Where did the water for the ice come from? What is the optimal sea level for the governments to set? How do you calculate an energy output without knowing it's environment? Why do scientist, who are dependent on government funding, use words like 'suggest', 'surprised', or 'consensus'?
The truth is that none of us know what the actual dimensions of our solar system were 5,000 years ago, nor do we know the measurements in the next 1,000.
An object is never the same when nature is applied over time.
> What is the optimal sea level for the governments to set?
I don't think anyone is suggesting or has suggested such a policy. Rather, the recommendation is "avoid changing things, especially when the outcomes are probably negative and their magnitude highly unknown".
> who are dependent on government funding
Plenty of scientists who are funded by non-government grants agree that climate change is real.
Plenty of non-climate scientists have looked at the data and agree that climate change is real.
Plenty of non-scientists with training in a scientific discipline -- who have never received and will never receive a penny of grant money in their lives -- have looked at the data and agree that climate change is real.
This particular ad hom is tired and unfounded.
> Why do scientist, who are dependent on government funding, use words like 'suggest', 'surprised', or 'consensus'?
Suggest: because this is one study/measurement, and others should repeat the measurement and/or come to the same conclusions by other methods.
Surprised: Because they're surprised.
Consensus: When 90+% of trained experts agree on something, that's pretty much as close to a consensus as you can get in a large population.
> Where did the water for the ice come from?... How do you calculate an energy output without knowing it's environment?... The truth is that none of us know what the actual dimensions of our solar system were 5,000 years ago nor do we know the measurements in the next 1,000. An object is never the same when nature is applied over time.
We engineer systems and make scientific measurements and predictions with high accuracy every day without knowing the exact origin and trajectory of everything in the universe.
There is only one legitimate way to criticize climate science, and that is by producing contrary facts. Everything else is noise. There are a limited number of potential facts which could overturn AGW; similarly gravity is considered difficult to disprove. The kind of mental processes which would use speculation about the future to contradict empirical fact seem antithetical to any coherent worldview, let alone a scientific one.
After reading this article a second time, I noticed that it's crafted to suggest the suspect had stolen software. The evidence given in the article only admits the suspect had documents, some of them classified, at his home. To suggest that many computers and code was found at a programmers home is quite ridiculous. Late in the article, the F.B.I "suspects" that he may have stolen code. What this article lacks in evidence, it makes up in sensationalism.
Manufacturing jobs and service sector jobs are not mutually exclusive. Historical trends do not represent an evolving sophisticated economical stragety, but document economical needs met. The author suggests manufacturing jobs are irrelevant, but all jobs are relevant and necessary.
Having a good source of manufacturing jobs can float an order of magnitude more service jobs in an area. Look at every decaying mill town across the northeast where the mills went under and vibrant local downtown economies folded up afterwards.
Your theory suggests all people are equivalent, but learn by happenstance. To further your theory, would people in a set of skills have random attributes? It would be interesting to see if all chess grandmasters share any common traits, or not.
My theory doesn't suggest that all people are equivalent.
As I stated pure intellect lies in metacognition.
I also think that learning or solving problems is not deterministic algorithm, it's a heuristic.
If it's heuristic there are lots of random elements and tuning.
Obviously, everybody have their own "hardware" limit determined by genes
but often people make big mistake thinking they already reached their limit by simply getting stuck in some topic without seriously and very fundamentally reconsider their whole approach to the problem or learning process itself.
I think often in these situations, possible limit is much, much, much higher than one might think.
I'm not OP, but I don't think that was an intended implication. It is my understanding that the genetic component of intelligence is widely acknowledged. I think the OP's model is still valid and useful, despite genetically-driven differences.
True. Gene matters. But that does not mean we should give up hope. This is not being stubborn. This is just logical. Its like running two operating systems on a same hardware. One of them must be really faster than the other just because it has the instructions in different order and that's meta cognition. Keep changing the order of instructions, because we don't have a proof for the limit on the hardware.
>> To me, the disturbing thing is the FBI took over the Tor node, moved the content to a FBI server, and ran it for two weeks.
Yeah, why don't they just run a porn site full time? Is the limited duration an admission that they shouldn't use that method? Why not continue if it's so effective?
I'm an American and I am not a minority, but I have been profiled and stopped many times over the years. Each time I'm ask if I have anything in the vehicle, and do I mind if they search. It seems one or two younger white guys driving commercial vehicles are more apt to transport contraband. I don't know how effective this is, but it does happen often.
Seems I remember a previous article estimating 1.5 million Tor exit nodes, but I may be wrong. And in another article from memory, active ip address estimates were in the 100's of billions maybe. My bet is most illicit activity from a perpetrator would go through Tor, but I wonder how many of the police raids are due to people being 'swatted'?
The truth is that none of us know what the actual dimensions of our solar system were 5,000 years ago, nor do we know the measurements in the next 1,000.
An object is never the same when nature is applied over time.