I hope the percentage of criminals who get caught for bragging is high... Because if for every one of these guys in the article, there's one who can keep his mouth shut, then we may be in trouble.
A "global extinction event" is "highly probable"? And the future is wind and solar?? Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.
You know what's bad if you have motion sickness?
Watching a video of a guy on a roller coaster watching a video of being on a roller coaster.
FoxBleed is one. It doesn't block the connection, but it lets you know about the problem.
You should be fired.
It's an F-350. It's tornado-proof.
Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!
Would you care to read the summary and try again?
That's one of the most well-articulated statements as to why Bennett's posts are worthless. Thanks!
I feel I should point out I was being ironic in my original post. In the comments for previous essays by Bennett, he has attempted to defend himself by challenging everyone to find any incorrect statement. Of course the lack of incorrectness is ludicrously insufficient to justify his posts, as you point out.
Can you find any statement that is incorrect?
The scientific method deals with models. There are no truths, there are best explanations. Only religion deals with truths and for that you do need faith.
That's pretty much what I said. Why do you call me an idiot?
We have countless lungs to study. We have one (1) universe, and one (1) atmosphere. There is no repetability of the grand narratives, because there's a sample size of one, and we're in the middle of the "experiment". Completely different from studies on lungs.
The article conflates two very different types of science. One is experimental: cigarettes cause cancer. That's a testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis. The scientific method can be used. Alternate explanations can be systematically disproven.
Then there's the science that says, "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true". Note that it does NOT say "therefore Z MUST be true", which is what the article is implying. Z is something like the story of the universe from Big Bang through inflation up to today, or the story of manmade global warming. "Science" can project itself in those directions and come up with some answers, but there is no scientific method on a narrative. There are no controlled experiments. Every alternate hypothesis cannot be evaluated. They are at best projections, models. They're not "truth" without faith.
Agreed, but what should that mechanism be? My business runs on open-source software. Pretty much everything is behind our reverse proxy, Pound. One of the numerous libraries which Pound relies on is OpenSSL.
To whom do I give money? Debian? The applications I use like Apache and Pound? Do I enumerate all the libraries that all the applications use and give each of those hundreds of projects a few pennies?
With your bare hands?!?
