What got me was how quick people were to attribute a divine hand into it - 'The Miracle on the Hudson' and so on. They aren't calling AF 447 'The Arbitrary Smiting over the Atlantic' are they?
That is a common form of human error; junior pilots are very reluctant to overrule their seniors if they see them doing something wrong. Computers, on the other hand, don't give a shit about social protocol.
Manual control? Whats, you think the pilots were yanking cables to move the flaps? I am not sure you understand how modern airliners work, or the concept of Fly-By-Wire.
I believe the clouds were to fly to go over, and the storm was too large to go around and still have enough fuel to make it to Paris. Of course, they could've turned back or gone to the nearest airport, but I imagine there is a lot of pressure on commercial pilots not to do that.
That was my first thought. The idea of Americans being champions of individual freedom whilst Europeans are just mindless drones is getting really fucking tiresome. Americans are far less likely to think for themselves than Europeans (just compare the types of media they consume) despite all the high-minded but entirely hypocritical rhetoric their founding fathers came out with. American patriotism comes across to outsiders are rather cult-like, so you beating your chests about individual freedom is just obviously horseshit. Oh, and don't get me started on American evangelicals.
The Airbus/Boeing thing is a design choice. The implication that Airbus has made the 'wrong' choice because they are 'cowardly, limp wristed European socialist' or what the fuck ever is bollocks - you are failing to take into account the number of accidents caused by pilot error. Considering that both Boeing and Airbus have exemplary safety records on their modern aircraft, I don't think you can really call either approach 'right' - but of course the US media is going to push Boeing over Airbus, and Americans are almost unanimously going to believe that line because they are such great individualists.
I must stop before a damage my optic nerves rolling my eyes.
What you have blurted out of your noise hole is directly contrary to the consensus amongst professional economists. It is also contrary to logic - if these institutions were flawed because of government intervention why did they fail when government intervention in them was reduced, not when it was greater?
As for the computer industry: Bletchley Park, APRANET, the World Wide Web, Linux, the Apollo Guidance Computer - all developed without your beloved profit motive. Suck on it.
Right, lets leave it to private enterprise, so they can do for spaceflight what they've done for the financial services industry.
Your invisible hand is superstitious bullshit. Market equilibrium is a concept entirely at odds with empirical reality. Get over yourself, and stop ramming idiotic libertarian pop economics into every argument.
Bill O'Reilly talks quickly. Being quick, brief, or even pithy doesn't make you right. Chomsky is notable because he is an academic who isn't afraid to talk like an academic in front of a non-academic audience, regardless of how that might make him look. When was the last time you saw him asked a question that could be accurately answered in a single paragraph?
We were told that, most of us didn't believe it. The appearance of people believing it was maintained by media outlets owned be people who were deeply invested in the 'truth' of the system.
Which is why, as it stands, you need experts. That way, the only think you need to have in depth knowledge of is identifying real expertise, enough to trust it. Science works as a unified(ish) discipline because, even though scientists in one field know no more than the layman about other scientific fields, they understand the methods that span across all (true) science to weed out bullshit, allowing them to be confident in the work of scientists in fields well outside their own.
I admit it is more difficult in politics, economics and so on than in the hard sciences, but it should still be possible for a discerning citizen to root out the bullshit. Thing is, as you said it takes time. I often think that the absurdly long working hours in anglophone countries (and the 'protestant work ethic' from which they probably sprung are more about keeping people distracted than about increasing productivity.
ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he can't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others, while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text can't be understood unless by a marginally small & elite portion of society.
Thanks for mashing your fists on the keyboard. It was a valuable contribution that makes us all intellectually richer.
The expression of ideas in the media IS a big problem. Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media. I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.
The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study. It is OK to have elites. As someone with no medical training, I am very grateful that there are elite surgeons around to perform any procedures on me I might need in the future, rather than some bloke with 'common sense' who saw an episode of Casualty and reckons he can have a go at it.
But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!
Being able to spell 'sophisticated' is not a sign of being an intellectual elitist.
2. No, the US is no vanguard of free speech. The threat of other countries ignoring the US and starting their own DNS is what keeps it free.
3. No, the US did not invent the Internet, and contrary to what the article says no the Internet wasn't a result of the US preference for private over public telecoms infrastructure. The Internet is a collection of technologies invented all over the world, largely by government or voluntary organizations.
Americans consider themselves and their country exceptional, against all contrary evidence. The only part of the article with much truth behind it is the notion that a US power grab for the naming system would only result in it splintering. The idea that Americans are anti-authoritarians at heart and want decentralised, unobtrusive government is horseshit to even the most casual reader of history. Remeber 'support the troops?' and 'my country, right or wrong?' Remember the USA PATRIOT act?
If you don't believe in property that requires state enforecement, you aren't a capitalist because capitalism is defined by the private ownership of capital (hence the name) which is impossible without strong property laws from a singular source (i.e. the state). Call yourself an individualist anarchist, by all means, but capitalism and anarchism are clearly incompatible.
Paid property defence is just a micro-state. Multiple systems of paid property defence is warlordism.
Someone who believes he can own things had to use force to keep them (see the RIAA, MPAA etc.)
Natural ownership only really extends as far as things you are holding, standing next to, or haven't left alone for long. Any property relation that could be called capitalism (i.e. the private ownership of capital) is clearly impossible without a state to enforce such ownership in your absence.
Anarchocapitalists aren't anarchists. Capitalism requires a series of contracts and forceful property systems that in turn require a government - for who would subscribe to a system that treats most people like shit, unless they are forced to? Arguing from 'nature' is also retarded, as firstly everything is natural, and secondly if you refer to the state human beings were in for the longest time, that would be living in caves without any technology. Not a great idea.
That is called a strawman. You have constructed a caricature of socialism/communism/whateverthatis in order to knock it down and then you went on some bullshit about capitalism, invoking a little bullshit pop game theory on the way, and came to your triumphalist but intellectually void conclusion. You are a moron and you don't even realise it.
Slashdot Mirror
What got me was how quick people were to attribute a divine hand into it - 'The Miracle on the Hudson' and so on. They aren't calling AF 447 'The Arbitrary Smiting over the Atlantic' are they?
That is a common form of human error; junior pilots are very reluctant to overrule their seniors if they see them doing something wrong. Computers, on the other hand, don't give a shit about social protocol.
Manual control? Whats, you think the pilots were yanking cables to move the flaps? I am not sure you understand how modern airliners work, or the concept of Fly-By-Wire.
I believe the clouds were to fly to go over, and the storm was too large to go around and still have enough fuel to make it to Paris. Of course, they could've turned back or gone to the nearest airport, but I imagine there is a lot of pressure on commercial pilots not to do that.
So, pilot error proves that planes shouldn't be computerised?
That was my first thought. The idea of Americans being champions of individual freedom whilst Europeans are just mindless drones is getting really fucking tiresome. Americans are far less likely to think for themselves than Europeans (just compare the types of media they consume) despite all the high-minded but entirely hypocritical rhetoric their founding fathers came out with. American patriotism comes across to outsiders are rather cult-like, so you beating your chests about individual freedom is just obviously horseshit. Oh, and don't get me started on American evangelicals.
The Airbus/Boeing thing is a design choice. The implication that Airbus has made the 'wrong' choice because they are 'cowardly, limp wristed European socialist' or what the fuck ever is bollocks - you are failing to take into account the number of accidents caused by pilot error. Considering that both Boeing and Airbus have exemplary safety records on their modern aircraft, I don't think you can really call either approach 'right' - but of course the US media is going to push Boeing over Airbus, and Americans are almost unanimously going to believe that line because they are such great individualists.
I must stop before a damage my optic nerves rolling my eyes.
What you have blurted out of your noise hole is directly contrary to the consensus amongst professional economists. It is also contrary to logic - if these institutions were flawed because of government intervention why did they fail when government intervention in them was reduced, not when it was greater?
As for the computer industry: Bletchley Park, APRANET, the World Wide Web, Linux, the Apollo Guidance Computer - all developed without your beloved profit motive. Suck on it.
Right, lets leave it to private enterprise, so they can do for spaceflight what they've done for the financial services industry.
Your invisible hand is superstitious bullshit. Market equilibrium is a concept entirely at odds with empirical reality. Get over yourself, and stop ramming idiotic libertarian pop economics into every argument.
Mount Everest is only 8km high. Where the fuck do you ski?
Bill O'Reilly talks quickly. Being quick, brief, or even pithy doesn't make you right. Chomsky is notable because he is an academic who isn't afraid to talk like an academic in front of a non-academic audience, regardless of how that might make him look. When was the last time you saw him asked a question that could be accurately answered in a single paragraph?
Accusing Chomsky of populism is one thing, accusing him of being a hack at linguistics just makes everyone laugh at you.
We were told that, most of us didn't believe it. The appearance of people believing it was maintained by media outlets owned be people who were deeply invested in the 'truth' of the system.
I said 'elites' not 'greedy tossbags who might as well have had a drunken weekend in Las Vegas with everyone's pension funds'.
Having retards at the top of the financial services industry doesn't necessarily mean that there cannot be experts in other fields of human endeavor.
Which is why, as it stands, you need experts. That way, the only think you need to have in depth knowledge of is identifying real expertise, enough to trust it. Science works as a unified(ish) discipline because, even though scientists in one field know no more than the layman about other scientific fields, they understand the methods that span across all (true) science to weed out bullshit, allowing them to be confident in the work of scientists in fields well outside their own.
I admit it is more difficult in politics, economics and so on than in the hard sciences, but it should still be possible for a discerning citizen to root out the bullshit. Thing is, as you said it takes time. I often think that the absurdly long working hours in anglophone countries (and the 'protestant work ethic' from which they probably sprung are more about keeping people distracted than about increasing productivity.
I don't believe the AC in question has the capacity for sarcasm. In any case, it wasn't funny at all.
Thanks for mashing your fists on the keyboard. It was a valuable contribution that makes us all intellectually richer.
The expression of ideas in the media IS a big problem. Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media. I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.
The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study. It is OK to have elites. As someone with no medical training, I am very grateful that there are elite surgeons around to perform any procedures on me I might need in the future, rather than some bloke with 'common sense' who saw an episode of Casualty and reckons he can have a go at it.
Being able to spell 'sophisticated' is not a sign of being an intellectual elitist.
None of the PC users want to touch the thing (despite, curiously, them being rabid iPhone fanboys and sneering at my Android phone...)
1. Yes the US likes power
2. No, the US is no vanguard of free speech. The threat of other countries ignoring the US and starting their own DNS is what keeps it free.
3. No, the US did not invent the Internet, and contrary to what the article says no the Internet wasn't a result of the US preference for private over public telecoms infrastructure. The Internet is a collection of technologies invented all over the world, largely by government or voluntary organizations.
Americans consider themselves and their country exceptional, against all contrary evidence. The only part of the article with much truth behind it is the notion that a US power grab for the naming system would only result in it splintering. The idea that Americans are anti-authoritarians at heart and want decentralised, unobtrusive government is horseshit to even the most casual reader of history. Remeber 'support the troops?' and 'my country, right or wrong?' Remember the USA PATRIOT act?
If you don't believe in property that requires state enforecement, you aren't a capitalist because capitalism is defined by the private ownership of capital (hence the name) which is impossible without strong property laws from a singular source (i.e. the state). Call yourself an individualist anarchist, by all means, but capitalism and anarchism are clearly incompatible.
Paid property defence is just a micro-state. Multiple systems of paid property defence is warlordism.
Someone who believes he can own things had to use force to keep them (see the RIAA, MPAA etc.)
Natural ownership only really extends as far as things you are holding, standing next to, or haven't left alone for long. Any property relation that could be called capitalism (i.e. the private ownership of capital) is clearly impossible without a state to enforce such ownership in your absence.
Anarchocapitalists aren't anarchists. Capitalism requires a series of contracts and forceful property systems that in turn require a government - for who would subscribe to a system that treats most people like shit, unless they are forced to? Arguing from 'nature' is also retarded, as firstly everything is natural, and secondly if you refer to the state human beings were in for the longest time, that would be living in caves without any technology. Not a great idea.
Point taken. Capitalism also fits into that category too then; See the difference between a family-owned shop and Enron, Microsoft or A&G
That is called a strawman. You have constructed a caricature of socialism/communism/whateverthatis in order to knock it down and then you went on some bullshit about capitalism, invoking a little bullshit pop game theory on the way, and came to your triumphalist but intellectually void conclusion. You are a moron and you don't even realise it.
Only libertarian slashdotters. They are actually a minority I think, just tiresomely vocal.