Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:GP is an attempt to censor and bias (Score 1) 599

by Agent0013 (#47967099) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

to believe that there is a "Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe." Is, in itself, a religion.

Except that science is derived from philosophy. So you are then saying that science is a religion. Nice!

"The question regarding the origin of the Universe is just one question where bias takes charge and science is put in the background." False. there is a lot of sciecne regarding the origin of the universe.

I think we have evidence going back to the big bang, but I have never heard of any data that comes from before the big bang. So how could we have scientific evidence of what caused the big bang. It sounds like you are falling for the very thing the article says people mistake.The holy scientist says so, so it must be!

"Vaccines" The science is well know. The vast majority of public debate isn't about anything debatable. It's one side making things up and the other using science. i.e. expermint, data, ect.

The anti-vaccine issue is extra complicated because of the crazy anti-vaxxers that make everyone who has issues with government mandates get lumped in with them. I have issue with the number of vaccines they want to give. Many of them are for stupid things that cause no harm. Why should you give risk to young children for something that is as bad as getting a cold? Why should a 1 day old be getting vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases? Why should vaccines that cause cervical cancer be mandated to young children? Well, because we said so is not a good enough answer. If a child got whooping cough then they have a much better immunity to pertussis than any vaccine can give. Does that matter to the law? Can you even get the other two vaccines without them being in the trio form? No and no. And their example of flu vaccines is especially apparent as a stupid example. Flu vaccines have to made by guessing what will be around next season. There is no testing. In fact, it is illegal to test using scientific principles, if the flu vaccine is effective because it is assumed to work effectively. You cannot deny someone the effective treatment, so being that they assume it works you cannot actually test it to see if it does. But when the season comes around where the flu vaccine is wrong and turns out to not be effective the rates of flu in the country don't change appreciably. So there is some evidence that we are being lied to about vaccines also. But it isn't the scientist, it's the politician and their desire to control everyone that makes the unintelligent laws. There are also the cases where the company has been lying about the effectiveness of their vaccine for the last 50 years. So we are all getting shots that don't do much other than have potential side effects. But the pro-vaxxers will say that we should all undergo every shot that they or any governmental agent says we should get. Very scientific there.

"GMO foods" ON one side we ahve science, and verification from every major scientific health group in the world, that it is safe. On the other side you got FUD.

Or you have one side doing the experiments and hiding the results. Then they make it illegal, by copyright law, to allow anyone else to do their own experiments. Sounds like science to me, NOT! The fact that the chemicals are seen in utero, when the companies making them said that it would not survive the stomach is one lie right there. The higher rate of animal miscarriages when using GMO feed that farmers report is highly worrisome also. But we should not be able to test this ourselves to find out if it actually is caused by GMO or something else is ok. Plus, we should not even be given information as to which foods at the market are GMO and which ones are not. Seems fishy to me.

" Global Warming" ON side has science, prediction, proof, the other side has people screaming nonsense.

Similar to the GMO. One side has the companies that want to profit and will cover up any negative findings and spew FUD to confuse the issue. Now the political side is another matter. What to do about global warming is not a scientific issue.

Just look at how long we have believed that fat is bad for your heart and your cholesterol levels. All because some "scientist" fudged his numbers to make things work out. Why did everyone just believe this lying bastard? Why did no one else repeat the study to see if it made any sense at all? I guess it fit what everyone thought made sense and perhaps like the article says, people just followed what the holy scientist decrees.

Comment: Re:This can only work a little bit... (Score 1) 236

by Agent0013 (#47966683) Attached to: Small Restaurant Out-Maneuvers Yelp In Reviews War

I guess I left out the part where only some of the receipts would get the code. I was taking the slashdot moderation idea and translating it into the restaurant review realm. If each restaurant only got 100 (change numbers to fit) codes a month (or week, whatever fits) then the reviewers would be randomly chosen. You would also need some sort of system that gives the codes randomly that the restaurant could not alter to give codes to the shills.

I was really posting in jest as your previous comment mentioned how the somewhat randomness of slashdot's moderation works pretty good. To make it work in the real world would need some extra stuff that turns it impractical rather quickly. If it could be pulled off though, it would give people who get a code a chance to give a review and the shills would have a hard time getting in to spoil the overall scores. You could go with a percentage of the patrons get a code, but then more popular places get more reviews, so maybe having each place get the same number of codes works better. Of course some codes will be tossed and unused, but that doesn't hurt the way things work out in the end. It may lead more people to giving reviews if they can only do it when they get a code. It becomes more special, since you can't do it any old day, only when you go there and "win" a code. I guess the shills could keep buying food there until they get a code, but they makes it much more expensive for them than the current system is.

Perhaps you could have the phone as the way to give the review, but I would not want the restaurant to be able to exert any influence on the persons review. It seems like you will get more accurate reviews if you let the person enter it after they leave the restaurant. Tying the review to the phone or ip address or something would help stop restaurants from stealing the codes that should go to patrons and giving them to the shills though, so it certainly would be a valuable addition to add in somehow.

Comment: Re:Buridan's Principle (Score 1) 165

by Agent0013 (#47927127) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

If this is the kind of research that Microsoft puts out, then I have an even lower opinion of them than I did before.

from the article

Random vibrations make it impossible to balance the ball on the knife edge, but if the ball is positioned randomly, random vibrations are as likely to keep it from falling as to cause it to fall.

I have a hard time believing that there is a 50 percent chance that a ball will balance on the edge of the knife. First she says it's impossible, then in the same sentence she states that it is just as likely. WTF!

Comment: Re:The fancy ones are expensive.. (Score 1) 67

by Agent0013 (#47918413) Attached to: A 16-Year-Old Builds a Device To Convert Breath Into Speech
Ok, so you were imagining words rather than letters. I was thinking a screen of the letters, so the 4 or 5 breaths is for one letter, not a whole word. I guess that helps out some, but it seems like a lot of words would be needed to be able to say what you want. And now you need different breaths for up, down, left, right, and click. Spelling a word with Morse code might take a little bit of time, but searching through many screens of words to find the one you want will take a while also. Morse code might be a non-starter for people who can't read, but so is searching through screens of words!? I guess in the end it would have to be tested to see which one is more efficient or easier to use.

Comment: Re:The fancy ones are expensive.. (Score 1) 67

by Agent0013 (#47917135) Attached to: A 16-Year-Old Builds a Device To Convert Breath Into Speech
I don't see how waiting for a cursor to scroll through the alphabet is going to be quicker than doing 4 or 5 quick breaths. One takes a second or so per letter (Morse), the other will take at least 10 seconds to get through the alphabet to the letters near the end. If the cursor moved to quickly you would miss your letter too often. Then you have to move the cursor through the whole alphabet back to the start again and try to stop at the letter you want so you can click-breathe. Yeah, I would go with the Morse code on this one for speed of entry.

Comment: Re:Duh (Score 1) 90

by Agent0013 (#47916813) Attached to: MIT's Cheetah Robot Runs Untethered
Yeah, but you probably would have told them the wrong thing. You don't need the force to push you forward, you need to push down. I was watching a show the other day where they discussed how they train runners to get faster. You need to hit your feet down on the ground as hard as you can, and then you will go further on each stride and keep the momentum going. Only at the start do you need to push forward with the force.

Comment: Re:First world problems. (Score 1) 609

so choose not to add it to your playlists. Really simple. If it's not in a playing playlist, it won't play.

Yeah, soo simple to do. Just wait until there are hundreds of albums added every day to your account because Apple gets paid by the distributors to get the songs out there. Then it will take you hours to search through your music collection just to find the music you actually want in your collection.

I find it humorous to think what would happen if the media contained something where mere possession is illegal, like child pornography or terrorist handbook texts.

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins