Slightly context-free quote? And true, war was 'forced' on Hitler in 1939 - *after* he'd started invading half of Europe and broken most of the Treaty of Versailles.
You would only capitalise 'Judge' at the start of a sentence, when addressing one directly, or when naming a specific one. It is perfectly correct to say "The presiding judge on the case was Judge Judy".
I'm no fan of objectivism here, but really, so long as what someone does is generally legal and moral, what do their particular beliefs have to do with their ability to run a business? You may 'hate' someone for being 'a baby-killer' because they support abortion, but it doesn't mean they are suddenly unable to run a business - just that it's a business you may choose to not support (like many here feel about the MAFIAA).
Re: Re: Einstein didn't publish a theory of relativity
The very simple difference is that science makes predictions that CAN BE TESTED and is falsifiable. No religion can do that. Claiming that people 'believing' in science, no matter how strongly, qualifies any science as 'a religion' is seriously moving the goalposts. So little children have the 'Santa religion'? What about 'Tooth-fairyism' and 'The Grand Church of the Easter Bunny'?
Arguments like these, while they do have some good philosophical elements, largely boil down to people who have issues with science trying to drag it down to the level of religion. Possibly there are philisophical issues with science, but in the end, it WORKS, and unlike religion generally, it self-corrects and advances. Not since the early days of Islam have I seen any religion trying to actually advance science and the knowledge of Man.
Yes science is only a tool, but it's a damn effective one, and for many of us it's infinitely better than authoritarian hand-me-downs from the Bronze Age.
You can't complain that science is no use because it's not perfect - that's the point of science. We learn, we add to it, and we develop new ideas and theories.
I've also noticed a lot of science-deniers fixate on "what ideology is needed for funding", conveniently ignoring that many of the 'anti-science' positions are equally well-funded, if not more so. Science funding is not some sinecure for life, where one has to just publish one thing and lay back in comfort (join the RIAA for that). Science requires justifying everything you do to people who also know the topic, and relies heavily on being published, which only happens reliably if you *convince* people of being correct. It's not logic games or appeals to authority like religious apologetics and debate often are. Unlike religion (or even philosophy), Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, especially not 'right now'.
Gravity happens. Evolution happens. In this sense, they are factual statements of what happens about us. There are hypotheses and (scientfic) theories about these which need investigated, but it doesn't invalidate it. As they are different sciences, there are differences in the levels of these. Gravity is more observable than Evolution, but we probably have better theories (and more evidence of mechanisms) of Evolution.
Natural selection is just one element of evolution (see Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Just because you can subdivide Evolution, and some bits are better understood than others, doesn't mean you can invalidate it as an incredibly powerful description of historical, current and future life any more than doubts about black holes invalidate the ability of an airplane to fly.
You really have an f***ed up system there. Why not take a leaf out of the NRA playbook and arm all doctors and nurses too, so they keep a steady supply of 'customers'? Maybe the medical industry is bankrolling the NRA?
While they're at it, they can keep pushing AGW denialism, so more extreme weather will harm more people too. I'm just surprised the Big Medicine conspiracy isn't pushing Romneycare so that more people can 'afford' their tender mercies?
AS usual, I am thankful for living in my 'socialist heaven' that is the Tory wasteland I inhabit.
At best it's the store owners suspecting that some people have crack in their pockets, but they have no way to be sure. Unless they have some legal duty to report anyone and everyone to the police on pure suspicion... they don't.
I'm pretty sure that anybody's motivation to spend money is because they have to, or it gives them something that they want. So what is wrong with something being free at the point of use (think OTA TV) but paying is possible for a 'better' experience (think HBO)?
Plenty of products are 'free' and do quite well - because they are selling or buying something else (such as your attention).
On the post: So It's Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing... Water Balloons
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: just love you command of english
On the post: Quack Professor Releases Dumbest Violent Video Game Theory Ever
Re: Re: Re: Re: Over 100C!!!
On the post: How Low Can Drones Go?
Re: It's not that hard
Just try to keep the warhead level down.
And remember, if it gets one inch out of your yard, your neighbour might deploy his Super-Targetted Anti-Random Whack-A-Robot System.
On the post: NYC Says Renting Out Your Place Via Airbnb Is Running An Illegal Hotel
Re: Re: Re:
I'm no fan of objectivism here, but really, so long as what someone does is generally legal and moral, what do their particular beliefs have to do with their ability to run a business? You may 'hate' someone for being 'a baby-killer' because they support abortion, but it doesn't mean they are suddenly unable to run a business - just that it's a business you may choose to not support (like many here feel about the MAFIAA).
On the post: Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated]
Re: No Nutella for me
On the post: Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: TIL...
On the post: Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: TIL...
On the post: DailyDirt: Crackpots Versus Real Scientists
Re: Re: Einstein didn't publish a theory of relativity
Arguments like these, while they do have some good philosophical elements, largely boil down to people who have issues with science trying to drag it down to the level of religion. Possibly there are philisophical issues with science, but in the end, it WORKS, and unlike religion generally, it self-corrects and advances. Not since the early days of Islam have I seen any religion trying to actually advance science and the knowledge of Man.
Yes science is only a tool, but it's a damn effective one, and for many of us it's infinitely better than authoritarian hand-me-downs from the Bronze Age.
You can't complain that science is no use because it's not perfect - that's the point of science. We learn, we add to it, and we develop new ideas and theories.
I've also noticed a lot of science-deniers fixate on "what ideology is needed for funding", conveniently ignoring that many of the 'anti-science' positions are equally well-funded, if not more so. Science funding is not some sinecure for life, where one has to just publish one thing and lay back in comfort (join the RIAA for that). Science requires justifying everything you do to people who also know the topic, and relies heavily on being published, which only happens reliably if you *convince* people of being correct. It's not logic games or appeals to authority like religious apologetics and debate often are. Unlike religion (or even philosophy), Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, especially not 'right now'.
Gravity happens. Evolution happens. In this sense, they are factual statements of what happens about us. There are hypotheses and (scientfic) theories about these which need investigated, but it doesn't invalidate it. As they are different sciences, there are differences in the levels of these. Gravity is more observable than Evolution, but we probably have better theories (and more evidence of mechanisms) of Evolution.
Natural selection is just one element of evolution (see Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Just because you can subdivide Evolution, and some bits are better understood than others, doesn't mean you can invalidate it as an incredibly powerful description of historical, current and future life any more than doubts about black holes invalidate the ability of an airplane to fly.
On the post: DailyDirt: Crackpots Versus Real Scientists
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Even Good Hospitals And Doctors Are An Obstacle To Better, Cheaper Healthcare
Dr LaPierre calling...
While they're at it, they can keep pushing AGW denialism, so more extreme weather will harm more people too. I'm just surprised the Big Medicine conspiracy isn't pushing Romneycare so that more people can 'afford' their tender mercies?
AS usual, I am thankful for living in my 'socialist heaven' that is the Tory wasteland I inhabit.
On the post: Chicago Blackhawks Fire Reporter Over Silly Old YouTube Videos
Re: Still
On the post: Major Hollywood Studios All Sent Bogus DMCA Takedowns Concerning The Pirate Bay Documentary
Re: Re: Said it once, will say it again....
On the post: Rejection Of The Pirate Bay Founders' Appeal Sets Dangerous Precedent On Liability & Free Expression
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Interesting Move: Peter Sunde, Of The Pirate Bay & Flattr To Run For EU Parliament
Re: Re: convicted
On the post: Interesting Move: Peter Sunde, Of The Pirate Bay & Flattr To Run For EU Parliament
Re: Re: Re: Lawyers aren't bad enough; now Mike embraces convicts.
On the post: Swedish Prosecutor Claims Registrar Of .se Domains An 'Accomplice' In Infringement Because Of Pirate Bay Domain
Re: Re: Liability Slipery Slope
On the post: A New Hope: How Going Free To Play Brought Redemption To Star Wars MMO
Re: It's funny
Plenty of products are 'free' and do quite well - because they are selling or buying something else (such as your attention).
On the post: Indian Publishing Firm Can't Take A Little Criticism, Threatens Blogger With $1 Billion Lawsuit, Criminal Charges
Re: Order 66
Now, just look for politicians publishing 'false' information...