I suspect I far out-credential you on both science and climate studies, but the internet has no respect for that. To that degree, I would agree with your objection to the rejection of expertise, but I take it a step further than you... I don't consider many of the "experts" experts because they aren't - they are preachers. To be an expert, you have to have studied the alternatives, gone into the lions den, and be able to defend your hypothesis rather than shouting down what you consider unbelievers. But the alarmists have a history of treating it as a religion.
Your inability to discuss this civilly suggests you have the same problem. All these invectives and so little content. Bravo for you!
Who are you quoting? You use the words "lying", "gullible", "brings out the worst", etc., but you mangled rather than quoted.
Use a mirror much?
Wyoming may not be "politically correct" on the issue, but they are correct that "global warming" being caused primarily by man-made emissions isn't settled science. (And no, computer scientists are not the correct scientists.
Regardless of local effects, the basic problem is that we should be warming right now, and we aren't.
Why should we be warming right now? The Medieval Warm Period (950-1250) was much warmer than the period that followed - and warmer than now. Wine grape grew in England back then. This was followed by the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). These are considered cyclical, so we should be getting warmer for a few hundred years, starting around 1950. Regardless of human-sourced emissions.
But the other problem is, we're not really, at least not on the activists' schedules. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concedes for the first time that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite a 7 percent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Despite global human CO2 emissions in the last 15 years representing about one-third of all human CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures didn’t budge.
If man-made global warming is your religion, it looks like settled science despite the actual results. If science is your religion (rather than your credential), there's no enough evidence to support the hysteria yet, and a growing amount calling it into question. So why should it be considered "fact" in a kid's textbook? Are we trying to teach them to think or are we trying to indoctrinate them?
No, it really comes down to risk and reward. Not funding. Cops are widely believed (there are some naysayers) to get promotions and plumb assignments based on ticket revenue. Recovering stolen items involves getting a warrant - they can't just go to the house - and then risking being shot at or accused of racism. What's the up-side?
Better law enforcement would come from using the same tools those capitalists you revile used to get the riches you covet... merit rewards rather than union protection.
No, not ignore them. Just battle their attempts towards goals we disagree with even before they get to the ballot box.
Your initial statement, summarized, was that 2nd Amendment supporters shouldn't worry about devices that almost certainly would lead weak politicians to pander by endorsing and then requiring... until the ballot box time of supporting those politicians. My rebuttal is that if you don't respond when you see the danger coming, beating it back later is far harder. Just as anti-freedom gun-ban advocates see no "legitimate" use for a gun, Constitution-supporters may see no "legitimate" use for a technology that provides a clear path to the NSA disabling all the guns.
Was it misdirected for the rainbow coalition to villify Brendan Eich? I suspect you of hypocrisy.
Completely wrong. Fight it. With everything you've got. Because otherwise gun-hating pacifists will soon force only those "safe" (meaning non-functioning) guns to be legal.
Grishnakh, are you generally anti-gun? Is there any reason a gun-owner or a supporter of the 2nd Amendment should consider you relevant?
I suspect this is because the Democrats get most of the tech (Google, Microsoft, etc.) donations. But just because you're socially liberally (presumably, given your post and bias) doesn't mean you have to believe the Democrats never do wrong. Everybody does wrong at times.
If you're going to bring politics in, at least get them right. It's the Democrats that have supported H1Bs more, probably because they get all the tech money (Google, Microsoft, etc.)
It's not a "right" in the Constitution or Bill Of Rights. Just because you are intolerant of dissenting views doesn't mean you should co-opt the language and use bombastic terms. Or is the left emulating Rush Limbaugh now?
(And no, I'm not against gay marriage. I came out for it, in a Catholic magazine, probably 22 years ago, as a way to finally force a separation of Church and state. Your religious (or pagan or whatever) marriage should have no relationship to your taxes.)
The problem is Disney. The last Copyright Extension Act increased copyrights to 120 years. The original U.S. copyright length, in the Copyright Act of 1790, was for 14 years with the potential for one renewal for another 14, and only if the author was still alive.
Corporations have taken over copyright, and it's not currently fixable due to their power. We can destroy copyright and then rebuild more easily than we can wrestle the monied interests into compromise.
Google is a problem for both sides, but that isn't a bad thing... having two enemies duke it out, weakening each other without impacting you, is a good thing.
You probably didn't participate in them, mbone. Because I did, and I remember the beginning of the 1980s was about Global Cooling. People were freaked out about it, but without the megaphone of the internet. It was magazines and newspapers.
There was a benefit to the paper media... a higher effort to learn and a higher effort to be heard resulted in less panic. Not so many charlatans (on either side) but also not so many zealots trying to control the conversation. And there was more of an understanding of the difference between "theory" and "settled science"; we were (and still are) learning rather fundamental things about the world, and we used to require that any theory (or fact) be not only supported by evidence but provable... which meant you could propose future observations or experiments that, if violated, would refuse the theory. There was more discipline, again probably because of the higher efforts involved to say (or read) anything at all.
It's not the "non-believers" that have been marginalized. It's the entire scientific method and discussion. Regardless of the reality of global warming, the process has been crippled.
I get annoyed when the premise is so flawed, but stated as fact.
Yes, each language has it's own way... COM, exports, dllimport, etc. Until it has one, it's not a very functional language. But this isn't a new development.
Many small businesses use DomainsByProxy. As do many individual domain owners. If you don't have a permanent business address distinct from your home address and aren't using it, you're being foolish.
The problem is, you have no control over your registration data. You use your legal name and mailing address, necessary not just for billing and because the contract requires it but in case of future ownership disputes, but then the automatically get posted on whois. Meaning any crackpot or spammer or salespeople can simply grab that database and call you - yes, by telephone - or drive by. And they do. And it gets aggregated into all sorts of other data. Suddenly everything you've ever done is more easily connected, with a simple Google, than before.
I've had domains since very early on. It's not a nice world out there. Initially I didn't pay extra for that service. Not my best choice ever. You can't put your home address and phone number back into the bag, you can only let them out.
Small businesses often provide better services or custom work than large ones do. And it can be riskier. But hey, I bought a Ford (new) in the mid-80s, I can tell you all about how even large businesses can be evil.