Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 25 Jan 2010 10:23 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:35:04 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>My fundamentalist friend whenever we have arguments (about the age of >>the earth, etc.) asks for citations and says "that depends upon what >>you mean by...". > >This is one of the Very Good Reasons for beginning with agreed-upon >Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions before one begins to construct >Propositions for proof/disproof. Sometimes further information will lead to revisions, for instance - how long the first "day" was in Genesis. On the other hand, revisions are often made to avoid adjusting one's conclusions. In religion churches for a long time acted as though what they taught was natural and visible, not requiring faith. (Meanwhile we have had deity inflation which tended to make the Church's pronouncements inarguable). Moving on-topic, I'm sure that most, if not all of us, have seen project goals redefined so that objectives have been met. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 25 Jan 2010 10:27 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:05:04 -0500, "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >At some point the 'good' guys would weight the amount of their potential >causalties against the number of potential 'enemy' casulaties. What if >killing all the "enemy" would result in the death of fewer people than if >nothing were done? What would be the most moral choice? Right now many predominant politicians are saying that we should disregard the Constitution for people who are suspected of terrorism. To me, that's like saying we should destroy America to save it. There are SF stories where they have computers predicting future crimes, and law enforcement is designed to stop crime before it exists. Therefore, everybody arrested and punished is innocent of creating any crimes, because the crimes haven't yet been committed. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 25 Jan 2010 12:41 In article <hddrl5l7qnjg23k7eo5voaua8vde6cc5bi(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:35:04 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>>My fundamentalist friend whenever we have arguments (about the age of >>>the earth, etc.) asks for citations and says "that depends upon what >>>you mean by...". >> >>This is one of the Very Good Reasons for beginning with agreed-upon >>Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions before one begins to construct >>Propositions for proof/disproof. > >Sometimes further information will lead to revisions, for instance - >how long the first "day" was in Genesis. As I recall Genesis, Mr Brazee, there was no 'first day'. The Hebrew refers to ordinally, not cardinally ('yom echad', not 'yom rishon') and it was exactly as long as was required for there to be evening and morning. Hours, minutes, seconds, radion frequencies of cesium atoms... none of those were mentioned and applying them might be considered mere conjecture; black-letter text reads (transliterated) as 'va-yi-hee ever, va-yi-hee voker, yom echad'. [snip] >Moving on-topic, I'm sure that most, if not all of us, have seen >project goals redefined so that objectives have been met. And similarly in reverse... hence the phenomenon of 'feature bloat'. DD
From: Clark F Morris on 26 Jan 2010 16:17 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:52:55 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Charles Hottel wrote: >> "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message >> news:rbvgl5phjh3bv2qdgb1a94iqu6f9g6troi(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:47:21 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> That's why I believe Democracy, while not being a perfect form of >>>> Government, is the only one that guarantees freedom. >>> >>> There are no such guarantees in life. >>> >>> -- >>> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, >>> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace >>> to the legislature, and not to the executive department." >>> >>> - James Madison >> >> As of today's supreme court decision we are guaranteed that >> corporations can buy and sell our polititions. > >Commerce has ALWAYS bought political influence, right back to Babylonian and >Assyrian times. > >The difference is that now you know about it... :-) I like the Wall Street Journal's position which is they don't care how much a corporation spends to influence you so long as they tell you. Thus they have no problem with Obama getting 200 million from Soros or Palin getting 300 million from Rupert Murdoch for a campaign if that information is made public. Indeed such contributions might be detrimental to both putative recipients. > >Pete.
From: Howard Brazee on 27 Jan 2010 10:06
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:17:09 -0400, Clark F Morris <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >I like the Wall Street Journal's position which is they don't care how >much a corporation spends to influence you so long as they tell you. >Thus they have no problem with Obama getting 200 million from Soros or >Palin getting 300 million from Rupert Murdoch for a campaign if that >information is made public. Indeed such contributions might be >detrimental to both putative recipients. Knowledge is important. But take the U.S. health care bill for instance. It is easy to follow the money and compare the results to see that the medical industries will win no matter what happens. But seeing this doesn't do much except making us disgusted with Congress (both parties). Do we have any alternative choices? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |