TFTI. Well, it seems to me that if a citizen's taxes went to sponsor their NOC, they ought to be able to watch their teams compete without having to spend more money.

Code that was around as long as Slashcode from 2007 also has a long list of patched bugs. People seem to forget about all the bugs that have to be fixed in every new software project. Starting over is always tempting, because it sounds like fun, but it's also very expensive, and often wasteful.

And come on, a replacing Slashdot with a wiki? Seriously? If that's what you think, what are you waiting for? :)

I think it's rather silly to expect a brand new site with no established user base to have the infrastructure to handle a slashdotting. Not only would it be expensive, but until the need is there, it's wasteful. Do you want to fund it? And there's no way that $15 a year buys hosting that can handle a real slashdotting. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as slashdotting anymore.

The majority of people I disagree with disagree with me, so why wouldn't the sane default position be to distrust any of their bills concerning science? I'm clearly the only sane one, so my ideas should be the default, and the burden of proof should always be on them. ...Wait, you believe what? You're one of those whackjobs! LOL, hey everyone, look at what this guy thinks!

My children used to try to change the subject and assert correctness rather than have a rational discussion. they grew out of it, however.

"whackjobs", "deniers," "That makes it automatically suspect..."

The irony is so heavy, man. Can you even write one comment without using ad hominems, labeling, well-poisoning, and name-calling?

And you say they should be automatically suspect.

I'm not making logical fallacies, I'm asking questions to prove a point. One side says it wants to require the EPA to disclose the science it uses to justify its regulations. The other side says that's not a good idea, that we should just trust them. My question is to prompt them: If they are not saying that the EPA should be allowed to base its regulations on non- or secret-science, then what are they saying? That is, besides mindless anti-Republican ranting.

Then what are they advocating? That the EPA can keep its justifications secret? That we should just trust them? Or that it's a Republican-sponsored bill, and therefore must be bad, so the Democrats should write their own version, and then it'll be okay?

How is placing more restrictions on the government's power increasing its size?

The (I don't know...MSNBC? Huffington Post?) school of debating, that assumes that Republican-sponsored legislation is innately evil. If this law passes, we're all doomed. DOOMED!

Anyone who thinks God created the universe is clearly an antiquated fool. And anyone who doesn't agree that we're all doomed because the planet is going to cook us is clearly suffering from head-in-the-sandism and should be publicly ridiculed until they convert. And all Republicans think rape is a gift of God, and that women can just not get pregnant if they don't want to. There are no foolish Democrats.

...Both sides are bad so vote Democrat?

Hey, the Republicans have done a lot of bad things to this country too. But ask yourself this: if one group of people wants to take more of your money and make more decisions for you, and the other party wants to let you keep more money and make more of your own decisions, which one is less evil? Which one wants to control your life more?

Is there no doubt in your mind that Democrats won't do bad things if they get their way, too?

Are we not doing that right now? I have lights, heat, food, and clean air outside. My life expectancy is probably higher than at any time in recorded history. Is that not acceptable enough for you? Must we blindly trust the government and whatever they want us to do?

Good grief, I'm so sick of these stupid false dichotomies.

"We can't require the EPA to be open and honest and scientific! If we don't blindly trust them, we'll end up like China and won't even be able to go outside!"

Is it even possible to have a reasonable discussion with anyone?

"So we definitely need to stop running this dangerous experiment and run this other experiment instead. Yeah, we don't know exactly what will happen, but 'The predictions are there,' so if we don't do it NOW, 'we are screwed, and millions will die'! Yeah, yeah, 57 million people die every day...but think of all the millions that might die if we don't force people out of work and into poverty! Think of all the millions of people that might die if we don't force other people to die earlier! Think of all the millions of people that might die if we don't reduce the population by making people die faster! Yeah, yeah, the earth has been around for millions and millions of years, long before humans existed...and yeah, the oceans produce far more CO2 than humans ever could...but WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!! All these rich people just want to get richer so they can afford huge A/C units when the rest of us roast! They're all anti-science!"

"It's hotter outside!"

"Look at all this CO2 we're producing! It must be our fault! Yeah, the CO2 produced by the oceans alone dwarfs what we produce...but it still must be our fault! It has to be! Don't worry about these 'details', I have them more-or-less right, and I'll keep adjusting them until they prove what I think!"

"Look at all these millions of measurements I took! Clearly I am right! Er, no, don't bother with those measurements...they're...uh...irrelevant."

"Hey, what do you want me to do, reproduce an entire planet? You're crazy! But look, I made a computer simulation that basically does just that, and it agrees with me! And look, I keep adjusting--I mean, improving it! I keep getting more right all the time!"

By the way, who is this mythical "we"? People who agree with you? Oh, okay then.

What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?

What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?

What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?

Oh, I forgot, those are all made up by big, evil businesses. All the scientists who say that are shills. All the scientists who say we're doomed are the honest ones. We should all throw away our standards of living and jobs and "go green." The government will take care of us. What? Who takes care of the government? Um...it does?