Comment which is fine light reading, but not a reference (Score 1) 22
you can't cite this book in a courtroom, because it's not a recognized reference. those are achingly reviewed and certified by state (or federal, as the case applies) courts.
you can't cite this book in a courtroom, because it's not a recognized reference. those are achingly reviewed and certified by state (or federal, as the case applies) courts.
you are chasing a wooly mammoth buck-naked with a fork. we determine you need titanium toe rings with 6-carat blue diamonds. why? hell, just because. your credit card on file has been decremented ten million dollars. now your avatar jingles as you run.
perhaps you want an elephant gun now? please enter a new valid credit card number...
And Marxism fails because it view labor as something nobody really wants to do
That is the exact opposite of how Marx viewed labour. For Marx, labour was the very essence of self-expression.
Indeed, it was Ayn Rand who viewed labor as something only a very small number of heroic, good-looking, and rich people wanted to do. Her theory was that the rest of humanity needs to be threatened with starvation or they would only steal from their betters.
they had cold-storage CD jukeboxes at (well-known HVAC) back that far for old catalog crep. heck, they had rooms full of videotape carts in TV stations back that far... take your pick, VHS pro or Beta Pro. robotic storage is way old, just the medium changes, depending on what you are used to in your industry.
don't plug toasters, TVs, fridges, etc into the Internet. the geniuses behind them don't even finish the software they're loaded with at the factory.
But if you don't puff up your offspring with enough praise early one, how will they have the iron-cast confidence to windbag their way to the top in todays bullshit world? Again, what use is true intelligence if you don't have the bellicosity to shout down all gainsayers?
long time ago, a slashdotter cut right to the chase when he posted "Microsoft is not a software company. they are an abuse company. they utilize software to inflict their abuse." somebody tore down the copy I had hanging next to the copier, so alas, I cannot credit the statement properly. easily 10 years ago, and it hasn't changed since.
It's obviously, The Big O.
the Borg is more cohesive with faster Internet. we are closer every day to domination.
What I and most of the "deniers" questioned falls into 2 categories.
Actually, no. You're falling for the false-consensus effect. There are a whole lot of different "denier" opinions, but yours is not one of them. You are making false cause with people who actually think that you're a deluded global warming apologist. The people who are correctly labelled as deniers are those who actually deny that global warming is happening. Generally, they deny that the greenhouse effect exists, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or they deny that man is producing significant amounts of CO2.
The people, like you, who claim that the models are overstating future warming and that unchecked global warming won't dangerous are luke-warmers, not deniers.
Most of the models Ive read about show that human activity is only a tiny sliver compared to other factors, especially water vapor from evaporation.
Let me explain a bit here. Water vapor is effectively constantly at saturation in the atmosphere, evaporation and precipitation keep it relatively well balanced. The major factor that determines how much water vapor is in the atmosphere is temperature. So, it's a feedback effect, water vapor amplifies the warming caused by other factors such as CO2 and Milankovitch cycles. Additionally, CO2 gets the lion's share of attention because it's a long lasting gas and we produce a lot of it. It will likely take centuries for CO2 levels to fall back to pre-industrial levels even if we cut emissions to zero right now. Other, more potent gases, tend to have half-lifes that are measured in years instead of decades or centuries and we produce orders of magnitude smallers amounts of them. So while CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, we produce a lot of it and some of the other gases, like water vapor, amplify it's effect.
There's this thing called the internet. Perhaps, you've heard of it? It would be quite easy for all these supposed scientists who supposedly are being censored to form their own website (or journal even) and publish the papers that are supposedly being censored.
Of course, that actually has been attempted a couple of times, but on every occurence that I know of, it turned out the papers were rejected because the paper was fundamentally flawed, not because of the claimed political oppression. It turns out scientific journals want you to use facts, logic, and math. Who knew, right?
It's so much easier to claim that you're being oppressed than to admit you wasted months because you made some basic math errors.
You're not in much of a position to be presuming to know what I think.
You've written multiple long-winded posts about how the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Are you recanting those statements?
If so, then we should congratulate you and you win this one, if not, then's he right and you lose.
Your outdated "value-adding" "service provding" skills are so 20th century. 21st century careerism is about networking. Networking. Networking. Netowrking.
Look at item number one on TFAs list.
1. Take names.
... In five to 10 years, that will all be different and the person who you ignored because they were boring and couldn't help you will be the person who could have won you an important opportunity.
Network! Impress people! Dress right! Booze people up! This is how successful companies are made. You will not attract the rright venture capital with your simple abilities. Most companies won't even use those anyway.
2. Problem solving.
..... Problem solving is essentially the same thing you learned in abstract in seventh or eighth grade or whenever you learned simple algebra.
See! Look at this! The people this guy is writing for don't even know how to solve problems. They just code stuff nobody really needs -- and they're still successful! You think your ability to analyse and abstract is something all the cool kids will pay for? Think again. Your geek/nerd/hipster/bro-grammer cred wil matter far more.
6. Work more than 40 hours per week.
Profession? You think programming is a profession. Get back on that hamster wheel and like it code monkey. And get some hair dye. First sign of a grey hair or stress line from yellow packs like you and we sack you and hire a fresh young grad to suck into a husk.
5. Think in terms of a career, not a series of jobs.
Translation: "You can either join the fed-money, app-cloud bullshit wagon, or you can learn to love foodstamp lines. Either way, it'll still be a superior outcome to any science-fiction fantasy you imagined programmers were capable of making in a rational universe. The Market wants fart-buttons, not robots, so drink the kool-aid or join the lowest caste of contract workers you, you, you..... Loser."
No wonder so many programmers go into management.
"Hell, Dr. Fred, if we put enough energy into the damn stable thing, just think how big an instantaneous charge we can drain out!"
where's the Kickstarter link?
oh, what the hell, just get together and figure out the 4 fellow students you want to kick off the tail of the curve, and the rest get As.
can anybody here rebound? extra credit!
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne