Great point; ruins my joke but not the main point, which is that a "theoretical physicist" does in fact understand more of the components of climate (and the statistics needed to think about them properly) than do "climatologists".
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
No, it's several pages of regulations, and then hundreds of pages of "forebearances", describing how the ways the FCC is closing not to enforce some rules - at this time. That way if anyone gets uppity they can bring down the hammer.
it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't
All sorts of corporations wanted this passed.
It's 300 pages. Does what *you* wanted take 300 pages to express? No? HMM.
Good luck with that, as the saying goes. I am really looking forward to you all finding out what has really happened today.
The fact that there is really no major entity working to keep our data safe for ourselves and ourselves alone
Apple does this. Look at HealthKit for example, all data is stored locally, Apple doesn't mine it. They allow you to control who has what access to specific parts of the data.
It's not exactly true of all data, but Apple tries to give you specific control of data where it can.
The reason why Apple does this and other companies do not is simple - Apple actually makes money selling hardware. Google and Facebook have no revenue except what they can extract from you data, so they have totally different motivations.
coupled with the option to subordinate reasoning to that preference upon occasion
I've always found it odd that people who dislike region cannot imagine who faith in something unknowable can live side by side with a rational mind... indeed, if you are truly rational than you have to admit, at least, you do not know if God is real or not.
I'm not really religious myself but I recognize that a large number of famous scientists through history has been, and do not look down on people who are religious, because in every other way they are just as intelligent and rational as anyone.
Dyson: "theoretical physicist" who understands the movement of air well enough to make a portable cyclone you can move about your house.
Climatologist: Understands the entire workings of the climate so well that they have been unable to form a single model that correctly predicts future behavior of the Earths climate in two decades of trying; constantly claims it's because of some new factor they seemed to have overlooked, claims they know everything THIS TIME.
In practice, Dyson is far less theoretical than any climatologist.
But you cannot take a situation where there is no consensus and fool everyone into believing that there is a 98% or 99% consensus.
You and others are trying your damnedest to prove it is possible. I give you an 'A' for effort in that regard, but I'm afraid at this point the sample selection of people who are buying that fabrication is too low to be able to claim you can in fact fool everyone.
The old appeal to authority. Nice.
No different than your appealing to "climatologists" who can't get ANY predictions right over many decades of trying.
Why do you distrust a physicist / mathematician, who is far more apt at understanding statistics, chaotic systems, and the pure physics involved in atmospheric changes than a climatologist (with a much more shallow education in any of those areas) can possibly be?
That's the really puzzling aspect of people like you who believe deeply in people specializing in what is essentially a nascent filed; you are putting more stock in people who have less hard science training, and the results of their predictions based on what amounts to faith dressed up as science are telling.
This is purely an "ad hominem".
No different from Soon, where he is being attacked NOT because the current funding is from Koch, but because he had the audacity to EVER take money fro them. No different, except Soon is not groping women (if you want to rank offenses).
if he really wanted to just get laid, hard science is the worst place to do it.
Exactly, which is why he's in climate science, which at this point has more akin to astrology in terms of accuracy and actual "science". Just because his chicken bones come in the form of heavily doctored data does not make his prognosis any less Scienthy.
If we are questioning Soon because in the PAST he had funding from sources disliked by the left, why shouldn't we question all the original IPCC reports since the head of the IPCC (Rajendra Pachauri) was using his position of power as a sexual predator?
I mean, it could well be he didn't care about the environment, he was just there to gather power and hypnotize potential prey with his positions (a pretty well known technique to get laid in college is to proclaim you are an environmentalist regardless of your actual leanings).
Nice trick - pretend you have 98% consensus in order to proclaim all who disagree with you as quacks - all while neglecting to say of course what exactly constitutes "agree"...
Then when you disagree with anyone in particular who was in the original grouping, you can claim they were part of the wacky 2%.
When you have people disagreeing with your position on the level of Dyson, you really need to re-think how grounded your position truly is, as opposed to "consensus through fear and intimidation".
Oh, and Soon being paid for by Koch? That was in studies long ago, not even the current study in question... but there's another fact you'd hate for people to know, because it means that you are lying when you claim the study you don't like is funded by Koch.
All that matters of course is you discredit anyone who disagrees with you, just like the Scientologists. We all know how trustworthy they are. If I were you I'd think much harder about the intellectual company I keep.
In other words, you can't justify your crap in any reasonable way
I already did with point C - you are at this point mis-directing because you feel shame about your eco-crime to future humanity.
Same thing, global warming.
But not coal, which was your presumption. Your in admission to admit when you are wrong loses you any points gained by using clean reliable nuclear power.
(A) you missed point C. Remember I said C was the most important.
(B) Natural gas actually, but it's not like I can build a nuclear reactor myself and again it's not (C). I do promote nuclear power at every opportunity though so I applaud that.
(C) (still most important) I'm talking future numbers which are inherently unquantifiable until the future becomes present.
I'm not wavering; I'm also getting an Apple Watch. Honestly I think both may be useful in different circumstances; possibly the Pebble Time "past/now/future" thing may be a better UI for a watch.
I want to use both and see which idea ends up working better for me, or even if they just are useful for different things and I use them interchangeably. Lots of people own more than one "real" watch, why can't the same be true for smart watches (well, beyond the obvious drawback of cost - but then a Pebble Time and a low end Apple Watch will cost much less than a single really nice "real" watch).
Also like I said earlier, I really like eInk and like to support it when I can.
Ah, you are that slashdotter who also doesn't own a Tesla share, but checks the credit calculator for the expensive models on teslamotors.com
Teslas are pointless to me (though fun toys) until they ship hydrogen models. Never even visited the website.
They also have large but rather terrible touch screens inside, and they look just like every other sedan, a round lump.
drools about the iphone here on a refurbished samsung galaxy S2
Since I need devices I own to be practical and useful I own an iPhone, not some third-rate copy.
That's my motto. Or perhaps a creed. Or at least a goal. And a habit.