yes, that is what the parent post said and was specific to use sarcasm tag for people who he knew wouldn't get it to accent the point that ignorant luddits should in principle be against every labour saving innovation that people come up with, not just the most obvious (machines, computers, robots), but everything we do. Everything we invent and innovate is a labour saving device somehow. To stop that would be to give up on the idea of humans changing environment to improve our circumstances. Luddits want to stop progress, be it computers and robots or pesticides and pallets. The parent comment was pointing it out, not complaining about it.
You are free to ignore whoever you wish to ignore. However I believe that the AGW crowd have a flawed understanding of what science actually consists of. I happen to believe that science requires comparing an idea against the real world. I "deny" that comparing ideas against a computer model is science.
This lack of confidence in computer models is I believe a fundamental distinction between those who believe that AGW is "undeniable" and those who believe the hypothesis should be questioned as much as any other unproven idea. Unproven, that is, by comparing the idea with meatspace observations rather than computer simulations that are intended to be 100% perfect replacements for the real world.
Has some warming occured in the last century based on temperature measurements? Yes. Probably. By a small amount. Less than 1 degree. Does that mean it will continue over the next century or accelerate? That is simply unknown at this time. The only way to know is to wait and take more measurements. Anything else is no better than guessing. It's certainly not how science is done. It is not a viable method to ascertain how closely your idea matches the reality out there in the complexity of the real world.
Or questioning climate science the same way people use to question that the world was round.
From the perspective of the scientific method there was nothing wrong with being skeptical of the earth being round. In fact it isn't round. It's not flat, but neither is it mathematically circular or spherical. Science is all about asking questions and being suspicious of any easy answers.
It's about the idea that a "skeptic" leaves the door open to all possibilities, but "deniers" have already closed the door.
From what I have seen of the people who question that AGW is 100% proven and undeniably going to cause the end of all mammalian life in less than a century or so at least on slashdot you are beating on a strawman.
I do not consider AGW theory to be even remotely proven and yes I have looked at the so called "evidence". However I would never argue that AGW is impossible. That would be silly. The basic mechanism is sound, but it might take 10,000 years or 100,000 years or the small effect may be overwhelmed by other factors.
The climate of an entire planet is extremely complex and cannot be accurately 'modeled' with a naive computer program. Just like we cannot build a model of the universe in a computer and use it as a substitute for testing our hypothesis in meatspace to see what happens. Science is about testing hypothesis by actually trying stuff out to see what happens. Testing ideas against nature itself. Testing ideas against naive assumptions inherent to computer simulations is not science. When it comes to climate "science" this would mean waiting to see what happens.
At least so far the effect does not seem extraordinarily great. In a few hundred years we can again take measurements to see how things are going. Or however long it takes to see a noticeable and arguably dangerous warming effect. So far the rise has not been dangerous. There is nothing inherently bad about a rise of 1 degree over a century. Just as there is nothing inherently good about a drop of 1 degree over a century. Nor is a 100% perfectly stable temperature inherently good.
The theory is plausible. The effect is plausible. Now AGW just needs to be actually demonstrated in meatspace. It's just a matter of being patient. There is no shortcut when trying to test long term theories. You have to wait. Writing a computer program to accurately mimic a natural process is not a shortcut. At the very least first you would have to demonstrate that your model is 100% accurate and again that requires waiting many years to compare the model's predictions against observations.
If you can prove that all those climate scientists are wrong and climate change is not happening
IOW proving a negative. You do realize that is impossible right? How convenient for you.
I see. So only scientists are allowed to be skeptical of ideas and theories. That is good to know. Thank you. I hope you do not deny the existence of God. You have no right to do that unless you are a priest. Only priests are qualified.
Copyright infringement is theft because it denies a copyright owner the ability to sell the product for which they have the copyright
There is an easy solution. Take away this thing you refer to as "copyright". Afaik such a thing does not exist in nature. In fact it is highly unlikely that the thing an owner asserts the 'rights' to is not even original. It itself is derived from other people's ideas. You cannot own an idea. You cannot own information. Information just is. The best you can do is keep it secret. That is just the nature of reality.
No, not exaggerating, she codes, she sketches, she does a ton of stuff that should be done by people who specialise in it.
How about I prove you wrong in such an embarrassing way that you will have to eat your words? I have that account because at some point I bought Rogers Internet service, and email was part of what I was buying in the package. Eventually Rogers outsourced their email to Yahoo!, so I have an email account that is paid for and that I never imagined would be handled by Yahoo! I am actually a paying customer, you dumb shit.
Marissa Mayer is not a good CEO, she maybe was a useful engineer at Google, but she is a horrendous CEO at Yahoo! When Yahoo! outbid FB by a few hundred million to buy Tumblr it was clear, there is no plan. But there was no plan from the beginning.
I'll explain. You come to a new company as a CEO, WHAT DO YOU DO? What do you do first? What would YOU do? You know what I would do (as a CEO)? I would immediately run an inventory of what I have in the company, what do I have to work with, who makes money in the company, who does not make money, what investments are out there, what products, services, people, holdings, cash is out there.
I would want a recount and fast.
Then, as a new CEO I would definitely concentrate on those parts of the company that actually make money because those parts have already done the HARD work of figuring out how this company makes money right now.
Mayer didn't pay attention to the content generating part of Yahoo!, which is the part that actually earns them revenues at all, she didn't give a shit that there is a part of the company that brings in over a billion dollars a year. A BILLION dollars a year and she didn't care to figure out how that's done and how to boost it before doing anything else that TAKES money, any new investments can only be done once you understand your cashflow and you know that you can actually withstand the spending that goes into the investment.
Marissa Mayer was not hired as an engineer to build products, she was hired as a CEO, as a director to direct, to create strategy for the company. Yes, that means coming up with product ideas as well, no, it does not mean coding (which is what she ended up doing herself in many cases), that's a waste of time for her. She should be looking at markets and clients and making sure that her current accounts don't fall off the face of the earth, instead she didn't pay any attention to her advertising income (she stood up her largest clients), her content generating income (didn't even notice them apparently).
The only saving grace for Yahoo! was their Alibaba 1Billion USD investment that brought them money and investors, who used Yahoo! to invest into Alibaba indirectly.
As to products, what products? The fucking piece of shit Yahoo! account that I have (from old days) is horrible on Firefox under Ubuntu 11.04 that I still run on my laptop.
Thank you, I'm quite flattered by the comparison.
well, as always it's an all or nothing proposition, so good luck!
People are running around with computers in their hands, the phone is now nothing but an add-on feature, as such we should be able to have a real p2p encrypted channel with communications over it, so for people with data plans this shouldn't be a problem. I am more interested seeing if we can have a system that uses voice to send encrypted data over it...
You have the political will to gun down/blow up kids running for the fence? That's what Eastern Germany did.
You are making a strawman argument. Never did I suggest doing any such thing.
Funny, that's what Eastern Germany said too. Fat lot of good it did them trying to keep people in.
You can attempt to draw all the offensive comparisons you want while ignoring the fact it isn't a terribly challenging problem to solve when your wall isn't right through the middle of a major city and isn't easily climbable and isn't the only line of defense. Look at what happened when they put in a complex fencing system in the San Diego zone in the mid 90s: suddenly crossing attempts dropped by over 90%. Nobody got through there, so they all went into the mountains to go around the system.
Simply extend the San Diego system across the rest of the border and have heavy patrols. Anyone damaging the system is imprisoned for a period, then deported to their country of origin. Those who manage to make it through the system are quickly rounded up by the regular patrols and immediately deported to their country of origin. Most will stop trying. The few that remain will be far more easily managed.
Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.
Pardon me, but that's bullshit.
Let's just take the forces we already have today. We have 1.4 Million in active duty military personnel and 850,000 reserves. Obviously we can't take every single one, so let's take half: 1.1 Million people. Now stick them on a 3-man rotation minus 1/3 for duty rotations and leave and spread them out across the 1,954 mile border with Mexico. That puts 125 people plus their equipment per mile of border, plus all their R&D budget going into technologies to increase protection. Those personnel aren't just idle all day; they're building fences, digging trenches, laying sensor grids, and basically doing all the stuff that completely shut down the San Diego zone for crossings and they're doing it 24/7/365 at 125 per mile or one person every 14 yards.
I think that's all way overboard for what we'd need to actually secure (~99% reduction in successful unauthorized crossings) that border, but in any event, don't try to say it's impossible to do. Say we lack the political will. Say we choose not to do it. Say we just aren't interested enough in the problem to do what's necessary to solve it. But don't say it's impossible; that's absurd. I'm not even getting terribly creative here; just sticking boots on the ground and a whole lot more boots than we'd ever actually need at that.