The pointy headed suits at dice want to make *more* money from slashdot. These changes are designed to give them better analytics to sell to others. They could give a fuck about our community. It won't even be a big deal to them if this destroys slashdot - they have other toys to play with.

It seems to me that the one unifying opinion of those critical of the changes is that *no changes are necessary*. So, clearly this is NOT something that is meant to benefit the users - it's more likely part of some monetization plan.

Just admit it and move on - stop blowing smoke up our asses like our opinion actually matters. Maybe it did once, but that hasn't been the case for quite a while now.

Isn't that you?

I'm pretty sure that the consensus opinion of scientists is that they cannot and never will be wrong. So by definition, you are a religious zealot (or whatever label would be most damaging to your reputation).

It's science!

Why do you waste your time? This country is going right down the tubes, and arguing with these mind-numbed robots is not going to accomplish anything. There can be no agreement between two parties with mutually exclusive goals.

Your goal seems to be wanting to be left alone - and their goal requires you to tow the line and dance to their tune. No agreement is possible.

Is this now the Argument Sketch from Monty Python? You made the laughable point that Obama is really a Moderate Republican - and I called you an deranged idiot. Prove your initial point (about Mr. Obama) or slink away you fucking chode.

Perhaps you can explain why this "moderate republican" frames every problem as caused by the private sector, and every solution from government?

Like I said, you are clearly deranged. I'll add that you are clearly hard autistic spectrum as well - it's sooooo easy to manipulate people who do not *innately* understand human interaction.

You are completely deranged. Obama has fucking NATIONALIZED the fucking auto industry and healthcare - what sort of fucking mental gymnastics does one have to do to equate him with a misunderstood "moderate republican"?

You can talk about other people being the problem, but it is deranged people such as yourself that fuck up any chance of debate.

You are an utter fool, and you have OD'ed on the kool-aide.

Communism does not work, and has never worked *anywhere*. Of course, if you decide to interpit "working" as creating a massive subclass of non-sentient followers - then in that it has been VERY successful.

Your suggestions have been noted and will be ignored in the order received.

I think Mr. Galileo might take issue with bowing to scientific "consensus." Nowadays you only need follow the money - and I know that you have an erection right now thinking I'm getting ready to hand you the "Big Oil" funding climate "deniers." I'm talking about the BILLIONS tied to producing research that supports the manmade global warming hoax.

There is no single scientific issue today where the scientific process is so thoroughly ignored than so-called climate research. Just think of the word YOU people use: denier. Science today is a manufactured product; funded by special interest groups that take GREAT pains to hide themselves, or paint themselves as non-partisan. You know who has things to hide? Liars do.

When you're right, you don't need to lie. You don't need to ignore the scientific process. If you have (accurate) science on your side, you don't need to suppress contrary opinion, try to destroy the credibility of opponents. The science *should* take care of itself - unless it is a false god that cannot show it's true face.

That's why you are wrong. The climate people can never show their true face: the marxist/socialist face that is only interested in wresting power from the citizens of the world - so that a benevolent government can control things. The biggest polluters in the world are marxist / socialist governments. This includes the USA. I'm not talking about the regulations foisted upon businesses - I'm talking about the toxic messes made by our sanctimonious government.

But that's classic liberalism, isn't it. When a conservative see something that needs fixing, he puts his efforts and his money towards it. When a liberal sees something that needs fixing - he ises that ill to gain power over his peers - then forces others to put their money and efforts towards the problem. Why is that bad? The evil person'd power is tied to the problem. So what the fuck is his motivation to really permanently fix said problem?

Liberals have been "helping" the black man so well since the 60's that the entire black culture is now destroyed. How do we fix it? More liberalism of course.

I don't need to know the science as to why the sky is blue. I can look up and know it's so. But autistic fucks like yourself need the science behind it - then you assume that whatever you have arrived at is God's word and that anyone who doesn't agree is evil and should be treated as such.

Guess what, normally people are a hell of a lot smarter than the scientists. Normal people have hundreds of thousand years of evolution shaping their perceptions, instincts, and sensibilities. But autistic people have neurological defects that make them blind to things which are plainly obvious to normal people - this makes the autistic person incredibly easy to bias - after all, they are truly blind to many things and depend on "science" to define the world for them. And they are as effective in that as a blind person trying to intellectually visualize the color red. So by controlling "science," you control this segment of the population.

I'll start paying more attention to the biased autistic fucks feathering their own nests with the money for climate science, just as soon as they start respecting the scientific process. And the last I checked, following the scientific process does not include: conspiring amongst peers to suppress research that is contrary to the "consensus," trying to get people fired for not agreeing, trying to prevent a professor from getting tenure for disagreeing, or impuning scientists who produce research when some of the funding for it came from energy companies. Who gives a fuck where the money came from? If you are following the scientific process - bad research will be shown as such. There is no reason to try to destroy the man behind it - unless you are in the wrong and you simply cannot refute their research using science.

Fuck you asshole - it is you and the people like you that are fucking everything up. And without conspiracy and lies, you have no power at all.

Of course everyone should still reflexively support and promote any study supporting your political beliefs.

Yet another zero content post. I guess you're not used to being challenged. Kind of pathetic really.

As a student of science history, I have seen the term "scientific consensus" many many times throughout history. Usually it is followed immediately by something like "and then blah blah happened."

>> your intellectual dishonesty is bad enough without it

Uh, what intellectual dishonesty? Do you dispute my characterization of how the scientific method should work?

You would be better off simply not replying when you have no comeback. By retorting with a zero-content post, you only confirmed that in this battle you are completely unarmed.

It's pretty arrogant to reflexively interpret disagreement with ignorance of the subject. I bet this is a constant issue with you. Of course you may be the exception, but it is hard for me to find a global warming supporter that has anything more than paper-thin knowledge in the form of talking points when I try to discuss it.

Of course arguing with autistic spectrum people is always a trying thing. You people are just so unpleasant in just about every way. And due to AS issues they are unable to understand or care why this is.

My only wish is that the scientific political weapons of the liberal/marxist were subjected to the same sort of scientific method as any other part of science. The fact that you have the reflexive knee-jerk orthodoxy is complete proof that this is not a valid scientific process.

In any valid scientific process, when another scientist points out a possible flaw in your data or conclusions, the reaction is not a demonization process and a concerted group effort to have that person destroyed professionally. The reaction is more like, Hmm, that's interesting. Let me look at this again. A real man of science invites debate and scrutiny; this is because they are either right and welcome the discussion to prove it, or they REALLY want to know if they themselves are in error.

But that is when you are really interested in science, not simply the appearance of science to hide your agenda.

But this is not how you people are, is it? The reaction from people such as yourself is immediate demonization, no different than how the catholic church dealt with Galileo. Your arguments (in the macro sense) are no more provable than the church's was.

That's a good try, but I'm pretty sure that at some point during his presidency, that George * Bush mentioned the existence of the sun. So any issues with solar output can and will be blamed on him.

That's how it works; it's so easy only a child can understand it.