Given your bullet reply I will do likewise. (even though I think that turns our conversation into more of an argument, and I hate arguments)

I) Both sides had only mathematical constructs with a central notion of understanding behind the numbers. What I mean is, there was no NASA or anything to go look...there was only math. The Heliocentric model was exactly that, a (very) complex mathematical model (of exceptions) to explain the motion of the planets based on observed phenomena. Geocentrism had data as well, but lacked the cultural bias for it to be accepted as a valid view point. Which adds to my point, not detracts from it; as my point what theories get mocked or accepted has more to do with culture than premise.

A) I bet you didn't read the link I posted, and I can't blame you (Quine on a weekday and all!). But what I wrote was a hasty, and perhaps, oversimplified version of Quines waxing and waning on the politics of science. You can see examples of this today where scientists and large hang on the breath of the great intellectuals of the day, like Stephen Hawking. Or, how quickly Einstein is falling out of favor now that quantum doesn't quite add up. More than likely, within our lifetime, you will stop hearing about space time curves and it will be supplanted by some other thing. The main difference between planet orbits and the general laws of the universe are that you can go outside and look at the orbit (with a rocket). You can't go just "see" the laws of nature and therefore have no reason to thing Enstein was any more right about space time curves than of fundamental forces. You can explain, using Newtonian language and adapting its math, relativity and motion. The reason we don't has more to do with culture and self advocacy than evidence. And to the point, that still doesn't address the primary problem, that of which, the PEERS that review are under the influence of culture, they are the rose colored glasses to which I was referring all along.

B) See, I understand a bit of that. But ultimately that seems like an undersell to how life works on this planet. No doubt, change will bring hardship on certain species, but wouldn't also create new opportunities for others? A lack of snow on the tundra is bad for snow foxes...but good for regular foxes. Change is one thing life on this planet handles well...as for individual members their fates are less certain.

C) I disagree on 2 counts. One is my first example. Simply put, even if you idea treads water, it can be framed in such a way as to be demeaned of any value, regardless of merit. You can see this in media smear campaign stuff, if you can frame someone as a nut job, it will discredit them. For example, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences" is a great read and has many, good observations....but is written by the uni bomber so not high on anyone's reading list. It isn't culturally acceptable to go...hey, the uni bomber is right, this is a problem! Same goes for here, it doesn't matter if it's 600 or 6000 scientists that disagree with the climate change model, if your ideas aren't popular, no one is going to be there to listen.

And second, you can't prove a negative. The only way the could prove that climate change isn't human caused is to completely understand the whole system and then point out how humans are trivial factors. In other words, they would have to be able to do the thing that no climatologist can claim, to know the whole truth about the weather and all its complexities. The burden of proof is actually on those making the claim, not the ones countering that claim. So really, the only thing they have to proof is nothing and just make the assertion that the doomsays math doesn't add up (and why). They just have to poke the holes in the boat in other words...which is what I think they are getting ostracized for. Get on board or get out kind of thing. But that is just an outsiders opinion.

>> ^dag:

Hi Garmachi - I like these kinds of blog posts - thanks for the intro.
Like many of us, you are the cyber-progeny of @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ant" title="member since March 2nd, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 136, 0);">ant, who posts VideoSift over at Bluesnews. It's interesting that VideoSift has evolved many social gaming aspects- that may be due to the cultural influence of gamers from Blue's.


Hey! Don't blame me. [grin] Go gamers!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hi Garmachi - I like these kinds of blog posts - thanks for the intro.

Like many of us, you are the cyber-progeny of @ant, who posts VideoSift over at Bluesnews. It's interesting that VideoSift has evolved many social gaming aspects- that may be due to the cultural influence of gamers from Blue's.

oh no! How did they find me?!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Too late! The cyber-police have alreay backtraced you!!

Thanks for fixing it.

In reply to this comment by residue:
What consequences? I'm going to be hit by a van? I just deleted the whole mess

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
You dun goofd. The consequences will be the same.
http://videosift.com/video/Guy-plays-in-the-traffic-and-gets-hit-by-a-van?loadcomm=1#comment-1047711

Too late! The cyber-police have alreay backtraced you!!

Thanks for fixing it.

In reply to this comment by residue:
What consequences? I'm going to be hit by a van? I just deleted the whole mess

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
You dun goofd. The consequences will be the same.
http://videosift.com/video/Guy-plays-in-the-traffic-and-gets-hit-by-a-van?loadcomm=1#comment-1047711

Each packet is already treated differently on the internet and people haven't had a problem with it. For instance, I have a premium membership at file planet. As such, I don't wait in lines, and have faster service on the whole. AOL, and Google treat individual users to different ad experiences based on their profile. These types of explicit and implicit relationships make the internet the crazy mashup that it is, it is what makes it work. There might be a market for people who want to pay extra to have their traffic prioritized. When you are talking about a finite thing, that is worth paying for. For example, if someone on the bogged down AT&T network wanted to pay extra to have a bigger piece of the network pie, companies should be allowed to offer such things.

The REAL problem is that new network infrastructure isn't allowed to be installed by anyone other than explicit government enforced companies. As such, the network gets more and more crowed and the cable companies can charge people for these "deluxe rate plans" and not have to keep their services competitive. This has only changed small amounts in the era of high speed; once cable and DLS started to offer similar rates and speeds both sides tried to get the leg up. But in reality, they are still dealing with huge areas of influence against outsiders making it even more competitive. If Comcast becomes as data unfriendly as AOL did in its hayday, people have no choice due to decades of government control.

In reality, you don't want the government telling people what they can do with their pipes, the end result is worse than if you just opened up the markets to outsiders wanting to string up new services. It is no small stretch of the imagination to presume if the government starts getting in the business of telling ISPs what they can or can't transmit with priority, it will lead to what they can transmit at all. Like if they decided to crack down on cyber bulling, a very hot political subject right now, the FCC could demand that ISPs can no longer deal traffic to sights that have anonymous posting. That would be letter of law now instead of just one punk ISP trying to pull one over on consumers. The internet will remain more free the more you keep the FCC out of it, just look at their track record. How many small independent radio broadcasts companies exist? Well, it has gone form about 70% before the FCC to about 5% now, and less than 1% for television. If you want huge media corporations taking over the internet, then you want the FCC involved in the regulation of the internet.

Ask Howard Stern or George Carlin about the FCC and how open they are.

If these are the cyber police, I must say I'm disappointed. Though Perry Asstap is an even better porno name than Jessi Slaughter.

rougy, I think you're getting a little out of control big guy. Cyber-bullying is a serious problem and I find your threats kind of disturbing. And YES, at age 11 my parents sure the fuck DID know where I was every minute of every day. And I don't think many of us over 25 owned web cams at 11 years old. Of course I had other problems and I wasn't a perfect kid, but I'm 99% sure I didn't tell anyone they should put a gun in their mouth and blow their brains out. I'll have to check with my folks but I really don't think so.

Ha, thats great. Meatwad is beatiful, and maybe she can be used in the new K-9 Cyber-police unit.

So those are conservative values? Retaliate against a cyber attack with nuclear weapons?

>> ^budzos:
Yeah once you get accustomed to the voice there is actually some fun content here. I for one LOVE First Contact despite the many flaws in the story. The borg queen was a really stupid idea, if you ask me. The faceless, personality free borg as force of nature is much more awe-inspiring.



I've always thought that too. The way I think of it there were two distinct versions of the borg, the grey borg (the original), and the green borg (this movie plus all the crap that happened in voyager).

What made the borg scary in the first place was not just that they were powerful mechano-corpse people, but that they were inscrutable. There is something unsettling about an emotionless and relentless enemy that cannot be reasoned with or manipulated. And you couldn't easily define them as evil, since they weren't vengeful or malicious, just devoted to their own form of logic. With this movie they got rid of everything that was distinctive or interesting about the borg. And just turned them into cyber-zombies at the command of some slimey lich queen.

Any time, my Scandinavian brother.

In reply to this comment by Haldaug:
Thanks for the virtual cyber-love.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Just horrible. But I upvote because I like the poster - yes, I don't care what the content is, I vote in spite of that. How's that for breaking all the rules and playing by my own rules... not even my own!

Thanks for the virtual cyber-love.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Just horrible. But I upvote because I like the poster - yes, I don't care what the content is, I vote in spite of that. How's that for breaking all the rules and playing by my own rules... not even my own!

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^ant:
Ha. Well, you're wrong! Look at its "who voted for this video" when it works.


Who are you and what have you done with ant?!


I have murdered Ant and taken over his account! Long, live the cyber ant!

Wow. As I watched that I heard a dirge of a wailing electric guitar, the studio set morphed into a post-apocalyptic battle ground, wiener morphed into a muscle-bound cyber viking and the fox people turned into an army of mindless automatons.

Awesome.