Life. Damned Life. And statistics.
Of course, malice and incompetence are certainly not orthogonal concepts.
Not really. It is so poorly and broadly worded such that it could be interpreted in either way. According to the Ars article, the bill's author has been rather vague about how he interprets it. But if you have a legislature and judiciary that strongly favors, say, a creationism interpretation of reality, it can certainly be bent to considering 'the other guys' has having a particular bent.
It's bad legislation (nothing new here). Not necessarily benign. Yes, Hanlon's Razor suggests incompetence but I personally feel that Occam's Razor suggests malice.
If you don't want science, then you shouldn't be allowed to benefit from anything created or influenced by it. Say goodbye to your phones, your computers... your massed produced clothes made by machines that use electricity, your fancy guns designed on a computer, your cars.. all of it. Go back to horses and shit soup over a fire while reading your bible and dying of the plague.
If you don't want God, you're gonna burn. Death to the Philistine!
Who wins in this game?
So let's say experiment confirms that light speed is constant but time varies. And then what ?
Although hardly earth shattering, it would explain high school.
Just remember, War is not about who's right. It's about who is left. (Heinlein)
Now, are you on our side. Or the other guy's?
Einstein was German, Jobs and Gates were aliens and Woz is, well, different.
I am totally impressed. You nailed it. Thousands of researchers have simply missed the point with their modeling (which even included previous climate cycles). It's all 'natural' and therefore OK.
Before I subscribe to your newsletter, can you please tell me how we are going to deal with all of those people displaced by this natural phenomenon? And what might be the risks and benefits of trying to intervene in this cycle until we get the human population down to some more reasonable number?
Or are you just mad, bro?
Take one set of data and produce two diametrically opposed answers and have them both correct? Sounds like rumor, gossip, and BS to me, not science.
No wonder there are lies, damn lies, and statistics!
Somebody missed the lecture on assumptions.
The opposite side of the same coin is that no one wants to be the lone white man in a room full of Chinese women.
What is the pretest probability of this being true?
Well, this method comes from physicists. So one can assume that whatever they used, it was perfectly spherical.
You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Nuke'em from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
And we have a winner, folks!
I'm very sorry but your approach does not lend itself to a book (or better yet, a series of books), supplements, a prime time guest appearance on Oprah, glossy magazine advertisements, special (and expensive) foods or really any other aspect of modern merchandising.
Please re work your proposal and come back to us when you've figured out how to make money off of it.