Everytime some dude says "Death to America!" or something like that on the Internet, that's a credible threat. Oh look, there's another one. If you don't stop it, it'll be like nine eleven times a hundred!
I'm not sure I've ever seen a "legitimate climate skeptic." The vast majority I've dealt with are ignoramuses who don't try to answer their own questions, and when you show them the evidence they easily could have found themselves, they go into denialist lockdown mode and just say the evidence is not valid/fabricated etc. A few are just underinformed and turned off of the idea for non-scientific reasons (many of which are understandable...who wouldn't want to disbelieve what Al Gore preaches at you?)
I think even the "celebrity" "skeptics" know this but they have a vested interest in keeping the charade going
Hahaha you think the denialists give a damn? When news came out that their golden boy Anthony Watts was a paid shill for the Heartland Institute, they didn't bat an eye.
It's actually in the media's best interest to keep the "controversy" over AGW alive regardless of their political bias. If it were just another observational science that nobody had a problem with, like astronomy, then it would be another "boring" thing they couldn't profitably report on. But thanks to the intervention of their tinfoil-clad angels that raise a stink over every issue, creating scandals out of thin hot air, they can get Average Joes to read the news about these otherwise stuffy intellectual matters.
"Better" or "worse" overall isn't even the most important factor. "Different" is bad for our civilization and the planet's wildlife (which would have to evolve about 10,000x faster to adapt).
If, for the sake of argument, tomorrow we found out that AGW was indeed a carefully choreographed international hoax, and the climate changes were completely natural, do you know what the correct course of action would be?
To change not a damn thing about what we've been working towards. To continue reducing CO2 emissions and work toward sequestration. The only thing that would change is that we'd consider the effort an act of geoengineering.
Nope, never. You can't blame them for not understanding it thought. I mean they have people who are just as skilled and ideas that are just as "good," so logically it seems like they should be able to do the same things. But there's only one SF and nobody can steal its fashion among investors.
That term means anything goes. There are things which are physically impossible and/or morally reprehensible that are far from commercially unreasonable.
As I said before, this is an ideological loss for no practical gain. Now that we've lost, let's release browser plugins to break the shit out of EME, forcing DRM back into shitty proprietary browser extensions that have to be installed one user at a time!
Exactly, total double standard. The difference between the two is only a slight matter of degree. And this is the country that created today's GCHQ that's expressing such outrage?
It's a regional issue. If you're in one of the few areas with a high demand for programming jobs, the article seems true. If you're not, and there are just a few underpaid programming jobs available, you wonder what the hell they're talking about.
Well Arker estimates 10 people would die if all guns in the US were replaced with smart guns ("worst case scenario" for smart gun deaths.) So how many people would have to be killed with their own guns or stolen guns to disregard the lives of those 10 who died from smart gun malfunctions?
Slashdot Mirror
Everytime some dude says "Death to America!" or something like that on the Internet, that's a credible threat. Oh look, there's another one. If you don't stop it, it'll be like nine eleven times a hundred!
I'm not sure I've ever seen a "legitimate climate skeptic." The vast majority I've dealt with are ignoramuses who don't try to answer their own questions, and when you show them the evidence they easily could have found themselves, they go into denialist lockdown mode and just say the evidence is not valid/fabricated etc. A few are just underinformed and turned off of the idea for non-scientific reasons (many of which are understandable...who wouldn't want to disbelieve what Al Gore preaches at you?)
I think even the "celebrity" "skeptics" know this but they have a vested interest in keeping the charade going
I wonder if people tried to deny gravity when the first road tax was proposed...
Hahaha you think the denialists give a damn? When news came out that their golden boy Anthony Watts was a paid shill for the Heartland Institute, they didn't bat an eye.
It's actually in the media's best interest to keep the "controversy" over AGW alive regardless of their political bias. If it were just another observational science that nobody had a problem with, like astronomy, then it would be another "boring" thing they couldn't profitably report on. But thanks to the intervention of their tinfoil-clad angels that raise a stink over every issue, creating scandals out of thin hot air, they can get Average Joes to read the news about these otherwise stuffy intellectual matters.
"Better" or "worse" overall isn't even the most important factor. "Different" is bad for our civilization and the planet's wildlife (which would have to evolve about 10,000x faster to adapt).
If, for the sake of argument, tomorrow we found out that AGW was indeed a carefully choreographed international hoax, and the climate changes were completely natural, do you know what the correct course of action would be?
To change not a damn thing about what we've been working towards. To continue reducing CO2 emissions and work toward sequestration. The only thing that would change is that we'd consider the effort an act of geoengineering.
Nope, never. You can't blame them for not understanding it thought. I mean they have people who are just as skilled and ideas that are just as "good," so logically it seems like they should be able to do the same things. But there's only one SF and nobody can steal its fashion among investors.
That term means anything goes. There are things which are physically impossible and/or morally reprehensible that are far from commercially unreasonable.
...
GET OUT OF HERE STALKER
I hope that one day we'll be as concerned for the welfare of other human beings as we are for that of orca whales.
Lifetime membership in the NSA's Super Special Pals club! They'll be thinking about you all the time!
I didn't consider the power needed to refine and transport the gasoline either so it's fair.
Tax cuts across the board do work, as does trickle down economics. You are free to disagree with that
I hope you can feel that I'm disagreeing as hard as I possibly can!
Addendum: OK, TFA says Samsung will compensate the families. Seems like something that should have been in TFS.
Yeah don't offer any kind of financial assistance. That shit's expensive.
Huh? A modern gasoline ICE's efficiency is close to 30%. Still utter crap compared to an EV, but not 15%.
As I said before, this is an ideological loss for no practical gain. Now that we've lost, let's release browser plugins to break the shit out of EME, forcing DRM back into shitty proprietary browser extensions that have to be installed one user at a time!
Exactly, total double standard. The difference between the two is only a slight matter of degree. And this is the country that created today's GCHQ that's expressing such outrage?
(But seriously you should play it, because that game is a masterpiece of the FPS genre).
He's worse in that he's a lot better-equipped, with his own mechanized army and all...
It's a regional issue. If you're in one of the few areas with a high demand for programming jobs, the article seems true. If you're not, and there are just a few underpaid programming jobs available, you wonder what the hell they're talking about.
"Oh sorry you'll have to send me more money, the value of this cryptocurrency dropped 20% in the 5 seconds it took to process the transaction."
Check out the back of the xenomorph's head. And that was toned down from earlier concept art.
Also, the baby xenomorph.
Well Arker estimates 10 people would die if all guns in the US were replaced with smart guns ("worst case scenario" for smart gun deaths.) So how many people would have to be killed with their own guns or stolen guns to disregard the lives of those 10 who died from smart gun malfunctions?
I'm sure they're all popping champagne bottles in the office right now.
Also a good thing if you don't want to help fund Putin's wars of conquest.