Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:The Five Steps of Climate Change Denial (Score 1) 85

The best economic estimates are that free market adaptation will cost a few prevent of world GDP decades from now.

Source? To my knowledge, while there is overwhelming scientific consensus that a certain amount of AGW has happened and will happen, there isn't so much consensus about the extent of damage it will cause. I've heard nightmare scenarios of worldwide dustbowls, wildfires, frequent hurricanes, dozens/hundreds of millions of migrants, wars over water rights, etc etc, and that's without even getting into methane gun territory. While there is no certainty any of that will actually occur, I don't think there is any certainty that it won't, either. And if it does, it's not something that can be easily waved away by a few percent increase in world GDP.

Just look at what's happening to Europe now with the refugee crisis, and imagine what it might look like if half of Bangladesh was displaced by floods.

Comment Re:Surge pricing wasn't meant to exist, shill. (Score 1) 250

Yeah, it was totally intimidating to me when I realized I finally had a "not a taxi" service in my city that would actually show up when I needed a ride, unlike the previously existing "taxi" service that once left me waiting in 10F wind chill on the curb for three and a half hours and had absolutely no record of me having requested a taxi every single time I called. I was very intimidated that someone was willing to take my money to move me from one location to another, without necessitating a prayer and a minor miracle.

Comment Re:Solution: Embrace an actual free market (Score 1) 250

How do the drivers know when it's time to increase their price? How much time should a driver spend waiting for a ride before decreasing their bid? How frequently should a driver try to increase their bid to see if they still get rides? How much time would drivers waste working below the true market rate or waiting for rides because they're too high above the market rate? How would a rider decide what their initial bid should be so they don't end up overpaying? How would a rider decide how long to wait before increasing their bid because they're not getting any rides? How much extra time would the average rider end up waiting before they catch up to the true market rate, and how much money would they waste overpaying? Bidding might make sense when buying a house or trading commodities, but if I'm trying to catch a cab, spending even five minutes playing that game would be a pretty big deal to most people.

Comment Re:They're beginning with a false premise (Score 1) 519

The point of that line was to motivate the importance of ads for content creators, not to explain the desire of people to block ads. I.e., "we need ads to survive, because you won't pay for shit, and now you're blocking ads too!!" Not saying I agree, but that was the intended meaning.

Comment Re:Deliverance? (Score 2) 664

Typical prejudice. No better or worse than judging someone by the color of their skin. Ho, ho, ho. Redneck from Kentucky.

You're completely right so far.

I'd say the only person with a seriously misguided moral compass is the jerk who expects anyone to believe he wasn't flying over somebodies with the intention of spying on them.

Holy mother of a hard left turn. You're gonna end up murdering some poor bloke who knocks on your do ask you to call AAA, aren't you?

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

But let's be clear - circletimessquare also read your post in the exact same way

Is that really what you're going to back yourself up with? That there exists at least one more person as eager to assume they're talking to a pro-Putin boogeyman as you are? Weak.

"Well, it sure as hell impressed opportunistic American politicians who have been expanding NATO for 20 years without seemingly any sort of awareness of the provocation towards Russia it entailed" Yes, you never said it was America's fault NATO expanded eastwards indeed. Unfortunately you can't disown things when you've published them to the internet, what you said is there clearly for all to see.

In one sentence you admit you were wrong, and in the very next you suggest I want to disown something I've said... Why would I want to disown any of that? The only things I've tried to disown are things you've put in my mouth, like that I "have this ISIS style 'US is the great satan' outlook whilst implying Russia is just an innocent bystander."

Speaking of which -- can you copy something I've said that you think indicates that I either "have this ISIS style 'US is the great satan' outlook", or that I believe "Russia is just an innocent bystander"? Do that, and I'll honestly tell you whether a) your interpretation matches my intention, b) your interpretation doesn't match the intended meaning, because I didn't express myself well enough, and you have my apologies, or c) your interpretation is a complete logical non-sequitur. But be careful -- if while quoting me you intentionally leave out important context for what I said that misrepresents my position, you'll dig yourself even deeper in the hole of strawman-fighting you're in.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

I've gone back as you suggested and don't see anything different- your original post was still a suggestion that America is wholly at fault for expanding NATO eastwards,

I'm happy that you've finally stated in black and white, for the record, that you are entirely insistent on jumping to a conclusion that is in no way inherent to what I said due to your itching need to argue with someone you image me to be. Now that that's on the record, I don't have to bother with you anymore.

I could try to, yet again, explain to you that what I said did not involve any moral judgement, but was rather simply about the motivations that drove Russia to act the way we've seen. But I've done that so many times already, and here you are admitting plainly that you refuse to face that simple truth. My suspicion is that somewhere deep inside you fully understand that the way you initially interpreted my post was a mistake, but you have gone so far out on a limb of self-righteousness and condescension that you can't allow yourself to admit that out loud. It's OK, you don't need to. We both know what happened, we can just have a silent mutual understanding about it.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

Actually that's been the implication of your entire argument - the suggestion that NATO is at fault because it would immediately resort to nukes in response to Russian aggression against a member state

HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING!?!?! Dude you're fucking hilarious. All that stuff I said about strawmen and putting words in my mouth was 10 times worse than I thought it was, considering that what I was saying was very close to the exact opposite of that.

Actually that's been the implication of your entire argument - the suggestion that NATO is at fault because it would immediately resort to nukes in response to Russian aggression against a member state.

No, that was what you chose to infer, to the contrary of all the effort I went to to explain myself in as simple a way as I could manage.

You ignore the fact that it wouldn't,

No, you ignore the fact that that was my whole fucking point.

But really at this point your whole argument now seems to be that you never argued anything. I shall assume therefore that this is your desperate attempt to wriggle out of your own bullshit now that I've demonstrate why it's a load of tosh.

Yeah, it must seem that way to you. I made a fairly simple statement that any idiot should find entirely obvious and non-controvercial, and we've spent the entire time since then going back and forth with you putting outrageous claims in my mouth and me explaining that I never said such things. So yeah, of course, if you go by pure percentage of text, the vast majority of what I've typed has been me explaining that I haven't said, because you seem obsessed with jumping to ridiculously unfounded conclusions about my views like that I "have this ISIS style 'US is the great satan' outlook whilst implying Russia is just an innocent bystander."

Here's a little suggestion -- years from now, if you manage how to temper your preconceived notions and learn how to actually listen to what people are telling you, go back to the very beginning of this conversation and re-read what it is you were replying to. You'll have a great laugh when you realize how ridiculous your response was. I know I am.

Comment Re:Grants to Researchers vs Institutions (Score 1) 120

Would you be in favor of journals having a data (or even code) "registration" requirement? Something like any data you use has to be submitted to some third party curator, with full technical documentation detailing the experimental design. I don't necessarily mean that this should entail giving up ownership of the data -- just as a means of making sure that the data itself, and important metadata explaining it, doesn't get lost when the PI or students move on to other things. I've been a part of that myself -- I published something as an undergrad that has seen a moderate amount of citations since, but I've left that field, and the professor I worked with moved to a different university, and I don't even remember if he ever had a copy of the most up to date and final version of all out data and code by the time I left. I still occasionally get emails asking for data/code that I usually just ignore...

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll