I predict that tomorrow, there will be weather! Yeah, that's not what people mean by predicting the weather. Sure: the 24-hour weather forecast is better than random guessing, but it's still not much better than looking at the sky, and a barometer. And the 5-day forecast? Accuracy isn't in it.

You make and play the kind of game you like, and we'll make an play the kind of games we like, OK? There's room on Steam for lots of games.

I'd prefer a job instead, but hey: to each his own!

Well, let me know when we actually get to the weather-predicting stage. I look forward to that. But I think we'll get fusion first, and maybe spelling and calendar reform.

Oh ho! A moderate. Are you sure you're on the right site? Surely you meant to say "global warming is a hoax!" or "repent your sins of carbon emission, no economic sacrifice is too great!"

I'm sorry, your answer must be in the form of a car analogy.

Exactly. And aether made a lot of sense. And Freud had to start somewhere. None of that was bad science, that's just what early science looks like. We've just since the late 90s had the technology to seriously contemplate climate modeling, and only really in the past 5-8 years has the vast parallelism needed to do it well been available from more than a couple of research computers.

Again, just as it's a mistake to call it "pseudoscience", it's a mistake to believe than any of these early models in the first generation of a new science are particularly worthwhile. Certainly Climate Science is a field that needs more funding and research for decades to come. But just as certainly, it's not a fucking unfallible font of religious truth, and people who act as if it is are as annoying as the SJWs.

Look at the historical data.

It should jump out at you that the past 10k years of relative climate stability is an anomaly, and that rapid (on geological scales) swings in temperature and CO2 are the norm. That whole system is not well understood, though I believe solar variation is the leading hypothesis right now. On a scale beyond a century, there's just no reason to expect climate stability in the first place.

On a decade by decade scale, there's no evidence of warming in the 17 years of reliable satellite temperature data. The null hypothesis - that average temperatures aren't changing - has actually been the best predictor of climate data since the late 90s, odd as that may sound.

The simple fact is: the atmosphere and oceans are chaotic systems, with a variety of positive and negative feedback loops, quite difficult to model, and you can't talk about climate change in a scientific way without doing so. There are no obvious conclusions to draw, as the system we live in is simply too complex for hand-wavy, back-of-the-envelope calculations to be interesting. We may simply lack the technology today to do this science properly. That's not a reason to stop - we built the LHC, proof we can do some fucking impressive technological advancement to achieve a scientific goal. But it is a reason to avoid arrogance.

Climate science is at the phlogiston / aether / Freud stage right now. That's fine, every science must start that way, and the scientific method works given time. But for goodness sake the lay believers are very much like a religion right now, complete with a list of sins and a Hell to roast in, and that's taking it too far!

It's easy to be self-righteous. I used to see it all the time from member of the Christian religion- most of whom weren't really that familiar with scripture. It's no more appealing seeing the same attitude from members of the new Global Warming religion, most of whom aren't really that familiar with the science.

Climate models may one day mature to something beyond the basket of hypotheses they are now, but none of them have yet been successful in predicting climate data, except where the null hypothesis also predicted that data. The science doesn't justify your arrogance. I wouldn't call it "pseudoscientific", but it's far from certain as well, and the actual predictive models (as opposed to hand-wavey claims) aren't yet well supported by actual data.

Natalie Portman, naked and covered in old jokes!

Your focused on a very narrow kind of gaming, and frankly nobody gives a fuck about that sort of political statement except SJWs. Ultimately I think that's the root of the gamergame fight:

SJW: Politics! Identity! Identity politics!
GG: Fuck off, we don't care about that stuff
SJW: See! Oppression! Misogyny! Identity politics!
GG: No, seriously, fuck off! We just play games for the game mechanics, the presentation doesn't really matter.*
SJW: Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

*There are actual academic studies to back this up. E.g., gamers pick an avatar/character based on in-game performance, not on any sense of identification with the character.

Heck, I remember the days of Quake 2, back when that was gaming, when everyone used the female character because her hit box was a bit smaller than the male. 0 fucks were given about gender identity in that choice.

As one of the few conservatives left on /., I can only agree fully with what the above smelly hippie has to say.

Back when Jack Thompson was the Anti-gaming Asshole in Chief, the Penny Arcade guys had a brilliant idea about that, and the Childs Play charity was born. We need a similar idea here. I had hoped that fine young capitalists might be that, but they really don't seem to have their act together, much as I like their intentions. Anyone else have a clever idea for a grand gesture?

Hotmail is a legacy now, but Outlook.com is actually pretty good. It reminds me a lot of gmail before gmail went to shit. Nice clean web UI, like gmail used to have, too. It surprised me with how it doesn't suck - give it a try the next time you need a throw-away: I ended up moving there for my real email (because fuck Google).

Yahoo may pass the total value of the Russian stock market soon, if trends continue. Only Chuck can save Yahoo now.

Well yes I understand that, yet when Jan Brewer down in Arizona did the same thing with immigration it was a BadThing(Tm).

Garodnick was elected to New York City Council in 2005, winning 63 percent of the vote in the general election and defeating both the Republican and Libertarian candidates. In the five-way Democratic primary that year he won 59% of the vote. Daniel Garodnick

I've noticed that Democrats are more likely to "pass a law" on the "issue du jour" than they are to either rationally consider whether a new law is really necessary or to hold LE and the courts accountable for enforcing the existing applicable laws.

Remotely controlled aerial vehicle must be under direct visual observation at all time per FAA regulations.

With respect to UAS used as model aircraft, the FAA reiterated the operating guidelines in AC 91-57, and further noted that to qualify as a model aircraft, the aircraft would need to be operated purely for recreational or hobby purposes, and within the visual line of sight of the operator.
The policy statement also clarified that AC 91-57 applied only to modelers and “specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.” 72 FR at 6690
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

so if you fly behind a tree and lose the visual line of sight, your operating outside the FAA guidelines and I suspect that any system permitting FPV from a UAS affordable by a hobbyist or small or medium bussiness would only be capable of transmitting on a strictly line of sight basis and any obstructions in the LOS would cause losse of the video transmission.