Haha that jackass is still running his blog after being outed as a Heartland Institute shill? And denialists think it's a grand international conspiracy among scientists, but don't bat an eye at this stuff. Brilliant.
From the poll on the topic only about 1/3 of Slashdotters are climate denialists (an alarmingly high fraction considering the demographic however). I'd say the discussion is relatively low on ignorance considering those numbers.
Eventually they will run out of reasons; some denialists are already at this stage. When this happens they move from "warming isn't happening/isn't man made" to "it's happening and it's man-made, but it's not bad."
The stage after that seems to be "it's happening, it's man-made and it's bad, but I refuse to act." There's some implication that they'd prefer to live in artificial environments.
I once saw part of an episode of NCIS where they caught a terrorist. They proudly told him (roughly paraphrasing) "you have no rights, you're a terrorist, you're going to be disappeared to Gitmo thanks to the PATRIOT act...I've heard some nasty rumors about what goes on there."
They seemed to be proud of their country's human rights abuses.
SlashChat: Live chatroom for slashdotters SlashLolz: Geek-oriented humor section SlashForums: Typical forum except each discussion is threaded in the usual Slashdot style. Like journals but easier to see. BETTER EDITING AND STORY SELECTION
That would be a much better name, it describes the site perfectly. When I first saw SlashBI I thought it would be a bisexual dating site. What else could I think?
The only thing I asked of Slashdot is to give us an interesting topic to discuss, and they've been doing that less and less lately. I couldn't even push myself to finish reading the boring, buzzword-riddled headlines on SlashBI.
Fake smokestacks? There are no electric cruise liners and I don't think it's nuclear, they still need smokestacks. They can just split it unnecessarily to achieve the look, like those ricers who put quad exhaust on their Civics.
I think that when Natalie Portman delivers my super-cheap beyond-triple-A game to my house, she should be covered in hot grits. And naked. And petrified.
They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?
So if you ask a theist some questions that require analytical thinking, and then ask them to renounce their religion, they'll do it? Interesting. Someone has to try that in an interview with the Pope.
When you start thinking about it, even in a cursory sort of way, the entire concept of a God falls apart. Take omnipotence. I know it is a silly question but, Can God make a rock so large that he cannot lift it? (or the variant, can God make a hotpocket so hot that it could burn him?) No? Oh well then he not all powerful, since he cannot do every task. Yes? Oh well he is not all powerful, since he could not lift a rock of a certain size. A true critical thinker, at this point, would say "hm, it appears omnipotence is a nonsensical term, since it is self contradictory". The only other option is to take the stance that God is not omnipotent, but then he is not God by any classical definition.
I would have raised the Epicurean paradox rather than this silly play on words.
Slashdot Mirror
Relevant:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
Oh jeez, are you serious?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Not sure if serious or parody
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/026/futuramafry.jpg
Haha that jackass is still running his blog after being outed as a Heartland Institute shill? And denialists think it's a grand international conspiracy among scientists, but don't bat an eye at this stuff. Brilliant.
From the poll on the topic only about 1/3 of Slashdotters are climate denialists (an alarmingly high fraction considering the demographic however). I'd say the discussion is relatively low on ignorance considering those numbers.
surely the crap spewed into the atmosphere by continuous seismic events must far outweigh your "graphed" metrics.
You mean volcanoes?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.html
No, no, not at all.
Eventually they will run out of reasons; some denialists are already at this stage. When this happens they move from "warming isn't happening/isn't man made" to "it's happening and it's man-made, but it's not bad."
The stage after that seems to be "it's happening, it's man-made and it's bad, but I refuse to act." There's some implication that they'd prefer to live in artificial environments.
Something similar happened when an FBI informant acting as a terrorist "infiltrated" a mosque. They called the FBI on their own informant.
Consider this: You personally have the same amount of evidence that Bin Laden is dead as you do that he ever existed! *tinfoil*
I can't see most cosmic events because that's how boring this part of the planet is.
I once saw part of an episode of NCIS where they caught a terrorist. They proudly told him (roughly paraphrasing) "you have no rights, you're a terrorist, you're going to be disappeared to Gitmo thanks to the PATRIOT act...I've heard some nasty rumors about what goes on there."
They seemed to be proud of their country's human rights abuses.
SlashChat: Live chatroom for slashdotters
SlashLolz: Geek-oriented humor section
SlashForums: Typical forum except each discussion is threaded in the usual Slashdot style. Like journals but easier to see.
BETTER EDITING AND STORY SELECTION
That would be a much better name, it describes the site perfectly. When I first saw SlashBI I thought it would be a bisexual dating site. What else could I think?
The only thing I asked of Slashdot is to give us an interesting topic to discuss, and they've been doing that less and less lately. I couldn't even push myself to finish reading the boring, buzzword-riddled headlines on SlashBI.
Fake smokestacks? There are no electric cruise liners and I don't think it's nuclear, they still need smokestacks. They can just split it unnecessarily to achieve the look, like those ricers who put quad exhaust on their Civics.
Global warming man. No icebergs to crash into, so we have to make do with land masses these days :-P
Some of the fancier cruises (read - no water slides)
The water slide is the most fun a Slashdotter can have on a cruise ship.
Attention all anti-choice idiots who said "fragmentation":
GET OUT
Chibi Star. Easy to remember.
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/077/4/8/chibi_star_by_animated_pics-d3bx35y.gif
I like that I was modded Redundant instead of Offtopic or something. Fair enough XD
They still make PC-only titles?
I think that when Natalie Portman delivers my super-cheap beyond-triple-A game to my house, she should be covered in hot grits. And naked. And petrified.
I don't like too many computers in my vehicles (I think 0 is a reasonable number), and I sure as hell don't want anything from Apple in there.
They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?
So if you ask a theist some questions that require analytical thinking, and then ask them to renounce their religion, they'll do it? Interesting. Someone has to try that in an interview with the Pope.
When you start thinking about it, even in a cursory sort of way, the entire concept of a God falls apart. Take omnipotence. I know it is a silly question but, Can God make a rock so large that he cannot lift it? (or the variant, can God make a hotpocket so hot that it could burn him?) No? Oh well then he not all powerful, since he cannot do every task. Yes? Oh well he is not all powerful, since he could not lift a rock of a certain size. A true critical thinker, at this point, would say "hm, it appears omnipotence is a nonsensical term, since it is self contradictory". The only other option is to take the stance that God is not omnipotent, but then he is not God by any classical definition.
I would have raised the Epicurean paradox rather than this silly play on words.