Here are some better examples of denial and trivialization for you, since you didn't pick up on the common dog-whistle of "modify the planes to be laser-proof instead!"
It's not overblown because it is happening on landing and approach, otherwise it wouldn't be noticed. And no people are not smart enough to not attempt mass murder.
I was just coming here to talk about the trend of denying or trivializing the problem by other laser enthusiasts, instead of doing their best to help eliminate the problem that threatens their hobby almost as much as it does the lives of the hundreds of passengers on each plane...thanks for demonstrating it for me.
Let's say for the sake of argument that all IPCC reports to the UN consist of a bunch of crazy garbage. What would that change? It would be like arguing that a car doesn't really work because the dealer's brochure is full of bullshit. The models still work. Anthropogenic change lines up. Maybe that was wrong in one of the reports. Doesn't change anything.
Would making up a bunch of more detailed labels - anthropogenic climate change denier, total climate change denier, lunar unicornist climate change denier, etc - make you happy? I think they'd be useless but I'm curious.
I, for one, will mock you deniers at every opportunity. You are a small minority, about 1/3 of Americans and nearly nonexistent elsewhere. As Max Planck pointed out, we can't change your opinions, only wait for you to die. In the meantime, the mocking will continue. Get used to it, deniers.
Reminds me of a bio professor I had who would crack jokes at creationist theory in class whenever the opportunity came up. Haha, good times.
The old "this is how it is, but don't research it, because then we will have to shout you down, cause that's how science works!"
Your theories have been researched many times, even with dollars sourced only from people you like, but the results stubbornly continue to confirm that "mainstream" science was on the right track. How many more times will you insist that there has been an error and that the issue should be revisited? There's a word for people who do the same thing over and over again and expect different results, maybe you'd prefer it to "denier."
Why play your silly game of semantics? You deny the best well-established scientific knowledge on the earth's climate. Why does it matter if you think it's controlled by the mind of a rainbow-farting unicorn on the moon, has been static since 6000 years ago, or is capable of any kind of change with the magical exception of being affected by hundreds of years of humans pumping fossil-sourced CO2 into the atmosphere?
Addendum: It just hit me that they might've meant *topic* specific.
Google has something like this as well but it can be hard to notice. I remember one time I was searching for something automotive-related and my query had a word in it that meant something in the fashion world. It took hell to get out of "fashion mode" and get automotive results, IIRC I had to completely rephrase the question.
Both on anime race cars, both used for scouting ahead and navigation.
Speed Racer's Mach 5 could launch a fixed-wing drone that looked like a bird. Also good for shenanigans:-P
The Cyber Formula (basically fantasy F1) cars from Future GPX Cyber Formula launched what we might today call "atmospheric satellites." It gave live maps and provided something like a GPS signal, I guess the authors thought GPS would never be available to civilians. Only slightly better than what you can get on a smartphone today. Also good for knocking open the landing gear doors on a hypersonic space plane:-P
If I had to choose between more banner ads on Slashdot and the current beta I'd go with the extra ads hands-down. I've had the option to disable ads for a long time but I left them on.
Just tried it. It's far from unsalvageable but it has a couple of simple, but massive flaws. One is the skinny comments section. That sucks hard, make it full-width. The next is that Slashdot seems to be following the trend of many sites to become more like Instagram. Lay off the pictures, don't put a big pic with nearly every article for the sake of having pictures, which is exactly what's happening. If it's really relevant use a small one, not some giant pic I have to scroll past taking up big chunks of valuable content space.
Last one, and it's not a big one, I'm not sure I like the more minimalist content section. I'd definitely miss the comment ID link and friend/foe indicator.
There are two ads on TV right now which demonstrate this.
One is from Toyota showing off their new semi-autonomous tech. In one scene, a couple in some boring Toyota appliance wanders out of their lane on a two-lane highway, directly into the path of an oncoming truck. A massive and likely fatal mistake that very few drivers are outright shitty enough to make and even fewer would live to tell about. RIP idiot couple.
BUT WAIT! It's okay to do that now because Toyota's automatic lane-holding will save you! So feel free to pay no attention to the road and be an appallingly shitty driver!
Another is an ad from Mercedes. A woman in some overpriced tall hatchback is in what looks like a demolition derby. They act out common scenarios on the street and the car's accident avoidance features save her. The ad explains that the roads are dangerous, like a demolition derby.
But wait a minute, all the accident scenarios involve mistakes that are the Mercedes driver's fault! She failed to react to a car stopped ahead of her. She failed to stay in her lane. She was the only danger in what could otherwise be a peaceful post-apocalyptic community of drivers wearing helmets in beat-up old cars! But it's okay to be a dangerous moron in a new Mercedes!
The active car safety features I'd like wouldn't take control of my car or tell me anything about what my own car is doing. They'd read the minds of other drivers to tell me when someone is going to pull out too close in front of me from a side-road or when someone else is going to change lanes into me. Invent those and I'll retrofit them into my old cars.
Renewable energy is the best energy. No mining and consumption of finite materials needed, no radiation-related dangers, little to no reliance on sci-fi technologies needed. I think nuclear will make a good transitional power source though.
In one of the very few detective shows I enjoyed, rideable spider robots with wheeled feet and childish AI personalities were *absolutely essential* to effective crimefighting.
There's another one which I sincerely hope David Cameron never sees involving "crime coefficients."
Slashdot Mirror
If they're adult males, they're called "suspected militants."
Here are some better examples of denial and trivialization for you, since you didn't pick up on the common dog-whistle of "modify the planes to be laser-proof instead!"
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
And would it take an unjust government to keep RC planes and unlit towers away from airliners, or just laser pointers?
It's not overblown because it is happening on landing and approach, otherwise it wouldn't be noticed. And no people are not smart enough to not attempt mass murder.
Downside: You must endanger the lives of hundreds of innocents (or more if the plane crashes into a stadium or something).
I was just coming here to talk about the trend of denying or trivializing the problem by other laser enthusiasts, instead of doing their best to help eliminate the problem that threatens their hobby almost as much as it does the lives of the hundreds of passengers on each plane...thanks for demonstrating it for me.
Hahaha shows what you know. Yes the sun has been considered. Many times. You're fairly ignorant of the body of research on global warming, at best.
Let's say for the sake of argument that all IPCC reports to the UN consist of a bunch of crazy garbage. What would that change? It would be like arguing that a car doesn't really work because the dealer's brochure is full of bullshit. The models still work. Anthropogenic change lines up. Maybe that was wrong in one of the reports. Doesn't change anything.
Would making up a bunch of more detailed labels - anthropogenic climate change denier, total climate change denier, lunar unicornist climate change denier, etc - make you happy? I think they'd be useless but I'm curious.
It will get me on the naughty list, but that's a price I'll pay gladly. That's all for now.
I, for one, will mock you deniers at every opportunity. You are a small minority, about 1/3 of Americans and nearly nonexistent elsewhere. As Max Planck pointed out, we can't change your opinions, only wait for you to die. In the meantime, the mocking will continue. Get used to it, deniers.
Reminds me of a bio professor I had who would crack jokes at creationist theory in class whenever the opportunity came up. Haha, good times.
The old "this is how it is, but don't research it, because then we will have to shout you down, cause that's how science works!"
Your theories have been researched many times, even with dollars sourced only from people you like, but the results stubbornly continue to confirm that "mainstream" science was on the right track. How many more times will you insist that there has been an error and that the issue should be revisited? There's a word for people who do the same thing over and over again and expect different results, maybe you'd prefer it to "denier."
Why play your silly game of semantics? You deny the best well-established scientific knowledge on the earth's climate. Why does it matter if you think it's controlled by the mind of a rainbow-farting unicorn on the moon, has been static since 6000 years ago, or is capable of any kind of change with the magical exception of being affected by hundreds of years of humans pumping fossil-sourced CO2 into the atmosphere?
Addendum: It just hit me that they might've meant *topic* specific.
Google has something like this as well but it can be hard to notice. I remember one time I was searching for something automotive-related and my query had a word in it that meant something in the fashion world. It took hell to get out of "fashion mode" and get automotive results, IIRC I had to completely rephrase the question.
Google already does domain-specific indexing, certain sites get indexed faster or deeper than others based on a number of secret rules.
For site specific search prefix your query with "site:foo.com"
Both on anime race cars, both used for scouting ahead and navigation.
Speed Racer's Mach 5 could launch a fixed-wing drone that looked like a bird. Also good for shenanigans :-P
The Cyber Formula (basically fantasy F1) cars from Future GPX Cyber Formula launched what we might today call "atmospheric satellites." It gave live maps and provided something like a GPS signal, I guess the authors thought GPS would never be available to civilians. Only slightly better than what you can get on a smartphone today. Also good for knocking open the landing gear doors on a hypersonic space plane :-P
If I had to choose between more banner ads on Slashdot and the current beta I'd go with the extra ads hands-down. I've had the option to disable ads for a long time but I left them on.
What's wrong with liking some of those bands? :-(
And imagine the humor opportunities every time Danger Zone plays. XD
Just tried it. It's far from unsalvageable but it has a couple of simple, but massive flaws. One is the skinny comments section. That sucks hard, make it full-width. The next is that Slashdot seems to be following the trend of many sites to become more like Instagram. Lay off the pictures, don't put a big pic with nearly every article for the sake of having pictures, which is exactly what's happening. If it's really relevant use a small one, not some giant pic I have to scroll past taking up big chunks of valuable content space.
Last one, and it's not a big one, I'm not sure I like the more minimalist content section. I'd definitely miss the comment ID link and friend/foe indicator.
This has been done before, by Wired IIRC. In fact I remember the name of a particularly cute woman in one of the lists :-P
There are two ads on TV right now which demonstrate this.
One is from Toyota showing off their new semi-autonomous tech. In one scene, a couple in some boring Toyota appliance wanders out of their lane on a two-lane highway, directly into the path of an oncoming truck. A massive and likely fatal mistake that very few drivers are outright shitty enough to make and even fewer would live to tell about. RIP idiot couple.
BUT WAIT! It's okay to do that now because Toyota's automatic lane-holding will save you! So feel free to pay no attention to the road and be an appallingly shitty driver!
Another is an ad from Mercedes. A woman in some overpriced tall hatchback is in what looks like a demolition derby. They act out common scenarios on the street and the car's accident avoidance features save her. The ad explains that the roads are dangerous, like a demolition derby.
But wait a minute, all the accident scenarios involve mistakes that are the Mercedes driver's fault! She failed to react to a car stopped ahead of her. She failed to stay in her lane. She was the only danger in what could otherwise be a peaceful post-apocalyptic community of drivers wearing helmets in beat-up old cars! But it's okay to be a dangerous moron in a new Mercedes!
The active car safety features I'd like wouldn't take control of my car or tell me anything about what my own car is doing. They'd read the minds of other drivers to tell me when someone is going to pull out too close in front of me from a side-road or when someone else is going to change lanes into me. Invent those and I'll retrofit them into my old cars.
It's not supposed to, they're making it CXO-compatible!
Cheat code: Boost your WorkerScore by playing the sound of a golf ball being hit from your computer.
Renewable energy is the best energy. No mining and consumption of finite materials needed, no radiation-related dangers, little to no reliance on sci-fi technologies needed. I think nuclear will make a good transitional power source though.
In one of the very few detective shows I enjoyed, rideable spider robots with wheeled feet and childish AI personalities were *absolutely essential* to effective crimefighting.
There's another one which I sincerely hope David Cameron never sees involving "crime coefficients."
...or erect expandable walls around the landing site?
Last time I use the free wifi at Pearson. Wifi adapter disabled from now on!
Only $500k? I'm sure the 3D printers F1 teams use right now to rapid-prototype front wing & nose sections cost A LOT more than that.
Carbon fiber 3D printer + printable firearms = 3D Printers more tightly controlled than guns ever were.