Elisha

Members
  • Content

    3,164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Elisha

  1. Let's see if this can stay here and not for some reason get moved to SC. Here goes.... Does it bug many here how the meaning of words get corrupted and changed over time? Is there anywhere to find out a loose timeline of this? Yes, we can talk about words like "gay" or "supper" (vs dinner), but that's old hat (hmmm...I picked up that phrase from someone. I never used to say that). I'm really more into the changing meaning (or corruption or wrong usage) I hear of words in the business world. The typical business bullsh*t bingo buzzwords, yes. The two that bother me the most from my present job is "velocity" and "variance". Velocity has always been related to objects in actual motion - explaining the physics of something. Using velocity in place of rate of sale just bugs the crap out of me. For example, in response to asking why a certain price promotional discount is requested, I get, "To increase velocities." I mean WFT people!! The accounting world using variance instead of difference bugs me. A variance would be a difference squared, but maybe this usage of variance has more merit. Chime in people!
  2. And this comment has WHAT to do with Malia being treated badly?
  3. CLEANS THEIR DATA!!! See, science is all a scam! Bee prepared for that quote to be used by some denier in your field to argue that all your data is cooked, and you're so brazen about it that you post the evidence on-line. There's a huge gap between that sensationalist reactionary sentiment and the Ivory Tower "Science is pure, perfect, and the answer to everything" sentiment. I think the biggest issue here is extreme polarizing and reactionary defensiveness here, preventing any critical thinking from taking place. In summary, getting back to the OP, the posted article is close to the "science is a scam!" alarmism, but at least the First Things article points out problems that can be resolved. Thanks, GeorgiaDon for a nice measured reply.
  4. Age discrimination!!!!!!!!!!! There's laws against that shit. Is there against mental incompetence regardless of the "cause"?
  5. The internal combustion engine did not get 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars and fail. Also, it might be worth noting that BOTH solar cells and the internal combustion engine were invented in the 1800s. The one that works is powering the world the one that doesn't, is a government subsidized fantasy. It looks like the company failed because solar cells are now so successful that their price has dropped too much to support their business model. I don't see any reference to the 1.5 billion you speak of, but even if it's true it was money well spent. This is just another sign of the energy revolution and the winding down of older dirtier technologies. Deadenders will delight as are fooled into thinking they are right. Meantime the world marches by, leaving them so far behind they get confused. Shame on those people who are able to live off the grid and deny PG&E it's rightful revenue!
  6. McCain is 80 years old (or will be soon). Time to retire anyway (and should have already anyway).
  7. Since he doesn't have the nomination...and is a longshot, I just see it as a "thank you for sharing". And what nolhtairt said.
  8. (quoting a post from the locked crosspost thread) But according to Jeb Corliss, skydiving is like walking across the street to get a muffin! Totally safe! (Unless one considers getting hit by a car crossing the street more dangerous than rollercoasters.)
  9. I read/scanned it. The piece had an agenda. Exactly the problem with scientific articles that the author was complaining about. So what if (YOU think) it had an agenda? Was the author wrong about many of his statements? Sounds more like an "appeal to motive" type of Red Herring fallacy because you just don't feel like debating. The 111 mentioned intellectual laziness - true about the article the OP posted. But hard to say about the First Things article.
  10. But that assumes those implementing a process allow the data to logically confirm/deny hypotheses and reach conclusions (or allow things to be inconclusive) and not fudge results to "prove" a prior assumptions. My point was that you don't have to rely on "those implementing the process." The process is for you. Sure, Alice can lie to Bob about what is inside the box she's holding. But Bob can also just take the box and look inside of it. The entire premise behind the OP relies on mental laziness and feigns reliance on others. Science is an interactive thing. Get involved if you think scientists are lying to you. Prove them wrong. Or just bitch about it and satisfy your angst by reading shitty opinion pieces. (Note, the "you" used in this post is the generic you, not necessarily directed at the post I'm responding to) I first read the First Things article about a week ago, as a 'IRL' friend of mine posted it on FB and personally knows the author, who studied Mathematics at Yale. He seems to raise a bunch of valid issues. Besides dishonesty, mistakes, prejudice, etc, just the simple failure to retract or publicize mistakes (e.g. when a Parachutist article has a false statement or attributes a photo, the "correction" is hardly noticed in a subsequent issue since it is tucked into the corner of a page). You (actually both you personally and the royal "you") can't honestly expect the average person really get involved and prove scientists wrong. One needs become qualified and work in a particular field to even really question many of these studies with any sort of credibility. The article in the OP now is just some journalist who writes a bunch of articles on various things and likes to bloviate. Yawn. I don't disagree that it's a shitty opinion piece. Has anyone here who disagrees actually read the linked to First Things article? I know this is SC, but I thought many of us prefer to actually criticize the content and not the person (but maybe I expect too much).
  11. And btw, I think that in most situations when "findings go against their beliefs", "beliefs" in this case is not "religious beliefs" but a priori hypotheses that researcher wants to prove true.
  12. If only there was some kind of process that people could use to reach conclusions logically without needing to involve beliefs. But that assumes those implementing a process allow the data to logically confirm/deny hypotheses and reach conclusions (or allow things to be inconclusive) and not fudge results to "prove" a prior assumptions. Yes, of course...one would assume or hope that all these scientists are honest with themselves...but I guess failed expirements, inconclusive evidence, etc doesn't earn grant$, is newsworthy, gets published, etc.
  13. Just a hunch, but maybe Keith Wyatt? For some reason the yellow shirt looks familiar. Skybytch could definitely yay/nay on that.
  14. I cut a piece of old line off so my roommate could hold a pork roast together. Never mind that they were a bit dirty though. This was a couple years ago now.
  15. Discuss (if you want). Just saw this that someone posted on FB. “People in urban America have got to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns, and are law-abiding people; that’s the truth,” Sanders said. “People in rural America have got to understand that in an urban area, guns mean something very, very different. There have to be some compromises on both sides, and I don’t apologize for that vote,” Sanders said, referring to his vote on protecting gun manufacturers from being sued.
  16. No, I do not want either Trump or Hillary - they're both awful. Now that THAT is out of the way... What are each of their national polling numbers though? Isn't Hillary still ahead of Bernie by a few points (equalling a couple million voters)? Same for Trump over Cruz? Yes, the superdelegates for Hillary (as reported) looks grossly unfair. But except for small states like Wyoming, are the pledged delegate totals that far off of up to date results?
  17. He's a politician - not surprising. Just like the guy below is a politician too: http://abc7news.com/news/former-state-senator-leland-yee-sentenced-to-5-years/1216921/
  18. I can't believe I listened to nearly an hour of that silliness. Oh, well - at least I got a real perspective of the nut jobs there. I just hope they eventually give up and stop bother Mile-Hi.
  19. I don't think any candidates do a whole lot of camping.