I can't find any pot growers on youtube using wavelength tuned LEDs to grow weed in a vertical farm.

The facilities used for vertical farming are frequently abandoned factories or unused warehouses. Building modification costs are negligible.

Using wavelength tuned LED systems in vertical farms eliminates those factors.

Growing plants without soil is a lot more expensive that growing plants with soil.

They're not just thinking about selling their product, vertical farms with LED lighting are already in operation around the world. With Phillips recently demonstrating a 68% efficient LED, vertical farms will become commonplace as costs decline and technology improves.

Yes, it is. You'll find that there's a direct relationship between the weakness of a given Karmashock argument, and the frequency of childish insults in his replies.

It's unfortunate that he's sucked another reasonable, rational, polite slashdotter into his black hole of denial. His hope is that because people like you have actual lives and can't afford to spend ALL DAY POSTING ON /. like he does, he can simply outlast someone by continually repeating the same invalid arguments loaded with his childish insults.

All you have to do is review a few days of his posting history, and you will see a very sorry and pathetic picture of an individual that has absolutely no life outside of this site - and has some very serious psychological issues to boot.

Please, take my word for it on this. DO NOT actually review this guy's posting history unless you are prepared to expose yourself to the utter darkness of the mind of a soulless, narcissistic, sociopath. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Cheers!

I understand English just fine. I'm also familiar with logical fallacies, and it's clear that you are not - at least when it comes to the ad hominem/strawman types.

So let's take a look at a definition of strawman attack:

For me to have created a strawman, YOU have to first advance a position.

So I ask you again, which one of your arguments/propositions/positions have I used as the basis to create a strawman?

Take all the time you need to respond. I have plenty of patience when it comes to you embarrassing yourself. Again.

LOL! Which position of yours do you think I've misrepresented?

Since you don't know what constitutes an ad hominen attack, it comes as no surprise that you don't know what forms a strawman argument. So let's add "false accusations of logical fallacies" to the list of your testy behaviors.

Keep posting. I look forward to another public demonstration of your ignorance.

Doesn't matter whether you said it or not. The amount of time and effort you've spent on ACs in this thread speaks for itself.

My my, aren't we testy today. Oh wait, judging by the frequency of insults, profanity and homoerotic imagery in your posts, you're testy *every* day. Maybe you should consider working with a therapist.

Ugh. I'm not in an argument with "Andrew" of Popular Technology. I'm in an argument with YOU, and I'm claiming that your citation of such an untrustworthy source demonstrates a lack of critical thinking on your part. I've bolstered my contention that Popular Technology is untrustworthy by stating FACTS about the nature of the site, and FACTS about the weaknesses of "Andrew's" supposed debunking of the Cook et al paper. You are deluding yourself if you think I've made any ad hominem attacks in this discussion.

Anyone who spends ten minutes looking at populartechnology.com with any degree of skepticism will see what it is - a crank site run by ONE guy who won't identify himself. Anyone who cites populartechnology.com in support of their positions needs to take a hard look at the quality of their critical thinking skills.

I have responded to the peer reviewed paper:

"Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here."
"Be that as it may, you did (finally) manage to provide a cite with some legitimacy"
"I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times."

How many more responses do you need?

You're still stuck with the notion that I'm making an argument I'm not. The only thing I'm arguing is that your citation of populartechnology.com represents a lack of critical thinking on your part. Christ, I even put my position in the title of my post. Apparently you didn't notice that.

LOL, since I'm not forcing you to respond to my posts, no one's wasting your time but you. Given the number of your responses to ACs, I can only surmise that you *enjoy* wasting time.

Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://articles.mercola.com/si... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://arstechnica.com/science... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... (opinion piece written by a lawyer (who doesn't appear to have ever practiced law) who claims to be a "trained scientist". The article relies exclusively on research done by unnamed "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.com - a blog that by all appearances is operated by a single unidentified individual.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... (first mention of a legitimate source rebutting the Cook paper)
http://link.springer.com/artic... (legitimate source debunking Cook)

So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.

In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.

You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:

My opinion on the validity of the Cook paper is right there in black and white. That you keep saying I support the paper indicates that a lack critical thinking skills may be the least of your problems.

I quite agree. Glad you finally referenced one instead of relying on the crap you initially did.

Thanks for spewing that load of mental diarrhea sprinkled with a touch of paranoia on everyone. It says a lot about how you think.

Yeah, I was able to find the abstract on my own. What I asked you for was a link to the full paper.

Hardly. Like I said, my problem is with you citing opinion pieces in financial magazines as having some kind of scientific authority.

...yet it's taken you so very very long to find ONE legitimate rebuttal of the Cook paper. Christ, the thing was published in 2013. Yet you, a self-proclaimed authority on the subject, only became aware of the rebuttal within the last few hours.

I don't dismiss all criticism. I do however dismiss poorly supported claims by cranks with obvious agendas. Critical thinking demands being skeptical of "sources" in popular media, and when your source is an opinion piece penned by a non scientist citing dubious websites, well... you're just not doing a convincing job of supporting your arguments.

WOW! Your complete lack of self awareness is truly impressive.

The only baggage I'm carrying is a requirement for critical thinking when it comes to accepting claims - especially ones that aren't supported by legitimate scientific authority. The little turd of a Forbes article you cited doesn't even come close to be convincing anyone with a critical mind. The fact that you kept trying to feed that turd to people in this discussion isn't a sign of strong critical thinking skills.

Be that as it may, you did (finally) manage to provide a cite with some legitimacy, so congratulations - perhaps you are beginning to be competent enough to have a discussion of this nature.

If there was another source challenging the validity of the Cook et al paper, you didn't provide one. If you did provide one, I would've taken a hard look at the source and made a judgement as to it's trustworthiness. But since the only source you provided was populartechnology.com, I took a hard look at the quality of the information there and found it lacking.

BTW, I've made no claims about the validity of the Cook et al paper. To be honest, I've always been highly skeptical that there could be anything close to a 100% consensus on the subject. Be that as it may, the only thing I'm attacking here is your contention that citing a sketchy site like populartechnology.com provides authoritative support for ANY argument.

Popular Technology puts itself up as a publication with editors and writers. Pointing out that there is but a single author for all their articles, pointing out the complete lack of methodology/data regarding "Andrew's" survey (which on the face of it is blatant cherry-picking) certainly speaks to their credibility or lack thereof. Sorry, providing facts about Popular Technology in order to support my contention that the site isn't trustworthy doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack.

Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here. It would've been a helluva lot better for you to cite the paper directly, instead of wrapping it in the rampant hyperbole of wattsupwiththat.com. Do you have a link to the full papery?

You're not helping yourself. Juvenile comments like that don't speak very well about your level of maturity.

You're linking to a site that doesn't list the names of it's publisher, editors, writers, or contributors. The listed editor of the site, one "Andrew K" is a "Computer Analyst" sporting a Gmail address - and he appears to have written ALL of the content on the site. I could not find one single article written by anyone other than "Andrew" on populartechnology.com. But I suppose these things don't represent red flags for you.

Popular Technology lists seven scientists who have objected to the classification of their papers. Seven authors, seven papers. Out of almost 12,000 papers and hundreds of authors in the scope of the study. "Andrew" claims to have "emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper." "Andrew" gives no indication of how many researchers he contacted, or of the nature of their responses. "Andrew" provides no methodology or supporting data of his supposed survey. "Andrew" simply lists SEVEN of the scientists, and surprise, ALL of them objected. Surprise 2 electric boogaloo: ALL of the scientists mentioned in "Andrew's" analysis are climate skeptics, one of whom is a crackpot who claims to have paranormal abilities and can find water by dowsing.

But, apparently, you see nothing problematic here either.

LOL, did you just pull that out of thin air? Making things up and stating them as fact doesn't help your credibility.

So many of your "sources" are easily debunked when subjected to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Maybe you should challenge yourself and your sources just a tiny little bit harder before offer up these supposed "sources" in support of your claims.

It's supposed to prove that (off the thinly traded BTC exchanges), few BTC transactions are for the purchase of everyday goods and services. Of course, it doesn't actually prove that, but it raises an important question.

Conversly, "ZOMG, O.CO accepts BTC!!!" doesn't prove that people are actually using BTC to purchase anything from O.CO.

If Byrne wants to promote BTC, let him disclose O.CO's BTC sales every quarter.

What's that sound over your head? Hint: re-read 3rd paragraph of GP.

I'm tempted to blather on about how some of a certain age are foolish idiots who wouldn't make it past 30 if things got real - but that would be stoopid. Besides, your post "makes me giggle".