Slashdot Mirror

Try actual peer reviewed studies.

https://landshape.files.wordpr...

Call me a liar all you want, but you would also be calling all the climate scientists who published these studies (many of which are found in the IPCC) liars too.

There is no consensus.

It would do you good to do some research, might just help you understand that Wikipedia and the MSM are just pushing a narrative.

There are (at least) two major problems with this line of reasoning. One is that the tests had a cultural bias. This can be as simple as people with English as a second language not understanding the instructions, or just lack of familiarity with the types of questions being asked. Another is neglecting the contribution of environment: the testees may in fact be less intelligent, but because of impoverished childhood rather than inferior genes.

A good example of this second point is height. Height is more heritable than IQ, but is also affected by childhood nutrition. As a people become affluent, average height increases, even though the genes are not changing.

Excellent points. The same topic came up towards the end of a recent podcast of Sam Harris (link, the discussion about IQ starts sometime after the 1 hour 30 minute mark) which had as a guest the cancer physician and researcher. Siddhartha Mukherjee. The point made by Mukherjee is that available evidence suggests that IQ is heritable but not inherited. So genetic factors certainly play into shaping an individuals IQ, but it doesn't mean the offspring of someone with high or really high IQ will inherit that trait.

And even if it turns out that genes account for 100 % of IQ variation that still does not eliminate the role of the environment and upbringing on how those genes (and hence, IQ) are expressed:

Unfortunately there is frequent confusion about the meaning of heritability. The most frequent misunderstanding is the purpose of twin studies. Heritability estimates are about understanding sources of similarities and differences in traits between members of a particular population. The results apply only to that population. The purpose is not to determine how much any particular individual’s traits are due to his or her genes or his or her environment. Behavioral geneticists are well aware that all of our traits develop through a combination of both nature and nurture. Heritability estimates are about explaining differences among people, not explaining individual development. The question on the table for them is this: In a particular population of individuals, what factors make those individuals the same as each other, and which factors make them different?

Therefore, twin studies aren’t designed to investigate human development. In recent years developmental psychologists, including L. Todd Rose, Kurt Fischer, Peter Molenaar, and Cynthia Campbell, have been developing exciting new techniques to study intraindividual variation. 12 Intraindividual variation focuses on a single person and looks at how an integrated dynamic system of behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and other psychological processes change across time and situations. New intraindividual techniques allow researchers to focus on a single twin pair and see how nature and nurture interact in nonlinear ways to explain both their similarities and their differences. 13 Both levels of analysis— twin studies and developmental analysis— are informative, but the results from the one do not apply to the other. 14

Many people also confuse heritability with immutability. They hear the word “heritable” and immediately think of “genes,” which then conjures up pictures of a fixed trait that can’t be altered by external forces. In contrast, many people hear the word “environment” and breathe a sigh of relief, thinking the trait is easily modifiable. This requires quite a strong faith in social engineering!

Just because a trait is heritable (and virtually all of our psychological traits are heritable) doesn’t necessarily mean that the trait is fixed or can’t be developed. Virtually all of our traits are substantially genetically influenced and are influenced by environm

The catchphrase of the privileged is "just call someone" as if some loser on the other end of a phone call always exists somewhere for the express purpose of serving as answer giver.

That reminds me a story about Henry Ford. When a Chicago newspaper called him an ignorant Pacifist, the sued the paper. During the court trial he explained that if he wanted to know an answers, he would call someone to get the answer for him. Most entrepreneurs are often not the smartest person in the room but they know who to call.

https://500dollarmillionaire.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/henry-ford-was-the-smartest-ignorant-man-in-history/

It's used as a solution to clean wounds and mixed with injectable anesthetics to make them less painful. Considering how much sh*t people inject on a regular basis, including bathtub caulking* and >a href=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/03/6-women-hospitalized-for-butt-enhancement-injections-with-bathtub-caulking/1#.WSNi3uvyvDA>industrial silicon oil, I doubt that there'd be enough of an impurity to make a difference considering the very small quantities used.

* Warning: gross picture (but still on of the less gross ones)

In fairness, the bricks could part of the Kremlin. They are fairly close, as can be seen in this image.

i jsut have no tolerance for people like you who think that driving is anything less than a serious responsibility. The sooner we get people like you out from behind the wheel, the better.

Nationwide in the US, ~30% of driver fatalities involve alcohol: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...

I've lived in Japan for the past 6 years, and when I first got here I was amazed that they have these long-established taxi services called "daiko", to prevent drunk driving. ( https://japan365.wordpress.com... ) If we are serious about preventing road fatalities, why aren't these services prolific in the states? Why don't we have stiffer penalties for DUIs, and lower BAC limits?

I know a LOT of "recreational drivers". NONE of them go joyriding under the influence. So if anything they take the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle more seriously than the general population. Japan is where drifting was invented, and to this day there remains a large subculture of late-night street racing. Yet the country has significantly lower fatality rates than the US: ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... ). Also note that, unlike the US, Japan has almost no fatalities due to intoxicated drivers ( http://www.stat.go.jp/english/... ), despite the fact that BAC limit in Japan is 0.03 instead of the US's 0.08.

Insurance rates are all about numbers, and the instant the autonomous cars surpass human safety numbers, human-driving will be over.

If that's the case, and it's all about insurance liability, why aren't motorcycles illegal or otherwise priced out of the market? Hell, why aren't sports cars ALREADY so stupid-expensive to insure that no one could afford them?

Full disclosure: I used to drift here in Japan, until I wrecked my Toyota Chaser and parted it out (a single-vehicle, low-speed accident at ~2am, on a public road only used to access a fenced-off area on rare occasions). I still own a sports coupe (Toyota Supra) that is getting upgraded to ~600hp for non-drifting fun on the streets. Last year I got a motorcycle license and bought a 250cc naked bike. I ride ATGATT (All The Gear, All The Time). Outside of computers and women, automotive hobbies are the biggest allocation of my time, and by far biggest allocation of recreational funds. Yet my insurance is CHEAP compared to what people pay in America (No argument for Liberty can silence the 30,00 dead every year from auto collisions.

What is your objective? What number of auto fatalities is acceptable? 10,000? zero?

Enjoy it while you can, we are coming for exactly people like you

Are you this vitriolic in your efforts to prevent other sources of mortality, such as suicide (42,000+ in 2014)? https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...

Your post is a perfect example of why the Nanny State is so despised. You exaggerate the risk posed by some activity that you don't like (usually a position borne out of gross ignorance), and then go on a crusade to undermine people's ability to enjoy themselves by leveraging the government and other institutions to stuff other individuals back into the box of what your erroneous ideals tell you is the "approved" way of living. The sort of busybody that is active in Homeowner Associations, making everyone else miserable.

This guy gets it: ( https://books.google.com.vn/bo...)

Since you have now cut-and-paste reposted this twice already in the same thread. I'm getting tired of reposting my reply, so this time I will just repost the links

graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
https://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/edc.jpg
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:

The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,

That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,

and it was colder.

This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.

We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.

It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.

As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.

The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:

The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,

That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,

and it was colder.

This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.

We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.

It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.

As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.

The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,

That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,

and it was colder.

This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.

We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.

It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.

As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.

The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

Sorry, a Japanese girl has already done it.

And for that success, she was crowned queen of Chupacabra.

If wages outpace inflation

They must have done over quite a long period, or wouldn't we all be living in mud huts and eating dirt?

Or is it perhaps the case that comparisons on such timescales are meaningless? It's just that some people keep saying this graph is wrong, because poor people now have mp3 players and they didn't in 1947.

Guess why there are so many different plots? Because every time you do something, we guard against that. And then people just go "Right, what next? Oh, look, laptops!". Now you have a new threat, massive expense on stupid rules and countermeasures, new crap to make people stand in queues for longer, new bollocks to make me hate my own government and country more for capitulating to it. And then all they do is say "Right... next up... let's put a bomb in a set of headphones."

You shot me back to "Foster, you're dead": https://cochranesfsophomores.f... - one of my favorite Philip K Dick shorts.. more "the soviets" than "the terrorists" but the idea's familiar at this point :-/.

That's cute, but have you heard about Russian propaganda about the US?

No, I haven't. What I have seen is a good deal of truthful facts and opinion about the US government and its policies. Some of it comes from Russia, some from Europe, some from the UK, Australia and Canada - and quite a lot of it comes from the USA itself.

Read the following (or as much of it as you can absorb) and see if what you learn is a little different from what the mainstream media are telling their audiences day after day.

http://russia-insider.com/en/o...
http://russia-insider.com/en/p...
http://www.strategic-culture.o...
http://www.paulcraigroberts.or...
http://awdnews.com/top-news/ru...
https://www.rt.com/news/387798...
http://michael-hudson.com/2017...
http://russia-insider.com/en/p...
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuc...
https://thearchdruidreport.blo...
https://irrussianality.wordpre...
http://johnhelmer.net/malaysia...
https://irrussianality.wordpre...

That's cute, but have you heard about Russian propaganda about the US?

No, I haven't. What I have seen is a good deal of truthful facts and opinion about the US government and its policies. Some of it comes from Russia, some from Europe, some from the UK, Australia and Canada - and quite a lot of it comes from the USA itself.

Read the following (or as much of it as you can absorb) and see if what you learn is a little different from what the mainstream media are telling their audiences day after day.

http://russia-insider.com/en/o...
http://russia-insider.com/en/p...
http://www.strategic-culture.o...
http://www.paulcraigroberts.or...
http://awdnews.com/top-news/ru...
https://www.rt.com/news/387798...
http://michael-hudson.com/2017...
http://russia-insider.com/en/p...
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuc...
https://thearchdruidreport.blo...
https://irrussianality.wordpre...
http://johnhelmer.net/malaysia...
https://irrussianality.wordpre...

https://socioecohistory.files....

Done.

What did I win?

which would probably end when they realize the amount would not even pay their rent

...for a place they'd actually want to live.

Please point out, mathematically, how say 960 euros a month (the Netherlands experiment) would be able to pay for rent/mortgage, a car, food, utilities, vacation, and other entertainment, please show your work.

Don't have Netherlands data. I worked it out for the United States only, and would be interested in other economic units like England or Germany. Designing a UBI policy requires a strong understanding of a government's finances, the economy's structure, tax systems, welfare costs, retail pricing, and the like. You can't design any sort of UBI policy by knowing or estimating the cost of goods, because the gross cost of a good doesn't tell you about the total cost of producing it--shipping, logistics, business administration, cost of risk, and the like. For highly-competitive goods like food and clothing, the current price is likely the lowest-viable price, although that comes down a bit when a market gets bigger (that's actually doable with rent, in the form of selling smaller units by reducing the risk of empty units at the relevant income levels).

I didn't record the full analysis or write any sorts of papers on this stuff even in America. After performing as much research as I could, I used the current retail prices and added risk margins--that is, if I could find retail of a month's worth of food for $25, consistently, I'd estimate the risk of trying to sustain that as an individual, and then put down a 300% risk reserve ($100/month budget). Some of the rambling on that from an age past made its way online.

The big one is housing. Rent per square foot easily scales down to a 224sqft single-occupancy apartment in $1-$1.06/sqft circa 2013 (my Universal Social Security takes a percentage of all income as a funding source, so gets bigger each year--faster than inflation). That's a maximum estimate of $238/month at the same margin as a 700sqft apartment; I originally budgeted $300/month, providing a 26% risk reserve (up to 33%, in the case of scaling against $1/sqft). I know the actual costs scale; that risk reserve is entirely a coverage of landlord risk (potential for additional costs as consequence of renting to a low-income tennat), not the risk of me misestimating standard costs.

It's not exactly cramped, but it's smaller than most Americans want to deal with. It's actually something like twice the size of a cozy hotel room, and I've spent time examining hotel rooms and expanding the planograms into microunit apartments with full amenities. Thing is, it's still better than living in a soggy cardboard box.

So, again: they'd quickly realize it won't pay rent for a place in which they'd actually like to live.

especial when taxes start to creep over 50%

Lower taxes. By $1 trillion. No tax increases; lower payroll taxes; lower business income taxes; and we can eventually lower the taxes on the upper bracket a bit.

Productivity increases cause a reduction in the fraction of production which represents the same purchasing power per person, thus a lower tax rate can supply sufficient funding. Take a middle-ground, reduce the taxes sustaining the system slightly, thus reducing the taxes on the uppermost incomes, and keep the remainder as an increase in standard-of-living from the poorest up through the upper-middle-class.

Stop looking at the one-sentence description of a concept and trying to project what it would do. Write a comprehensive tax plan to implement it and work out its effects from there.

It assumes most people will find meaninful work, when the reality is, most people won't

Your life: 224sqft one-occupancy apartment; enough to eat only home-cooked food (it's food, at least), buy some clothes, pay your utility bills, buy soap and the like, and come out $50-$70 cash in hand at the end of the month. You are the lowest of low, the poorest in the land.

What do you do? You can't buy toys. You can't buy a car (or afford the gas or insurance anyway). You can't buy fancy, expensive dresses. You can't buy an Xbox. You can't have sex with hot girls, because the guy who works part-time at McDonalds is like... twice as rich as you, and impressive because he's so god damned rich and you're so poor, and is nailing all the hot ladies.

Your social position requires a bigger income. That requires employment. Even failing that, you better not plan on being an artist or anything in your spare time, because a sketchpad and some pencils is an enormous luxury expense.

The irony is that you're talking as if this hasn't been a thing for 100 years:

https://kingydesignhistory2012...

What is this 'DRM' thingy you seem to be afraid of ?

(Note: I legally obtain the book I'm DeDRM-ing.
I'm just removing the DRM because I'm fed up with the Adobe Digital Edition fucking things up on a regular basis and access to my book getting b0rked yet again.
This kind of De-DRM-ing is actually tolerated in my local jurisdiction - as it should be everywhere)

WTF? What you wrote was literally one word off from the first line of El Condor Pasa by Simon and Garfunkel (and at least one person managed to misquote it the same way previously).

More to the point, what's your goddamn problem? You're clearly some kind of idiotically furious nutjob if you're going to get that bent out of shape at the (apparently) heinous accusation that you might have been making a pop-culture reference! And if not a reference, then what the hell else was it supposed to be?! It had nothing to do with curing AIDS, zombies (as referenced by the post it was written in reply to), or any animal mentioned in the article. I admit, I'm baffled -- I can only assume you're just a comprehensively absurd dipshit who likes posting random nonsense for no good reason!

Obviously there is a relationship between intelligence and college degrees, even if it's not direct - Google says people with a Bachelor's have an average IQ 9 points higher than people with an AA.

Mostly there's a relationship between college degrees and people with money. As for the IQ differences, if you take (or at least look at) enough IQ tests, you'll find that many (most?) are designed in such a way that they are more reflective of your education level and social background than actual intelligence.

Fusion is a waste of money. Tokamaks more so compared to stellarators.

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/... https://jordannix.files.wordpr... https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_... http://ibankcoin.com/activists... http://i.imgur.com/TZUj9c6.jpg http://static3.businessinsider... http://dbagus.com/wp-content/u...

Some of the stupidest people I know have graduated from universities.

Well you've got to consider where you work. People who have an AA with your job are doing all right for themselves. People with a degree who still have your job are more likely to be stupid.

Obviously there is a relationship between intelligence and college degrees, even if it's not direct - Google says people with a Bachelor's have an average IQ 9 points higher than people with an AA.

AREDN The Amateur Radio Emergency Data Network, and a node map
The still-widely-deployed predecessor, BroadBand Hamnet
A port of this mesh to the RaspberryPi, HSMMPI
Previous versions were called ARESNET and HSMMNET.
And there's also the European ham network, here and a map.

The title is misleading. They are actually pledging to crack down on Government-led INFORMATION campaigns.
Their report reads:

One aspect of this included malicious actors leveraging conventional and social media to share information stolen from other sources, such as email accounts, with the intent of harming the reputation of specific political targets. These incidents employed a relatively straightforward yet deliberate series of actions:
Private and/or proprietary information was accessed and stolen from systems and services (outside of Facebook);
Dedicated sites hosting this data were registered;
Fake personas were created on Facebook and elsewhere to point to and amplify awareness of this data;
Social media accounts and pages were created to amplify news accounts of and direct people to the stolen data.
From there, organic proliferation of the messaging and data through authentic peer groups and networks was inevitable.

They are clearly talking about the Podesta and Clinton emails. The truth was spread and they don't want it to happen again.

Oregon prohibits drivers from pumping their own gas as only state licensed Gas Station Engineers have received the proper education and certification to properly perform such a complex task. You can only imagine the carnage that would result if lay people would refill their own vehicles.

Obviously only properly qualified and certified persons should be handling fluids with extremely flammable vapors that can cause massive explosions if mixed with sufficient air, fluids known to the state of California to cause cancer. The carnage were it otherwise is indeed unthinkable.

First things first: I'm an Eur Ing certified Engineer (practicing and whatever) and hope that people become more conscious about what the fuss is about.

* Society does not (and should not) grant exclusive professional titles and rights for fun, it does so because it protects citizens' life(-state) and property.
I guess we would all hope society continues to do so: Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers are meant to help human life.

1)
In this particular case, there is no much struggle to consider that this gentleman comes with a case worthy of discussion and he should be heard.
If he is registered engineer or not, that's irrelevant per se. The technical case needs to be discussed regardless and I personally believe/bet he has a point.

2)
Furthermore, under certain circumstances he could be qualified to be called Engineer - it seems not so in Oregon - and the following is to be examined:
https://www.usaopps.com/govern...
In that, you may observe that an Oregon address is used as base for "Engineering Services", under his name; oops, that _may_ be regulated!
It IS his responsibility to ensure that he is complying with the local law - there is simply no excuse for that, if he is advertising engineering services.
fi. building code changes from place to place, there is no excuse for not adhering to it!

3)
This is obviously a "negotiation" that went out of hand from both sides;
the language below appears appropriate and respectful -not abnormal of a regulatory authority- however between the lines there is some confrontation:
https://lintvkoin.files.wordpr...
Hey, that's not how to build bridges - pun intended!

The case also highlights that the engineering community could benefit from some norms about how to solicit feedback from both licensed engineers and the wider public, and be held accountable, if there are omissions; there will be something to learn out of all this process.
fi. regular car drivers have plenty to confess about near-misses, which COULD and SHOULD shape the opinions within formal traffic engineering bodies.

The discussion is going to be interesting and it's great this takes publicity, because it will force some healthy debate.

So, let's not be too quick to circumvent the lawyers and judges, they are specialists under a protected profession, exactly for that kind of thing ;-)

They also built a freaking massive hangar, which is now a tropical theme park.

It's not just huge by building standards, it's huge even by hangar standards. By far the largest in the world.

Everyone seems to be talking about green and whether green is real or fake or whatever. It doesn't matter. Not doing renewables means you lose the global economy. Two charts that show why China is all-in on renewables:

(Note: I just linked the first ones I could find from Google image search. Feel free to confirm with other sources.)

Cost of oil production:
https://gailtheactuary.files.w...

Energy consumption by a few major countries:
https://gailtheactuary.files.w...

See that purple line going up? China has 3x the people as the U.S., and that purple line is eventually going to pass ours. Noting that the cost of oil production has been increasing significantly faster as the world uses up all of its "easy to access" petroleum sources, we expect fossil fuel prices to continue to increase as global consumption accelerates with China and India's growth.

As both of these trends continue there will be a point where the economy least tied to fossil fuels will have a significant cost advantage. That's China's real goal.

If you're against renewables because Al Gore or something, look at the long run macroeconomic trends.

Everyone seems to be talking about green and whether green is real or fake or whatever. It doesn't matter. Not doing renewables means you lose the global economy. Two charts that show why China is all-in on renewables:

(Note: I just linked the first ones I could find from Google image search. Feel free to confirm with other sources.)

Cost of oil production:
https://gailtheactuary.files.w...

Energy consumption by a few major countries:
https://gailtheactuary.files.w...

See that purple line going up? China has 3x the people as the U.S., and that purple line is eventually going to pass ours. Noting that the cost of oil production has been increasing significantly faster as the world uses up all of its "easy to access" petroleum sources, we expect fossil fuel prices to continue to increase as global consumption accelerates with China and India's growth.

As both of these trends continue there will be a point where the economy least tied to fossil fuels will have a significant cost advantage. That's China's real goal.

If you're against renewables because Al Gore or something, look at the long run macroeconomic trends.

You can't take the sky from me!

oh wait, maybe they can

Or is this part of the AI suppression pogram?

Maybe he was thinking of this.

https://hywelsbiglog.wordpress...

I know the first time I tasted it I went "Jeeeeesus Christ!!!"

Funny, I remember the whole httpd inside a chroot quite straightforward.
And managing containers with LXC, for instance, without systemd, works just fine as well. LXC did make managing multiple systems a whole lot easier. I do not see how this topic even relates to systemd.

For the record, I started using systemd in 2012 ( https://yeupou.wordpress.com/2... ), early enough for a project started in 2010, and, at that time, was baffled by bootup time.
I went away in 2015 after trying systemd on many boxes : some stuff just stopped to work, or did not work as I expected it to work and I decided it required way too much extra work for me without any massive benefit, considering that I am not starting up machines that often ( https://yeupou.wordpress.com/2... ). So I really do not share your feeling it made things simpler. Maybe it has many benefits, but the one I noticed were less important that the extra trouble.

Funny, I remember the whole httpd inside a chroot quite straightforward.
And managing containers with LXC, for instance, without systemd, works just fine as well. LXC did make managing multiple systems a whole lot easier. I do not see how this topic even relates to systemd.

For the record, I started using systemd in 2012 ( https://yeupou.wordpress.com/2... ), early enough for a project started in 2010, and, at that time, was baffled by bootup time.
I went away in 2015 after trying systemd on many boxes : some stuff just stopped to work, or did not work as I expected it to work and I decided it required way too much extra work for me without any massive benefit, considering that I am not starting up machines that often ( https://yeupou.wordpress.com/2... ). So I really do not share your feeling it made things simpler. Maybe it has many benefits, but the one I noticed were less important that the extra trouble.

The problem is all the models have predicted more warming than has happened. The basic problem is that there's no evidence that the Earth being warmer by a few degrees (has been much warmer than that many times before) will be catastrophic.

That's largely because there are cooling factors such as sulfate aerosols that are still very difficult to model.
But we know, and are reminded with every large volcanic eruption just how strong - but temporary - that effect can be.
The problem is that our heavy of usage of coal in plants mostly without scrubbers & filters likely kept the warming from increasing as much as it could have.
But then the West started cleaning up or shutting down those plants. And perhaps only coincidentally, global warming started to accelerate.

But then China really picked up the slack, burning more & more coal each year beginning around 1980 and really picking up the pace around 2000.
https://gailtheactuary.files.w...

But now China appears to have seen the light - to some degree. Not only is their coal consumption dropping, for the 3rd straight year but during that time they've also been cleaning up their coal plants and it seems that no plants will be grandfathered.
If it can't be cleaned up, it will be shut down. We'll see how this plays out.

But what does this mean for global warming? My guess is that as coal becomes less used but CO2 keeps rising, global warming will start speeding up again.
There's still a lot of uncertainty as to what & where will get hotter but overall, the total heat in the system, especially the oceans will ratchet up unabated

I'm going to start where a lot of people don't usually start. The actual people who maintain X11. They hate the code base, they just simply don't want to deal with the tangled mess that it is. Seriously go look at a dependency graph of just the xserver or a slightly higher level view of the state of things. Point, no one wants to maintain this mess. Anyone feeling frisky in doing so is strongly encouraged to do so, but the majority of developers who have worked on this in the heyday have long since left the building. The sheer pool size of people working on X is low and fresh blood in the development pool is best described as anemic. Fewer developers working on one project and more on another project pretty much seals the deal on the direction. Arguments of X being better falls on non-existent ears. You want to talk to an X developer? Head over to Wayland, that's where you'll find a lot of them.

Next in line is that X is ineffective at one of the things that it's suppose to do, draw stuff on your screen. (Not even going to touch multi-monitor, sleep, touch input, etc all which have had extensive hacking to get it working and thus resulting in patches of code with serious bus factor one issues.) X11 lacks pretty much everything we take for granted in a modern GUI. Want anti-alias text? Well X11 doesn't do that. Want the concept of an alpha-channel? Not present in X11. Quite literally, X11 does nothing in the way of anything that say KDE, GNOME, Unity, Cinnamon, or whoever wants. Instead, your chosen toolkit is using a library that builds in memory the bits that need to be drawn and if your xserver supports RENDER, your toolkit just gives a stream of bits over to X11 via that method, and X just forwards it on to either the card or to a compositor, which by the way X11 doesn't have a concept of, hence the reason you need one external to the xserver. At some point someone said, if every toolkit is just building bits by themselves and then having X forward it on, why not just cut out the middle man? Why have this extra layer that we keep having to build ad-hoc extensions for? (RENDER, XDamage, RANDR, XFixes **yes literally an extension to fix stuff but mostlly to turn a lot of old X11 stuff off.) All of these wonderful extensions are in reality short circuiting old cruft in a code-ugly fashion. Add in new complexities being added to video cards, functionality that's difficult to eventually get working, and yeah everyone is ready to put the old girl out to pasture. X11's lack of so many things is a roadblock to tapping your card's fully ability, which is why most of the time we're happily ignorant of all of the by-passing of huge parts of the core of an xserver, with the prolific set of extensions that come automatically built into your distro. (which is why a lot of folks never notice and just think that this is the way X was built, but nothing further from the truth could be said. Try building an xserver from source.)

Now let me move on to your points

Network transparency. X11 has it. Wayland doesn't.

If you are using X11 over ssh, you aren't using X11's network transparency. What you are doing is streaming pixels across ssh, but you aren't using anything remotely looking like core X11 protocol. On the remote side, Cario, Qt, Mutter, or someone is drawing pixels and then that gets wrapped into a generic X11 package and sent to you to open up and then have your computer decide what to do with the newly received pixels. There's no commands like "Window A is currently at location x,y. It has a button at rx, ry relative to the top-left corner of the parent widget, blah blah blah." Nope, it's just "here's pixel one, here's pixel two, here's pixel three..." There's no distinction in X between a button in an application running on a remote server and a picture

Martin Gardner seemed to be of the opinion that you can't even know where the optimum is. Which shouldn't surprise anyone for such a complex thing as an economy.

Actually people are less likely to report sexual crimes now then before:
https://acidmuncher.files.word...
https://acidmuncher.wordpress....
Why is open for speculation, I have my ideas ..
That of course mean that the actual number of people affected by criminal sexual behavior has increased even more the number of reported cases would say.

Go alternative facts! So exciting!
Surely you can trust a socialist or want-to-take-control-over-the-culture-and-thought-of-the-people-regime!

Actually people are less likely to report sexual crimes now then before:
https://acidmuncher.files.word...
https://acidmuncher.wordpress....
Why is open for speculation, I have my ideas ..
That of course mean that the actual number of people affected by criminal sexual behavior has increased even more the number of reported cases would say.

Go alternative facts! So exciting!
Surely you can trust a socialist or want-to-take-control-over-the-culture-and-thought-of-the-people-regime!

nobody's ever demonstrated real differences between the races outside the societal context,

This is the complete opposite in reality. Genetics is a real thing, and yes, many, many studies have been done showing the biological differences between different human ethnic groups (shorthand collated into "races" for simplicity of reference). This is real and this is science, and there is no excuse for still parroting the radical egalitarian ideology. That is a political ideology with no basis in fact. How do you possibly arrive at the concept that somehow humans left Africa 50,000 years ago and then, after 50,000 years of different selection pressure in vastly different environments we will find no differences beyond superficial ones in different human populations?

How do you justify this? This is as ridiculous an assertion as young earth Creationism. Man, magically created perfectly identical (except for skin color) in every corner of the Earth. What the biological mechanism that yields this result? Magic is not a biological mechanism.

You did not look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there's no difference in races. You started with your comfortable political ideology (everyone's equal!) and then you're willfully blind to science (on a science website!) and deny your own lying eyes. This is very bad, because policy recommendations you make off this false assumption of biological equality will fail, and have many unintended consequences.

That you consider it "racist" is irrelevanta. That's meaningless and it's still true.

That some idiot had the chance to moderate it troll is just sad.

As for data of course I have it:
http://www.dn.se/debatt/kultur...
https://www.bra.se/download/18... (Bilaga 4, table 1 and 2 page 61 and onwards for instance.)
This one doesn't have the country-specific data but I never manage to find the original source for it any longer:
http://wwwc.aftonbladet.se/nyh...
The country-specific data maybe was put together by someone looking at their source data
https://www.flashback.org/sp57...
https://politifon.wordpress.co... (You need to consider the number of North-Europeans relative others in Norway for that one.)
http://gamla.hbl.fi/nyheter/20...
https://petterssonsblogg.se/20...

I wouldn't make the claim if it wasn't true but it's never about truthness or the actual source for you guys because the only reason it's asked about is to discredit the claim. Even if it's true and out there and is a fact it will still be considered a worthless point because it's not ok to view people in that way, group them together, irrelevant because not all are sentenced, whatever.

The fact is still that for some nationalities the over-representation was over 20 times, for two (China and Malaysia or the Philippines or something such) it's actually below 1, sadly most of the asylum seekers to Sweden are rapefugees of those shit cultures.

We don't have any data for the 21st century because the government doesn't want any created which by itself kinda is data enough.

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-o...

The rapefugee effect is obvious there, and there's the festivals and new year celebrations and such helping explain "why":
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyhe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .. and so on.

For a bit more info/explanations on the above, see: https://randomascii.wordpress....

We've done nothing at the expense of healthcare, education, and social programs. The military budget is relatively-small, considering what America is (that being 5.8 times the UK): a bit over $550 billion for military, versus $800 billion for Social Security old-age pensions.

Healthcare is expensive at this scale. Canada's system is hybrid, with employers required to provide healthcare, and anyone not covered by that given single-payer coverage, meaning 73% of Canadian healthcare is private; the United States could have produced a similar policy at similar or lower cost compared to the ACA, only covering around 1/4 of the population, to great effect. It's doable, and it's at the very least not significantly more-costly than the ACA--and potentially quite a bit less-costly and more-effective.

As for education, our education system suffers a political problem: altering education means accepting the consequences, personally. Attempting to change the way we teach at a Federal level gets you attacked for overreach, because states are in charge of education; and any changes to education at any level will produce a non-perfect system, meaning a loud collection of people whose kids aren't getting perfect grades will rain hell on your office for destroying our education system. Never mind that a 65% high-school graduation rate becomes an 85% graduation rate with students functionally better-educated; the 15% that fail out--even if they fail out because their parents are busy arguing with the school for bothering them about their kids's terrible and disruptive behavior--will settle the blame squarely on your new system. It's safest to do nothing.

On top of that, this is America, and we don't learn from others. Nobody goes around the world to develop a healthcare or education plan; they talk about what they've come up with themselves, from their brilliance, and how it's going to change America. That's why Common Core primary math doesn't look like Japanese primary math, and isn't nearly as effective. That's why we have the ACA and not a system similar to Canada's.

Never mind what we could do with the welfare money.

We've traded healthcare, education, and social programs for politics and incompetence.

It might help if we actually saw more benefit from our taxes.

Done.

Here's a deconstruction of your stupid claims.

To drop from over 40% prior to surgery to 4% after is an incredible success story. Stop selectively quoting without looking at the context.

Too bad that in the US, society is letting transsexuals down by continuing to pass laws against them, as well as making it hard to obtain surgery that, as the figures show, saves lives.

The GNU Project told us about Microsoft malware long ago, including what is accurately listed "Microsoft Windows has a universal back door through which any change whatsoever can be imposed on the users" pointing to a mainstream media news reference from 2007 and another link indicating when this was used, and a pointer to a Condé Nast article talking about the (apparently ongoing) forced Windows Updates. Microsoft is also the first PRISM partner with the NSA joining on September 11, 2007, according to an internal NSA document so they have quite a long history of being untrustworthy but the underlying power they're leveraging comes from proprietary software.

Other proprietors are no more trustworthy. Apple didn't fix an intentional back door for 4 years, Apple didn't fix an iTunes backdoor through which others could have gained control of systems running the software. Apple joined PRISM in October 2012. Other proprietors with names you know (Yahoo, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc.) joined in between the Microsoft and Apple partnerships.

The theme remains the same: it doesn't matter who the proprietor is (Microsoft in this case), proprietary software is always untrustworthy and this doesn't change even after applying lots of updates from the proprietor. Just because a new version is out, or a patch released does not mean the back door is shut or that you can verify their work (or even get someone more technically skilled to verify it on your behalf).

Now we have more confirmation of how the threats come from other directions, not just the proprietor, and that the threat is more organized than we commonly knew. Evidence like this immediately advances the discussion beyond the distraction of calling someone a 'tinfoil hat wearer' or other such nonsense, as did the Snowden documents. And WikiLeaks maintains their perfect record for authenticity in their publications—as far as we can tell these documents are what WikiLeaks claims they are. Proprietary software is always a threat. Software freedom is no guarantee of safety, but you're better off having software you can inspect, run, share, and modify (AKA control) than not. You simply can't trust proprietors to do right by you and all computer users deserve software freedom.

It is not his job to give you an education.

When it comes to an argument, presenting the substances of your position is quite important.

At least a token effort would show a little regard for substantiating yourself. To disdain it? Serves only to show a lack of respect for others.

Read a book, ya lazy git!

I'd suggest starting with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

Or...perhaps not. There is a long history of review to show their multitude of errors.

But no, at least they made an argument. The now GGP? Not so much. Sorry, but your own assertion betrays you.