Slashdot Mirror

Pitten

Pittance

Pitten

Pittance

Not all plants thrive with higher CO2, especially when the CO2 causes increases in temperature at the plant's location which allows pests to attack it.

That does not address the argument. Someone argued that greenhouse gas == pollutant.

I point out that H20 is considered a greenhouse gas.

You seem to agree that CO2 == greenhouse gas => CO2 == pollutant.

Do you agree that H20 == greenhouse gas => H20 == pollutant? Because that's absurd.

You can educate yourself here so you stop making yourself look quite so foolish. Fat chance, right?

What on earth is an "encyclopedic definition" of a word? Have they not heard of word definition lists called "dictionaries"?

Pollutant: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use

Not safe or suitable to use? CO2 could be considered unsafe at elevated levels ... but at the planet level, it's a key part of the Oxygen Cycle. that is essential to life. Defining a necessary part of life as a pollutant is nonsense.

(Legal definition ignored because it does not change the science)

The graph on your article that claims runaway CO2 levels is invalid - it overlaps 3 different methods over 10,000 years, and the last method showing the worst numbers uses a single location's sample to represent the entire earth's atmosphere. By that standard, the whole earth must have Hawaii weather. Except it doesn't.

Bring a better source. Yours sucks and mal-educates.

You must not have received the memo. Literally now means both in a literal sense, as well in a not so literal sense.

Just to make sure I'm clear on this: you feel that it's not a big deal that 3.5 *billion* (probably a couple billion more in the next 50 years) will become homeless refugees

Each year, about 15% of the US population move. That means that after less than 20 years, the equivalent of the entire population of the US has moved. Does this cause people to become homeless refugees? No, of course not. Sea level rise is so slow relative to natural migration that it has never mattered and will never matter.

along with the loss of arable land

Most arable land is not on the coast, and climate change likely does not cause a significant net gain/loss in arable land. (You can find the papers yourself on Scholar).

infrastructure and all manner of other things

Just like people move around, infrastructure effectively needs to be replaced every few decades anyway. It makes little difference whether it is replaced in the same location or elsewhere.

Is that correct?

No, you got just about everything wrong.

There's something called context. Please place my comments in relation to the GP's comments, which was to posit that, and I quote, ."Even if the polar ice caps melt, only coastal cities will be lost."

Now, read my post again in the context of GP's comments and you'll see that my point was that should sea levels rise more than 60 meters (the GP's suggestion, not mine), we'd have much bigger problems than GP thinks. That it's unlikely (in the extreme) for the polar ice caps to melt completely (at least not any time in the foreseeable future) isn't really relevant. Does that make a little more sense to you? Or is there a a lack of imagination holding you back? Sigh.

Just to make sure I'm clear on this: you feel that it's not a big deal that 3.5 *billion* (probably a couple billion more in the next 50 years) will become homeless refugees

Each year, about 15% of the US population move. That means that after less than 20 years, the equivalent of the entire population of the US has moved. Does this cause people to become homeless refugees? No, of course not. Sea level rise is so slow relative to natural migration that it has never mattered and will never matter.

along with the loss of arable land

Most arable land is not on the coast, and climate change likely does not cause a significant net gain/loss in arable land. (You can find the papers yourself on Scholar).

infrastructure and all manner of other things

Just like people move around, infrastructure effectively needs to be replaced every few decades anyway. It makes little difference whether it is replaced in the same location or elsewhere.

Is that correct?

No, you got just about everything wrong.

There's something called context. Please place my comments in relation to the GP's comments, which was to posit that, and I quote, ."Even if the polar ice caps melt, only coastal cities will be lost."

Now, read my post again in the context of GP's comments and you'll see that my point was that should sea levels rise more than 60 meters (the GP's suggestion, not mine), we'd have much bigger problems than GP thinks. That it's unlikely (in the extreme) for the polar ice caps to melt completely (at least not any time in the foreseeable future) isn't really relevant. Does that make a little more sense to you? Or is there a a lack of imagination holding you back? Sigh.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

You have no idea what you're talking about....

If you look up the definition of abnormal in a dictionary, such as this one or this one. You get definitions like: ": different from what is normal or average : unusual especially in a way that causes problems" or "Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant. odd in behaviour or appearance; strange". So even if the word has a sense as you indicate, other senses of the word are pejorative.

Merriam-Webster would like a word with you:

No they don't, because you misquoted their entry.

homosexual
adjective \h-m-sek-sh(-)wl, -sek-shl\

: sexually attracted to people of the same sex

: based on or showing a sexual attraction to people of the same sex

What you chose to post was the definition of homosexually. Source, the very same Merriam-Webster entry you use to support your own biased view.

But hey, thanks for playing the "Can I Get Away With A Mis-Quote" game!

I didn't say it was fair. In fact, I said it was rather underhanded. That said, the manufacturer should provide a driver for their hardware. But that would require more work than just copying someone else's design, wouldn't it?

Given that FTDI invested in the R&D to design the chip and write the driver, I would expect that they should be able to decide if they want their driver to work with chips made by other manufacturers.

I'll say it again. FTDI went about this the wrong way, but just as ignorance of the law isn't a defense, a consumer's ignorance of technology shouldn't require a manufacturer to support those who steal their designs and profit from them.

I tell you what, go ahead and develop a new device and start selling it. I'll copy your design and sell it for 25% of your price, and instruct users to install your software for the device. If you make any attempt to stop me with your software, I'll blame you and suggest you be sued. Sound good?

I'll say it one more time -- FTDI went about this the wrong way.

Their driver should just ignore any device that it can detect as counterfeit and produce an error suggesting that the user contact the actual manufacturer for a driver. Assuming there is no such driver, then the consumer is hosed.

Don't tow the "Climate Change" line, don't get funded.

Well, if they're going to force me to tow something, maybe I don't want to have that kind of funding. I "toe the line" that towing is hard work, and I'm allergic to hard work!

>IBM still obtains boku bucks

The word you're looking for is "beaucoup." You seem super-high.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"the act or practice of giving or taking a bribe"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"2: something that serves to induce or influence"

Explain to me where it says it has to be illegal to be bribery. Yes, it does have a definition, and yes, you do not understand it.

A campain contribution is a bribe by the dictionary definition. We have voted in people who made the legal definition different from the dictionary definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"the act or practice of giving or taking a bribe"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"2: something that serves to induce or influence"

Explain to me where it says it has to be illegal to be bribery. Yes, it does have a definition, and yes, you do not understand it.

A campain contribution is a bribe by the dictionary definition. We have voted in people who made the legal definition different from the dictionary definition.

Yeah those people who 'point out rampant sexism' are claiming victimhood to shield themselves from criticism. This is no different than democrats who race bait anyone who criticizes their positions (republicans used to do this with 'christian shaming' back in the day). Sarkeesian's videos have been thoroughly debunked at a logical and factual level (it's not hard to do). The whole thing blew up because of the evidence of journalist, site, and network collusion to push this narrative. The sites that allowed open discussion of the topic were attacked.

If you care to know, here's a pretty good summary, with a slightly humorous intro.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

just in case anyone thinks 'race baiting' is a made up term.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Well, that depends on:

(a) your definition of literally: (in a literal sense vs. virtually), and

(b) your definition of definition: (explanation vs. perfect example).

The irony of this situation is left as an exercise for the reader.

Well, that depends on:

(a) your definition of literally: (in a literal sense vs. virtually), and

(b) your definition of definition: (explanation vs. perfect example).

The irony of this situation is left as an exercise for the reader.

Sorry:

Full Definition of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. 1 : a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers. 2 : the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior.

Even spelled correctly it is the wrong word. Wow. A new low.

Well, the 'But you can vote'-part still keeps the people thinking they have a say still works. An extra plus is that you only have two parties, so half the people can blame the other half.
Devide and conquer is not a new idea, but it works, so why change it? (Together with panem et circenses

Companies are smarter than people and do not vote on just one party. They vote on both parties and they do it with their wallets.

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

mousy

Please try to engage your brain before you post.

almost: very nearly but not exactly or entirely

And yes, Thursday Night Football does glorify the police state.

English dictionaries would disagree with that.

Well, something that is obscure is just something that's hard to read. A password is supposed to be hidden, and not seen at all.

Obscure as a verb means to hide/cover or to make difficult to understand. From Merriam Webster:

2obscure verb \äb-skyur, b-\
: to make (something) difficult to understand or know : to make (something) obscure

: to hide or cover (something) : to be in front of (something) so that it cannot be seen

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

They are basically synonyms.

You mean like buffalo and wild boar?
I'm guessing somewhere between plenty and a hell of a lot.

The key word is "dependent". Panda is dependent on humans to survive. Pigs... nope.

Or I could not act like a faggot.

You use that word with people outside the internet? If someone says to you, "that was rude" do you say "stop acting like a faggot"?

No, of course you don't, that would get you social censure. Why should video games or the internet be different.

If you are so weak you can be hurt by mere words it is YOU who should leave and find some other group to play with.

It isn't weak to expect proper sportsmanship. That's what we should aspire to, not trash talk.

Expecting everyone to conform to your ideas isn't only selfish but futile.

Do you see people outside the internet behaving like you say you want to? No, because there's expectations. In fact in physical sports, bad behavior can get you or your team penalized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

This is what we should aspire to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

That's actually a really good reply.

There is no such thing as non-political entertainment. Your entertainment came with political views, whether they were consciously put in there or not. You just can't see them because they're the defaults.

In the immortal words of Tim Minchin:

Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute bullshit.

You confuse politics with culture and society. Let's ignore the 50,000 smartphone games that are so simple you would have to stretch a lot of things far beyond breaking to find any culture in them, to the point where Pong was some kind of social statement. But even with all those games ignored and restricting ourselves to PC games, yes they very often reflect parts of our culture and society. Some intentionally, some not. It's not a surprise, given that culture influences on us as members of society, and thus leaves a mark in our creative pursuits, just like greek culture influenced greek art and literature and any famous american book of your choosing would've been very different had it been written by a chinese author in China, for example.

Politics, however, is not the same as culture.

Merriam-Webster says:

polÂiÂtics
noun plural but singular or plural in construction \ËpÃ-lÉ(TM)-ËOEtiks\

: activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government

: the work or job of people (such as elected officials) who are part of a government

: the opinions that someone has about what should be done by governments : a person's political thoughts and opinions

Basically, politics is an activity. Writing a novel or creating a computer game is not a politicial act unless you intentionally make it so. There is no such thing as "unconscious politics".

Second:

This worrying about reflection of culture in our creations is vastly overrated. It's the same nonsense as the claim that violent games turn people into killers. I can play a game set not in todays culture, but in a culture where women have almost no rights, a medieval or fantasy setting, and I won't come out of the game wishing to take any rights away from women in the real world. On the contrary, it may make me more sensitive to gender issues.

When I look at female characters in video games, I see them as characters. I laugh about their ridiculous fantasy armor. I look at their boobs and think "yeah, suuure". Just like I look at the men and think the same.

It seems that, when women are pushed towards the sexual object ideal, people like you are okay with it; but when we turn men into sexual objects you guys scream bloody murder

You make too many assumptions about people you don't know. I'm not for turning all women into sex objects. I do, however, understand that sex and viewing a member of the opposite sex in a sexual way is normal human behaviour. Also, you can have your Chipendales, if you want. Why would I scream anything, let alone murder? You can look at me as a sex object, if it makes you feel good. I'm sure enough of myself to not be bothered. Heck, I've been hit on by gay men. Yes, it's a bit uncomfortable, but not a big deal. Yes, I wouldn't like having that as a constant part of my life which is why I feel for attractive women in clubs and understand why they prefer to go with a small group.

But all of these are a small selection of social imperfections, and there are thousands more of them, some related to gender and some not, some to the disadvantage of women and some to the disadvantage of men.

The muscular body-builder type of ideal is an ideal of strength, control, and power. [...] [women characters] appearance to look submissive, inferior, or passive.

True to some extent. Bu

Taking a couple of sentences from a Wiki article does not make a complete definition. The only relevant part of your quote is "[a] robot is an automatic mechanical device". By that definition any self powered mechanical device that that does something after being initiated is a robot. That is not true.

How about this definition;

a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

a mechanism guided by automatic controls

The device can neither perform repetitive tasks and has no automatic controls or any controls for that matter. It is a projectile not a robot.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Premieres On Linux, 2 Years After Windows

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

...and you should check a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia.

> he was going to suicide

"Suicide" is not a verb.

Yes, it is.

Definition 4: http://dictionary.reference.co...

verb (used without object), suicided, suiciding.
4. to commit suicide.

Webster says it's a verb: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
As does Oxford: http://www.oxforddictionaries....

How is it committing a logical fallacy to ask you for a definition and example? Not a definition of science, a definition of "Truth." That seems entirely within the purview of this thread.

As to your supplied "definition" ... Going back to Webster (your own source)

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Oh look, science is the knowledge of truths obtained though the scientific method. I guess science DOES seek truths!

(This is why citing a dictionary almost always makes you look like a douchbag, BTW.)
=Smidge=

not all culture are equals and a tribal culture is gregarious*1 and primitive*2.

1 - definition #2-b
2 - definition #3-b

not all culture are equals and a tribal culture is gregarious*1 and primitive*2.

1 - definition #2-b
2 - definition #3-b

That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is.

At least get the terms right. Anthropomorphic means "like a human". What you meant to say was anthropogenic which means human caused.

I, for one, share your beliefs on the subject. I do not, however, refer to myself as a feminist, but rather as an egalitarian. The reason for this distinction is that, rightly or wrongly, feminism has become associated by many (especially those too lazy to consult a dictionary) with female supremacy. The extremist views, statements and acts over the years by some who have claimed to be acting in the name of feminism certainly hasn't helped, neither has most of the press, which will report on such matters without clarifying the inappropriate use of the term feminism /feminist. It is also fair to say that it's not just the sexes that I think should be equal, either. Hence my use of the term egalitarian.

Well said. Thank you. I understand your concern with the (mis)use of the term. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but where I come from, there are men and there are women. Between them, they make up the species Homo Sapiens.

I have transgender relatives (fairly close ones) who I love dearly, and have no issue with them or anyone else. What is more, those who choose to consider themselves genderless or a combination of two genders will get no argument from me. They can define themselves as they choose.

However, from a practical standpoint, there are those who have a Y chromosome (males) and those who do not (females). So, when I say that I believe that men and women should be treated equally, and have equal opportunities, who exactly am I leaving out?

Yes, I know that some folks will say that restricting humans to just two genders is bigoted and closed-minded. From a genetic standpoint, that's a load of malarkey, IMHO.

Since the definition (and yes, despite those who try to hijack words, words have meaning and their definitions, while somewhat malleable, must be used consistently or we can't have any common frame of reference) of feminism is exactly that, I don't mind calling myself a feminist at all.

Feminism is, at its heart, an egalitarian construct. I refuse to allow a bunch of crazies (on both sides) to co-opt (at least in my usage) a perfectly valid and useful word.

Let's be clear, even if some label themselves as one thing or another, it's their actions that define them. I allow my actions to define me, not the biases associated with those who would co-opt language for their own purposes.

... all heterosexual sex is rape.

Does this include oral sex? Because, like Bill Clinton, many women don't see oral sex as proper sex. At least us men can be happy that gay sex isn't anal rape.

Man-bashing has become so pervasive that some blow-back is appearing. Women are saying "I like fucking men" and rejecting feminist policies.

feminism
noun \fe-m-ni-zm\
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities [Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Just curious, where exactly is the part about heterosexual sex?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Feminism (n)

: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

Actually, you can throw that word out. Ask 10 feminists what a feminist is and you'll get 10 different ideological answers. However, the end result is basically the same - not equality of the sexes but female superiority of the sexes.

Says you. I'm a feminist and that's how I define feminism (along with Merriam-Webster, of course). Now get over yourself. I guess you're an insecure male, huh? Well, I'm a secure, middle-aged male and feel strongly that women have been treated unfairly for far too long. You're certainly entitled to your point of view, but don't try to tell me what I believe.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Feminism (n)

: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

Actually, you can throw that word out. Ask 10 feminists what a feminist is and you'll get 10 different ideological answers. However, the end result is basically the same - not equality of the sexes but female superiority of the sexes.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Feminism (n)
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

What does it mean to "Scotch" a review? Is that just a really stupid and completely unneeded racial slur against the Scots, or...

You should pick up a dictionary some time. They're full of interesting words.

Merriam Webster
transitive verb
2: to put an end to scotched rumors of a military takeover>

First Known Use of SCOTCH
15th century

Oxford
verb
1 [with object] Decisively put an end to: a spokesman has scotched the rumours

Origin

early 17th century (as a noun): of unknown origin; perhaps related to skate1. The sense 'render temporarily harmless' is based on an emendation of Shakespeare's Macbeth iii. ii. 13 as ‘We have scotch'd the snake, not kill'd it’, originally understood as a use of scotch2; the sense 'put an end to' (early 19th century) results from the influence on this of the notion of wedging or blocking something so as to render it inoperative.

And thank you, CaptainDork. Some suggested reading for you.

By the way, so far no one has addressed my original request. Firing off a list of books is useless...but at least I was polite in my response.

I've read Roger Penrose enough to realize this guy is miles off track. Tomb writer. Battleship sinking stuff. Heavy. Dead. As old and stagnant as physics gets.

I don't see how "Godel, Escher, Bach" relates to anything discussed in this sub-thread.

Recall I was looking for an elaboration of the "atom-vs-complex-of-atoms point" of the original poster.

Lorentz's "Chaos", an astrophysics book, relates to atoms vs a complex-of-atoms...how exactly?

So, reply fail, and point made. Physics is stale, and dead.

People who study physics are as close minded and blinkered as Boxer the horse. But quick with the downmods.

Great. Now learn what the term modern means.

You're correct. It's not a typo. (I thought maybe it was supposed to be spelled with one "l".)

It is the correct use of the term to emphasize the "dozens" in my statement:

Merriam-Webster definition

"Correlation does not imply causation" is not a statement in formal logic which is why I am using the dictionary definition for "imply".
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

Yeah. And yes, language is meant to be used creatively.

If instead of typing:

I thought people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it.

I had typed

Aren't people allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it?

would that be a 'rhetorical question'? That was the spirit my statement was meant as.

As for now using the term 'rhetorical' for my statement, it is in the sense of either of these definitions:

language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable

the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people

Apparently it was a clumsy attempt.

Yes, I admit my sentence was not "honest or reasonable", because I do realize the First Amendment gives Nimey the right to speak his mind. As my next sentence pointed out, I simply don't agree with attacking people just because they have different beliefs than I do. I could have phrased that as "I don't believe in ad hominem attacks," because that is all that Nimey's post was. It doesn't matter if I agree with Nimey's views or not, I don't think that is the correct way to argue against someone's views.

Given that lede is a recent invention that never caught on in many circles, I don't agree that both spellings are acceptable because it came from a web dictionary but because the web dictionary is right. A more traditional reference concurs.

"33 Months in Prison for Recording a Movie In a Theater" Now i know its really really hard for morons like you who think its just fine to record a movie in a movie theater without permission and a full warning about copying movies is shown before every movie. But you have to go outside every once in a while instead of wasting away in your basement. So once the idiot stepped outside with hes illegality copied movie that insistently make the Idiot a copyright thief in fact stealing a copy of said movie....Moron ! http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It's not "passer-bys" it's "passersby." See?