Comment Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 367
That I don't view genetic modification as an extraordinary source of danger
Well, in my opinion -- I admit that's all it is -- that suggests that you may not understand it very well.
That I don't view genetic modification as an extraordinary source of danger
Well, in my opinion -- I admit that's all it is -- that suggests that you may not understand it very well.
If the globe isn't warming, that must mean the oceans aren't warming because they're part of the globe. Is that the case, Jane?
I stated what I stated. If you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Otherwise kindly go away. I won't argue over insinuations.
Since deluded incompetents can't recognize when others demonstrably understand more than they do, how can we stop the deluded incompetents from bullying others who demonstrably understand more about it than they do?
That's a fair point.
Isn't that the same precautionary principle that should have been used before we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates? Especially given that several mass extinctions were preceded by rapid CO2 releases?
Since the satellite AND balloon AND un-"adjusted" ground temperature measurements ALL say the globe isn't warming, even while CO2 has risen significantly, I wouldn't worry much about it.
But more to the point: even if that were not true, and CO2 warming were proved (it is not), we didn't really suspect any actual warming until the late 70s... more than a hundred years after we started "spewing" it into the air. So... no.
The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.
The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. But your lack of understanding -- OR dishonesty, whichever it turns out to be -- is not my responsibility.
As before, I'm writing this for other readers, so that they are not taken in by your misinformation. That is the ONLY reason I have replied again.
I have no obligation to prove to you AGAIN what I have already proved. As others will have no problem seeing when I publish.
I shall not reply again. Stop harassing me. Your comments have been reported.
Jane doesn't seem to be describing someone who just isn't a pacifist. Jane actually seems to be describing someone who attacks without remorse and doesn't care if his responses are proportional or escalating. How is that different from the description of a sociopath?
And "Anonymous Coward" doesn't seem to be describing what I actually wrote. Where is your failure to understand my simple words? Why do you insist on putting your own spin on them that I neither wrote or intended?
That's a form of dishonesty. I repeat: you are quick to criticize others but you seem blind to your own transgressions. That's called hypocrisy.
Don't bother to reply; I have nothing further to say to you.
Because purposeful geoengineering is, by its nature, going to be of larger scale of effect. Making mistakes about degree of effect or feedbacks could be very bad for us. It's devil you know versus devil you don't, and you only get one planet to try with. Relatively small chances of error are still kind of a big deal.
Pretty much this. It's the same precautionary principle that should have been used with GMOs, which are already causing serious problems. And I don't mean health problems, I mean ecology. Such as roudup-ready corn spreading in the wild, and passing some of its modified genes to other plants, when it wasn't supposed to.
The whole global warming scare made it abundantly obvious that the current state of science (plus politics) is incapable of intelligently managing the climate, or perhaps even managing it at all, much less intelligently.
I'd like to add, though: contrary to what OP implies, we've been "seriously considering" engineering the climate for many decades.
I'm sure that they learned a valuable lession from that and will never do anything like that again. I'm also sure that pigs fly and cows routinely jump over the moon.
This is a good illustration of the folly of top-down "waterfall" methodology. Too much micro-planning in advance, no action.
Let's just pray none of them are studying Constitutional law, since they obviously don't understand what rights private entities maintain.
It's just more eco-bullying, plain and simple. I, for one, am sick and tired of these deluded incompetents trying to bully others who demonstrably understand more about it than they do.
Again, Jane distinguishes his behavior from Winterfox's by insisting that Jane's just "responding in kind" rather than overreacting by escalating the language.
That is very definitely NOT what I wrote. Don't try to put words in my mouth. That practice is at least as evil as anything you have accused me of doing. I ask again: look in a mirror much? Do you know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
Here is the difference between YOU and ME (and nothing whatever to do with this "Winterfox" person): at least I acknowledge the behavior that I actually do engage in, regardless of whether you think I should apologize for it. You, on the other hand, seem to be blind to your own transgressions.
I did NOT claim I never "escalated", if you want to use that word. What I stated was that I won't apologize for it, IF I felt it was actually justified.
Winterfox eventually realized that she was overreacting by escalating the language (like "illiterate fuck") in response to people who had never used that language to describe her.
Let's be clear: I really don't give a damn about your philosophy.
I am not a pacifist. Attack me and I will attack back, and feel NO remorse for doing so. I don't care whether you want to call that escalation. Do you understand that? I don't care. Trying to go there isn't going to get you anywhere.
INVARIABLY, the people here on Slashdot who harass me in this manner have been people who failed to show I was wrong, but felt they were right anyway, and got all butthurt because I wouldn't admit I was wrong and validate their feelings.
Nope. Doesn't work that way. Show me or get stuffed. If I think I made a mistake -- as I may have once here in this thread, go back and read -- I will admit I may have been wrong and ask for pardon. But if I am pretty sure I have not made a mistake, you will not get an apology from me.
It's that simple. I don't give a rat's ass about political correctness or what other people think. I speak the truth as I best know it, without spin. If I am shown to be wrong, I will admit it. That's all there is to it. If your feelings get all hurt because of that, probably best to just not engage me at all.
I just ran into this in iBooks, and was very nervous until I confirmed that other normal books still had prices. So "Get" means "free iBook", too.
For books, maybe. But it really just obfuscates the issue for software because they just swapped out "free" for "get", while still barely giving a nod to the DIFFERENCE between actually free, and "free trial but you have to pay to unlock the full version".
Granted, they did add an indicator for "in-app purchases", but made it as unobtrusive as they reasonably could. In my opinion, that is dishonesty. Or at best, being honest only very reluctantly and begrudgingly.
While WhatsApp does have a security hole. Using WhatsApp is more secure than using no encryption.
This seems to be most reasonable of the responses so far.
EFF has mentioned that when the end-to-end encryption is implemented, and then IF it passes their tests, they will update their Secure Messaging Scorecard for it. Right now its score is rather dismal: 2 of 7.
Currently there are only a few text messaging apps that get full points: TextSecure, Silent Text, OTR (Windows), CryptoCat, and something called ChatSecure which I had not heard of before.
Some people objected to CryptoCat being awarded all points, in that it hadn't been fully audited yet. EFF replied that it passed tests to their satisfaction.
I did not list phone apps such as Redphone because they're primarily voice not text per se.
MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.
