crux_

33 ms·

301.
by crux_ 17y ago
Also not trying to be snarky... but what's your point here? It seems to be an explanation as to why you personally find one scientific community trustworthy, but not another. Fair enough. But this: "excluded, shunned, de-funded, and ostraci
302.
by crux_ 17y ago
Sort of like when Stormfront invaded reddit? ;) I don't think so. People with a libertarian mindset, which is plenty consistent with a community of mostly US-based entrepreneurs, would naturally find the policy recommendations that follow f
303.
by crux_ 17y ago
So, if these 'scientists' were trying to get a publisher fired and a journal shut down for publishing a paper that cast doubt on the scientific consensus, would that be pretty damning in and of itself? I don't think so: That was the exact s
304.
by crux_ 17y ago
Thank you for the opportunity to (re-)make my point. Think if someone had said these exact words about climate sceptics: "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." Outrageous, un
305.
by crux_ 17y ago
You think allegations of peer-review manipulation don't exist for vaccines or intelligent design? http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/Scientific-Censorship-o... (The allegations of censorship far pre-date the email leak -- the leaked ema
306.
by crux_ 17y ago
To answer your questions: Probably yes, and certainly yes. The intelligent design movement has made a whole documentary film about their systematic exclusion from the scientific process, for pete's sake! For a specific example, a biology jo
307.
by crux_ 17y ago
Fun thought experiment: What if this was an epidemiologist criticising the blogosphere for spreading non-peer-reviewed doubts about vaccine safety? Or an evolutionary biologist attacking intelligent design bloggers? I'm guessing that most p
308.
by crux_ 17y ago
If you're going to think about something, then please make the attempt to do so clearly . The standards you are applying to 'communism' here are ones that would damn 'capitalism' as well -- there have been plenty of atrocities committed in
309.
by crux_ 17y ago
One possibility from the video (n.b. I had it muted): Requiring a photograph of the buyer, as well as their signature, might help quite a bit with fraud prevention...
310.
by crux_ 17y ago
Yes, it's 'open' -- not arguing that, nor would I dispute that Mono is far from perfect. [1] But, like so many FF projects: is this the cart, or the horse? In other words, this feels more like a promotional project for the consulting firm a
311.
by crux_ 17y ago
> My (admittedly naive) understanding of TCO is that it involves turning tail recursion into a loop This is close, but not the full story. TCO turns tail recursion into a GOTO (well, a goto-with-arguments). In the case of a single funct
312.
by crux_ 17y ago
Neat technology, but, even as a rather serious O'Caml fan, even going so far as to use it in production ;), I tend to avoid the FF consultancy because of things like this: > If you would like to keep up to date with respect to HLVM deve
313.
by crux_ 17y ago
What you say sounds nice to people who share a certain ideology about capitalism. I'm even (at least sometimes) one of those people. But that won't stop me from pointing out your straw-man here: Whoever said that wealth (in the "making thin
314.
by crux_ 17y ago
Yes, please! Signed, foldl
315.
by crux_ 17y ago
I'm going to guess, right about here: http://www.teeandcakes.com/blogosphere/
316.
by crux_ 17y ago
Rephrasing that point: if a corporation was really merely a group of individuals working collectively, why invent another word rather then reuse one of the many existing ones?
317.
by crux_ 17y ago
The limited liability granted to corporations is an excellent reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as a person. After all, they don't have the same responsibilities. But a more basic reason is that a corporation is not a person! I
318.
by crux_ 17y ago
The name for the type of argument used in the linked article/video is reductio ad absurdum (or maybe ad ridiculum ), and unlike ad homeneim , it is not inherently a fallacy. I think there is real merit in challenging, even via theatre,
319.
by crux_ 17y ago
I don't think jerf drew any distinction between intellectuals and ideologues at all, not even in an attempt to argue for causation -- it's generous of you to assume he did. To rephrase the grandparent comment's line of reasoning in a more s
320.
by crux_ 17y ago
I miss the old kuro5hin too, you guys. ( http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/5/31/7738/22985 ) Edit to add link to this, referenced in the comments there, and reasonably awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=281ax7Ovlsg
321.
by crux_ 17y ago
It seems you are conflating (intentionally?) "intellectual" with "ideologue". Also, what can this following sentence possibly be but doublethink? > Distrusting intellectualism is not a sign of irrationality; in fact I'd go so far as to
322.
by crux_ 17y ago
I think the point was that the current situation is acceptable . I can't agree with that.
323.
by crux_ 17y ago
> This article suggests that perhaps the way to get out of the recession is to force people to accept reality. In other words, the way to get "out of the recession" is to redefine the current situation as normal, rather than to actually
324.
by crux_ 17y ago
> your mistake is in believing that all work is worth enough to live on -- but it isn't. I think it's more a moral belief that anyone who works ought to be able to support themselves by doing so.
325.
by crux_ 17y ago
The problem remains even after you click "about." :( Edit to add: Oh -- the submitted link is -not- to the home page, but rather a subpage.
326.
by crux_ 17y ago
At this point, we're about 10,000 miles away from the actual article -- which did not contain a single mention of overall education quality, not one fact about how education has changed over time, precious little evidence for or against wid
327.
by crux_ 17y ago
Sure. But this is all supposition dressed up to sound convincing. Here's some of my own, hopefully somewhat convincing as well: Why can't our girls learn math? Because they are surrounded by a society where math is frightening black magic,
328.
by crux_ 17y ago
Have an axe to grind, don't you? It's too late to get into a debate, but suffice to say that everything you're bringing up are concepts you carried into the article and were not mentioned, even tangentially, there.
329.
by crux_ 17y ago
How do you know? A could be mentally ill, and thus innocent. A could be an undercover officer, or shooting in self defence against a threat you didn't see. And so on. You can say "in my opinion, A is a murderer" -- but the only time you sho
330.
by crux_ 17y ago
Then you say you saw A shoot B. What you don't say is that A is a murderer. (Note: I really despise the use of the word "actors" in the article, though. It's less wordy than "alleged theives" or whatever, but it could also have been omitt

More ›