So, you are making the point that the facts the argument was based on were not correct (or were better explained by other explanations). That is a valid response, but it does not make the original argument "laughable". It just makes it wrong.
And this is why people do not trust the global warming alarmists: they cannot tell the difference between an argument based on bad logic and one which is based on incorrect facts. Such a failure suggests that both their logic and their facts are flawed.
Again, you have missed the point, but then that is not surprising. The point I made was that if the facts were as those were arguing, they were making a good argument. The original poster did NOT say their facts were wrong, he said the logic of their argument was laughable.
The poster I initially replied to said: "You might laugh, but I have heard people use similar astronomical events as proof against the anthropogenic cause of the recent warming. "Ice caps are melting on Mars!" etc. etc. " He never once mentioned other ways of tracking solar energy. I have seen the arguments he is referencing and they were a bit more sophisticated than "Ice caps are melting on Mars." I do not know if they were true, but the argument was that temperatures were rising on Mars (and other planets) in an amount comparable to temperature rises observed on earth. If multiple planets in this solar system were experiencing similar temperature increases at the same time, the most likely explanation is that said temperature rise was caused by the same thing on all of those planets. If your measurements of the forces which you believe to be possible causes does not explain those temperature rises, it suggests that either your measurements are faulty or there is some other force at work on all of those planets.
Someone arguing that that data is relevant may be mistaken about the data, but the argument is not laughable.
But that is irrelevant to the point made by the poster I replied to. He dismissed the idea that warming on other planets might have relevance to warming on earth.
If other planets are observed to be experiencing a similar warming to that being observed here, it seems likely that the warming is caused by something which all of the planers have in common. Whether or not that something can and is being otherwise monitored. If your explanation for earth's warming does not take into account the warming taking place at the same time on other planets(assuming that such warming is occurring), it is likely to be false.
Yes, because the fact that other planets in the same solar system are experiencing similar warming(if such is indeed the case) has absolutely no value in interpreting why this planet is doing the same. It's not like they all have something in common, such as receiving the bulk of their energy from the same source.
I am arguing that the EU does NOT do education at all. So, arguing that they have solved the problem is BS. Members of the EU have done education, but none of them have done it on the scale and diversity that is the U.S.
No, we do not have an example of that. We have examples of smaller groups providing good primary/secondary education for subsets of that. We do not have an example of any group providing education for over 400 million people on a territory spanning a large part of a continent. Which actually illustrates my point, the solution to the U.S. "problem" is to stop making it a U.S. wide problem and leave it to those in specific areas to solve. Solve it local to yourself, then, and only then, convince others to adopt the parts of your model for the areas local to them. We need to stop trying to impose a solution from Washington (or even from state capitols). The places where education works (the E.U in your example) do not impose solutions from far away from where they are applied.
So, you are saying that the EU uses the same education system from country to country, much the way the U.S. Department of Education is attempting to solve the problem by implementing a system that is the same from state to state? I was under the impression that each country in the EU had their own independent standards for education.
Please list the country which is doing so over a population anywhere close to as large, while that population is equally heterogeneous to that of the U.S.?
Your key idea does not work because while you could check who you voted for there would be no way to check that all of the votes were right...and it would not be that hard to have your key logged to who you entered to vote for without actually counting it that way. Without some way to compare how many real life people voted a certain way with the tallies that the computer lists for who voted a certain way there is no way to secure electronic voting. Just look at how hard it is to secure paper ballots where we can keep track of the physical record. Now, transfer that to an electronic record where the only way to keep track of the record is to trust that the system does what someone else tells you it does.
Electronic voting can only be secure if everyone knows how everybody else voted. Otherwise there is no way to know if the outcome has been modified at some point in the process.
Well, the Washington, DC school district spends about the most per pupil of any school district in the country, yet the politicians who go to Washington are rarely willing to send their children to those schools. So, no, the money is not spread evenly. Unfortunately, some of the schools which are eating up a larger slice of the pie are among the worst in the country.
Ultimately, the problem is that you cannot fix the problems with schools on the large scale. You cannot mass produce education. Education is a craft. A good teacher customizes their technique for each student. In a really good school, the administration will do what it can to place students in a class with a teacher whose skills best suit what that student needs in teacher, thus allowing teachers to teach a larger number of students.
The U.S. has strict penalties for using a gun in a crime. It doesn't seem to have reduced the use of guns in crimes...not even in cities where the non-criminal populace is largely unarmed.
OK, so guns aren't allowed. Does that actually stop criminals from using them? I live in a country where murder is not allowed, people still get murdered everyday.
So, you are the exception to a greater degree than the bicyclist who rolls through a stop sign with no regard to the motorists also approaching the intersection.
Really, you would not pass a bicyclist you over took who had just pulled out from a stop sign, which they arrived at before you did? And you would wait behind the bicyclist stopped at the stop sign and not pull up next to them before coming to a stop and then pulling out as soon as you decided it was clear to do so, even though the bicyclist got there first and was just starting? If such is the case, you are so rare that when I used to ride bike a lot I never saw any drivers like you.
I'm pretty sure that that won't work if you follow the grandparent post's advice, "unplug them from the wall when they are not in use." I did not see anything in those links you posted about those chips working when there was no electricity to the device.
This would work for some jobs, but not most IT jobs (and not an awful lot of other jobs). For example, I have had jobs (and know of others) that had a lot of downtime during the normal course of events. However, When things got busy, it was urgent that the problem got resolved as quickly as possible. If the company had cut employees so that the staff they had left were busy 100% of the time, when urgent problems arose, no one would have had time to address those problems while keeping the routine that was necessary to keep the company running.
The answer the type of person who does the studies in the article gives is to hire people to deal with those urgent situations when they arise. The problem with that answer is that those people will not know how the system is configured and will have to spend additional time figuring that out. No matter how well documented a system is, it will take someone who works with it every day less time to find their way around then it will someone coming in from outside.
Except that the government body in this case has decided that Uber is not "ignoring the laws". In fact it has decided that they are allowed under existing laws.
Except that is NOT the argument made by the person to whom I responded. They argued that a driver working with Uber could not possibly be as good as, nor competitive with, a black cab driver and therefore should not be allowed to try.
In addition, you are the first person to make the argument that London with only black cabs is better than London with black cabs and Uber. In fact, the majority of people have been making the argument that it is better to have only the black cabs than to have anyone with a car picking up fares on the street. Which is not what is under discussion. What is under discussion is whether Transport for London (the government body delegated to enforce the law on this issue) should allow Uber to operate in London. TfL has decided that Uber is legal. The black cab union has decided to demonstrate that they have the ability to make life miserable for the people of London if they do not get their way of having this decision reversed.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are making the point that the facts the argument was based on were not correct (or were better explained by other explanations). That is a valid response, but it does not make the original argument "laughable". It just makes it wrong.
And this is why people do not trust the global warming alarmists: they cannot tell the difference between an argument based on bad logic and one which is based on incorrect facts. Such a failure suggests that both their logic and their facts are flawed.
Again, you have missed the point, but then that is not surprising. The point I made was that if the facts were as those were arguing, they were making a good argument. The original poster did NOT say their facts were wrong, he said the logic of their argument was laughable.
Not relevant to my point. The poster thought the argument was laughable even if the facts were correct.
The poster I initially replied to said: "You might laugh, but I have heard people use similar astronomical events as proof against the anthropogenic cause of the recent warming. "Ice caps are melting on Mars!" etc. etc. " He never once mentioned other ways of tracking solar energy. I have seen the arguments he is referencing and they were a bit more sophisticated than "Ice caps are melting on Mars." I do not know if they were true, but the argument was that temperatures were rising on Mars (and other planets) in an amount comparable to temperature rises observed on earth. If multiple planets in this solar system were experiencing similar temperature increases at the same time, the most likely explanation is that said temperature rise was caused by the same thing on all of those planets. If your measurements of the forces which you believe to be possible causes does not explain those temperature rises, it suggests that either your measurements are faulty or there is some other force at work on all of those planets.
Someone arguing that that data is relevant may be mistaken about the data, but the argument is not laughable.
But that is irrelevant to the point made by the poster I replied to. He dismissed the idea that warming on other planets might have relevance to warming on earth.
If other planets are observed to be experiencing a similar warming to that being observed here, it seems likely that the warming is caused by something which all of the planers have in common. Whether or not that something can and is being otherwise monitored. If your explanation for earth's warming does not take into account the warming taking place at the same time on other planets(assuming that such warming is occurring), it is likely to be false.
Yes, because the fact that other planets in the same solar system are experiencing similar warming(if such is indeed the case) has absolutely no value in interpreting why this planet is doing the same. It's not like they all have something in common, such as receiving the bulk of their energy from the same source.
I am arguing that the EU does NOT do education at all. So, arguing that they have solved the problem is BS. Members of the EU have done education, but none of them have done it on the scale and diversity that is the U.S.
No, we do not have an example of that. We have examples of smaller groups providing good primary/secondary education for subsets of that. We do not have an example of any group providing education for over 400 million people on a territory spanning a large part of a continent. Which actually illustrates my point, the solution to the U.S. "problem" is to stop making it a U.S. wide problem and leave it to those in specific areas to solve. Solve it local to yourself, then, and only then, convince others to adopt the parts of your model for the areas local to them. We need to stop trying to impose a solution from Washington (or even from state capitols). The places where education works (the E.U in your example) do not impose solutions from far away from where they are applied.
So, you are saying that the EU uses the same education system from country to country, much the way the U.S. Department of Education is attempting to solve the problem by implementing a system that is the same from state to state? I was under the impression that each country in the EU had their own independent standards for education.
Please list the country which is doing so over a population anywhere close to as large, while that population is equally heterogeneous to that of the U.S.?
Your key idea does not work because while you could check who you voted for there would be no way to check that all of the votes were right...and it would not be that hard to have your key logged to who you entered to vote for without actually counting it that way. Without some way to compare how many real life people voted a certain way with the tallies that the computer lists for who voted a certain way there is no way to secure electronic voting. Just look at how hard it is to secure paper ballots where we can keep track of the physical record. Now, transfer that to an electronic record where the only way to keep track of the record is to trust that the system does what someone else tells you it does.
Electronic voting can only be secure if everyone knows how everybody else voted. Otherwise there is no way to know if the outcome has been modified at some point in the process.
Well, the Washington, DC school district spends about the most per pupil of any school district in the country, yet the politicians who go to Washington are rarely willing to send their children to those schools. So, no, the money is not spread evenly. Unfortunately, some of the schools which are eating up a larger slice of the pie are among the worst in the country.
Ultimately, the problem is that you cannot fix the problems with schools on the large scale. You cannot mass produce education. Education is a craft. A good teacher customizes their technique for each student. In a really good school, the administration will do what it can to place students in a class with a teacher whose skills best suit what that student needs in teacher, thus allowing teachers to teach a larger number of students.
The U.S. has strict penalties for using a gun in a crime. It doesn't seem to have reduced the use of guns in crimes...not even in cities where the non-criminal populace is largely unarmed.
OK, so guns aren't allowed. Does that actually stop criminals from using them? I live in a country where murder is not allowed, people still get murdered everyday.
And your point is?
So, you are the exception to a greater degree than the bicyclist who rolls through a stop sign with no regard to the motorists also approaching the intersection.
Really, you would not pass a bicyclist you over took who had just pulled out from a stop sign, which they arrived at before you did? And you would wait behind the bicyclist stopped at the stop sign and not pull up next to them before coming to a stop and then pulling out as soon as you decided it was clear to do so, even though the bicyclist got there first and was just starting? If such is the case, you are so rare that when I used to ride bike a lot I never saw any drivers like you.
Except that the advice was not to "power it off" when not in use. The advice was to unplug them from the wall.
I'm pretty sure that that won't work if you follow the grandparent post's advice, "unplug them from the wall when they are not in use." I did not see anything in those links you posted about those chips working when there was no electricity to the device.
This would work for some jobs, but not most IT jobs (and not an awful lot of other jobs). For example, I have had jobs (and know of others) that had a lot of downtime during the normal course of events. However, When things got busy, it was urgent that the problem got resolved as quickly as possible. If the company had cut employees so that the staff they had left were busy 100% of the time, when urgent problems arose, no one would have had time to address those problems while keeping the routine that was necessary to keep the company running.
The answer the type of person who does the studies in the article gives is to hire people to deal with those urgent situations when they arise. The problem with that answer is that those people will not know how the system is configured and will have to spend additional time figuring that out. No matter how well documented a system is, it will take someone who works with it every day less time to find their way around then it will someone coming in from outside.
Except that the government body in this case has decided that Uber is not "ignoring the laws". In fact it has decided that they are allowed under existing laws.
Except that is NOT the argument made by the person to whom I responded. They argued that a driver working with Uber could not possibly be as good as, nor competitive with, a black cab driver and therefore should not be allowed to try.
In addition, you are the first person to make the argument that London with only black cabs is better than London with black cabs and Uber. In fact, the majority of people have been making the argument that it is better to have only the black cabs than to have anyone with a car picking up fares on the street. Which is not what is under discussion. What is under discussion is whether Transport for London (the government body delegated to enforce the law on this issue) should allow Uber to operate in London. TfL has decided that Uber is legal. The black cab union has decided to demonstrate that they have the ability to make life miserable for the people of London if they do not get their way of having this decision reversed.