1) Offcourse it's science, that's not the point. The point is , it's good for science that scientist disagree with each other.
2) My position isn't for or against AGW. I don't claim to know everything about climate science, so I'm leaving all options open.I only ask that everything gets researched based on facts, rather than subjective information ( there is lots , on both sides).
3) Yes, and Greek culture was known for it's philosophers , who debated everything, and laid the foundation for modern science. The dark ages and the dogma that followed, was basically a standstill for science.
"Clearly the more scientists who agree on something, the less true it is"
Yes, that's actually the way it works :
If every scientist immediately agrees on something, then no one is really investigating it. On the other hand, when scientists disagree with each other, they will need to prove their points with facts, and anyone who bases their findings on subjective information , will quickly be discredited by their opponents.
A simple example : hunderds of years ago , almost every 'scientist' agreed that the sun turned around the earth . If no one had ever disagreed with that ( or other dogmas , for that matter ) , we would still be in the dark ages today.
Yes , because if you are not with it , you are against it , right ?
The only thing getting feathered here is the truth : with all this nonsense, it's almost impossible to know the facts, as everyone seems to have an agenda.
Well , you don't need to be in love , but you certainly need someone to talk to (intimately) every now and then. But a good friend may be sufficient for that.
Note : if that good friend breaks contact with you , I'm pretty that will also break your heart.
In other words : you need some sort of commitment to be happy , and that commitment leaves you vulnerable.
No matter how good you estimate things, there is always a chance things can go wrong , and the less room you leave for that , the higher the chance something will actually go wrong ( Murphy's law ? )
Perhaps it's because the internet can provide quick satisfaction, so people with depressions are more likely to go on the internet ?
I mean , people with depressions also tend to eat chocolates and ice cream , to get quick satisfaction , that doesn't mean that eating chocolates or ice cream cause depressions.
So what would you sugget Google to do ? Back out of China ?
How will that change anything ? Then Google will simply be replaced by someone who is willing to cope with China's censorship demands.
A more drastic (fictional i hope ) example could be like this : say you are providing medical help to a foreign country , who was just struck by some major disaster. Then the goverment tells you that you can help a certain group of people , but not some other group.And if you speak out against it , you won't be allowed to help anyone.
How do you cope with that ? No matter what you do , it's wrong.
The question is , is it normal that people , who had absolutely no part in creating music ( they just bought the rights when they were cheap ) , have the right to get profit from an artist who is long dead ?
And , is it normal that they sue someone who downloaded that song , for a cost a 1000x higher than the original costs ( i don't know any album that costs $54,000 ).
Plus , in my country , i'm already paying artists , each time i buy cd-r , dvd's , or other equipment. So , when anyone asks , i just have to point them to my stack of linux distro's .
. So, when humans meet aliens, the inferior group will be lunch.
Unless, of course, the stronger group is not human.
The stronger group doesn't even have to be hostile. A meeting like that, will be quite a shock for the weaker group. A more intelligent species will understand this, and try not to contact the weaker group until it has evolved to a certain point.
So, if we can't find any aliens , that's good , because that means they won't be hostile. If we do find some/get some reaction , they will probably be hostile.
Incidentally, the fact that Chinese media are reporting that google has "backed down" suggests that the Chinese government wants everybody to THINK this is over.
Well , it wouldn't be the first time. You understand Chinese better than you think.
I don't like that speech. Sounds a bit "Ein Reich, Ein Volk" to me. How would Hillary feel about web pages that oppose her "global community" or don't particularly want to be "united"? Based on her political record, I don't think she'd want to see such things.
Really ? To me , it's more like the opposite : she is talking about one global community , were everyone has the same access to information,regardless of race , culture , language , etc...
It's a bit utopian , but on the internet , it is possible : one of great things of the internet , is that if you desire it , you can hide your identity . If no one knows who you are , they cannot judge you on your race , color , sex , etc... They can only judge you on your words and actions on the internet.
"and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".
I think that say enough about China : calling freedom "so-called" , and claiming that there is such a thing as "unreasonable criticism" . As far as i know, criticism is always grounded in reason , otherwise , it would be slander.
Anyway , i'm glad Google is finally starting to take a position on it.
A good thing too , otherwise there wouldn't be any inventions. The problem is , just an idea isn't good enough : you need a plan to put it into practice , and you need money in order to bring it into a workable product.
That means you have to find investors, and 'Liquid Invisibility Cloak' sells better than 'Theoretical material with exotic optical effect' .
Well , for one thing , liquor stores are regulated by the law. For example , they are not allowed to sell alcohol to minors.
Other than that, there is little difference : it can do just as much damage.
However , a liqour store owner who does give alchohol to minors, or worse, when they go for beer gives them free samples of wodka ( so they would buy wodka next time ) , isn't going to own that store for long.
Well , for one thing , liquor stores are regulated by the law. For example , they are not allowed to sell alcohol to minors.
Other than that, there is little difference : it can do just as much damage.
However , a liqour store owner who does give alchohol to minors, or worse, when they go for beer gives them free samples of wodka ( so they would buy wodka next time ) , isn't going to own that store for long.
What makes you think the citizens will act on their knowledge and fight censorship? In many countries the majority of the population wants certain topics censored.
More likely, anyone who doesn't want it gets censored. So it only seems like the majority wants those topics censored.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Offcourse it's science, that's not the point. The point is , it's good for science that scientist disagree with each other.
2) My position isn't for or against AGW. I don't claim to know everything about climate science, so I'm leaving all options open.I only ask that everything gets researched based on facts, rather than subjective information ( there is lots , on both sides).
3) Yes, and Greek culture was known for it's philosophers , who debated everything, and laid the foundation for modern science. The dark ages and the dogma that followed, was basically a standstill for science.
"Clearly the more scientists who agree on something, the less true it is"
Yes, that's actually the way it works :
If every scientist immediately agrees on something, then no one is really investigating it.
On the other hand, when scientists disagree with each other, they will need to prove their points with facts, and anyone who bases their findings on subjective information , will quickly be discredited by their opponents.
A simple example : hunderds of years ago , almost every 'scientist' agreed that the sun turned around the earth . If no one had ever disagreed with that ( or other dogmas , for that matter ) , we would still be in the dark ages today.
Yes , because if you are not with it , you are against it , right ?
The only thing getting feathered here is the truth : with all this nonsense, it's almost impossible to know the facts, as everyone seems to have an agenda.
Well , you don't need to be in love , but you certainly need someone to talk to (intimately) every now and then.
But a good friend may be sufficient for that.
Note : if that good friend breaks contact with you , I'm pretty that will also break your heart.
In other words : you need some sort of commitment to be happy , and that commitment leaves you vulnerable.
Make your estimation , than do that time x2 .
No matter how good you estimate things, there is always a chance things can go wrong , and the less room you leave for that , the higher the chance something will actually go wrong ( Murphy's law ? )
toggle
Perhaps it's because the internet can provide quick satisfaction, so people with depressions are more likely to go on the internet ?
I mean , people with depressions also tend to eat chocolates and ice cream , to get quick satisfaction , that doesn't mean that eating chocolates or ice cream cause depressions.
So what would you sugget Google to do ? Back out of China ?
How will that change anything ? Then Google will simply be replaced by someone who is willing to cope with China's censorship demands.
A more drastic (fictional i hope ) example could be like this : say you are providing medical help to a foreign country , who was just struck by some major disaster. Then the goverment tells you that you can help a certain group of people , but not some other group .And if you speak out against it , you won't be allowed to help anyone.
How do you cope with that ? No matter what you do , it's wrong.
The question is , is it normal that people , who had absolutely no part in creating music ( they just bought the rights when they were cheap ) , have the right to get profit from an artist who is long dead ?
And , is it normal that they sue someone who downloaded that song , for a cost a 1000x higher than the original costs ( i don't know any album that costs $54,000 ).
Plus , in my country , i'm already paying artists , each time i buy cd-r , dvd's , or other equipment. So , when anyone asks , i just have to point them to my stack of linux distro's .
The dog is not the problem , the owner is.
So , leave the dog alone , and take care of the owner.
It is , eff mentions it in a blog : http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/net-neutrality-plan-would-permit-blocking-bittorrent
And anyone receiving it could claim they didn't ask for it.
You shoot the helicopter ?
an acronym you pronounce like a word : LASER, DARPA
an initialism you pronounce letter by letter : HTML , CSS
and then , there is also truncation , like etc
. So, when humans meet aliens, the inferior group will be lunch.
Unless, of course, the stronger group is not human.
The stronger group doesn't even have to be hostile. A meeting like that, will be quite a shock for the weaker group.
A more intelligent species will understand this, and try not to contact the weaker group until it has evolved to a certain point.
So, if we can't find any aliens , that's good , because that means they won't be hostile. If we do find some/get some reaction , they will probably be hostile.
Incidentally, the fact that Chinese media are reporting that google has "backed down" suggests that the Chinese government wants everybody to THINK this is over.
Well , it wouldn't be the first time. You understand Chinese better than you think.
Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon?
On Amazon , no . But on the internet , yes.
I don't like that speech. Sounds a bit "Ein Reich, Ein Volk" to me. How would Hillary feel about web pages that oppose her "global community" or don't particularly want to be "united"? Based on her political record, I don't think she'd want to see such things.
Really ? To me , it's more like the opposite : she is talking about one global community , were everyone has the same access to information ,regardless of race , culture , language , etc ...
It's a bit utopian , but on the internet , it is possible : one of great things of the internet , is that if you desire it , you can hide your identity . ...
If no one knows who you are , they cannot judge you on your race , color , sex , etc
They can only judge you on your words and actions on the internet.
"and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".
I think that say enough about China : calling freedom "so-called" , and claiming that there is such a thing as "unreasonable criticism" .
As far as i know, criticism is always grounded in reason , otherwise , it would be slander.
Anyway , i'm glad Google is finally starting to take a position on it.
I wonder if it's possible to create a countermeasure for this EMP device.
As with all weapons , there is usually a market for defenses against it.
A mirror like effect would be nice.
Because the human mind is a very lenient compiler.
Humans are dreamers above anything.
A good thing too , otherwise there wouldn't be any inventions.
The problem is , just an idea isn't good enough : you need a plan to put it into practice , and you need money in order to bring it into a workable product.
That means you have to find investors, and 'Liquid Invisibility Cloak' sells better than 'Theoretical material with exotic optical effect' .
Well ,as stated above :
Well , for one thing , liquor stores are regulated by the law. For example , they are not allowed to sell alcohol to minors.
Other than that, there is little difference : it can do just as much damage.
However , a liqour store owner who does give alchohol to minors, or worse, when they go for beer gives them free samples of wodka ( so they would buy wodka next time ) , isn't going to own that store for long.
Well , for one thing , liquor stores are regulated by the law. For example , they are not allowed to sell alcohol to minors.
Other than that, there is little difference : it can do just as much damage.
However , a liqour store owner who does give alchohol to minors, or worse, when they go for beer gives them free samples of wodka ( so they would buy wodka next time ) , isn't going to own that store for long.
What makes you think the citizens will act on their knowledge and fight censorship?
In many countries the majority of the population wants certain topics censored.
More likely, anyone who doesn't want it gets censored. So it only seems like the majority wants those topics censored.