"When the same argument can be used to equally explain all potential outcomes, you have zero knowledge."

I wish I had mod points. That was so well explained.

Yep, coorelation != causation.

Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to scientific proof of causation. To prove causation you need to have a theoretical model allowing you to construct experiements which, with variables controlled for, produce fresh demonstrations of the posited effect. There have been laboratory experiments demonstrating the "greenhouse" effect of CO2 levels since the late 1800s.

Correlation + theory + well-designed experiments + confirming results = causation

Science often starts with observed correlations. But not always. Sometime the theory comes first. It's only on putting all the parts together that science can speak with confidence about causation. If we use the "corelation != causation" slogan as if it refutes all science which follows from observation of correlations, we entirely miss the point.

religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them

To whom here is this not obvious nonsense? In systems of geometry we have axioms "by definition." So if you're doing a problem in Euclidian terms, parallel lines don't meet in space. But if you're doing the problem in real, relativistic space rather than an Euclidian idealization, lines that start out parallel locally, and each continue absolutely straight, sometimes do.

Science is not any single geometry, and so has no fundamental set of definitional axioms. There are descriptions of the scientific method, by Popper and others, that generalize about falsifiability and so on. But even those don't exhaust the space of possible science, let alone establish axioms for it. The branch of physics called "cosmology" very properly, and fruitfullly, is concerned with the origin of the universe; and there is a branch of biology concerned with the origin of life. There is no axiom accepted by science that forbids scientific inquiry into origin questions.

Which experiment? You mean the single one done and repeated a few times in the 1800's that don't really apply to Earth's atmosphere?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas on Mars, or compared to a vacuum, or an atmosphere full of monoatomic and diatomic gasses, but it retains LESS heat than the average molecule of gas in Earth's atmosphere. You can see this for yourself if you bothered to look them up, as I did a few years ago.

Water vapor is short lived, but we have shifted the equilibria. Ignoring that and focusing on the CO2 red herring will both lose you the support of industry and anyone who actually bothers to re-examine the core axiom of AGW, which is, in fact, blatantly, and I think purposefully wrong.

Saying that water vapor isn't a problem because of its short lifespan is like saying MRSA infections are no big deal because the bacteria just die in a few hours anyways.

My undergrad work was in English and psychology, my grad work in philosophy, and it's done me fine. There's never been an instance where I wished I'd had a computer "science" class. Nor have my most capable colleagues been from computer science, on the whole. The comp sci grads tend to have very narrow views of how to do things, which doesn't work out so well in the real world. You have to like to learn to be good here. The liberal arts are far more capable of cultivating that attitude. Comp sci folks, in my experience, only want to learn enough to get a job. Once they show up on the job they're remarkably uncurious. So they can't keep up with changes in tech and programming methods and style. Also, they tend to be uninventive.

Anyone working with tech should have a class in basic logic, as well as a good command of written English, and know how to closely read a book. Beyond that, it's all just getting experience, preferably in the real world, not from exercises based on idealized and unworldly environments. Those who deeply understand computers do not, as a rule, become professors of it. The rewards are so much better elsewhere.

You are literally the world's worst educator.

>Therefore they should be allowed to do literally anything they want, up to and including public vivisections of dissidents.

Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.

The Internet of Things will be of help for this. We need hacks so that everything sends out random information. If they want information, let's drown them in a sea of it.

I'm friggin tired of installing Linux as either server or workstation and finding a bunch of stuff that's oriented to making a laptop work well. I want to be able to do a clean install that by default has no support for Bluetooth or wifi or dhcp client, let alone a propensity to rewrite /etc/hosts or handle any aspect of networking in anything but a hand-configured way. Also, even if systemd's part of the distro, standard text logs should be there by default, as well as cron and a working /etc/rc.local file.

So tell me, if Microsoft left and took the 40k jobs with them, they would then NOT get tax breaks in Seattle.

Microsoft can't go anywhere. 40,000 employees aren't going to happily relocate to Pittsburg or wherever. Can you imagine the cost of building a new campus for 40,000? Can you imagine where they'd ever find a buyer to pay a fair price for the existing campus?

Read up on ketosis. You lose a LOT more than you should because you change your body's system of metabolism to one that focuses on burning ketones, which can't be recycled back into fat. I lose a pound a day, no exercise, and eating until satisfied.

No, it isn't. Restricting calories leaves you hungry, which is utterly ruinous. Low carb, high fat decreases your appetite naturally. After being on low carb for a few months, I am completely satisfied by a small salad and a small steak, where I used to be and eat like a big tubby fat-ass.