitivity.
The same goes for testing, say, "psychic" phenomena. Let's say you go out and get a group of 50 professional psychics. You also go and pick 150 people at random from the streets. You tell them all to pick a number between 1 and 50. When you tabulate the results, you find that 5 normal people guessed the right number, and 2 "psychics" guessed right. So what does that result tell you?
If you had only selected a group of normal people, you might assume that some of us really are psychic since the numbers you got were higher than dictated by chance. On the other hand, if some of us really were psychic, you'd expect the group of "professional" psychics to score much higher since they're out there making a living doing this stuff. The fact that they score so poorly tends to indicate that there's no such thing as psychic phenomena. It's not conclusive, mind-you, since your sample population is too small, but it certainly does suggest a conclusion which is different than what you'd get if you just tested the general population. At the very least, you could conclude that professional psychics are generally full of shit.
Does that make more sense?
If you truly are sensitive to EM, you would have symptoms which you would notice. That's what would make you self-identify as a person who is sensitive to EM. On the other hand, if you're guessing about whether you're going to be hit by a car next march, you're not going to have any symptoms. You're never going to get a group suing the government (or anyone else) because they think they might get hit by a car next march.
That the point - the self-selected group is clearly NOT experiencing any symptoms of EM sensitivity, or at least not at a greater rate than the general population.
I'm not sure why you're having a tough time understanding this.
Not really - a single plaintiff receiving millions in compensation might encourage the city to start a new tax, but how does that help anyone else? Moreover, it sets a precedent meaning that others would be more likely to receive large settlements - however, the majority of people will never engage in such lawsuits, so the majority of people will never benefit from it.
If you really wanted an effective system, you could create a new tax but ban air-pollution lawsuits. Then use the entire tax on gasoline to fund the medical system. Or, in the case of the US, use it to offset the cost of medical insurance for all citizens. But as long as you're taxing people at the pumps and then using that money to pay off a handful of litigants, you're just robbing the general population to fund the greed of a few.
You're absolutely right - however, the nail in the coffin for this particular theory is that both the self-identified group and the random group got nearly the same "score".
Now, if you simply had a group selected at random and you got a result that was double what you'd expect through random chance, then you might have a point in saying that perhaps some of the people are more sensitive. However, when you have a self-identified group of "sensitives", you'd expect them to score at least slightly higher than a randomly selected group. For instance, if you take a group of people who claim to have Asthma, and then take a random sample group from the general population, you'd expect the group of self-professed asthmatics to exhibit the symptoms of asthma at a much higher rate than the general population, right?
I know it's not conclusive, and you're right in saying that the only way to be certain is to do a study with a much larger test-group, however the implication of this study is quite clear.
Yes, he was wrong, but that doesn't make you right
I don't know about you, but I would certainly want a group of self-identified doctors to be better at performing surgery than a random sample of average people!
It depends where you are - supply and demand play a huge role in salaries for what would normally be considered low-end jobs. Out on the tar-sands projects in Alberta welders make $100 an hour, and most pipe-fitters rake in at least $30 an hour. The demand has exceeded supply by a huge margin, so the salaries have gone through the roof, and workers are coming in from all over the place. As a result, housing prices have skyrocketed (from less than 100k to 350k+ in the matter of a couple years), and even the local coffee shops have had to start paying their employees $15 per hour in order to compete for manpower.
On the other hand, if you're a basic worker employed on some almost-empty oil well in Texas, chances are you're not making much cash at all. That's because the supply of workers there either meets or exceeds the demands of the oil companies.
You want to create great opportunities for unskilled and semi-skilled labourers? Start drilling in the southern coastal waters, and open up Alaska too. It will create jobs and help the US economy recover, and reduce the amount of money being funnelled into the middle-east. Also, while it probably won't lower the price of gas for consumers, it will slow the climb. Frankly, I'm shocked that Bush hasn't been able to push through legislation to allow the exploitation of at least a few new areas.
I agree, but how does suing the cities help with that? Even suing car manufacturers and oil companies isn't really fair. The vast majority of air pollution in large cities is generated by citizens like you, driving around in their vehicles. The only fair way to regulate that would be to tax gasoline.
Well the key there is that the "5 out of 144" were the control group for the experiment.
In other words of the people who claimed to be sensitive, only 4.5% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries. Meanwhile in the control group - the group of people who do not claim to be sensitive - 4.3% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries.
Draw from that what you will, but the only logical conclusion is that a group of people who claimed to be extremely sensitive to EM signals are no more sensitive than a random group drawn from the general population. It's like taking a group of people who claim to be NBA all stars and pitting them against a team of randomly selected people, and then having the game end in a tie.
Then say what you mean, I'm not a mind reader.
Your approach is ridiculous anyway - you point out a case of two psychos killing abortion doctors, and use it to support your argument. I could point out ten times as many cases of terrorism every DAY in the Islamic world. Whether you want to admit it or not, the two whom you link to are exceptional exactly because they're so rare. Meanwhile fanatics like Bin Laden and Zarqawi are a dime a dozen in the middle east.
Neither am I - personally I don't believe that there IS any such "plot" per say, but it is happening regardless. Islam isn't centralized enough to have an all-encompassing hierarchy which is systematically looking to subvert our society, but individual mosques and certain individual "religious leaders" certainly ARE looking to overthrow our governments, and bring the entire world to Islam, either through persuasion or by the sword.
I'm not sure if you're just uninformed, or if you're being wilfully naive. If the former, I can dig up some articles and statistics for you, but you can do the same just by googling for the info you want. Try Undercover Mosque for a start, and then go from there. If the latter
Eh? What evidence do you have linking those two to the Westboro church?
Relatively small compared to what? Do you have any statistics?
I don't have a god, so you can take your stereotypes and shove 'em. I'd say being an atheist makes me fairly well positioned to judge the relative merits of the various religions.
Besides which, this isn't even a question of the merits of either religions, but rather a question of the actions of their followers. A prisoner who "finds god" generally tries to reform his ways. A prisoner who finds Allah
If I had to pick between living in a Christian neighbourhood or living in a Muslim neighbourhood, I wouldn't even have to think about it. If I make fun of Jesus, I get a bunch of people being mad at me and telling me I'll go to hell. If I make fun of Mohammed, my house gets burned down and I end up with a knife in my back. As much as the overzealous Christians might annoy me, I'll take them over Islamists any day. Even the particular offencive "God Hates Fags" idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church don't generally commit violent acts, and they've never killed anyone.
The word "Kosovo" isn't mentioned once in the document to which you link. That's because the atrocities took place in Bosnia and Croatia. Kosovo was a totally different conflict.
If you're going to study history, it's good to have a basic knowledge of geography too. Otherwise you might find yourself saying silly things, like suggesting that WW2 was largely fought in Botswana.
But IS the original owner still around? Or are you just giving land to the great grand kids of the people who originally owned it? And if so, how does that make sense?
Of course, the other question is, what the hell do you do with the people who are there now. I mean, granted Australia isn't the most advanced society on earth, but I'd hate to lose ya anyway
What, 10,000 dead, of which 2,000 were Serb civilians? That's not genocide - that's war. Neither side was clean, that's for sure, but to blame the Serbs for the conflict is just ignorant.
May as well blame the US for the war in Afghanistan, and call THAT genocide!
Oh
Where do you think the Ottoman empire got Kosovo from? I'll give you three guesses, but I guarantee you'll only need one.
Anyway, your views on history are...."interesting". It's like you got all your information from reading PRAVDA, the KKK's monthly newsletter, and your framed copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I find it rather amusing that you speak with such self-certainty, when it's quite clear that you've never studied history from any credible sources.
Quite true. I think the point is that ignorant comments such as "Israel would be returning to the people who originally lived there" serve no purpose other than to further entrench the various factions. Who gives a shit who lived there. Giving Israel back to the Palestinians, or to the Egyptians, or even to the Brits, would make about as much sense as demanding that the US be turned over to the Ojibwa, or the Mohawk. It is truly embarrassing to see otherwise intelligent and well educated people making such ridiculous arguments.
Not just boarding schools - US prisons have become indoctrination centres for Islam. So you get some guy who goes to jail for his 5th armed robbery, serves a couple years, and finds Islam. He then goes back to the ghetto and knocks up a couple more baby momma's, thereby producing more cannon-fodder for the mujahadeen. And you as a taxpayer get to fund the entire process from start to finish.
Don't ever let anyone say the islamists are stupid....
Right. I'll bet the Serbs said the same thing about Kosovo - and now look at them. Post WW2 the population of Kosovo was about half Serbian and half Albanian Muslim. Today it's something like 97% Muslim, and more and more Serbs are forced out every day. Kosovo has gone from being a part of Serbia to being it's own mini-state which is more or less part of Albania. It's annexation through overpopulation.
Or look at Israel - a Jewish state which is facing the very real possibility that within a generation they may become majority Muslim. At which point they have the option of either ceasing to be a Jewish state, or ceasing to be a democracy.
If you really think it can't happen in England, you haven't been paying attention.
Hrm.
I've had quite a few jobs in my life, some intellectual, some a bit less so. Three of them in particular taught me a lot about human nature and the relationship between power, benevolence, trust, and performance. The three jobs were:
1. Security guard.
2. Dog trainer.
3. Military Instructor.
In all three cases, the style of leadership or control could lead to vastly different outcomes:
1. If you treat people (or dogs) in a purely benevolent manner, with no thought to their conduct, they will almost invariably turn on you. In a human workplace this means decreased productivity, inappropriate behaviour on the part of employees, and, surprisingly, plummeting morale.
2. If you act like a fascist dictator, imposing punishment without ever rewarding good performance, you will inevitably create an environment where those whom you hold power over will be miserable, and have no desire to achieve anything. You will, in other words, get complete obedience, but no creativity or individual thought whatsoever.
3. The best way to get good performance out of people (or dogs) is to reward good performance, and punish bad performance, but also to do so consistently, without fail. The worst thing you can do is be inconsistent. In the extreme cases, inconsistent punishments and rewards will result in those whom you hold power over acting like paranoid neurotics. It's especially heartbreaking to see this type of behaviour in dogs.
One thing that really surprised me initially, though, is that humans and dogs generally respond identically when faced with these circumstances. It SHOULDN'T be surprising, since we are just another species of animal, but it did surprise me nonetheless.
What I've learned from these experiences is that we as a species crave order - and to have order, we need some level of discipline and control. At some deep level we want to reckognized and rewarded for our accomplishments, and we need to see that those who act contrary to the good of the group are held accountable and suffer as a result of their actions. Our entire concept of justice is based on the idea that "good" actions result in prosperity, while "bad" actions result in destitution. The only difference between societies seems to be in how we define "good" and "bad".
Every species on the planet exhibits systems of reward and punishment, so why should we be any different?
By the way, if you want a more intellectual argument rather than one based on personal experience, do some research on "Games Theory". In particular, "The Prisoner's Dilemma" does an excellent job of explaining exactly why a consistent system of reward and punishment works better than any other system.
But they are. If they weren't, we would grant the same rights to 2 year olds that we do to adults. Likewise, we would not have different ways of pursuing legal charges against minors and adults, and we would most certainly not hold parents accountable for the actions of their children.
Clearly, children ARE the property of their parents - however, they are property over which society (partly through the government, partly through social interaction) also exercises some control. Children do not become free citizens until they reach the age of majority, and claim the same rights as the rest of society.
Just to be contrary: at least in theory, solar COULD supply base-load. All you need to do is integrate the Earth's power grids. Then you'd have a more or less constant amount of current available throughout the grid.
Of course, this isn't practical - even ignoring the political implications, transmission losses would create serious problems. Getting away from AC current and using DC for all grid transmission could fix part of that problem, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.
And yes, you're certainly right about nuclear. Realistically, it's our best option at this point in time. That's one thing that France got right.
Eh? Don't tell me you're of the "Rehabilitation Not Punishment!" mindset
I dunno. I'm a fan of the "It Takes a Village..." line of thought. If I had children, I'd certainly want to be informed of something like that, so why would I turn a blind eye to it when it's someone elses kids?
Gotcha. I have a bad habit of not paying attention to usernames. Thanks for clearing that up.
I don't suppose he quoted the relevant section of the act to you?
I'd appreciate it if you'd point them out. Thanks in advance!
Oh I see. I guess you answered my question: neither of you bothered to read the damn thing; you both just figured that it was a Very Bad Thing, and assumed it would criminalize everything from cream cheese to nuclear weapons. Gotcha.
From what I've read of the act, it largely grants new abilities to federal agencies in order to improve their ability to communicate with each other. As for what other people know about it
Sure, why not. In that case you can consider:
1) Your responsibility to your shareholders.
2) The jobs which will be created by access to new markets.
3) The extra wealth which will be generated, both for yourself and for your nation.
4) The extra wealth and prosperity which will occur as a byproduct in your new market.
How do you think all those things stack up against the life of a dog? Or, in this case, the maltreatment of a man?
No matter what the circumstances, it's never a simple decision. How many lives are improved by Google continuing to operate in India? If they refused to cooperate, would the net result be more good, or more evil?
*shrug* Ok, so replace "shoplifting" with "smoking", or "drinking". There are plenty of activities which are criminalized in western society, yet aren't "wrong" per-say. In such a case I would certainly want the parents of the child to be aware of these acts - especially if they asked about it - but would not want such heavy-handed punishment inflicted on the child.
You're right, though, it depends on whether I was aware of the punishment which would be inflicted, and that was my point. Your original statement - that any actions which result in negative consequences are evil - was fatally flawed. When judging morality, intent matters as much as (if not more than) results.
You're given the choice: "Shoot this dog, or we kill your entire family".
What do you do?
Stop pretending that right and wrong are so easily definable. In order to make the right decision, it's important to weight the positive and negative effects of your actions. EVERYTHING you do leads to some negative results. Driving your car to work increases violence in the middle east. Eating meat results in the killing of animals and the inefficient use of arable land. Eating soya and tofu leads to rain forests being burned to create plantations. BREATHING releases greenhouse gases!
Life is a series of trade-offs - the best we can do is to try and minimize our negative impact, while maximizing the positive.
Really? So, say I catch some kid trying to shoplift. Out of the goodness of my heart, I decide not to press charges, and instead just tell his parents. His parents take him home, beat him, lock him in his room for a week, and force him to endure all sorts of humiliating punishments. You're saying what I did was evil?
Are you saying that a CD drive and a CPU are the same thing???
While desktop printers might also fall into the "hardware" category, I'd be pretty pissed off if every manufacturer I contacted refused to sell me a computer without an accompanying printer. Therefore your categories are meaningless. If I have the right to refuse a bundled piece of software, I should also have the right to refuse a bundled piece of hardware - ANY hardware! Or I should have neither right, and should have only the option to purchase what the manufacturer offers. Either way, let's have a little friggin' consistency here, eh?
I'm quite aware of that - I also know several local retailers who will gladly sell me a computer without windows on it, and make a $40 discount on the price. Which is yet one more reason why I think this judgement is retarded.
Thank you, sir, for your helpful and timely response. You have made the entire matter much clearer. I only wish that other commenters on slashdot were as helpful as you are. I shall aspire to follow your example, and one day become an edumacated intermelectual such as yourself.