Interesting Links for 12-11-2011

[andrewducker]

• The King of Human Error - a fascinating piece on the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist who showed how irrational people are.
  (tags: psychology danielkahneman mistakes )
• Children should not be forced to eat everything on their plate. Dessert should never be used as a reward.
  (tags: food children )
• More on the new sandboxing for the Mac Application Store
  (tags: apple computers mac )
• EMI being split up and sold off. We're down to three major labels.
  (tags: music business )
• Screaming the carrier tone - a talent only useful during a tiny fraction of history.
  (tags: modem phone computers )
• Climate change scepticism is a largely Anglo-Saxon phenomenon.
  (tags: language culture climatechange global_warming )
• LiveJournal under DDOS again
  (tags: livejournal ddos internet )
• R.I.P. "Marvelman" Creator Mick Anglo
  (tags: marvelman obituary )
• Outrage as French magazine bombed by Warhammer enthusiasts
  (tags: funny warhammer religion satire islam )

Comments

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

ETA: Reply to gwendally's comment above.

I didn't get that impression: I thought your comment was sensible and added to the debate.

Sceptics, as you say, are not people who deny climate change. They might be people who point out that not all scientists agree. They might be people (like the author of the book in my userpic) who argue that the scientific evidence suggests that warming is happening (or at least has happened) and suggests that a significant cause of this is man-made CO2 emissions but who doesn't think that this means that world governments should spend lots of money to slightly delay the temperature increases when they could be spending money more wisely.

Calling someone a 'denier' on the other hand is much like bringing Hitler into an internet debate...

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Mhm, right, leaving aside the bit about anglo-saxons...

Did you think it was the misrepresenting of climate skepticism in the article that added to the discussion--because "climate scepticism" is a compound term, which is repeated eight times before the author turns to discussing specific subgroups of it, presumably operating under the assumption that (1) by that point readers will understand what he is referring to and (2) that it's not sceptiscism in general?

Or were you figuring gwendally just hit the word "sceptical" and stopped reading, because that word meant she opened up a canned response, and that was what added to the discussion?

[gwendally.livejournal.com]

I'm not sufficiently liberal enough for WeaselKing so he hates me and will warp anything I say into justification for his hatred.

It's okay. I know his type. I hadn't noticed Torrain before and now I've noted him, too, as a person who argues from emotional hatred. I just like to know who they are so I can avoid them.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

*notes verifiably factual incorrect assumption you made about me and grins quietly*

Not bothering to correct, but it does tend to reinforce the behaviour pattern I've noticed in you about adhering to cultural preconceptions. ;)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

No, please try again: You're an idiot, who's repeatedly said demonstrably idiotic things, and who regulary spouts ignorance and thinks it profound.

It's okay. I know his type.

Yeah, those dirty people with their "facts" and their "reality". I mean, they *point out* when you're *full of shit* and provide you with *links* that complete debunk your idiotic preconceptions - that's just not very white of them, is it.

Hey, have you figured out how the NHS determines which treatments are covered, or whether the USA is "at war with Osama bin Laden" yet? Inquiring minds want to know.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

PS: When you said that intellectual rigour of the sort described by "scepticism" was unique to "anglo-saxons", what did you mean, again? Because what you SAID was that thinking was something that only white people did.

Are you claiming that you didn't understand any of the words you used, AGAIN?
Or are you claiming that your racist statements aren't REALLY racist because you're better than that, AGAIN?

I mean, really, don't leave us in suspense.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Hey! What does 'scepticism is "a point of pride if intellectual rigor is found primarily in the anglo-saxon world"' mean, again?

Come on, don't leave us in suspense, thinking that the racist dumbshit said something racist AGAIN and then said we "just didn't understand", and then stopped commenting AGAIN.

I mean, that leaves us deciding that the ignorant racist fuckwit has once again said something fuckwitted and racist and ignorant and then, ONCE AGAIN, run screaming from addressing her racist ignorant fuckwittery. And you can't want *that* to be the impression you leave in your last ever comment here, can you?