Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Mark,
why is being able to vote touted as such a godsend?
To paraphrase Winston (no, the other one): Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Until recently a son was the preferred child.
Has this finally changed?
If so, why do you think it has done so? -
Rex said:
The problem is, as ali bramwell has aptly pointed out, that:
...you cannot safely accept what is published on face value without tiangulating your sources. the problems you cite about too ready acceptance of information presented to you are not limited to wiki.
However, because it's readily searchable and linkable it's used unquestioningly by far too many people as an infallible source for their contentions.
I'd feel happier if every Wikipedia page carried some sort of caveat phrased much as ali has.Why? Everyone knows Wikipedia is “the free encyclopedia anyone can edit” (that quote being at the top of the Wikipedia home page). I haven’t really noticed a lot of the sort of misuse of Wiki that you describe, but I don’t see it as being a fault of Wiki itself anyway; it’s the problem of those accepting the purported evidence too readily. If you were having an argument with someone on a contentious issue and they seemingly trumped you with a link to a Wiki article that supported their case, and you conceded on that basis, that would be your own fault.
-
What's with the quote marks around blog? It feels like Dr Evil is reading it out, and he's done the wee quote marks with the fingers... ooh, Russell has got a "blog".
Agreed. And there’s no need for quotes around addresses and editing, either. It was already stated in the sentence that the reference was to an internet, and not a physical, address; and why was 'editing' in quotes in the text, but not in the headline? That reporter got weasel-quote happy. Or should I say that “reporter” got “weasel-quote” “happy”.
-
I remember - I think it was an early speaker post by Dave Hayward - where he analysed the energy policies of all the major parties in the leadup to an election, and found, to his surprise, that the Greens had the most sensible [policies].
While that was a bit of a straw man (in that I never said the Greens had worse energy policies than another given party), you remember correctly. The article, on Speaker here, is interesting. I thought the righties might get generally low ratings, but boy, he really castigates them! Labour came off good, though. (Btw, his opinion that nuclear power is not for NZ, but might be appropriate for some countries under some circumstances, is pretty much what I think.)
Ah, you need to spend some time talking to NRA lobbyists. "Sensible? Guns don't kill people! People kill people!" Or, if you like to remain non-violent and not bash them with the butt of a gun, like me, stay away from them :)
I’d rather aim a stereotypical anecdote or facetious comment the NRA’s way any day, but I’m a little worried what they might aim back.
-
It wasn’t a quote, it was an anecdote. I was agreeing with the sentiment in this comment from Kracklite: “I'm definitely tempted [to vote Green], but I have the feeling that they'd try to ban the Sun if they found out that it was nuclear powered." This also prompted my use of the phrase “nuclear power”. I think he was being a little facetious, and so was I.
In much the same way I'd like to be able to say "guns are dangerous" and have that lead to a sensible debate on whether people should be allowed to carry guns that kill, rather than some brainy sort diverting the conversation into "but BB guns are guns too!" for half an hour.
But that diversion would obviously just be pedantry. And “guns are dangerous” is a more sensible starting point for a conversation about guns & gun use than “such-and-such power source is intrinsically evil”.
As to whether a source of power can be evil... surely there's better things to debate, like whether it's a good or bad thing?
Agreed. And it’s difficult to debate whether it is a good or bad thing in a particular circumstance with someone whose starting position is that it’s the preferred power source of Satan.
-
Nuclear fusion is a wholly different process to nuclear fission, and one with a completely different hazard profile.
Does its hazard profile include being intrinsically evil?
Yes they [fission & fusion] both involve atomic interactions, but that is about where the similarities end. Failing to "qualify" between the two is a spurious and hypothetical argument,
The guy was describing a form of energy as “intrinsically evil”. I very much doubt he was meaning to say: “nuclear fission power is intrinsically evil. Though let me be clear, that fusion power... much respect. I’ve gots me a lot of time for that fusion.”
He was displaying an irrational fear of the power of the atom - that’s the salient point here.Look, what you attempted was a slightly sophisticated version of the old "the Greenies are Luddites" smear, which usually crumples up and crawls away when exposed to even the most rudimentary facts.
“Usually”, but not always? That’s good enough for me. The statement “The Greenies are luddites” is too generic to be of use, but I do think Greenies can demonstrate an over-attachment to an idea they’ve embraced, at the expense of science.
-
Steve: "Does this guy know how that life-sustaining ball of fire in the sky works?"
Philip: "Well yes. Last I looked at the science, Big Yella is supposed to be kitted with a nuclear FUSION reactor under the hood, runs on hydrogen, and burps helium out the tail pipe. Very green and trendy. Gets a 5 five eco-star rating.
By contrast all the nulcear power station technologies currently in use (and for the foreseeable future) use FISSION reactors which, for a whole bunch of reasons are environmentally like running the kids to school in a Hummer that runs on a distillate of humpback whale oil. No eco-stars at all."
I understand the difference between fission & fusion. The response that you quoted is a reaction to someone saying nuclear power (no qualification) is intrinsically evil. Even if we were just referring to nuclear fission, that would be absurd enough. The idea that deriving power from atomic interactions is inherently “evil” is dopey, especially in light (no pun intended) of the sun being a big nuclear reaction.
-
With regards to Truthiness, interesting that the link to the explanation of the word goes to Wikipedia. That 'bringing democracy to knowledge" comment was a dig by Colbert at Wikipedia. So, I now know all about "Truthiness" from Wiki. But... Colbert was being sarcastic in his reference to Wikipedia, mocking its reliability. So, does that mean I don't trust this article on "Truthiness" at all, because it's on Wikipedia? Even though the article seems coherent and reasonably well written and neutral, and has cited ample sources? And wait, if I disregard the article, including its depiction of "Truthiness" as something Colbert meant to be applied satirically, does that mean he doesn't align Wiki with Truthiness...Wiki's wrong: He isn't being ironic? Oh, I'm so confused.
Seriously, Colbert is an intelligent, funny guy, but it's a shame he's in the Paul Henry camp on this one.
-
I'm definitely tempted [to vote Green], but I have the feeling that they'd try to ban the Sun if they found out that it was nuclear powered.
Careful, Kracklite. You never know when a Green might be reading.
Seriously, their stance sometimes reminds me of the attitude expressed in a letter to the editor, which said that nuclear power is intrinsically evil. I wondered: Does this guy know how that life-sustaining ball of fire in the sky works? -
Just in regards to the 'Word of the Year' competition, here are this year's Merriam-Webster results.
http://www.m-w.com/info/07words.htm
w00t!