Nope, reality isn't biased. Reality also encompasses the consequences of not having universal healthcare or tax cuts for the rich. Life often involves compromises, and when you specifically mention what you lose without regard for what you gain, then this is not a bias in reality, but a selection bias in the person speaking. No question whether what the summary says is true, just that it's far from what we sometimes call the "whole truth".
It would seem to me much, much, more unfair if five people would have to sacrifice all of their livelihood, 4 people had sacrifice much of it, and 1 person had to pay a negligible portion of theirs.
But rather than actually discussing them, you decided it would be easier or perhaps better to just insult people.
No, not "people" per se, just you. And not "easier", so much as "more productive and personally satisfying".
And yes, I do see it quite a bit, because there are lots of people around who have never quite gotten past puberty.
I know what you mean. This "debate" here could have been ripped straight from debates at high school. I went to a selective school, and most people had their topic which they blindly assumed they knew more than everyone else (and sometimes they were right). It was especially interesting when two people with the same topic debated with each other! Being not too unintelligent myself, I quickly learned that arguing with such people is a waste of everyone's time. They don't learn, I don't learn, and everyone ends up with a hot head at the end of it. So, now I'm transferring my cranial heat onto you. Neat, huh?
Maybe that's the solution to global warming: a thermal scapegoat.:-)
I'm not impressed. You have no arguments so you feel the need to insult instead. I've seen it before.
Of course you have. People like you see it in responses all the time. You have to, otherwise that anxiety creeps up on you, that maybe you are wrong AND nobody likes you. And yes, I've seen it before. You're a dime a dozen in these politicised debates.
Have a nice day.
You too. Sorry I didn't get to impress you. Maybe next time, when you've worked out some of your issues. At least we arrived at a kind of win-win situation where both of us thinks the worse of each other, but both of us knows the other is wrong.
This is the part that is both moronic and straw-man, as I already explained. If you do not understand that it is a huge leap from certain questionable research to making broad generalizations about ALL research (which is what you did), then you shouldn't be arguing with people about it online.
Oh, OK, so what you're saying is, I shouldn't assume that you treat every theory with the same level of rigour? I was trying to tactfully ignore that hypothesis, but since you brought it to the table...
It certainly does. And what do you know about "the legitimacy" of the challenge? The stuff you saw on the news? Silly and relatively irrelevant stuff like "hide the decline", and dumb comments in computer code?
Or do you actually know something about people like Prof. Wibjorn Karlen? Not some kook, this is somebody who actually collaborated with CRU staff on important climate papers. What do you know of Wegman and his report, or what it actually said, and why it's relevant? Do you actually know anything about tree ring temperature proxies and how they are/were used?
"Almost all?" Really? What do you know about the actual percentage? (Hint: don't quote to me "studies" by Naomi Oreskes... her work has been thoroughly discredited.)
Get back to me when you do know these things and can discuss them. Until then, all you're doing is spitting the Kool-Aid all over everybody else.
I would start discussing this stuff with you, but it actually doesn't seem like you want to know anything about what I think. It really looks like you just want to pump your ego, and defend your allegiance to a view whose support is dwindling from the scientific community. Perhaps repeat the term "Kool-Aid" a lot to make it sound like everyone's gullible except you. Your ego sounds like it's far too entwined in your arguments for your insights to be useful anyway.
Basically, you sound like a frightful bore, and an utter waste of time. Does that answer all of your questions?
Yes, this is the entire foundation of modern science.
Wait, so the entire foundation of modern science is to ignore all previous findings before you, and work them out again for yourself? Is it just me, or does that seem a tad inefficient?
Don't be ridiculous... this a moronic straw-man argument
I don't know; I didn't exactly pull it from thin air. Allow me to quote your previous post:
people who swallowed the Kool-Aid hook, line, and sinker, without bothering to research it themselves
It's very much a sensible interpretation from your post that in order to rationally believe something to be true, you must research it yourself. If you want to clarify your previous position, I'd be happy to listen, but it's not a strawman.
When research is called into serious question -- which basic quantum theory has not been in any serious way for a very long time, but which CO2 "global warming" theory has -- then if you want to be objective, you must pay attention to BOTH sides.
Sort of. It does depend on the legitimacy of the challenge. For example, the facts about the holocaust have been disputed repeatedly, and uniformly been shot down. However, the challenge can be reinvigorated by simply claiming a deeper, more unlikely level of Jewish conspiracy, and after a while, most would excuse you for no longer considering both sides with the same weight.
The same thing applies here. The source of genuinely dissenting scientists is shrinking. Much of the opposition is from people who don't want people to stop buying their goods/services.
And yes, *IF* you swallowed ALL the Kool-Aid, as many people have, then you are gullible.
Oh, well I didn't consume any red beverages today, so I think I'm OK.
It is amazing -- and amusing -- how the people who swallowed the Kool-Aid hook, line, and sinker, without bothering to research it themselves, think they know all about it.
So, I suppose we should personally research every scientific finding? Well in that case, I'm simply not drinking that quantum theory kool-aid until you verify your own research? Oh, and you know all those claims about obesity and junk food are simply a result of over-politicising nutritional science. The junk food companies told me so, via their astroturfing!
Yep, I feel so much less a gullible fool now! And so superior! Wonderful, isn't it?
All that remains is for the computer to become the final arbiter.
Actually, computers aren't particularly different from the call-centre automatons with no power to help you. In the end, you still need to speak to who programmed them, or take the company to court.
we should figure out what it is we as a nation are doing that makes people in other countries want to fscking want to kill us, and stop doing it. It shouldnt be that hard.
No, it should be impossible. That's because if we did what one group of murderous people want, then that'll just crop a group of murderous people who want things the way they were. It's a known fact that it's not possible to please everyone 100% of the time.
I take exception to your post. I know plenty of people in the medical profession. Most of them are good, honest people, who have never once mislead me on any count. They're not taking backhanders from Big Pharma.
My father is currently a practising psychiatrist, who is also doing a significant amount of research into his favourite psychiatric technique, which revolves around a one-on-one therapy to treat the roots of the problems (typically traumatic experiences). It involves little to no drugs, because it doesn't treat problems merely as a chemical imbalance.
I also take exception because I know people practising alternative medicine, and not one of them is as moronic as your post makes you sound.
Have you ever noticed how slashdotters have a real difficulty saying a group is wrong without insulting them (typically via their intelligence)? Let's be a little less hypocritical, and a little nicer to the fanboys. Who knows? In time, they might realise they're not going to have their head bitten off for their choices in brands.
(Besides, we all know we're superior, right? There's no need to spread it around gratuitously, is there?)
I don't know. I like my old ipod touch, even with its smudges and fingerprints. I'd definitely be open-minded about buying another touch-screen device (but probably not from Apple).
DHS copyright enforcement takedowns? TSA scanners that were never conclusively tested for safety? TSA practices that provide not even the slightest amount of privacy for information collected? My way or the highway attitudes from appointed bureaucrats?
Lolwut? In what sense of the word are these demonstrations of perceived superior intelligence? Do Mensa routinely implement untested scanners, or issue copyright enforcement takedowns, or something like that, and the US government is simply trying to copy them in an effort to look smart?
Besides, and I know you don't want to argue semantics, but think about what it means to say a government, consisting of thousands of people, thinks it's smarter than its citizens. It certainly does not mean that every person in the government thinks they are smarter than every other person out there, rather it means that they have been ordered by policy makers to act in a certain way, under the assumption that people are going to behave stupidly. I don't doubt this is the case. My problem is, however, if they didn't make this assumption when making policy, I would want them promptly fired for incompetence.:-)
Wow, muchos kudos for your ethical treatment of media.
Out of curiosity, do you really buy every DVD you want to watch? Given your attitude towards cinemas, renting, and piracy, I'm not sure how else you would obtain them.
Allow me to offer a better explanation. It's not theft because the "victim" is party to the crime, which is not a feature characteristic of theft. We don't call it theft, essentially, for the same reason we don't call my selling you a lemon car theft. It's just chalked up to bad decision-making on your part.
- I don't rent movies (nor do I subscribe to movie channels, which is the same thing)
Please tell me you don't watch movies, or you see your movies at the cinema or buy them on DVD. Anything, except that selfish and destructive habit known as piracy. In the age of the TSA and the patriot act, the last thing we need is any more legitimacy lent to the **AA in their march over our liberties and privacy. Plus it has other effects, such as making it more difficult for new artists to survive, making it more difficult for publishers to sign on artistically interesting and less financially certain talent, as well as simply inflating the cost of entertainment for those responsible enough to pay for what we use.
If you don't pirate significantly, I apologise. I really feel passionately about it. There's this carefully crafted perception that people have adopted that any of its ill effects are somehow everyone else's fault, and that they only apply to people we don't like, so it's OK. I have heard not one argument of any worth that piracy is OK. Not one. And it's not from a lack of listening.
While I accept that, like most selfish and destructive habits, it is acceptable in moderation, using it persistently as your major source of entertainment is simply not OK. Renting is really not a bad option. I pay $5 for three weeklies down at my local video store, which is a very reasonable price for 4.5 to 9 hours of entertainment. It's an especially small price, given the alternatives either cost $10 and up per movie, or nothing except a slow erosion our culture and freedoms.
If you do indeed pirate movies (or whatever else), I want to assure you from personal experience, it is possible to wean yourself from the **AA's teat. I did it when I was younger, and had a lot less money to spend on entertainment. Renting videos is cheap. My local library has CDs that people can borrow. Youtube has some fine stuff, some of which are actually posted by the copyright holders themselves. You can also look at online music labels, such as jamendo, zunior, magnatune, etc, for free and legal music. Movies are harder to procure legally than music. For games, you can look at casual games on the internet, if that's your thing, or look for some of the many free games out there (e.g. Team Fortress 2 is now free, although there are still micro-transactions for cosmetic items). And, of course, you can usually save a bundle when looking for things second hand. Give it some thought.
OK, challenge accepted. It might be possible, in my previous scenario, to show that the key had to be short and easy to remember. For example, the person might need to use the key regularly to do their work, and witnesses might have seen them unlock the computer regularly without the use of any physical memory aides. It may be argued that, days before the trial, the defendant changed the key to something difficult to remember and promptly forgot about it, but the old key could be requested. How would anyone test whether this key is legitimate? They could look at, perhaps, backups from around the dates where the witnesses noticed that the defendant was effortlessly unlocking his computer, and decrypt those files. Perhaps this will get them what they want, or if the defendant was stupid enough to use this defence when he had not changed the key, then this would get them access to the files currently on the computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, reality isn't biased. Reality also encompasses the consequences of not having universal healthcare or tax cuts for the rich. Life often involves compromises, and when you specifically mention what you lose without regard for what you gain, then this is not a bias in reality, but a selection bias in the person speaking. No question whether what the summary says is true, just that it's far from what we sometimes call the "whole truth".
Wait, if you're replying to someone, calling them out on their mistake, haven't they already posted, and hence are not capable of modding you troll?
(Mods, mod me troll! I double dare you!)
It would seem to me much, much, more unfair if five people would have to sacrifice all of their livelihood, 4 people had sacrifice much of it, and 1 person had to pay a negligible portion of theirs.
Two years! Wow, they practically get a free ride in /. terms! If Microsoft could have had a two year grudge period, back when they did things wrong...
No, not "people" per se, just you. And not "easier", so much as "more productive and personally satisfying".
I know what you mean. This "debate" here could have been ripped straight from debates at high school. I went to a selective school, and most people had their topic which they blindly assumed they knew more than everyone else (and sometimes they were right). It was especially interesting when two people with the same topic debated with each other! Being not too unintelligent myself, I quickly learned that arguing with such people is a waste of everyone's time. They don't learn, I don't learn, and everyone ends up with a hot head at the end of it. So, now I'm transferring my cranial heat onto you. Neat, huh?
Maybe that's the solution to global warming: a thermal scapegoat. :-)
Of course you have. People like you see it in responses all the time. You have to, otherwise that anxiety creeps up on you, that maybe you are wrong AND nobody likes you. And yes, I've seen it before. You're a dime a dozen in these politicised debates.
You too. Sorry I didn't get to impress you. Maybe next time, when you've worked out some of your issues. At least we arrived at a kind of win-win situation where both of us thinks the worse of each other, but both of us knows the other is wrong.
Oh, OK, so what you're saying is, I shouldn't assume that you treat every theory with the same level of rigour? I was trying to tactfully ignore that hypothesis, but since you brought it to the table...
I would start discussing this stuff with you, but it actually doesn't seem like you want to know anything about what I think. It really looks like you just want to pump your ego, and defend your allegiance to a view whose support is dwindling from the scientific community. Perhaps repeat the term "Kool-Aid" a lot to make it sound like everyone's gullible except you. Your ego sounds like it's far too entwined in your arguments for your insights to be useful anyway.
Basically, you sound like a frightful bore, and an utter waste of time. Does that answer all of your questions?
Wait, so the entire foundation of modern science is to ignore all previous findings before you, and work them out again for yourself? Is it just me, or does that seem a tad inefficient?
I don't know; I didn't exactly pull it from thin air. Allow me to quote your previous post:
It's very much a sensible interpretation from your post that in order to rationally believe something to be true, you must research it yourself. If you want to clarify your previous position, I'd be happy to listen, but it's not a strawman.
Sort of. It does depend on the legitimacy of the challenge. For example, the facts about the holocaust have been disputed repeatedly, and uniformly been shot down. However, the challenge can be reinvigorated by simply claiming a deeper, more unlikely level of Jewish conspiracy, and after a while, most would excuse you for no longer considering both sides with the same weight.
The same thing applies here. The source of genuinely dissenting scientists is shrinking. Much of the opposition is from people who don't want people to stop buying their goods/services.
Oh, well I didn't consume any red beverages today, so I think I'm OK.
So, I suppose we should personally research every scientific finding? Well in that case, I'm simply not drinking that quantum theory kool-aid until you verify your own research? Oh, and you know all those claims about obesity and junk food are simply a result of over-politicising nutritional science. The junk food companies told me so, via their astroturfing!
Yep, I feel so much less a gullible fool now! And so superior! Wonderful, isn't it?
Actually, computers aren't particularly different from the call-centre automatons with no power to help you. In the end, you still need to speak to who programmed them, or take the company to court.
No, it should be impossible. That's because if we did what one group of murderous people want, then that'll just crop a group of murderous people who want things the way they were. It's a known fact that it's not possible to please everyone 100% of the time.
I take exception to your post. I know plenty of people in the medical profession. Most of them are good, honest people, who have never once mislead me on any count. They're not taking backhanders from Big Pharma.
My father is currently a practising psychiatrist, who is also doing a significant amount of research into his favourite psychiatric technique, which revolves around a one-on-one therapy to treat the roots of the problems (typically traumatic experiences). It involves little to no drugs, because it doesn't treat problems merely as a chemical imbalance.
I also take exception because I know people practising alternative medicine, and not one of them is as moronic as your post makes you sound.
That idiotic-sounding gaming industry insider has a point. How is he supposed to feed his family without his profit?
If BSD were irrelevant, Netcraft would have confirmed it.
Have you ever noticed how slashdotters have a real difficulty saying a group is wrong without insulting them (typically via their intelligence)? Let's be a little less hypocritical, and a little nicer to the fanboys. Who knows? In time, they might realise they're not going to have their head bitten off for their choices in brands.
(Besides, we all know we're superior, right? There's no need to spread it around gratuitously, is there?)
It is a simple test. An incredibly simple test. The question is, an incredibly simple test of what?
I don't know. I like my old ipod touch, even with its smudges and fingerprints. I'd definitely be open-minded about buying another touch-screen device (but probably not from Apple).
Lolwut? In what sense of the word are these demonstrations of perceived superior intelligence? Do Mensa routinely implement untested scanners, or issue copyright enforcement takedowns, or something like that, and the US government is simply trying to copy them in an effort to look smart?
Besides, and I know you don't want to argue semantics, but think about what it means to say a government, consisting of thousands of people, thinks it's smarter than its citizens. It certainly does not mean that every person in the government thinks they are smarter than every other person out there, rather it means that they have been ordered by policy makers to act in a certain way, under the assumption that people are going to behave stupidly. I don't doubt this is the case. My problem is, however, if they didn't make this assumption when making policy, I would want them promptly fired for incompetence. :-)
Speaking of non-sequiturs...
How did you manage to get from "We want to pat you down for everyone's safety", to "We just plain think we're smarter than you"?
Oh, apparently I didn't. Thanks.
Wow, muchos kudos for your ethical treatment of media.
Out of curiosity, do you really buy every DVD you want to watch? Given your attitude towards cinemas, renting, and piracy, I'm not sure how else you would obtain them.
Allow me to offer a better explanation. It's not theft because the "victim" is party to the crime, which is not a feature characteristic of theft. We don't call it theft, essentially, for the same reason we don't call my selling you a lemon car theft. It's just chalked up to bad decision-making on your part.
Please tell me you don't watch movies, or you see your movies at the cinema or buy them on DVD. Anything, except that selfish and destructive habit known as piracy. In the age of the TSA and the patriot act, the last thing we need is any more legitimacy lent to the **AA in their march over our liberties and privacy. Plus it has other effects, such as making it more difficult for new artists to survive, making it more difficult for publishers to sign on artistically interesting and less financially certain talent, as well as simply inflating the cost of entertainment for those responsible enough to pay for what we use.
If you don't pirate significantly, I apologise. I really feel passionately about it. There's this carefully crafted perception that people have adopted that any of its ill effects are somehow everyone else's fault, and that they only apply to people we don't like, so it's OK. I have heard not one argument of any worth that piracy is OK. Not one. And it's not from a lack of listening.
While I accept that, like most selfish and destructive habits, it is acceptable in moderation, using it persistently as your major source of entertainment is simply not OK. Renting is really not a bad option. I pay $5 for three weeklies down at my local video store, which is a very reasonable price for 4.5 to 9 hours of entertainment. It's an especially small price, given the alternatives either cost $10 and up per movie, or nothing except a slow erosion our culture and freedoms.
If you do indeed pirate movies (or whatever else), I want to assure you from personal experience, it is possible to wean yourself from the **AA's teat. I did it when I was younger, and had a lot less money to spend on entertainment. Renting videos is cheap. My local library has CDs that people can borrow. Youtube has some fine stuff, some of which are actually posted by the copyright holders themselves. You can also look at online music labels, such as jamendo, zunior, magnatune, etc, for free and legal music. Movies are harder to procure legally than music. For games, you can look at casual games on the internet, if that's your thing, or look for some of the many free games out there (e.g. Team Fortress 2 is now free, although there are still micro-transactions for cosmetic items). And, of course, you can usually save a bundle when looking for things second hand. Give it some thought.
OK, challenge accepted. It might be possible, in my previous scenario, to show that the key had to be short and easy to remember. For example, the person might need to use the key regularly to do their work, and witnesses might have seen them unlock the computer regularly without the use of any physical memory aides. It may be argued that, days before the trial, the defendant changed the key to something difficult to remember and promptly forgot about it, but the old key could be requested. How would anyone test whether this key is legitimate? They could look at, perhaps, backups from around the dates where the witnesses noticed that the defendant was effortlessly unlocking his computer, and decrypt those files. Perhaps this will get them what they want, or if the defendant was stupid enough to use this defence when he had not changed the key, then this would get them access to the files currently on the computer.