There's nothing wrong with challenging consensus and proving it wrong. However, at that point the burden of proof is on the accuser, and until the consensus is actually proven wrong, the rest of the world can go about their business with the assumption that it's right.
Oh yes, the old "everyone involved in the field is a part of a hive-mind deceiving you, their entire professional life is lie" argument.
Really, it's pretty close to the "pharmaceudical companies discovered a cure for cancer," "9/11 was an inside job," and "the moon landing was a hoax" conspiracy theories.
Unless you're running your own experiments constantly on just about every topic, you're always going to have to a certain amount of faith that the people you're listening to know what they're talking about. I'm just not sure there's any way around that.
When you have millions of people talking about a problem, yes, some of them are going to be morons and lunatics. Of course the statement "no one says that global warming deniers should be jailed for their beliefs" is false. It's not even worth debating, and I haven't seen anyone make that claim. Now the statement, "jailing AGW skeptics is a common refrain" is something I'd argue against. But it's a different assertion.
Conservapedia's [conservapedia.com] owner cum dictator, Andy Schafly comes to mind as a frequent abuser
I just swung by to see what nonsense might be there at the moment. I think my favorite on their news board is about the recent Napa, California earthquake. It states that "atheistic science" cannot explain why the earthquake occurred because there weren't any faults there, and people were so convinced there were no tectonic faults (because the scientists told them so) that 94% didn't bother with earthquake insurance.
It is wrong on so many humorous levels. The "no faults there" is flat-out incorrect, there are no -surface- faults which is normally how faults are charted, but there are underground faults. Also, earthquakes are common enough in California that earthquake insurance is prohibitively expensive -- so expensive that very few people can afford it. So the situation is exactly the opposite from what Conservapedia claims. People aren't buying the insurance because they believed false earthquake science told them there was no risk. They aren't buying it because everyone knows it's high risk, and that makes insurance expensive.
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
That's pretty usual. It takes a rare individual who can be convinced even by plain facts that he is wrong. Usually he can weasel his way out, like moving the goalposts, or the weird ways in the data is attacked in this very thread. There will always be an excuse for why the other side is always the incorrect one, and as I get older I've come to believe that it's the majority of people who are like this, not just hoax-believers and conspiracy theorists.
GP says that science is literally as political as politics and is closely comparable to a religion, remains unchallenged at +5.
Are you sure? Looks like it's at +0,Troll to me. You should never complain about moderation until the comments are at least half a day old anyway. It fluctuates way too wildly in the early hours to draw conclusions.
Nah, let's say you walk out to the park with a loaded revolver. You're out there, tossing it over and over again into the air. Someone throws a rock at it, it goes off, shoots someone. Is the rock thrower the only one liable? Or am I liable for a damned air hazard?
If those eyes can be disrupted by a wifi attack then you might as well have just put marbles in the sockets instead. Good Lord, and I thought the "drones crash into people if the wifi disappears" claim earlier was indicative of bad design.
I cannot think of anything worse than an implant with network connectivity to be hacked.
The big problem with that is not just that it's not your network, but also that if you switch the device on and it interfered with a drone that's already in the air, it could come crashing down and either seriously hurt somebody or at least cost the drone owner a lot of money.
Are you serious about that? That's the worse fucking design in the history of creating things. If it were true.
Do you realize how spotty cell service is in both large cities and rural areas? It's not something you can rely on for anything, other than a dropout at the wrong time.
The government has a monopoly on all liquor sales. You aren't even allowed to buy certain cough medicines unless there is a licensed pharmacist on premises, even though while they're busy in the back you can just grab the stuff off the shelf. All stores MUST be closed on certain statutory holidays even if there are people willing to work those days, and the store is fined heavily if it opens anyway.
Some US states still have really strange liquor laws. Alaska is hardcore, alcohol is banned from supermarkets and can only be bought at liquor stores (though wikipedia states that stores find ways to get around this). In some Alaskan districts alcohol sellers are allowed to drink on the job, but it's not legal to have intoxicated people at a liquor store, so if the seller is impaired, he's required to leave the premises...
Colorado allows supermarkets to sell 3.2% ABV beer but not full-strength beer. Colorado also treats stores with pharmacists differently, allowing stores with them to sell beer, wine, and spirits in specific areas.
In Florida, beer may be sold in containers 32 oz or less, or 1 gallon and greater. Beer containers of 40 or 64 oz are prohibited.
In Lousiana, drive-through frozen daiquiri stands are legal and common.
New Jersey: Each chain store gets only two licenses, so if you're a chain store with eight locations in NJ, only two can sell alcohol.
Oklahoma: You may only sell high-alcohol drinks at room temperature.
Those are just the weird laws, plenty of states arbitrarily restrict liquor sales. Thanks, Google!
Erm, um... they already paid for their infrastructure. YOU are the one who wants to watch what they have. That means that YOU have to pay for YOUR infrastructure to connect to THEIR infrastructure. WTF? You think Netflix should subsidize YOUR internet connection?
That's pretty much what I got from the grandparent post. "You have money. We want some of your money. Why aren't you sending us the money? You guys are assholes, no wonder we hate you."
Good for them. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll continue to operate in a country that does not fall under their jurisdiction, making their "decision" completely moot.
Is your country a signatory to the Berne Convention? Has your country come under pressure to "harmonize" its copyright laws with US/Canada/Europe/Japan/etc?
By explicitly using the phrase "government," you are using a much different definition of human right than other people use. If a gang sweeps through the jungle with machetes to eliminate the Tutsis, the Tutsis' human rights are violated. If Boko Haram kidnaps a school-full of girls, those girls' human rights have been violated. Those rights are seen as inalienable, a right that you are entitled to just for being human. If the FBI violates your human rights, they are just as violated as if the local KKK do it, or your neighbor does it. That's why what falls under "human right" is pretty limited.
No more of this guesswork as to what's going to fit in the bin, what's going to fit under the seat
Every time I've flown in the last several years they've had, at the check-in line, steel-grate boxes that you can put carry-ons in to see if your carry-on is of allowable (fits) size.
The volcano's name is "Jack," and that's what everyone there refers to it as. But any foreigners are told Eyjafjallajökull. Usually while the Icelander is trying not to burst out laughing.
Come one, _executable config files_? People would laugh their butts of if Microsoft introduced such a silly concept. systemd is doing the right thing by separating the executable code from the config files.
I can't speak for all Linux distros, but for years RedHat/Fedora have had all the tuneable config variables in/etc/config that get sourced by the appropriate SysV startup script.
"Sorry, I was overworked" doesn't work as an excuse for negligent homicide in any other profession. No, I see no reason why the police should get special treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing wrong with challenging consensus and proving it wrong. However, at that point the burden of proof is on the accuser, and until the consensus is actually proven wrong, the rest of the world can go about their business with the assumption that it's right.
Oh yes, the old "everyone involved in the field is a part of a hive-mind deceiving you, their entire professional life is lie" argument.
Really, it's pretty close to the "pharmaceudical companies discovered a cure for cancer," "9/11 was an inside job," and "the moon landing was a hoax" conspiracy theories.
Unless you're running your own experiments constantly on just about every topic, you're always going to have to a certain amount of faith that the people you're listening to know what they're talking about. I'm just not sure there's any way around that.
But 'challenge' should be seen as healthy anyway.
When you have millions of people talking about a problem, yes, some of them are going to be morons and lunatics. Of course the statement "no one says that global warming deniers should be jailed for their beliefs" is false. It's not even worth debating, and I haven't seen anyone make that claim. Now the statement, "jailing AGW skeptics is a common refrain" is something I'd argue against. But it's a different assertion.
Conservapedia's [conservapedia.com] owner cum dictator, Andy Schafly comes to mind as a frequent abuser
I just swung by to see what nonsense might be there at the moment. I think my favorite on their news board is about the recent Napa, California earthquake. It states that "atheistic science" cannot explain why the earthquake occurred because there weren't any faults there, and people were so convinced there were no tectonic faults (because the scientists told them so) that 94% didn't bother with earthquake insurance.
It is wrong on so many humorous levels. The "no faults there" is flat-out incorrect, there are no -surface- faults which is normally how faults are charted, but there are underground faults. Also, earthquakes are common enough in California that earthquake insurance is prohibitively expensive -- so expensive that very few people can afford it. So the situation is exactly the opposite from what Conservapedia claims. People aren't buying the insurance because they believed false earthquake science told them there was no risk. They aren't buying it because everyone knows it's high risk, and that makes insurance expensive.
Good Lord.
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
That's pretty unusual.
Fixed that for me. :-/
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
That's pretty usual. It takes a rare individual who can be convinced even by plain facts that he is wrong. Usually he can weasel his way out, like moving the goalposts, or the weird ways in the data is attacked in this very thread. There will always be an excuse for why the other side is always the incorrect one, and as I get older I've come to believe that it's the majority of people who are like this, not just hoax-believers and conspiracy theorists.
GP says that science is literally as political as politics and is closely comparable to a religion, remains unchallenged at +5.
Are you sure? Looks like it's at +0,Troll to me.
You should never complain about moderation until the comments are at least half a day old anyway. It fluctuates way too wildly in the early hours to draw conclusions.
Nah, let's say you walk out to the park with a loaded revolver. You're out there, tossing it over and over again into the air. Someone throws a rock at it, it goes off, shoots someone. Is the rock thrower the only one liable? Or am I liable for a damned air hazard?
Or maybe to connect them to your brain?
If those eyes can be disrupted by a wifi attack then you might as well have just put marbles in the sockets instead. Good Lord, and I thought the "drones crash into people if the wifi disappears" claim earlier was indicative of bad design.
I cannot think of anything worse than an implant with network connectivity to be hacked.
The big problem with that is not just that it's not your network, but also that if you switch the device on and it interfered with a drone that's already in the air, it could come crashing down and either seriously hurt somebody or at least cost the drone owner a lot of money.
Are you serious about that? That's the worse fucking design in the history of creating things. If it were true.
Do you realize how spotty cell service is in both large cities and rural areas? It's not something you can rely on for anything, other than a dropout at the wrong time.
The government has a monopoly on all liquor sales. You aren't even allowed to buy certain cough medicines unless there is a licensed pharmacist on premises, even though while they're busy in the back you can just grab the stuff off the shelf. All stores MUST be closed on certain statutory holidays even if there are people willing to work those days, and the store is fined heavily if it opens anyway.
Some US states still have really strange liquor laws. Alaska is hardcore, alcohol is banned from supermarkets and can only be bought at liquor stores (though wikipedia states that stores find ways to get around this). In some Alaskan districts alcohol sellers are allowed to drink on the job, but it's not legal to have intoxicated people at a liquor store, so if the seller is impaired, he's required to leave the premises...
Colorado allows supermarkets to sell 3.2% ABV beer but not full-strength beer. Colorado also treats stores with pharmacists differently, allowing stores with them to sell beer, wine, and spirits in specific areas.
In Florida, beer may be sold in containers 32 oz or less, or 1 gallon and greater. Beer containers of 40 or 64 oz are prohibited.
In Lousiana, drive-through frozen daiquiri stands are legal and common.
New Jersey: Each chain store gets only two licenses, so if you're a chain store with eight locations in NJ, only two can sell alcohol.
Oklahoma: You may only sell high-alcohol drinks at room temperature.
Those are just the weird laws, plenty of states arbitrarily restrict liquor sales. Thanks, Google!
Erm, um... they already paid for their infrastructure. YOU are the one who wants to watch what they have. That means that YOU have to pay for YOUR infrastructure to connect to THEIR infrastructure. WTF? You think Netflix should subsidize YOUR internet connection?
That's pretty much what I got from the grandparent post. "You have money. We want some of your money. Why aren't you sending us the money? You guys are assholes, no wonder we hate you."
And curling.
And Tim Horton's is owned by an American company, to Canadians' collective shame. Though it's not the first time that's happened.
Good for them. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll continue to operate in a country that does not fall under their jurisdiction, making their "decision" completely moot.
Is your country a signatory to the Berne Convention?
Has your country come under pressure to "harmonize" its copyright laws with US/Canada/Europe/Japan/etc?
By explicitly using the phrase "government," you are using a much different definition of human right than other people use. If a gang sweeps through the jungle with machetes to eliminate the Tutsis, the Tutsis' human rights are violated. If Boko Haram kidnaps a school-full of girls, those girls' human rights have been violated. Those rights are seen as inalienable, a right that you are entitled to just for being human. If the FBI violates your human rights, they are just as violated as if the local KKK do it, or your neighbor does it. That's why what falls under "human right" is pretty limited.
No I need the space to prevent serious cramping/bruising.
Then why didn't you pay for it?
No more of this guesswork as to what's going to fit in the bin, what's going to fit under the seat
Every time I've flown in the last several years they've had, at the check-in line, steel-grate boxes that you can put carry-ons in to see if your carry-on is of allowable (fits) size.
The volcano's name is "Jack," and that's what everyone there refers to it as. But any foreigners are told Eyjafjallajökull. Usually while the Icelander is trying not to burst out laughing.
I think the best choice would just be to fork Gnome2.
documentation is at best an afterthought
Ah, the Gnome syndrome.
TL;DR: Venezia is a troll
Really, it reminded me of an old John Katz article, full of unsupported assertions and personal aspersions.
Boot time is essentially irrelevant, I don't see why everyone gets so excited about it.
I think it's partially because containers are the hot thing right now.
Come one, _executable config files_? People would laugh their butts of if Microsoft introduced such a silly concept. systemd is doing the right thing by separating the executable code from the config files.
I can't speak for all Linux distros, but for years RedHat/Fedora have had all the tuneable config variables in /etc/config that get sourced by the appropriate SysV startup script.
"Sorry, I was overworked" doesn't work as an excuse for negligent homicide in any other profession. No, I see no reason why the police should get special treatment.