the Sun gives up a max of 1.3KW per square meter

Wow. Couldn't even bother to RTFS, could you? It clearly states that this device "increases the sun's radiation by 2,000 times", so feel free to rerun your calculations with 2.6MW.

Unfortunately, the summary doesn't state whether the increase occurs just around the device or for the entire sun. Just to be safe you might want to buy 3-foot lead sunscreen.

Thank You, raymorris. I'd read most of the thread and still didn't have a clear idea of the problem.

There's only one of it?

I know! The only thing more annoying than those bozos are the other bozos who preemptively call them out, as if their whiny comment will be of use to anyone.

Fortunately, I haven't seen any of the absolute worst scum, who feel the need to point out the faults of the other two bozos. Complains about complainers are the lowest form of comment.

That's a great point. At this point in the show, they could introduce a "normal" scientist and he'd be a complete outsider.

Why can't "god" be the default?

Because every phenomenon has the same effect when it doesn't exist, and only differentiates itself from other things when it does exist. So to explain lightning, you start from a default position that encompasses all possible explanations - "One or more phenomena exist and are causing this, and all others do not exist, or do not create lightning", and then try to narrow down which of the infinite imaginable phenomena are the ones causing lightning.

If "no X" weren't the default position (not just gods), then to be fair we'd have to assume that everything imaginable exists. And...well...Louis CK puts it far better than I could.

Wow.

Can someone help me out? What's the name for when someone acts like a crazy supporter of their opponents to make their opponents look crazy? (you can tell that's what's up because the only person named in the post is the right-wing boogeyman-of-the-day, Elizabeth Warren)

Anyone who is proficient in programming shouldn't have a problem picking up a book (or website) and learning a new langauge, API, etc. in a weekend or two.

This is true as long as you're hacking something together. If you're expected to work with other developers and create something maintainable, you've got to learn a million little standards, conventions, quirks, tricks, and optional 3rd-party libraries.

Picking up the basics is easy, but in my experience it takes a couple of years before one can truly be comfortable with a new language.

Absolutely not. There are, unfortunately, very good reasons to be skeptical. A lot of well-meaning dumbasses have ruined it for legitimate victims.

The original post wasn't just skeptical though, it was accusatory. Even worse, it used the "just asking questions" style of accusation, which (personal judgment here) is a very trollish style of debate.

Me? I'm neurotic. I'd play on my phone and idly click the "Screenshot" button every few seconds until I was sure there wouldn't be more, then post the first one with all the posts. Maybe that's why I don't treat it as a smoking gun.

I'm a bit sad to say I'm sitting at about 50/50 on this. That said, I definitely wouldn't state anything one way or the other until all the facts are in....and probably not afterwards either - I'm just not that invested :)

That doesn't in fact answer the questions raised in the image

• * The account was created just to make the offensive tweets - granted.
• * Screencap taken 12 seconds after the last tweet - The image gives no indication how many tweets were made in total. If this were in the middle of a stream of tweets, then any screenshot would have been taken soon after the "last tweet".
• * No Search, no login - the url could be typed, instant messaged, or searched from Google. As another poster said, somone could see the tweet on their phone, want a screencap, and type the URL into a computer
• * Who screencapped this??? - I don't know???
• * Perfect spelling/capitalization - I didn't address this because I didn't think it needed to be addressed. If I were to go rogue, it would definitely be at this quality and pace. Just because someone's a troll doesn't mean they lack typing/thinking skills.

Did I miss anything?

Or almost as if someone was tweeting constantly (if the screenshot were taken 30 seconds earlier, it *also* would have been 12 seconds after the last tweet).

Almost as if someone were sent a link while they weren't logged in to twitter, and took a screenshot.

Now, nothing's impossible, but you'll need a hell of a lot more evidence to show this was staged. And speaking with such certainty based on such flimsy evidence just makes you look like another troll.

I think you're reading the wrong message. With a bit more context:

If nothing else, that very fact should give one pause. Fundamental changes in the structure of most Linux distributions should not be met with such fervent opposition.

I read that as an argument against systemd. Something like "Fundamental changes will happen in any complex system, but when those changes are positive, they will not be met with such fervent opposition".

I know, how could anyone make a statement as ridiculously inconsistent as "I don't like this one system administered by this group over here, and would like a very different system to be put in place by that group over there"?

Morons.

What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for

I don't think I'd be particularly concerned, assuming:

• He was also charging people for that same puddle of water
• The puddle of water was created by the water industry at great expense
• The industry had a legal right to the puddle of water, with precedents going back centuries.
• Drinking the water was purely for entertainment, and not a requirement for continued living

I'm not saying 33 months isn't an excessive sentence, but you just sound dumb when you make these comparisons.