...by attacking a smokestack. I am curious what our libertarian friends who believe in manmade global warming think of this verdict. I am sure they will tell us.
Some of my thoughts are noted here, if the mountain doesn`t mind paying me a visit. Maybe I`ll even get a reaction!
It`s off-thread, but in light of the front page news on our latest scandal regarding oil & gas on public lands, you might care to revisit my post about cranking up pressure on politicians to cut American citizens directly in on all of the fithly lucre If politians, bureaucrats and Alaskans get to play with the roylaties, why can`t we? If we did get a cut, you can bet there`ll be citizens, prosecutors and lawyers all paying closer attention to how public resources are managed. Nothing like semi-privatization to alter incentives.
Bob, this may be the single silliest post you've ever written, and given that IIRC you're a creationist, that takes some doing.
Why on earth do you imagine that I or people like me, who recognize the truth of AGW, are obligated to answer for either the action or the verdict? Because we aren't.
Sorry I was just referring to Silas and Tokyo Tom. I actually believe in manmade global warming, I just don't believe most of the recent global warming is manmade.
Also, I wouldn't call myself a creationist, except in a sense that is equivalent to a theist.
Hmmm. Apparently your curiosity was a rather idle one, Bob ....
Wabulon, so having eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we have not inherited any responsibility for understanding or considering the consequences of our own actions? Great!
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas -- unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Some of my thoughts are noted here, if the mountain doesn`t mind paying me a visit. Maybe I`ll even get a reaction!
ReplyDeleteIt`s off-thread, but in light of the front page news on our latest scandal regarding oil & gas on public lands, you might care to revisit my post about cranking up pressure on politicians to cut American citizens directly in on all of the fithly lucre If politians, bureaucrats and Alaskans get to play with the roylaties, why can`t we? If we did get a cut, you can bet there`ll be citizens, prosecutors and lawyers all paying closer attention to how public resources are managed. Nothing like semi-privatization to alter incentives.
Bob, this may be the single silliest post you've ever written, and given that IIRC you're a creationist, that takes some doing.
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth do you imagine that I or people like me, who recognize the truth of AGW, are obligated to answer for either the action or the verdict? Because we aren't.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteSorry I was just referring to Silas and Tokyo Tom. I actually believe in manmade global warming, I just don't believe most of the recent global warming is manmade.
Also, I wouldn't call myself a creationist, except in a sense that is equivalent to a theist.
God created global warming (unless you don't believe in global warming), so He wants the planet warmer, and we should all frgeddabahdit awready.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Apparently your curiosity was a rather idle one, Bob ....
ReplyDeleteWabulon, so having eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we have not inherited any responsibility for understanding or considering the consequences of our own actions? Great!