And - in response to the inevitable follow-up comment "give me an example" - you are more than capable of finding them on your own - there's no shortage.
No, give me an example. We can make this about my refusal to do your work for you, or we could make it about this alleged evidence you speak of.
The media in the USA is the most dishonest I've seen.
Then you haven't seen many medias. I'll just note that there was a very relevant society who once named their chief propaganda outlet, "Truth" which just happens to be "Pravda" in anglicized Russian.
Yes, but solving it with twice as much of something that scales the same way (logarithmically), and its fine. You know, like doubling the number of "neurons" in a neural net. "We know the substrate of brain power, gray cells"
No, we really, really don't. That's like saying we know computers because we know silicon. But none-the-less, more "silicon" processors==more computing power, and more neurons==logarithmically or exponentially more computing power. Of course, that is when they are concerned with thinking, rather than coordinating the movement and processing sensory input from 450 cubic meters of flesh--a herculean task by animal measures.
I think it's the other way around. Rand probably based her antagonists on people against her or she is against philosophically (i.e people like GP). So it's not that GP sounds like a Rand antagonist, but Rand antagonists sound like people like GP.
If A is like B, then B is like A.
Dagney meanwhile is Rand's author insert. Atlas Shrugged is basically Rand's fantasy of defeating her ideological opponents.
I quite agree. But I think the book serves a purpose past just expressing Ayn Rand's fantasies. For example, notice dbiii's obsessive focus on nobility despite obvious problems with the assertion. Ayn Rand caricatures such beliefs intentionally and unintentionally in Atlas Shrugged.
It's not the French Revolution any more. If your beliefs are so immature, silly, and ancient that a hack writer like Rand can accurately portray them 50 years ago, then maybe you need to up your game.
I don't think they want to ride on trains at other peoples' expense.
Here they call them computer programmers.
When I challenged you to quote me, I was challenging you to show what I said that provoked his rude comment.
You have just conceded that I was right and his comment came without provocation. I responded to his rude comment with a rude comment. Complaining about getting a rude comment to a rude comment is hypocritical.
*rolls eyes at the fucktard ACs.*
Well first off, proposing that objective is not meaningless because we're currently not even trying. My objective is literally driving unethical scientists out of the field. That is not something that is actively done.
Second off, I did actually propose some ideas to someone else in this thread and suggested a method of determining effectiveness.
I find this notion that I have to give you a complete proven system gift wrapped for you or I have no valid input to be essentially fallacious. My point and general objective is neither correct nor incorrect if I do not propose a complete system.
I do not need to do that to be right or wrong.
If you'd like a summary of some of my ideas... I'd like to apply FBI fraud and IRS audit tactics to some of these papers. The FBI tactics involve traps. You put out something that an unethical or lazy scientist will slurp up and use in a paper. When it is cited, you humiliate them as using a bogus source.
It should be convincing enough and in the university library and databases so it appears to be real UNTIL you actually read the source. IF you read the source and actually check it, then you'll see it is shit. But you can have it referenced in various places so it seems valid. The point will be to try and get lazy scientists that don't actually read material but read what someone else said about something and then reference the original source when they've never consulted the original source.
This is something the FBI does with stings. You set up some bait and you wait until someone bites.
The IRS randomly subjects a percentage of returns to intensive audits. Do the same thing with the papers and studies. You can subject any study or paper to an audit if you get red flags but the idea here is on top of that to audit some entirely randomly. This increases the risk factor because a deep examination of the paper or study will not be predictable.
There are other ideas as well. But what we're basically dealing with here is fraud.
Fraud is something we have methods of dealing with and various organizations have systems they've developed. Even CIA counter intelligence tactics should be looked at. The idea is to get the fraudsters to stand out.
The best method is basically to get them to self select. You do something that a fraudster will respond to differently than an honest scientist.
And if you didn't get enough evidence to crucify him on the first pass then you don't even let him know you found him. Instead, you subject him to a second round opportunities to incriminate himself.
Because no one is being convicted of a crime in a court of law... the entrapment laws etc do not even begin to apply.
There are many ways to find unethical people. It isn't that hard, chum. You just have to make ANY effort. Apply the same cunning an illiterate fur trapper uses to catch his pray and you'll actually be doing quite well. You must be patient, methodical, and determined.
I'll leave you with this:
I'm not arguing whether or not some idiot wrote down something stupid on a piece of paper. I'm arguing that it was a stupid thing to put on the paper.
Look at the taxi mediallion licenses for another example of the same thing. You want to run a taxi service in this town? Give the city 200,000 dollars.
What does that do? That locks out all the smaller competitors because who can afford the seed capital of an additional 200,000 dollars PER cab on top of the actual cab, advertising, office space, etc.
Your point that "but the agreements says this" is utterly irrelevant to me. The thing could say any fucking thing some asshat wrote on it.
it is anti competitive, pro monopolist, anti consumer, it is the reason internet speeds are often shit throughout the country and it is the reason many areas have very poor coverage.
You know that.
I know that.
Why are you defending something that is objectively bad for pretty much everyone and serves no purpose besides letting well monied companies basically sit on their asses collecting monthly fees for shitty service?
You have to be fucking kidding me.
As long as you admit to being AC trolls, you've conceded the position to me and from my perspective... I win.
First off, I've explained to YOU several times that my mod points don't matter to me.
Second, people that CAN"T be modded up or down, don't get to talk about other people's mod points.
Unlike you, I actually care about ACTUALLY being right. This is an alien concept to people like you. It means I don't care about what you say or do unless it impacts the argument. Nothing else matters to me.
As to local government, you're not telling me anything I don't know and I frankly made it quite clear I was talking about that so you're just restating what I said.
As to "Do a bunch of stupid shit we made up to lock small companies out of the conduits or we don't let you run cable in the conduits"... no. Those are often not reasonable.
A common stipulation for example is that cable be run throughout the entire city/town if it is run anywhere.
And that means that a small company that might only have the resources to provide service to one neighborhood initially is locked out for basically no reason.
this is sort of like saying you can't open a sandwich shop unless you agree to open ten locations across town.
That means that big franchises can open sandwich shops but little companies can't. So everything turns into McDonalds.
As to local government, we don't let local governments screw with roads. So no. Same basic principle.
You think it is reasonable for local governments to be systematically bribed to lock out all competition using these bogus agreements.
It is nonsense. I believe portland issued their last franchise agreement after FREE gigabit internet was given to their capital building. And I know there was something like that in another city where the company gave them free internet at the schools.
Well great. Your schools save a hundred dollars a month on their internet bill and the entire town is locked down by the monopoly for fucking chump change.