Just a reminder, seeing as this thread seems to have been hijacked by some kind of capitalism - communism trollfest. It's a democratic, capitalistic state that is much, much more well off per capita than communist China. Beware of any story about Taiwan from a Chinese news outlet, because it's about 150% likely to be infused with an ulterior motive or slant; China has been trying to get Taiwan "back" since 1949. They're probably anxious to report conditions as being worse than China to encourage the idea that the people of Taiwan need Chinese intervention/reunion. They're probably eager to report capitalistic factory conditions as horrible to reinforce their own government status quo. Not saying it isn't true, however, just consider the source!
Yes, it was their mistake to attempt to accommodate him. Next time they should say "fatties aren't allowed in standby" except that of course would bring your ire even more. How about we find the largest size possible that someone can be without dying, and make the seats that size.
Your comments seem motivated in revulsion and hatred at fat people rather than in any logical basis. In that regard, you affirm my point, which is that there is a lot of prejudice going on in this issue that is couched ostensibly in logic and/or fairness.
How far above average are we going to go here? What about people who can't fit within the ailes? What about people who can't walk on their own two legs because they are so overweight? At one point we're going to have to draw a line and say "people over this weight cannot be treated as healthy people." But you're arguing that to draw such a line is wrong.
Whether someone is healthy or unhealthy because of how fat they are is immaterial to the issue because it isn't their healthiness that dictates how much space they take up in a plane seat.
There is no line that can be drawn at which we say "people over this weight cannot be treated as people." To draw such a line is wrong.
Ah, but that's exactly what I'm suggesting: that perhaps issues such as average weight, obesity, metabolism and tendency to weight gain *are* issues entirely caused by birth, just as most now accept homosexuality as similarly a fixed-at-birth issue. Not so very long ago I remember the common wisdom of society was that homosexuality was a choice, and that with some elbow grease, it could be overcome. Thankfully, we've graduated from this wrong view. But it seems we haven't graduated from it completely, rather, we've now just shifted the very same argument to fat people. I argue that fat phobia has become the new whipping boy now that homophobia is no longer socially acceptable. Can you see that the exact same argument about obesity (just lose weight!) is being made today that used to be made about homosexuality (just get over it!), and being made with approval? I just don't see why the argument is persisting in another form, loaded with the exact same assumptions we already displaced with the homosexuality issue? It's like we never learn.
And I am always frustrated by people that find any comparison of one situation to racism or homophobia de facto disingenuous, without actually analysing the mechanics of the comparison. You commented that "neither the race nor the sexual orientation of the person next to you affect your flight." But did you stop to consider whether or not that statement is actually true? The very existence of racists and homophobes (and the physical violence that these attitudes seem to engender) disproves your statement. The colour of someone's skin *can* affect the person in the next plane seat. A flamboyant homosexual can indeed affect the person in the next seat. Even your gender can and does affect the person in the next seat. Can you really argue with that? I'm not saying that it's a rational effect, but it *is* an effect.
What I suggest is that we should analyse the mechanics of these kinds of effects and try and learn something from comparative and analogic thinking rather than sweep everything into established categories. We should examine why we think it's OK to implicitly criticize a fat person for intruding into the seat next to him and force him to buy another seat, when he may or may not have any choice about how much space he takes up, and never had the option to sit in a bigger seat. Analyse why we don't instead ask airlines to make a few extra, bigger seats for obese people? On what basis do we think it is more unfair to ask an airline to do this than to ask an obese man to lose a hundred pounds or pay double? Contrast that to why we think it's not OK to force a gay man to buy two seats so that a homophobe asshole doesn't have to feel physically uncomfortable sitting next to a gay man.
What I see happening in this thread is that the majority of commenters think that because a fat man can lose weight, he is responsible for his condition and ought to bear the onus on not making those around him uncomfortable. But how logical is that? And is that the only option? And would those same people tell a flamboyantly gay man to just not have sex with men, or dress more like a manly man?
Basically, I think the underlying question is really: what kinds of behaviours, choices, personal characteristics (genetic/inherent or not) are we going to say, as a society, should incur additional cost on their bearer to ensure that they do not impinge on others? And what are the core principles which underlie our answer to this question? It's not an easy question to answer. But to just lump penalties on fat people because they are fat requires a justification. And when there are at least two solutions, (1) make the fat man buy two seats, and (2) make the airline make a few bigger seats, then to pick one over the other requires justification because it impinges on someone's rights either way. Why do we just accept blindly that the fat guy should pay double? There hasn't been much critical thought in this thread, just a lot of fat-bashing.
I would absolutely agree with your argument if the issue had been framed by airlines in terms of the consumption of resources rather than safety. The reason they have done it this way is because they know their consumption-of-resources position is weaker than their safety position.
But they don't go that route because they like charging children for a full-sized seat. They like charging huge fees for overweight baggage while giving you no refund for light bags. It's quite simply more profitable for them to frame the debate in this way because it shifts the focus onto a more acceptable issue-- safety-- instead of the less acceptable motive of profit.
If it were about charging for resources, then it may indeed be more fair on a pure economic view, but then they'd be hassled on the human rights front, which is an even worse can of worms. Men would perhaps rightly feel screwed because they are forced to pay significantly more for the same seat than a woman because they are heavier, and because that is something physical beyond their control. You see where that would go pretty fast: a PR nightmare.
But if we keep the issue framed the way the airline did, about safety, then things are different. Outside of profit, there's no reason not to build some larger seats in the name of safety. Even in the name of comfort.
With the Hummer example, the crux is that the person driving the Hummer indisputably made a consumption choice to purchase a Hummer. (If it were the case that the Hummer were needed, such as for business, then that person would be able to deduct the extra expense from business profits and thus incur no extra cost.) The Hummer analogy doesn't quite work when it comes to obese persons, because the underlying assumption is not established, namely, that people choose to be fat, or choose to consume more, which makes them fat.
The larger seats might be worth more if they are in fact in high demand. But then that begs the question of whether the current standard airline seat might in fact be too small. If a significant number of passengers don't fit the standard seat, should the airlines not logically increase the standard size? Otherwise, what's to prevent the airlines from making child-size seats the standard size and ask "normal" sized passengers to purchase two? Yikes. I don't think the issue is so cut and dry as most on here have portrayed it, which is as "fat people cause the problem and should thus pay for it."
I do think we should adopt the system you suggest: passengers are charged based on a combination of how much space you take up, and how much weight you bring, including your baggage. That seems fair on at least a mathematical basis, if not a human rights basis. But I don't think the airlines would want it that way because it would hurt their very slim profit margins.
I'm glad you called me on the gay analogy. But I think it's interesting you said that a homophobe's discomfort is mental and easily overcome; so many Slashdotters made the exact same point about obese persons, namely that it is so easy to just change a physical aspect of yourself-- just lose weight. When you have a physical reaction to something (whether it's mental, like seeing a homosexual that revolts you, or physical, like food you ate), it's all too easy for other people to say "oh get over it", or "just lose weight." As much as I truly don't understand why some homophobes have such intense reactions to homosexuals, some to the point of being physically sickened by it, I can't doubt that the reaction exists. I seriously doubt that it is very easy for homophobes like that to just easily overcome their revulsion. I wish to god it were that easy, but the fact that they show up to protest gay funerals seems to suggest a very deep level of mental entrenchment. Similarly, it's definitely not easy for an obese person to just lose weight.
I guess that yes, I am trying to equate the two scenarios, but not on a moral level (I do not condone homophobia, which I pers
Actually, it wouldn't be fraud unless there is an explicit deception or lie. It might be misrepresentation or breach of contract. There's a gulf of legal difference between these.
Is it really alright for an airline to make an unusually small seat and then charge what they want for it? What about if you yourself bought a ticket and boarded the plane, saw a literally tiny seat and was given the same choice-- to buy two seats or get off? Would you still think it was fair and acceptable capitalism if you were negatively affected by it? What level does it have to get to before it's no longer acceptable?
There's also a difference between being willing to accept a discriminatory policy and having no other choice. This is a form of duress and is inequitable.
It's a ridiculous argument that any person can do anything they want in a capitalistic marketplace. Is it okay to sell children, so long as there is supply and demand? (Or only when you're stuck next to one on the plane that won't stop crying or running around being a turd?) Of course here we stray from the world of economics to the world of politics and policy choices. We have to make certain decisions about what we're going to allow in the marketplace and what we're not going to allow because we feel it violates one of our core principles, like equality or reasonable freedom. Of course we have to have a marketplace that is regulated by some form of order.
So what happened was that he accepted the policy and bought two tickets. He then asked to fly standby, which is a service available to all passengers. The airline accepted and put him on an earlier flight, but seemed to have forgotten he had purchased two tickets already. They then put him on the earlier flight, but only gave him *one* seat, not the two he had purchased. That was their mistake. And then they humiliated him by kicking him off the plane. How did this become his fault? Didn't the airline know he needed two seats?
Your last paragraph is troubling. You say, essentially, that people who are "medically obese" don't deserve to be treated as if you were a person within a healthy weight range. Let's leave aside the assumption you made that being medically obese is unhealthy, which I would challenge as unsupported by scientific study that has been properly controlled and normalized for other factors other than pure weight. You've just said straight out that fat people shouldn't be treated the same as persons with normal weight. Why not? Are they de facto assholes? Are they child rapers?
Your argument places the onus for ensuring airline safety and comfort onto the party that is least able to control it: the individual. Which is easier and therefore more efficient: for hundreds of thousands of individuals to lose a lot of weight to become "normal" sized, or, for airlines to make a proportion of their seats large enough to accommodate above-average persons?
Given that airlines admit they do not charge passengers by weight, you don't get a cheaper ticket if you bring lighter baggage than the 200 pound guy next to you, and that the issue here is safety, not profit (or so they say), how can they justify not making a few of their seats bigger? Why not make a few bigger seats, and a few smaller seats, so that children or tiny people can sit in a seat that fits them, and so can an obese person?
My problem with this whole scenario is that it's really about money, but airlines are pretending it's about safety. It's clearly not, or else we'd have seen multiple seat sizes decades ago.
And if it's really such a social drag to have obese people amongst the population, then perhaps the nation should start banning foods like McDonald's that are notoriously fattening and unhealthy instead of profiting by taxation and economic prosperity through allowing their consumption and then villifying those who legally consume them. Or perhaps we should force people to exercise for at least 30 minutes per day. Oh but wait-- you see where th
I'm certainly not a transport economist. But what about this as a starting idea: if airlines know roughly the demographics of their customers, particularly on specific routes, then they ought to know the rough proportion of their passengers that are (a) significantly obese and thus requiring a 1.5x sized seat, and (b) children requiring about 0.5x of a seat.
Knowing that information, it would be fairly simple to install the mathematically logical number of seats of the appropriate size to accommodate the usual demographics in comfort. If the airlines could match 1:1 fat persons and children, they could sell the exact same number of seats and tickets and make exactly the same profit.
Or, perhaps someone could design seating that is adjustable, so that what might normally be a three-seat row could be converted to a two seater, and vice versa.
I think these suggestions have the added benefit of making normal-sized persons extra happy when they find they've been given a 1.5x seat.
Anyhow, there are heaps of ways you could criticize the above suggestions as presenting too much of a logistical problem. But there are lots of clever engineers in the world, who are fully capable of solving such a simple problem. If they can put a man on the moon, they can figure out how to equitably allow a fat dude to fly comfortably without impinging on the adjacent seat occupant.
If I were a fat person, I would instantly choose the airline that gave a damn about my situation, comfort and safety over one that made me buy two seats. And I would be staunchly loyal to it. There's extra profit to be had by providing excellent service to customers, not just by gouging them whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I agree that lifestyle choices may in fact be the cause of most instances of obesity. I don't seek to make excuses for poor lifestyle choices. What I do challenge is (a) that the choice to be fat is poor; and (b) that an excuse must be made for someone's lifestyle choice.
I do find it interesting that the majority of responses on Slashdot have blamed the individual (usually on the basis of experience of having someone fat intrude into their plane seat, which is indeed irritating) instead of on the airline. That's what I'm challenging: why the individual is blamed, and why being fat is assumed to be bad. Doesn't it make more sense to ask airlines to make a few seats a little larger so that everyone can be comfortable?
I think that your line of thought merely leads to the place where you are left with no option but to blame anyone that has any lifestyle choice that departs from the norm whenever that choice intrudes in any way on the life of another.
There'll always be someone who thinks that, as just one example, Joe Blow being gay intrudes into his life enjoyment because he is physically revolted when he sees Joe kiss his boyfriend in public. There's nothing wrong with being physically revolted by something-- you're entitled to feel that way. But I ask you: what's the solution? Beat the shit out of Joe Blow? Ban him from gay behaviour? Or make him buy property twice the size of anyone else's just so that his gay-ness is less visible to those who find it intrusive?
It would be a sad world where anyone who deviated from the norm had to pay extra for being themselves. I seem to recall the exodus to North America in the first place was because we thought it was an important value to be able to follow your own convictions and conscience, to be yourself freely. I'm glad that in Canada we have legislation that protects people's right to do (within reason) in true equality. Why not put the onus to accommodate reasonable differences on the party that is best able to do so-- the airline? Easier to build a couple bigger seats than to dictate that every fat person should "just lose weight."
No, I did not argue that all people are fat because of a hormone imbalance. That would be a silly thing to argue. Rather, what I said was it is glib to suggest it is easy-- a simple choice-- for people to just lose weight. As if you could wake up one morning and decide, today I'm going to start being healthy and lose weight. And then go and do it, and become, after a time, normal looking. Then life continues as if you'd never been fat. That there's *nothing* else involved but getting off your fat ass and just doing it.
If it were that easy, wouldn't there be less fat people around?
Ideas like this are perpetuated by shows like the Biggest Loser. Don't you ever wonder what happens to the people on that show months, years afterward? How many of them do you think manage to keep the weight off? Or is it reasonable to think that they should work that hard every single day of the rest of their lives to stay as slim as they became? What happens when they have to go back to work for 8 hours a day?
These are the questions I suggest we ask instead of meekly accepting the fat mythos the media and the weight-loss industry presents for us.
Well with respect, a Wikipedia quote which merely apes the societal assumptions about obesity doesn't help the discussion. At least quote the actual study from whence the quote came. Let us judge that study on its scientific merits.
And don't get me started on the statistical problems of these studies, so many of which don't control for (or even investigate the role of!) other factors that might be related to weight gain or of having a frame conducive to being larger than average.
For example, from your quote alone: "excessive" caloric intake? What is that? What's excessive, anything over 2,000 calories? What about athletes? What about persons with a higher than average metabolism? Even the language is we use in these debates is unscientific. It's founded on assumptions, morally based, made about fat people. Fat is assumed to be bad and wrong because it is allegedly unhealthy. And yet, do we really know if it - being fat - is unhealthy? No, we don't. We know that many fat people tend to have heart problems, or diabetes. But are those conditions related to their weight, or are they related to the underlying behaviours or traits which caused their larger-than-average weight? No, we don't.
These issues began to occur to me when I was 17 years old and playing at a World Cup athletic event. I was 5'8", fit as a horse, with a six pack, and about 180 pounds. I had my BMI done and, if I recall correctly, I was rated "scientifically" as morbidly obese. What a joke. It reminded me that the BMI, the 2,000 calorie diet and all the assumptions these things and their kin are based on are all bunk. They are tautological in the sense that they can only be used on the very populations for which they were defined to be used: "normal" people. And when you think about it, what use at all is that?
We hate to think that we're not quite as clever and scientific as we think we are. It seems every day our latest golden theory is found to be false, or misleading, to be taken over by a new golden theory. Got a sprained ankle? Put ice on it. Raise it up. No, wait: put heat on it. No, wait: put ice on it, then put heat on it, alternating every 15 minutes. No, wait, don't elevate it at all-- it's better to let it swell up at first. Jeez, why do we put so much stock by these things?
It's inevitable that as our knowledge advances, our theories and understanding will change accordingly. But you'd think that we, knowing the vicissitudes of science and the difficulty in really isolating the factors we want to investigate, would know better than to make moral judgments based on our "scientific" understanding of the issues in the meantime. You'd think we'd be more open minded, and more willing to believe that perhaps our "science" is not the reliable crutch we think it is when it comes to justifying what would otherwise amount to completely unacceptable social behaviour, namely, discrimination.
The fact is that some parts inside us secretly like treating other people like shit. We especially enjoy having a "scientific" basis by which to justify judging others negatively and treating them poorly. Even when we have the sneaking suspicion that perhaps our scientific basis isn't as scientific as we think it is.
Even your post speaks of "fault" in relation to obesity. You speak of choice about changing their weight. What I'm asking you to re-think is not that there's no choice for fat people about their weight, rather, to re-think your underlying assumption that there's only one choice that should be made: to lose weight. That that's the right choice. The moral choice. That people who remain fat are morally wrong; are lazy; have no self-control; over-eat.
Hear fricking hear. Thank you for posting this. I am horrified that this thread has turned into a fat-hating fest instead of a reasoned discussion of all the issues here. Leaving aside the really controversial issue of whether most people's weight is genetically determined and thus "their fault", and even whether your size should incur a negative moral judgment from those around you, for some illogical reason (maybe if you guys had universal medicare I would understand, but, you really don't!) , there has been a surprising dearth of critical thought in this threat regarding just how much airlines "policies" are motivated by profit riding on the acceptability of fat phobia than this nebulous "safety" concern. Have people seen the width of an airplane aisle lately?? I'm a 5'8" female of 140 pounds and I can barely pass through those things, let alone when one of the drink/food carts is completely blocking one. I'd just love to see the fricking pandemonium if the shit hit the fan while those carts were blocking both aisles (as they are 50% of the time) and people were trying to get out. Bullshit this policy is motivated by safety concerns! Bullshit! It's motivated by money!! It's just that fat phobia is one of the last remaining "acceptable" discriminations allowed in North America and they want their piece of it.
I vaguely recall a thread on Slashdot the other day where we discussed the pricing of eBooks. A lot of grief was being aired regarding the "unfair" $15 price point for eBooks. A lot of people thought it was B.S. that despite lower production costs for an eBook version, the print version and the eBook version were similarly priced. A few industry insiders had to remind us of the cardinal rule of capitalism: Everything is worth what its buyer will pay. So, if we force fat people to pay double for an airline seat, and give them no other choice, they're going to pay it, aren't they? The airlines may couch this policy in "safety" or what-not, but that is crap. Must we be reminded yet again that this is really about money?
If it's really about fuel costs, then every passenger would pay for their tickets BY WEIGHT. Including baggage. Airlines could easily provide a fixed # of smaller seats per plane for children, and larger seats for fat people. Airlines are very, very good at knowing the average demographics of their passengers. They could easily, easily do this, and in fact provide *added* safety for children and fat people by doing so. But they don't. Why would they, after all, when parents will pay full price for their half-sized children, and fat people will pay double? If you owned the airlines, would you change such a profitable policy? No way.
Ugh. The glib "just lose the weight" pseudo-argument. Yeah sure, all fat people are fat by choice, and, with a little elbow grease, could lose weight and be normal like everyone else. Goodness, and you probably call yourself a scientist. What's next in your view: black people can just scrub a little harder and get white? Oh wait, but being fat is a choice, right? Like being gay? Well a few rounds of jogging make some people lose some weight, so it must be the same for everyone. I know because I saw it on The Biggest Loser. Uh oh, look where this road is leading! Unscientific land!
Here's a little thought experiment: what if the average weight of an American citizen was, say, 250 pounds, but Southwest airlines decided to make its seats suitable (safety-wise) and comfortable for passengers with an average weight of 140 pounds. That way, they can shove 50% more seats into the same sized plane and thus make more profit. When a 250 pound passenger boards the plane, after having paid their money for their ticket, like everyone else, they are confronted publicly by an air hostess, who tells them that because of safety concerns, as per the airline's policy, they have two choices: (1) get off the plane and cancel their trip (probably thus losing money for hotels, rentals, perhaps losing their job or ruining their family's holiday), or (2) pay double for another seat. What choice would you make? What choice really IS there, assuming you can afford the second seat??
It is reasonably foreseeable that many North American passengers will be of a size that is too large for the average plane seat. Does this mean those people must pay for two seats? Or, does it mean that airlines should make a few extra-large sized seats? Or has the US become a nation where it's OK to assume everyone looks the same, and one where those who deviate from the norm (in many cases through no fault of their own) should pay an extra price to access the same services?
This crap would never go down in Canada. Thank God we have Human Rights legislation to prevent others from profiting from discriminatory practices.
Yes, it is politically incorrect, because calling someone a purely mean name because of their physical appearance is, like racism, discriminatory.
Just because someone is fat isn't a license to make them feel like a pile of shit.
This would be a great opportunity for you to track out the "correlation is not causation" Slashdot meme. Even if just being fat were automatically unhealthy (which has not been proven, nor even suggested in isolation from all other factors, such as diet and exercise), it would not entitle those around to automatically be a fucking asshole to fat people. Such discriminatory behaviour is illogical, irrational, and unacceptable.
OP, I think, is not disputing the strength of the just don't buy it position. What s/he's saying is that it's not the only option, not even the best option, and isn't the only glib (and annoying) reply to anyone who complains that the product is unsatisfactory. A better option than just not buying it, he says, is to provide feedback to the manufacturer as to why you're not buying it, so that the manufacturer can make a more measured and prompt response and re-release a product that actually serves your need. In this manner both parties are satisfied with the least expenditure and in the least time. That makes it the benefit-maximizing solution and thus superior.
Libraries ought to implement a sound-security system similar to that used to control radiation exposure in nuclear plants. Patrons of the library must don a large badge to their lapel on entry, which would be secured with an ink tag to prevent self-removal of the badge. The badge starts out as black, but turns redder as it is exposed to a certain frequency range of sound waves, or, sound waves with particular profile. Once your badge reaches a particular hue it begins delivering mild electric shocks to the wearer and/or displaying the word "ASSHOLE" (perhaps with blinking) on the badge for all other patrons to see. The disgraced patron would then need to have the badge re-set at the front desk to remove the effects of sound over-exposure. In this manner, not only would patrons be encouraged to observe the quiet of the library, nearby patrons would acquire an interest in actually doing something to shut up nearby loud jerks, lest the secondary sound contaminate the badges of the nearby, quiet-abiding patrons.
So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind.....
For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat.....
Oh, by the way-- Einstein WAS wrong:) God does indeed play dice.
"Spooky," no?
So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind.....
For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat.....
Goodness, gentlemen and ladies, I am astounded by the skepticism and nay-saying that is on this thread. Isn't anyone else actually inspired by what this person has done here? It sounds like the old American dream analogized into the field of science to me: despite the odds, the obstacles, the reputation of the problem for complexity, this person bravely took the problem on nonetheless and actually had a measure of success by coming up with a pretty damn good idea that nobody else did.
It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the Enterprise encounters that world full of genetically engineered humans... each person specifically bred for a task, nobody allowed to stray away from their "destined" field of work. Yet, they are hundreds of years behind un-genetically-engineered Earth technology for the very reason of their prejudice and entitlement syndrome. They think they are better qualified to do the job, so they never allow anyone else to have a go; never allow anyone to surprise them, never allow stray sparks of genius to infect their genetically engineered perfection. And lo and behold, in comes Geordi LaForge with his VISOR, which contains the technology they needed to solve their technical problem and save the day. All that was needed, right there in the fake eyes for a blind man - a source of inspiration they'd never have expected.
Please don't buy into the idea that nobody else could or should "do" science except those with a PhD or 18 articles published. Science is for everyone. It is a method, not a club. The very day we start evaluating peoples' ideas SOLELY on the basis of the person's status, as opposed to the merit of the idea, is the day we should just go ahead and shoot ourselves, because we have become idiots.
perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.
Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams? What about the other ~199 pages? What about the pages of block text?
More importantly, why does the Voynich Manuscript flip between things derived from plants like gallic acid, oil and then return to naming the plants? Furthermore, I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like. Not like this. I mean, come on! Did Edith Sherwood ever stop to think that maybe -- similar to numerology in The Bible -- she'd be able to make words out of any strange text regardless of its true origin?
Here's a real gem:
This brief sentence indicated that the use of anagrams should be investigated. This was further supported by reading Wikipedia’s report that anagrams were popular throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and that some 17th century astronomers, while engaged in verification of their discoveries, used anagrams to hide their ideas.
You found that on Wikipedia? Call Yale University, you've decoded it. Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts? Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.
This is the game that will be played with the Voynich Manuscript. Every so often people will claim to have 'decoded it' by offering up a small part of the manuscript which very imaginative minds have pulled together 10+ very very flimsy clues that point to some individual. The fact that there are so many coincidences will add weight to it being the real explanation. But it oddly won't work for 99% of the manuscript. Now if the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense. In fact, when someone figures it out, 99% of the manuscript will make sense.
If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work. Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us. And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.
Remember when making criticisms of a work, one must consider both the audience intended for the work and the work's context. This piece was aimed at a low-tech audience, designed to explain the basic concepts of her discovery to the layman. It was published on the Internet as opposed to an academic journal. For those reasons, the tone, style, and sources cited are appropriate.
Eldavojohn, she uses a method of decryption that is similar to how the Rosetta Stone was decoded. The decoder of the Rosetta Stone was considered a genius. The method: you find a page or a section with proper names that can be identified, or just guessed, and then use that decoded portion to slowly decode the rest of the text. She used the page with herbs, vegetables and drawings because, as you mentioned, the rest of the block text gives no clue as to the subject matter of the text and therefore unlikely to yield the decrypt key.
Using Wikipedia as a source of inspiration to find the key to decryption isn't idiotic: it's inspired. Mentioning Wikipedia as a source of inspiration is not the same as citing it as an academic source. One is appropriate; one is not. And, with respect, this is not the type of academic project that a Wikipedia source detracts from. This is a problem to-be-solved, not a new theory of genetics or history that de facto relies on the reliabilit
Modifying the tax system to prefer American workers for employers would effectively be protectionism. It violates the free market economy and leads to higher transaction costs, and this higher consumption costs. If the U.S. economy weren't so heavily consumption based, this might not be a problem. Unfortunately, it is, which means that ironically, it would create a viscious circle driving up the price of goods and services, leading to the need to increase profit margins at the expense of the U.S. consumer, which, ultimately, would economically necessitate out-sourcing both labour and materials to other countries.
On the other hand, keeping the taxation system equal as between employees, the system is less of a roadblock to the natural flow of the market economy. Goods and services will be sourced where they are cheapest and no extra cost is passed to the consumer (which is at this point probably going to be a U.S. citizen).
Either the U.S. can use its technological power and efficiency to offer low or the lowest cost as a goods/services source, or, it can artificially inflate the cost of the goods it consumes. The answer is not in taxation or protectionism, it is in efficiency. That is a neutral vehicle that avoids this catch-22 effect.
Double bullshit. That article is one of the most unscientific, assumption-ridden pieces of obvious tripe I've ever read. I would have laughed out loud if I weren't too busy being horrified at how glibly persuasive the "arguments" would sound to anyone with an IQ under 80. Unfortunately, I would guess that to be about 98% of the site's readership.
You misunderstand the basic fabric of the legal system. Lawyers don't initiate lawsuits-- plaintiffs do. It's not a lawyer's fault that his client has a stupid case or wants to go to court over something inane. It's only his job to discern whether there is a legitimate cause of action under the law (even if it is extremely stupid, rests on a weird interpretation of the law, or has almost zero chance of success). So don't blame lawyers for stupid plaintiffs or stupid lawsuits.
Exactly! I mean, genetically, reproduction is the most important thing in life for a living being. So how do people find it so strange that we continue to pay a high premium for access to sex?
Poo-pooing prostitution (the idea) seems so ridiculous in this light. It's a great idea for both parties. (Again, not in the modern world however... thanks to marginalisation of the sex trade).
Fundamental rule of economics: everything is worth what its buyer will pay. Hardly surprising that one of the first things a chimp tries to buy is sex. I forget Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but isn't it something like... food/water, shelter, SEX?
Slashdot Mirror
H-bar over two, of course. Definitely the coolest math/physics discovery to come out of the last century, IMHO.
Taiwan isn't China. Taiwan isn't in China.
Just a reminder, seeing as this thread seems to have been hijacked by some kind of capitalism - communism trollfest. It's a democratic, capitalistic state that is much, much more well off per capita than communist China. Beware of any story about Taiwan from a Chinese news outlet, because it's about 150% likely to be infused with an ulterior motive or slant; China has been trying to get Taiwan "back" since 1949. They're probably anxious to report conditions as being worse than China to encourage the idea that the people of Taiwan need Chinese intervention/reunion. They're probably eager to report capitalistic factory conditions as horrible to reinforce their own government status quo. Not saying it isn't true, however, just consider the source!
Yes, it was their mistake to attempt to accommodate him. Next time they should say "fatties aren't allowed in standby" except that of course would bring your ire even more. How about we find the largest size possible that someone can be without dying, and make the seats that size.
Your comments seem motivated in revulsion and hatred at fat people rather than in any logical basis. In that regard, you affirm my point, which is that there is a lot of prejudice going on in this issue that is couched ostensibly in logic and/or fairness.
How far above average are we going to go here? What about people who can't fit within the ailes? What about people who can't walk on their own two legs because they are so overweight? At one point we're going to have to draw a line and say "people over this weight cannot be treated as healthy people." But you're arguing that to draw such a line is wrong.
Whether someone is healthy or unhealthy because of how fat they are is immaterial to the issue because it isn't their healthiness that dictates how much space they take up in a plane seat.
There is no line that can be drawn at which we say "people over this weight cannot be treated as people." To draw such a line is wrong.
Ah, but that's exactly what I'm suggesting: that perhaps issues such as average weight, obesity, metabolism and tendency to weight gain *are* issues entirely caused by birth, just as most now accept homosexuality as similarly a fixed-at-birth issue. Not so very long ago I remember the common wisdom of society was that homosexuality was a choice, and that with some elbow grease, it could be overcome. Thankfully, we've graduated from this wrong view. But it seems we haven't graduated from it completely, rather, we've now just shifted the very same argument to fat people. I argue that fat phobia has become the new whipping boy now that homophobia is no longer socially acceptable. Can you see that the exact same argument about obesity (just lose weight!) is being made today that used to be made about homosexuality (just get over it!), and being made with approval? I just don't see why the argument is persisting in another form, loaded with the exact same assumptions we already displaced with the homosexuality issue? It's like we never learn.
And I am always frustrated by people that find any comparison of one situation to racism or homophobia de facto disingenuous, without actually analysing the mechanics of the comparison. You commented that "neither the race nor the sexual orientation of the person next to you affect your flight." But did you stop to consider whether or not that statement is actually true? The very existence of racists and homophobes (and the physical violence that these attitudes seem to engender) disproves your statement. The colour of someone's skin *can* affect the person in the next plane seat. A flamboyant homosexual can indeed affect the person in the next seat. Even your gender can and does affect the person in the next seat. Can you really argue with that? I'm not saying that it's a rational effect, but it *is* an effect.
What I suggest is that we should analyse the mechanics of these kinds of effects and try and learn something from comparative and analogic thinking rather than sweep everything into established categories. We should examine why we think it's OK to implicitly criticize a fat person for intruding into the seat next to him and force him to buy another seat, when he may or may not have any choice about how much space he takes up, and never had the option to sit in a bigger seat. Analyse why we don't instead ask airlines to make a few extra, bigger seats for obese people? On what basis do we think it is more unfair to ask an airline to do this than to ask an obese man to lose a hundred pounds or pay double? Contrast that to why we think it's not OK to force a gay man to buy two seats so that a homophobe asshole doesn't have to feel physically uncomfortable sitting next to a gay man.
What I see happening in this thread is that the majority of commenters think that because a fat man can lose weight, he is responsible for his condition and ought to bear the onus on not making those around him uncomfortable. But how logical is that? And is that the only option? And would those same people tell a flamboyantly gay man to just not have sex with men, or dress more like a manly man?
Basically, I think the underlying question is really: what kinds of behaviours, choices, personal characteristics (genetic/inherent or not) are we going to say, as a society, should incur additional cost on their bearer to ensure that they do not impinge on others? And what are the core principles which underlie our answer to this question? It's not an easy question to answer. But to just lump penalties on fat people because they are fat requires a justification. And when there are at least two solutions, (1) make the fat man buy two seats, and (2) make the airline make a few bigger seats, then to pick one over the other requires justification because it impinges on someone's rights either way. Why do we just accept blindly that the fat guy should pay double? There hasn't been much critical thought in this thread, just a lot of fat-bashing.
I would absolutely agree with your argument if the issue had been framed by airlines in terms of the consumption of resources rather than safety. The reason they have done it this way is because they know their consumption-of-resources position is weaker than their safety position.
But they don't go that route because they like charging children for a full-sized seat. They like charging huge fees for overweight baggage while giving you no refund for light bags. It's quite simply more profitable for them to frame the debate in this way because it shifts the focus onto a more acceptable issue-- safety-- instead of the less acceptable motive of profit.
If it were about charging for resources, then it may indeed be more fair on a pure economic view, but then they'd be hassled on the human rights front, which is an even worse can of worms. Men would perhaps rightly feel screwed because they are forced to pay significantly more for the same seat than a woman because they are heavier, and because that is something physical beyond their control. You see where that would go pretty fast: a PR nightmare.
But if we keep the issue framed the way the airline did, about safety, then things are different. Outside of profit, there's no reason not to build some larger seats in the name of safety. Even in the name of comfort.
With the Hummer example, the crux is that the person driving the Hummer indisputably made a consumption choice to purchase a Hummer. (If it were the case that the Hummer were needed, such as for business, then that person would be able to deduct the extra expense from business profits and thus incur no extra cost.) The Hummer analogy doesn't quite work when it comes to obese persons, because the underlying assumption is not established, namely, that people choose to be fat, or choose to consume more, which makes them fat.
The larger seats might be worth more if they are in fact in high demand. But then that begs the question of whether the current standard airline seat might in fact be too small. If a significant number of passengers don't fit the standard seat, should the airlines not logically increase the standard size? Otherwise, what's to prevent the airlines from making child-size seats the standard size and ask "normal" sized passengers to purchase two? Yikes. I don't think the issue is so cut and dry as most on here have portrayed it, which is as "fat people cause the problem and should thus pay for it."
I do think we should adopt the system you suggest: passengers are charged based on a combination of how much space you take up, and how much weight you bring, including your baggage. That seems fair on at least a mathematical basis, if not a human rights basis. But I don't think the airlines would want it that way because it would hurt their very slim profit margins.
I'm glad you called me on the gay analogy. But I think it's interesting you said that a homophobe's discomfort is mental and easily overcome; so many Slashdotters made the exact same point about obese persons, namely that it is so easy to just change a physical aspect of yourself-- just lose weight. When you have a physical reaction to something (whether it's mental, like seeing a homosexual that revolts you, or physical, like food you ate), it's all too easy for other people to say "oh get over it", or "just lose weight." As much as I truly don't understand why some homophobes have such intense reactions to homosexuals, some to the point of being physically sickened by it, I can't doubt that the reaction exists. I seriously doubt that it is very easy for homophobes like that to just easily overcome their revulsion. I wish to god it were that easy, but the fact that they show up to protest gay funerals seems to suggest a very deep level of mental entrenchment. Similarly, it's definitely not easy for an obese person to just lose weight.
I guess that yes, I am trying to equate the two scenarios, but not on a moral level (I do not condone homophobia, which I pers
Actually, it wouldn't be fraud unless there is an explicit deception or lie. It might be misrepresentation or breach of contract. There's a gulf of legal difference between these.
Is it really alright for an airline to make an unusually small seat and then charge what they want for it? What about if you yourself bought a ticket and boarded the plane, saw a literally tiny seat and was given the same choice-- to buy two seats or get off? Would you still think it was fair and acceptable capitalism if you were negatively affected by it? What level does it have to get to before it's no longer acceptable?
There's also a difference between being willing to accept a discriminatory policy and having no other choice. This is a form of duress and is inequitable.
It's a ridiculous argument that any person can do anything they want in a capitalistic marketplace. Is it okay to sell children, so long as there is supply and demand? (Or only when you're stuck next to one on the plane that won't stop crying or running around being a turd?) Of course here we stray from the world of economics to the world of politics and policy choices. We have to make certain decisions about what we're going to allow in the marketplace and what we're not going to allow because we feel it violates one of our core principles, like equality or reasonable freedom. Of course we have to have a marketplace that is regulated by some form of order.
So what happened was that he accepted the policy and bought two tickets. He then asked to fly standby, which is a service available to all passengers. The airline accepted and put him on an earlier flight, but seemed to have forgotten he had purchased two tickets already. They then put him on the earlier flight, but only gave him *one* seat, not the two he had purchased. That was their mistake. And then they humiliated him by kicking him off the plane. How did this become his fault? Didn't the airline know he needed two seats?
Your last paragraph is troubling. You say, essentially, that people who are "medically obese" don't deserve to be treated as if you were a person within a healthy weight range. Let's leave aside the assumption you made that being medically obese is unhealthy, which I would challenge as unsupported by scientific study that has been properly controlled and normalized for other factors other than pure weight. You've just said straight out that fat people shouldn't be treated the same as persons with normal weight. Why not? Are they de facto assholes? Are they child rapers?
Your argument places the onus for ensuring airline safety and comfort onto the party that is least able to control it: the individual. Which is easier and therefore more efficient: for hundreds of thousands of individuals to lose a lot of weight to become "normal" sized, or, for airlines to make a proportion of their seats large enough to accommodate above-average persons?
Given that airlines admit they do not charge passengers by weight, you don't get a cheaper ticket if you bring lighter baggage than the 200 pound guy next to you, and that the issue here is safety, not profit (or so they say), how can they justify not making a few of their seats bigger? Why not make a few bigger seats, and a few smaller seats, so that children or tiny people can sit in a seat that fits them, and so can an obese person?
My problem with this whole scenario is that it's really about money, but airlines are pretending it's about safety. It's clearly not, or else we'd have seen multiple seat sizes decades ago.
And if it's really such a social drag to have obese people amongst the population, then perhaps the nation should start banning foods like McDonald's that are notoriously fattening and unhealthy instead of profiting by taxation and economic prosperity through allowing their consumption and then villifying those who legally consume them. Or perhaps we should force people to exercise for at least 30 minutes per day. Oh but wait-- you see where th
Hehe, no need to be snarky.
I'm certainly not a transport economist. But what about this as a starting idea: if airlines know roughly the demographics of their customers, particularly on specific routes, then they ought to know the rough proportion of their passengers that are (a) significantly obese and thus requiring a 1.5x sized seat, and (b) children requiring about 0.5x of a seat.
Knowing that information, it would be fairly simple to install the mathematically logical number of seats of the appropriate size to accommodate the usual demographics in comfort. If the airlines could match 1:1 fat persons and children, they could sell the exact same number of seats and tickets and make exactly the same profit.
Or, perhaps someone could design seating that is adjustable, so that what might normally be a three-seat row could be converted to a two seater, and vice versa.
I think these suggestions have the added benefit of making normal-sized persons extra happy when they find they've been given a 1.5x seat.
Anyhow, there are heaps of ways you could criticize the above suggestions as presenting too much of a logistical problem. But there are lots of clever engineers in the world, who are fully capable of solving such a simple problem. If they can put a man on the moon, they can figure out how to equitably allow a fat dude to fly comfortably without impinging on the adjacent seat occupant.
If I were a fat person, I would instantly choose the airline that gave a damn about my situation, comfort and safety over one that made me buy two seats. And I would be staunchly loyal to it. There's extra profit to be had by providing excellent service to customers, not just by gouging them whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I agree that lifestyle choices may in fact be the cause of most instances of obesity. I don't seek to make excuses for poor lifestyle choices. What I do challenge is (a) that the choice to be fat is poor; and (b) that an excuse must be made for someone's lifestyle choice.
I do find it interesting that the majority of responses on Slashdot have blamed the individual (usually on the basis of experience of having someone fat intrude into their plane seat, which is indeed irritating) instead of on the airline. That's what I'm challenging: why the individual is blamed, and why being fat is assumed to be bad. Doesn't it make more sense to ask airlines to make a few seats a little larger so that everyone can be comfortable?
I think that your line of thought merely leads to the place where you are left with no option but to blame anyone that has any lifestyle choice that departs from the norm whenever that choice intrudes in any way on the life of another.
There'll always be someone who thinks that, as just one example, Joe Blow being gay intrudes into his life enjoyment because he is physically revolted when he sees Joe kiss his boyfriend in public. There's nothing wrong with being physically revolted by something-- you're entitled to feel that way. But I ask you: what's the solution? Beat the shit out of Joe Blow? Ban him from gay behaviour? Or make him buy property twice the size of anyone else's just so that his gay-ness is less visible to those who find it intrusive?
It would be a sad world where anyone who deviated from the norm had to pay extra for being themselves. I seem to recall the exodus to North America in the first place was because we thought it was an important value to be able to follow your own convictions and conscience, to be yourself freely. I'm glad that in Canada we have legislation that protects people's right to do (within reason) in true equality. Why not put the onus to accommodate reasonable differences on the party that is best able to do so-- the airline? Easier to build a couple bigger seats than to dictate that every fat person should "just lose weight."
No, I did not argue that all people are fat because of a hormone imbalance. That would be a silly thing to argue. Rather, what I said was it is glib to suggest it is easy-- a simple choice-- for people to just lose weight. As if you could wake up one morning and decide, today I'm going to start being healthy and lose weight. And then go and do it, and become, after a time, normal looking. Then life continues as if you'd never been fat. That there's *nothing* else involved but getting off your fat ass and just doing it.
If it were that easy, wouldn't there be less fat people around?
Ideas like this are perpetuated by shows like the Biggest Loser. Don't you ever wonder what happens to the people on that show months, years afterward? How many of them do you think manage to keep the weight off? Or is it reasonable to think that they should work that hard every single day of the rest of their lives to stay as slim as they became? What happens when they have to go back to work for 8 hours a day?
These are the questions I suggest we ask instead of meekly accepting the fat mythos the media and the weight-loss industry presents for us.
Well with respect, a Wikipedia quote which merely apes the societal assumptions about obesity doesn't help the discussion. At least quote the actual study from whence the quote came. Let us judge that study on its scientific merits.
And don't get me started on the statistical problems of these studies, so many of which don't control for (or even investigate the role of!) other factors that might be related to weight gain or of having a frame conducive to being larger than average.
For example, from your quote alone: "excessive" caloric intake? What is that? What's excessive, anything over 2,000 calories? What about athletes? What about persons with a higher than average metabolism? Even the language is we use in these debates is unscientific. It's founded on assumptions, morally based, made about fat people. Fat is assumed to be bad and wrong because it is allegedly unhealthy. And yet, do we really know if it - being fat - is unhealthy? No, we don't. We know that many fat people tend to have heart problems, or diabetes. But are those conditions related to their weight, or are they related to the underlying behaviours or traits which caused their larger-than-average weight? No, we don't.
These issues began to occur to me when I was 17 years old and playing at a World Cup athletic event. I was 5'8", fit as a horse, with a six pack, and about 180 pounds. I had my BMI done and, if I recall correctly, I was rated "scientifically" as morbidly obese. What a joke. It reminded me that the BMI, the 2,000 calorie diet and all the assumptions these things and their kin are based on are all bunk. They are tautological in the sense that they can only be used on the very populations for which they were defined to be used: "normal" people. And when you think about it, what use at all is that?
We hate to think that we're not quite as clever and scientific as we think we are. It seems every day our latest golden theory is found to be false, or misleading, to be taken over by a new golden theory. Got a sprained ankle? Put ice on it. Raise it up. No, wait: put heat on it. No, wait: put ice on it, then put heat on it, alternating every 15 minutes. No, wait, don't elevate it at all-- it's better to let it swell up at first. Jeez, why do we put so much stock by these things?
It's inevitable that as our knowledge advances, our theories and understanding will change accordingly. But you'd think that we, knowing the vicissitudes of science and the difficulty in really isolating the factors we want to investigate, would know better than to make moral judgments based on our "scientific" understanding of the issues in the meantime. You'd think we'd be more open minded, and more willing to believe that perhaps our "science" is not the reliable crutch we think it is when it comes to justifying what would otherwise amount to completely unacceptable social behaviour, namely, discrimination.
The fact is that some parts inside us secretly like treating other people like shit. We especially enjoy having a "scientific" basis by which to justify judging others negatively and treating them poorly. Even when we have the sneaking suspicion that perhaps our scientific basis isn't as scientific as we think it is.
Even your post speaks of "fault" in relation to obesity. You speak of choice about changing their weight. What I'm asking you to re-think is not that there's no choice for fat people about their weight, rather, to re-think your underlying assumption that there's only one choice that should be made: to lose weight. That that's the right choice. The moral choice. That people who remain fat are morally wrong; are lazy; have no self-control; over-eat.
Why on earth is this modded troll? Troll does not equal "I do not agree."
Hear fricking hear. Thank you for posting this. I am horrified that this thread has turned into a fat-hating fest instead of a reasoned discussion of all the issues here. Leaving aside the really controversial issue of whether most people's weight is genetically determined and thus "their fault", and even whether your size should incur a negative moral judgment from those around you, for some illogical reason (maybe if you guys had universal medicare I would understand, but, you really don't!) , there has been a surprising dearth of critical thought in this threat regarding just how much airlines "policies" are motivated by profit riding on the acceptability of fat phobia than this nebulous "safety" concern. Have people seen the width of an airplane aisle lately?? I'm a 5'8" female of 140 pounds and I can barely pass through those things, let alone when one of the drink/food carts is completely blocking one. I'd just love to see the fricking pandemonium if the shit hit the fan while those carts were blocking both aisles (as they are 50% of the time) and people were trying to get out. Bullshit this policy is motivated by safety concerns! Bullshit! It's motivated by money!! It's just that fat phobia is one of the last remaining "acceptable" discriminations allowed in North America and they want their piece of it.
I vaguely recall a thread on Slashdot the other day where we discussed the pricing of eBooks. A lot of grief was being aired regarding the "unfair" $15 price point for eBooks. A lot of people thought it was B.S. that despite lower production costs for an eBook version, the print version and the eBook version were similarly priced. A few industry insiders had to remind us of the cardinal rule of capitalism: Everything is worth what its buyer will pay. So, if we force fat people to pay double for an airline seat, and give them no other choice, they're going to pay it, aren't they? The airlines may couch this policy in "safety" or what-not, but that is crap. Must we be reminded yet again that this is really about money?
If it's really about fuel costs, then every passenger would pay for their tickets BY WEIGHT. Including baggage. Airlines could easily provide a fixed # of smaller seats per plane for children, and larger seats for fat people. Airlines are very, very good at knowing the average demographics of their passengers. They could easily, easily do this, and in fact provide *added* safety for children and fat people by doing so. But they don't. Why would they, after all, when parents will pay full price for their half-sized children, and fat people will pay double? If you owned the airlines, would you change such a profitable policy? No way.
Ugh. The glib "just lose the weight" pseudo-argument. Yeah sure, all fat people are fat by choice, and, with a little elbow grease, could lose weight and be normal like everyone else. Goodness, and you probably call yourself a scientist. What's next in your view: black people can just scrub a little harder and get white? Oh wait, but being fat is a choice, right? Like being gay? Well a few rounds of jogging make some people lose some weight, so it must be the same for everyone. I know because I saw it on The Biggest Loser. Uh oh, look where this road is leading! Unscientific land!
Here's a little thought experiment: what if the average weight of an American citizen was, say, 250 pounds, but Southwest airlines decided to make its seats suitable (safety-wise) and comfortable for passengers with an average weight of 140 pounds. That way, they can shove 50% more seats into the same sized plane and thus make more profit. When a 250 pound passenger boards the plane, after having paid their money for their ticket, like everyone else, they are confronted publicly by an air hostess, who tells them that because of safety concerns, as per the airline's policy, they have two choices: (1) get off the plane and cancel their trip (probably thus losing money for hotels, rentals, perhaps losing their job or ruining their family's holiday), or (2) pay double for another seat. What choice would you make? What choice really IS there, assuming you can afford the second seat??
It is reasonably foreseeable that many North American passengers will be of a size that is too large for the average plane seat. Does this mean those people must pay for two seats? Or, does it mean that airlines should make a few extra-large sized seats? Or has the US become a nation where it's OK to assume everyone looks the same, and one where those who deviate from the norm (in many cases through no fault of their own) should pay an extra price to access the same services?
This crap would never go down in Canada. Thank God we have Human Rights legislation to prevent others from profiting from discriminatory practices.
Just because someone is fat isn't a license to make them feel like a pile of shit.
This would be a great opportunity for you to track out the "correlation is not causation" Slashdot meme. Even if just being fat were automatically unhealthy (which has not been proven, nor even suggested in isolation from all other factors, such as diet and exercise), it would not entitle those around to automatically be a fucking asshole to fat people. Such discriminatory behaviour is illogical, irrational, and unacceptable.
*whoosh*
OP, I think, is not disputing the strength of the just don't buy it position. What s/he's saying is that it's not the only option, not even the best option, and isn't the only glib (and annoying) reply to anyone who complains that the product is unsatisfactory. A better option than just not buying it, he says, is to provide feedback to the manufacturer as to why you're not buying it, so that the manufacturer can make a more measured and prompt response and re-release a product that actually serves your need. In this manner both parties are satisfied with the least expenditure and in the least time. That makes it the benefit-maximizing solution and thus superior.
I guess I'm only half kidding with this post...
Brilliant.
So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....
For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat .....
Oh, by the way-- Einstein WAS wrong :) God does indeed play dice.
"Spooky," no?
So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....
For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat .....
Goodness, gentlemen and ladies, I am astounded by the skepticism and nay-saying that is on this thread. Isn't anyone else actually inspired by what this person has done here? It sounds like the old American dream analogized into the field of science to me: despite the odds, the obstacles, the reputation of the problem for complexity, this person bravely took the problem on nonetheless and actually had a measure of success by coming up with a pretty damn good idea that nobody else did.
It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the Enterprise encounters that world full of genetically engineered humans... each person specifically bred for a task, nobody allowed to stray away from their "destined" field of work. Yet, they are hundreds of years behind un-genetically-engineered Earth technology for the very reason of their prejudice and entitlement syndrome. They think they are better qualified to do the job, so they never allow anyone else to have a go; never allow anyone to surprise them, never allow stray sparks of genius to infect their genetically engineered perfection. And lo and behold, in comes Geordi LaForge with his VISOR, which contains the technology they needed to solve their technical problem and save the day. All that was needed, right there in the fake eyes for a blind man - a source of inspiration they'd never have expected.
Please don't buy into the idea that nobody else could or should "do" science except those with a PhD or 18 articles published. Science is for everyone. It is a method, not a club. The very day we start evaluating peoples' ideas SOLELY on the basis of the person's status, as opposed to the merit of the idea, is the day we should just go ahead and shoot ourselves, because we have become idiots.
perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.
Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams? What about the other ~199 pages? What about the pages of block text? More importantly, why does the Voynich Manuscript flip between things derived from plants like gallic acid, oil and then return to naming the plants? Furthermore, I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like. Not like this. I mean, come on! Did Edith Sherwood ever stop to think that maybe -- similar to numerology in The Bible -- she'd be able to make words out of any strange text regardless of its true origin? Here's a real gem:
This brief sentence indicated that the use of anagrams should be investigated. This was further supported by reading Wikipedia’s report that anagrams were popular throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and that some 17th century astronomers, while engaged in verification of their discoveries, used anagrams to hide their ideas.
You found that on Wikipedia? Call Yale University, you've decoded it. Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts? Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me. This is the game that will be played with the Voynich Manuscript. Every so often people will claim to have 'decoded it' by offering up a small part of the manuscript which very imaginative minds have pulled together 10+ very very flimsy clues that point to some individual. The fact that there are so many coincidences will add weight to it being the real explanation. But it oddly won't work for 99% of the manuscript. Now if the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense. In fact, when someone figures it out, 99% of the manuscript will make sense. If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work. Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us. And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.
Remember when making criticisms of a work, one must consider both the audience intended for the work and the work's context. This piece was aimed at a low-tech audience, designed to explain the basic concepts of her discovery to the layman. It was published on the Internet as opposed to an academic journal. For those reasons, the tone, style, and sources cited are appropriate.
Eldavojohn, she uses a method of decryption that is similar to how the Rosetta Stone was decoded. The decoder of the Rosetta Stone was considered a genius. The method: you find a page or a section with proper names that can be identified, or just guessed, and then use that decoded portion to slowly decode the rest of the text. She used the page with herbs, vegetables and drawings because, as you mentioned, the rest of the block text gives no clue as to the subject matter of the text and therefore unlikely to yield the decrypt key.
Using Wikipedia as a source of inspiration to find the key to decryption isn't idiotic: it's inspired. Mentioning Wikipedia as a source of inspiration is not the same as citing it as an academic source. One is appropriate; one is not. And, with respect, this is not the type of academic project that a Wikipedia source detracts from. This is a problem to-be-solved, not a new theory of genetics or history that de facto relies on the reliabilit
Modifying the tax system to prefer American workers for employers would effectively be protectionism. It violates the free market economy and leads to higher transaction costs, and this higher consumption costs. If the U.S. economy weren't so heavily consumption based, this might not be a problem. Unfortunately, it is, which means that ironically, it would create a viscious circle driving up the price of goods and services, leading to the need to increase profit margins at the expense of the U.S. consumer, which, ultimately, would economically necessitate out-sourcing both labour and materials to other countries.
On the other hand, keeping the taxation system equal as between employees, the system is less of a roadblock to the natural flow of the market economy. Goods and services will be sourced where they are cheapest and no extra cost is passed to the consumer (which is at this point probably going to be a U.S. citizen).
Either the U.S. can use its technological power and efficiency to offer low or the lowest cost as a goods/services source, or, it can artificially inflate the cost of the goods it consumes. The answer is not in taxation or protectionism, it is in efficiency. That is a neutral vehicle that avoids this catch-22 effect.
Double bullshit. That article is one of the most unscientific, assumption-ridden pieces of obvious tripe I've ever read. I would have laughed out loud if I weren't too busy being horrified at how glibly persuasive the "arguments" would sound to anyone with an IQ under 80. Unfortunately, I would guess that to be about 98% of the site's readership.
You misunderstand the basic fabric of the legal system. Lawyers don't initiate lawsuits-- plaintiffs do. It's not a lawyer's fault that his client has a stupid case or wants to go to court over something inane. It's only his job to discern whether there is a legitimate cause of action under the law (even if it is extremely stupid, rests on a weird interpretation of the law, or has almost zero chance of success). So don't blame lawyers for stupid plaintiffs or stupid lawsuits.
Exactly! I mean, genetically, reproduction is the most important thing in life for a living being. So how do people find it so strange that we continue to pay a high premium for access to sex?
Poo-pooing prostitution (the idea) seems so ridiculous in this light. It's a great idea for both parties. (Again, not in the modern world however... thanks to marginalisation of the sex trade).
Fundamental rule of economics: everything is worth what its buyer will pay. Hardly surprising that one of the first things a chimp tries to buy is sex. I forget Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but isn't it something like... food/water, shelter, SEX?
Makes sense to me.