• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:33
CEST 03:33
KST 10:33
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202552RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams7Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 697 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 295

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 293 294 295 296 297 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
June 21 2013 19:26 GMT
#5881
On June 22 2013 04:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
Some Disabled Workers Paid Just Pennies an Hour

One of the nation's best-known charities is paying disabled workers as little as 22 cents an hour, thanks to a 75-year-old legal loophole that critics say needs to be closed.

Goodwill Industries, a multibillion-dollar company whose executives make six-figure salaries, is among the nonprofit groups permitted to pay thousands of disabled workers far less than minimum wage because of a federal law known as Section 14 (c). Labor Department records show that some Goodwill workers in Pennsylvania earned wages as low as 22, 38 and 41 cents per hour in 2011.

"If they really do pay the CEO of Goodwill three-quarters of a million dollars, they certainly can pay me more than they're paying," said Harold Leigland, who is legally blind and hangs clothes at a Goodwill in Great Falls, Montana for less than minimum wage.

"It's a question of civil rights," added his wife, Sheila, blind from birth, who quit her job at the same Goodwill store when her already low wage was cut further. "I feel like a second-class citizen. And I hate it."

Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed in 1938, allows employers to obtain special minimum wage certificates from the Department of Labor. The certificates give employers the right to pay disabled workers according to their abilities, with no bottom limit to the wage.

Most, but not all, special wage certificates are held by nonprofit organizations like Goodwill that then set up their own so-called "sheltered workshops" for disabled employees, where employees typically perform manual tasks like hanging clothes. ...

Link

Not sure what to make of that. As far as I can tell you are still able to collect disability benefits while working, so there's that.

Sort of. If it's social security disability, one can work for 3 years up to an income of 1,040$ for non-blind and 1,740$ for the blind. I'm not sure about after that, but, if the social security website is any indication, there is a cutoff time during which you can no longer receive income of any kind associated with work. If we're talking workers comp or private disability insurance, that's going to depend heavily on the state and specific rules of the policies in question. This website is pretty helpful.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 21 2013 23:08 GMT
#5882
On June 21 2013 23:38 Klondikebar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 21 2013 10:02 coverpunch wrote:
Nah, arguing about the science is a red herring because we always have to work with imperfect and very temporary information.

And even without climate change, I don't think it's controversial to say we should always be trying to improve efficiency and reduce pollution.

The difficult question is the mass psychology of changing people's behavior to be less wasteful and more efficient. In general, the biggest hurdle for environmentalists has always been persuading people to do something they don't want to do. People who love cars aren't going to give up driving for the sake of the environment, for example.


This is true in a technical sense but not a very meaningful one. We can work with near perfect and long term information to make very accurate predictions. Arguing that science is flawed because our information is not perfect is rather silly. And it's setting an unrealistically high standard of proof for an empirical field.

You're aware that science advances all the time as we gather new information and that pretty much everything we think we know today will eventually be replaced by new theories, yes?

The empirical field has to be unrealistically high. Impossible to deny is the standard if you're trying to persuade scientists and particularly the public to give up a theory in place and replace it with a new model.

Science is always flawed. That's why we keep doing it.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 22 2013 01:26 GMT
#5883
A bipartisan trio of senators is nearing a compromise on student loans that has the potential to break the gridlock before Stafford loan interest rates for million of students double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1.

The framework that is being negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Angus King (I-VT) would tie the rate to the 10-year Treasury note plus one additional percentage point, Senate sources familiar with the discussions tell TPM.

The deal isn't yet final. The senators are expecting a report Friday from the Congressional Budget Office on how much the plan would cost, one source said.

The idea of tying the loan rate to the market was proposed by President Obama in his fiscal 2014 budget. Republicans support the idea. Top Senate Democrats dislike it. The yield on the 10-year T-bill is currently 2.48 percent.

A Senate Republican leadership aide described the bipartisan negotiations as "good news."

If Congress fails to take action, the average student loan borrower is poised to pay an additional $2,600 over a decade, according to a report Thursday by Congress's Joint Economic Committee.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
June 22 2013 01:43 GMT
#5884
I just graduated the other day. Pleeeaaase let this pass.
Writer
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
June 22 2013 01:50 GMT
#5885
On June 22 2013 10:43 Souma wrote:
I just graduated the other day. Pleeeaaase let this pass.

Doesn't it only qualify for new loans being issued?
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-22 02:47:03
June 22 2013 02:44 GMT
#5886
On June 22 2013 10:50 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2013 10:43 Souma wrote:
I just graduated the other day. Pleeeaaase let this pass.

Doesn't it only qualify for new loans being issued?


... don't do this to meeee.

Actually, I have no idea. I haven't talked to my loan issuer yet as I have a six-month grace period and would rather find a job before I start talking numbers with them.
Writer
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 22 2013 21:41 GMT
#5887
Confirming weeks of speculation, President Barack Obama said in a web video released Saturday that he is ready to unveil his "national plan" to address the threat of climate change.

Obama said he will lay out his strategy in a speech this Tuesday at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The speech is scheduled to begin at 1:35 p.m. ET.

"This is a serious challenge, but it's one uniquely suited to America's strengths," Obama said in the video. "We'll need scientists to design new fuels, farmers to grow them. We'll need engineers to devise new sources of energy. And businesses to make and sell them. We'll need workers to build the foundation for a clean energy economy. And we'll need all of our citizens to do our part to preserve God's creation for future generations."

Obama’s energy and climate adviser, Heather Zichal, said Wednesday that the President was readying plans to take on global warming. He has reportedly been telling Democratic donors that he is eager to address the environment in his second term, saying at a fundraiser last month that he doesn't "have much patience" for climate change deniers. Speaking Wednesday at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Obama hailed Germany and Europe for leading on climate change.

"There's no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change," Obama said, closing the minute-and-a-half long video. "But when it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can."


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Paljas
Profile Joined October 2011
Germany6926 Posts
June 22 2013 21:51 GMT
#5888
On June 23 2013 06:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Confirming weeks of speculation, President Barack Obama said in a web video released Saturday that he is ready to unveil his "national plan" to address the threat of climate change.

Obama said he will lay out his strategy in a speech this Tuesday at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The speech is scheduled to begin at 1:35 p.m. ET.

"This is a serious challenge, but it's one uniquely suited to America's strengths," Obama said in the video. "We'll need scientists to design new fuels, farmers to grow them. We'll need engineers to devise new sources of energy. And businesses to make and sell them. We'll need workers to build the foundation for a clean energy economy. And we'll need all of our citizens to do our part to preserve God's creation for future generations."

Obama’s energy and climate adviser, Heather Zichal, said Wednesday that the President was readying plans to take on global warming. He has reportedly been telling Democratic donors that he is eager to address the environment in his second term, saying at a fundraiser last month that he doesn't "have much patience" for climate change deniers. Speaking Wednesday at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Obama hailed Germany and Europe for leading on climate change.

"There's no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change," Obama said, closing the minute-and-a-half long video. "But when it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can."


Source

i expect to be disappointed.
TL+ Member
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 22 2013 21:54 GMT
#5889
It will be interesting to see if these are executive undertaking or just legislative proposals because if they are the latter the GOP will kill it minutes after the announcement.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 22 2013 22:15 GMT
#5890
The Washington Post is reporting that, “Obama will couch the effort not only in terms of the nation’s domestic priorities, but as a way to meet the administration’s international pledge to reduce the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels.”

A serious plan to achieve the 17% cut is considered by many to be the sine qua non for successful US engagement in international climate talks — although it is inadequate from the perspective of what climate science says is required to stay on the 2°C (3.6°F) warming path.

Analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, among others, makes clear that attaining the 17% cut without further Congressional action will require regulating pollution emissions at existing power plants.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-22 22:25:25
June 22 2013 22:24 GMT
#5891
On June 22 2013 08:08 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 21 2013 23:38 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 21 2013 10:02 coverpunch wrote:
Nah, arguing about the science is a red herring because we always have to work with imperfect and very temporary information.

And even without climate change, I don't think it's controversial to say we should always be trying to improve efficiency and reduce pollution.

The difficult question is the mass psychology of changing people's behavior to be less wasteful and more efficient. In general, the biggest hurdle for environmentalists has always been persuading people to do something they don't want to do. People who love cars aren't going to give up driving for the sake of the environment, for example.


This is true in a technical sense but not a very meaningful one. We can work with near perfect and long term information to make very accurate predictions. Arguing that science is flawed because our information is not perfect is rather silly. And it's setting an unrealistically high standard of proof for an empirical field.

You're aware that science advances all the time as we gather new information and that pretty much everything we think we know today will eventually be replaced by new theories, yes?

The empirical field has to be unrealistically high. Impossible to deny is the standard if you're trying to persuade scientists and particularly the public to give up a theory in place and replace it with a new model.

Science is always flawed. That's why we keep doing it.

This isn't really true. Most of the grounded "theories" we are working with right now are not likely to be completely replaced at any point, but merely expanded upon and clarified. I mean, a theory like evolution has so much evidence supporting it that virtually everything we know about biology would have to be false in order for it to be proven wrong. Now, the details of how the evolutionary process unfolded are likely to be filled in as we discover more anomalies and compensate for them, but the groundwork of the theory is there. Climate change isn't as well-grounded as evolution, but it has a pretty large body of evidence pointing to it. Even if some parts of this evidence fall under the category of imperfect/temporary evidence, it seems very unlikely that all the evidence we possess would turn out to be completely wrong.

This is why accuracy in science is achieved by repeatable experiments. It isn't the quality of any one experiment that matters, but that after doing the experiment over and over a hundred times, whatever chance there was that the first one was a fluke is weighed against the success of later experiments. Obviously, it's not difficult to see how a hundred flukes in a row is astronomically unlikely, especially if methodology is carefully inspected and accounted for. Really, the only way we're likely to see evidence thrown out is if someone points out a damning flaw in the methodology that couches an unstated assumption which, if removed, kills the theory. That probably isn't going to happen in major theories because there are so many pieces of evidence and codependent results that operate independently of each other.

Like, yes, Newton's classical mechanics were "wrong" in a strict sense, but we didn't just throw out the theory. We took the parts of it that worked and developed QM to account for the rest. And as things go, Newtonian mechanics are pretty much sufficient for nearly every everyday task that comes to mind.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-22 22:56:15
June 22 2013 22:51 GMT
#5892
On June 23 2013 07:24 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2013 08:08 coverpunch wrote:
On June 21 2013 23:38 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 21 2013 10:02 coverpunch wrote:
Nah, arguing about the science is a red herring because we always have to work with imperfect and very temporary information.

And even without climate change, I don't think it's controversial to say we should always be trying to improve efficiency and reduce pollution.

The difficult question is the mass psychology of changing people's behavior to be less wasteful and more efficient. In general, the biggest hurdle for environmentalists has always been persuading people to do something they don't want to do. People who love cars aren't going to give up driving for the sake of the environment, for example.


This is true in a technical sense but not a very meaningful one. We can work with near perfect and long term information to make very accurate predictions. Arguing that science is flawed because our information is not perfect is rather silly. And it's setting an unrealistically high standard of proof for an empirical field.

You're aware that science advances all the time as we gather new information and that pretty much everything we think we know today will eventually be replaced by new theories, yes?

The empirical field has to be unrealistically high. Impossible to deny is the standard if you're trying to persuade scientists and particularly the public to give up a theory in place and replace it with a new model.

Science is always flawed. That's why we keep doing it.

This isn't really true. Most of the grounded "theories" we are working with right now are not likely to be completely replaced at any point, but merely expanded upon and clarified. I mean, a theory like evolution has so much evidence supporting it that virtually everything we know about biology would have to be false in order for it to be proven wrong. Now, the details of how the evolutionary process unfolded are likely to be filled in as we discover more anomalies and compensate for them, but the groundwork of the theory is there. Climate change isn't as well-grounded as evolution, but it has a pretty large body of evidence pointing to it. Even if some parts of this evidence fall under the category of imperfect/temporary evidence, it seems very unlikely that all the evidence we possess would turn out to be completely wrong.

This is why accuracy in science is achieved by repeatable experiments. It isn't the quality of any one experiment that matters, but that after doing the experiment over and over a hundred times, whatever chance there was that the first one was a fluke is weighed against the success of later experiments. Obviously, it's not difficult to see how a hundred flukes in a row is astronomically unlikely, especially if methodology is carefully inspected and accounted for. Really, the only way we're likely to see evidence thrown out is if someone points out a damning flaw in the methodology that couches an unstated assumption which, if removed, kills the theory. That probably isn't going to happen in major theories because there are so many pieces of evidence and codependent results that operate independently of each other.

Like, yes, Newton's classical mechanics were "wrong" in a strict sense, but we didn't just throw out the theory. We took the parts of it that worked and developed QM to account for the rest. And as things go, Newtonian mechanics are pretty much sufficient for nearly every everyday task that comes to mind.

No, you're very confused. The evidence is not wrong. The facts are the facts. But the models we use to account for those facts can be replaced.

Climate change has a history behind it, a history that can't be reasonably altered. But it is also making predictions about what the climate will look like in 2100, predictions that make up the basis for prescribing substantial changes to the economy and society. It is the predictions (i.e. the model) that have to change if the data over time does not conform to the predictions being made.

And yes, this happens frequently. We don't change the fundamental theory of evolution, but we add new species and our understanding of the mechanisms are updated with regularity. The big things in science stand the test of time, which is why we have things like the periodic table and the laws of themodynamics that have been around for a long time as the basis of our understanding. But so has Christianity, Britain's monarchy, and guns. Being around for a long time is not proof that it will exist forever and certainly not without change.
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
June 23 2013 02:07 GMT
#5893
On June 23 2013 07:51 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 23 2013 07:24 Shiori wrote:
On June 22 2013 08:08 coverpunch wrote:
On June 21 2013 23:38 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 21 2013 10:02 coverpunch wrote:
Nah, arguing about the science is a red herring because we always have to work with imperfect and very temporary information.

And even without climate change, I don't think it's controversial to say we should always be trying to improve efficiency and reduce pollution.

The difficult question is the mass psychology of changing people's behavior to be less wasteful and more efficient. In general, the biggest hurdle for environmentalists has always been persuading people to do something they don't want to do. People who love cars aren't going to give up driving for the sake of the environment, for example.


This is true in a technical sense but not a very meaningful one. We can work with near perfect and long term information to make very accurate predictions. Arguing that science is flawed because our information is not perfect is rather silly. And it's setting an unrealistically high standard of proof for an empirical field.

You're aware that science advances all the time as we gather new information and that pretty much everything we think we know today will eventually be replaced by new theories, yes?

The empirical field has to be unrealistically high. Impossible to deny is the standard if you're trying to persuade scientists and particularly the public to give up a theory in place and replace it with a new model.

Science is always flawed. That's why we keep doing it.

This isn't really true. Most of the grounded "theories" we are working with right now are not likely to be completely replaced at any point, but merely expanded upon and clarified. I mean, a theory like evolution has so much evidence supporting it that virtually everything we know about biology would have to be false in order for it to be proven wrong. Now, the details of how the evolutionary process unfolded are likely to be filled in as we discover more anomalies and compensate for them, but the groundwork of the theory is there. Climate change isn't as well-grounded as evolution, but it has a pretty large body of evidence pointing to it. Even if some parts of this evidence fall under the category of imperfect/temporary evidence, it seems very unlikely that all the evidence we possess would turn out to be completely wrong.

This is why accuracy in science is achieved by repeatable experiments. It isn't the quality of any one experiment that matters, but that after doing the experiment over and over a hundred times, whatever chance there was that the first one was a fluke is weighed against the success of later experiments. Obviously, it's not difficult to see how a hundred flukes in a row is astronomically unlikely, especially if methodology is carefully inspected and accounted for. Really, the only way we're likely to see evidence thrown out is if someone points out a damning flaw in the methodology that couches an unstated assumption which, if removed, kills the theory. That probably isn't going to happen in major theories because there are so many pieces of evidence and codependent results that operate independently of each other.

Like, yes, Newton's classical mechanics were "wrong" in a strict sense, but we didn't just throw out the theory. We took the parts of it that worked and developed QM to account for the rest. And as things go, Newtonian mechanics are pretty much sufficient for nearly every everyday task that comes to mind.

No, you're very confused. The evidence is not wrong. The facts are the facts. But the models we use to account for those facts can be replaced.

Climate change has a history behind it, a history that can't be reasonably altered. But it is also making predictions about what the climate will look like in 2100, predictions that make up the basis for prescribing substantial changes to the economy and society. It is the predictions (i.e. the model) that have to change if the data over time does not conform to the predictions being made.

And yes, this happens frequently. We don't change the fundamental theory of evolution, but we add new species and our understanding of the mechanisms are updated with regularity. The big things in science stand the test of time, which is why we have things like the periodic table and the laws of themodynamics that have been around for a long time as the basis of our understanding. But so has Christianity, Britain's monarchy, and guns. Being around for a long time is not proof that it will exist forever and certainly not without change.

You're over-estimating the degree to which models are "replaced." Scientific models are rarely replaced wholesale when it comes to important/influential/useful models (unless some fatal and egregious flaw is discovered...but usually those kinds of models die fairly fast) they're simply reworked or expanded. Do you seriously think that we're going to throw out the entire standard model if we come up with a working theory of quantum gravity? No! We're just going to tweak the standard model to mesh with what we learned about gravity. Nothing more and nothing less.

The difference between modern science and the things you listed is that science has a method. Those others were simply popularity contests (I say this as a Christian. Christianity may be what I believe, but its propagation was not science, nor proof of its truth). The scientific method has scarcely changed in principle since it was introduced, and therefore so long as it exists I expect that theories will continue to be proposed that are reasonable and testable. If they survive repeated tests, as all of our present major, well-accepted theories have, then it's unlikely that they will be replaced.

I feel like we basically agree, but that we're quibbling over semantics. I don't think scientific reasoning that survives peer review and endures for decades in the modern era is ever really "replaced," per se, but merely reinterpreted or expanded on in later works. Even though we add new mechanisms/species to evolution, it's unlikely that any alteration will ever be so massive so as to completely alter the way we presume the evolutionary process works. Yes, we don't know precisely which factors influence evolution the most, or precisely where organism X originated from, but we have the basic tenets of evolution qua evolution down pat. This is a big deal when you consider how tenuous the proposal was in Darwin's day!
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-23 02:51:32
June 23 2013 02:49 GMT
#5894
You need to go back and review the history of science. All of the evidence of the last 150 years of scientific history argues against what you're saying. The scientific method has in fact changed quite a bit over that period, especially as the practice of science has become more professionalized and institutionalized. Incorporating statistics on a widespread basis started within your parents' lifetime, for example.

We look at many issues in very different prisms of theories than we did even a generation ago. I would clarify my position that these things are glacial shifts, not outright revolutions. It took centuries for alchemy to die out, long after it was clear that chemistry was a more rigorous and accurate way of looking at things. We don't just throw up our hands and decide Newton is out, Einstein is in. What makes for an influential and great scientist is that the tone and tenor of the entire conversation may change, for which those scientists usually win the Nobel Prize, but old habits die hard.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
June 23 2013 03:05 GMT
#5895
scientific models are replaced by better scientific models that are backwards compatible and account for past facts. this is different from a model being wrong, and it doesn't support skepticism about science in general.

basically it's not about proving current science wrong, distrusting it etc. it's about doing better science and overriding the current theories after you have developed better ones.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-23 03:16:52
June 23 2013 03:16 GMT
#5896
I don't want to be one of those conspiracy people but some events are too coincidental.

Hours before dying in a fiery car crash, award-winning journalist Michael Hastings sent an email to his colleagues, warning that federal authorities were interviewing his friends and that he needed to go "off the rada[r]" for a bit.

The email was sent around 1 p.m. on Monday, June 17. At 4:20 a.m. the following morning, Hastings died when his Mercedes, traveling at high speeds, smashed into a tree and caught on fire. He was 33.

Hastings sent the email to staff at BuzzFeed, where he was employed, but also blind-copied a friend, Staff Sgt. Joseph Biggs, on the message. Biggs, who Hastings met in 2008 when he was embedded in his unit in Afghanistan, forwarded the email to KTLA, who posted it online on Saturday.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 23 2013 03:46 GMT
#5897
I would use the sports motto on this one: nothing good ever happens after 2 AM.
Djabanete
Profile Blog Joined May 2008
United States2786 Posts
June 23 2013 04:03 GMT
#5898
On June 23 2013 11:49 coverpunch wrote:
You need to go back and review the history of science. All of the evidence of the last 150 years of scientific history argues against what you're saying. The scientific method has in fact changed quite a bit over that period, especially as the practice of science has become more professionalized and institutionalized. Incorporating statistics on a widespread basis started within your parents' lifetime, for example.

We look at many issues in very different prisms of theories than we did even a generation ago. I would clarify my position that these things are glacial shifts, not outright revolutions. It took centuries for alchemy to die out, long after it was clear that chemistry was a more rigorous and accurate way of looking at things. We don't just throw up our hands and decide Newton is out, Einstein is in. What makes for an influential and great scientist is that the tone and tenor of the entire conversation may change, for which those scientists usually win the Nobel Prize, but old habits die hard.

Just in passing through this thread, I'm amused that you keep agreeing with Shiori at the same time as saying he's confused and needs to go back and review.
May the BeSt man win.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 23 2013 04:29 GMT
#5899
I'm not agreeing with him (?). We're ending up with the same broad strokes, but I think Shiori's approach and logic is very flawed. Which makes a big difference with where we end up in regards to our respect for climate change science.
Adreme
Profile Joined June 2011
United States5574 Posts
June 23 2013 05:21 GMT
#5900
On June 23 2013 12:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't want to be one of those conspiracy people but some events are too coincidental.

Show nested quote +
Hours before dying in a fiery car crash, award-winning journalist Michael Hastings sent an email to his colleagues, warning that federal authorities were interviewing his friends and that he needed to go "off the rada[r]" for a bit.

The email was sent around 1 p.m. on Monday, June 17. At 4:20 a.m. the following morning, Hastings died when his Mercedes, traveling at high speeds, smashed into a tree and caught on fire. He was 33.

Hastings sent the email to staff at BuzzFeed, where he was employed, but also blind-copied a friend, Staff Sgt. Joseph Biggs, on the message. Biggs, who Hastings met in 2008 when he was embedded in his unit in Afghanistan, forwarded the email to KTLA, who posted it online on Saturday.


Source


I think that they aren't unrelated in that he was nervous and thus took a bad risk and crashed his car. I don't think he was part of a secret FBI assassination plot which is what I was thinking article was trying to suggest.
Prev 1 293 294 295 296 297 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 9h 27m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 270
RuFF_SC2 79
StarCraft: Brood War
sSak 115
NaDa 71
Sexy 62
Icarus 4
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1145
League of Legends
JimRising 561
Counter-Strike
Coldzera 248
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe278
Other Games
summit1g12969
tarik_tv7684
Day[9].tv753
shahzam734
ViBE241
C9.Mang0236
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 116
• davetesta44
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 32
• Azhi_Dahaki7
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• Day9tv753
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
9h 27m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
12h 27m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 8h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 12h
CSO Cup
1d 14h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 16h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.