What did you do with your sense of humor?
What did you do with your sense of humor?
When the legislative representatives of the People place restrictions on the Executive branch, that's the People restricting the Government. That's really quite simple to understand.
That must have been a weak slashdotting.
Anyway, what's your point? Why the negative talk? What good does it do? Let's either help or just wait and see.
People seem to forget about all the bugs that have to be fixed in every new software project.
Sure, but if you want to achieve the functionality of this site (minus the current beta) why start with code that ran this 7 years ago? If you decided you wanted to build your own distribution of Linux you wouldn't start with a kernel and software sources from 7 years ago, would you?
No, but neither would I try to recreate the kernel from scratch, nor would I try to turn the BeOS kernel into Linux. If all the software since 2007 disappeared, and I wanted Linux back, I'd most certainly start with Linux from 2007. Wouldn't you?
Starting over is always tempting, because it sounds like fun, but it's also very expensive, and often wasteful.
I don't think any reasonable person would start on a slashdot alternative with the hopes of making money on it.
It's not about money, it's about time and effort. Volunteer time and effort is costly and shouldn't be wasted.
And come on, a replacing Slashdot with a wiki?
I don't see how the slashcode from 2007 is a better option.
You don't? Slashcode from 2007 basically does what Slashdot does now--at least, what it did back then, which hasn't fundamentally changed. I was happy with Slashdot in 2007. What does Slashdot do now that it didn't do then?
And why would I want to use a wiki instead? Have you looked at how discussions work on wikis? Ugh!
If that's what you think, what are you waiting for?
Because I don't have the disposable resources to build a slashdot replacement in any way, shape, or form.
Neither do I. But wikis are wikis; you just use them, right? Why don't we just start a wiki on some free wiki host and start posting the kind of stories Slashdot posts, and let people edit the page and add comments?
...What's your point? And who is "science," and why do you trust him?
You might be right about all you said. But I still don't see how requiring the government to disclose to the People the information it uses to justify its regulations could possibly be a bad thing, except for people who want to enact unwise, unfair, damaging regulations that benefit special interests. How do you justify secrecy? This isn't a matter of national security.
>What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?
They are absolutely correct - to the best of our understanding it may already be too late to maintain the basic climate we've enjoyed for the last several thousand years, and *every* *single* day we avoid fixing the problem the more drastic the permanent changes are going to be, and the more traumatic and expensive the transition is going to be.
This is alarmism and panic and Chicken Little at its finest. You've convinced yourself that you understand something as enormous and complex as the earth's climate and ecosystems over an enormous time scale so well that you are certain you know what's going to happen far into the future. Human arrogance doesn't get much bigger than this. The earth is amazingly adaptable and flexible, and so are its ecosystems and inhabitants. No doubt, the weather will be the weather, i.e. always changing. That doesn't mean we're all going to die--I mean, we are all going to die, because that's what humans do, but you know what I mean.
>What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?
Right. This time is something different - the rising CO2 levels are the forcing factor this time, rather than just being a part of the positive feedback system. That actually tells us that once things get past a certain point the CO2 levels will probably quickly snowball out of control as the "usual" natural feedback takes over. If you want the run down I can give you some of the basics, but it's getting late right now.
Do you hear yourself? "Yeah, yeah, but that's not how it's working this time. This time we're all DOOMED! It's about to SNOWBALL OUT OF CONTROL! It's over folks!" I can't help but wonder what your motives are.
>What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?
It should terrify you.
No, it really shouldn't. For one thing, if the climate were to go nuts, we'd all be dead long before that happened. For another, we're far, far more likely to die of a million other things than climate change. For another--and this is probably more important than any other point--the earth and its systems are enormous. The CO2 that humans emit is only a tiny fraction of what the oceans emit. But we--well, some of us--think that we have such an enormous impact on the global climate. We are tiny and pathetic compared to the earth and all of its many parts. You really give humans far too much credit. But the bottom line is that the numbers tell the true story: humans have a miniscule, if any, effect on the climate.
Because it means that there's nothing "normal" about the climate that human civilization developed in, it's just a nice self-reinforcing "comfy spot" the climate settled into for a while, until the next traumatic event shakes things up again. And there's pretty much always a traumatic event that changes things up - cosmic ray burst, asteroid impact, *something* throws the ecosystem severely out of balance and then everything goes to hell for a few thousand years while most of the species on the planet go extinct, until eventually a new stable ecosystem emerges. This time it appears the traumatic event is to be us, most recently by pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere millions of years ahead of the normal geologic carbon-cycle schedule.
Your logic is simply flawed. It's like saying, "He's been in a slump for 8 games, so he's due for a hit any at-bat now." And it's really just silly that you would compare a catastrophic, unpredictable event like a large asteroid impact to human beings' putting out a small fraction of the total CO2 emitted for the past, what, 150 years? Dude, you yourself said that there's no such thing as a "normal" climate, that it's always changing and something major is always messing it up every once in a while. So what makes you think we can have any impact on it? Obviously, the climate is going to do what it's going to do, and we're basically along for the ride.
And what exactly do you think will happen to geopolitics if we suddenly lower the population the planet can support from the 5-10 billion of present estimates, to only a few hundred million? Even if it takes a few centuries things will get ugly - the sort of ugly that promises that even in the best-case scenario your great-great-grandkids are likely to be a lot worse off than you are, assuming you're one of the lucky few who's gene-line survives the cull.
More panic based on more speculation, exaggeration, and flawed thinking. Even if the climate did become less hospitable to humanity, it wouldn't suddenly only be able to sustain a few hundred million. The earth and its systems are enormous. They change slowly. And the sun and the oceans totally dwarf everything humans do.
And on top of all that, you seem to think humanity is going to stop advancing, and that we won't be able to make any changes to adapt to a changing climate. Well, you'd better hope you're wrong about that, because if the climate does radically change someday, it won't be sudden, and it won't be within our power to control, so we will have to adapt--just like humanity has been doing for thousands of years.
Chill out, dude. (Haha, I said "chill out" to someone worried about global warming.)
...Are you so dense? The point is that the AC was either lying or lacks critical thinking skills. Either he knows those media sources are extremely biased, or he's so gullible he fell for it. This is simply more of liberal media's smear campaign against conservatives. What's sad is that so many people fall for it.
What's your point?
No, those who restrict the Government are the People. The Government doesn't govern itself; the Government governs the People, and the People authorize the Government.
Regulating the government with new regulations is "big government"
That is simply illogical. Reducing the government's power is not big government; it's the opposite. That's the whole point.
the sheer size for the EPA to be constantly running billions of dollars of research to justify ever proposed regulation will cost much more than using scientific consensus.
This is a false dichotomy. Who said the EPA would have to be "constantly running billions of dollars of research to justify ever proposed regulation"? This is about forcing the EPA to disclose its research rather than keeping it secret. You're making up objections based on pure speculation and exaggeration. Try being honest.
TFTI. Well, it seems to me that if a citizen's taxes went to sponsor their NOC, they ought to be able to watch their teams compete without having to spend more money.
Code that was around as long as Slashcode from 2007 also has a long list of patched bugs. People seem to forget about all the bugs that have to be fixed in every new software project. Starting over is always tempting, because it sounds like fun, but it's also very expensive, and often wasteful.
And come on, a replacing Slashdot with a wiki? Seriously? If that's what you think, what are you waiting for?
I think it's rather silly to expect a brand new site with no established user base to have the infrastructure to handle a slashdotting. Not only would it be expensive, but until the need is there, it's wasteful. Do you want to fund it? And there's no way that $15 a year buys hosting that can handle a real slashdotting. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as slashdotting anymore.
The majority of people I disagree with disagree with me, so why wouldn't the sane default position be to distrust any of their bills concerning science? I'm clearly the only sane one, so my ideas should be the default, and the burden of proof should always be on them.
My children used to try to change the subject and assert correctness rather than have a rational discussion. they grew out of it, however.
"whackjobs", "deniers," "That makes it automatically suspect..."
The irony is so heavy, man. Can you even write one comment without using ad hominems, labeling, well-poisoning, and name-calling?
And you say they should be automatically suspect.
"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst