Comment Re:An intelligence officer? Well he MUST be expert (Score 1) 270
ok, so you didn't read my post, and you're ignorant.
Is there anything else you'd like to say?
Is there anything else you'd like to say?
Given that money can be considered speech, the fact she is reducing the price so much is, itself, transformative. No other alteration to the work was necessary: the price difference alone speaks volumes.
That is a good point......and it truly communicates more than the Richard Prince's 'transformation'
In place of the NSA, it will be Verizon, Comcast et al who will be doing the bulk data collection.
That is still better, it means a random NSA employee won't be able to do "love int" and more importantly, if a politician requests to see their opponent's records, it will be harder to do so.
As I originally stated, you claimed that someone else's opinion was wrong. Yet the opinion was never expressed by someone else, only imagined by you. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.
Nah. It was attacking a supporting argument to his spoken point.
That is, there is no consensus at all that global warming needs to be 'solved' or even how to 'solve' it if it does need to be solved. There's no consensus that it's a problem, which was implicit in that guy's response.
His point was that science journalists and scientists never could be fooled by similar claims, but they already post silly claims all the time related to AGW, like this one by a scientist, which was widely reported before being debunked by other scientists (and soon by time as well).
Imagine your 90 year old grandmother suddenly regressing in age a bit, with a restored mental and physical agility.
Frankly, that would be awesome. I can think of few things that would make me happier.
Since you're so knowledgable about information you don't have access to, can you tell me if the tie I'm going to wear next Tuesday goes with the shirt I was planning to wear it with?
I have no idea.
Are you saying 97% agreement among expert judges does not fall under the term consensus?
That's not what I said. I said you don't understand what they agree on.
Anyone who argues against things that people didn't say is wasting their own time. You are one of those people.
That is true, I am wasting my time, since you don't even understand what you are saying, you think there is a consensus, but you don't know what that consensus is.
If you understood what there is consensus on, then you would be more interesting to talk to. Instead you're just ignorant to talk to.
Put another way: if you get a degree in computer science, or you are self-taught using common resources, you probably have a skill set that reflects that reflects the bare minimum that a company will accept and you have a skill set that the market is flooded with.
If you have a CS degree from a decent university, you're competing with entry-level grads who just barely took an eight-week-course in programming from some coding bootcamp.
Somehow those guys manage to find jobs, and a CS degree is already more skilled than them.
Of the scientists who have expressed an opinion on AGW 97.2% endorse the consensus. only
The consensus isn't what you think it is. That is, if you ask scientists, "should we do everything possible to stop global warming now" or "will global warming cause millions of deaths in the next century," you will not get anywhere near 97%.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer
