For some people it will be a trade-off between being unable to function or even stay alive, and trusting a medical device manufacturer and the government not to screw with your implants.
If we were to say, use these devices on an Alzheimer's patient - assuming they actually worked - the device would not prevent the continued deterioration the sufferers experience. Because that's what eventually does them in. The parts of the body that need the brain to regulate them stop working.
Having watched loved ones slowly die and the surge of drugs to "slow the progression" of end stage dementia, I'm kind of fearful that the people who are in charge of Grandma will move from memory implants to organ maintenance implants. I have no doubt this will be internet connected - the better to keep Grandma's memory in the cloud. Android might be prophetic, and no doubt Apple will make an iBrain. Geeks will argue about how much better one or the other is.. Well, that's a little goofy - I hope.
No thanks - Nope, nope, nope. My family is already under orders that if I were to become demented, there will be no intervention other than pain killers, and the goal at that time will be for me to die as soon as possible. Way too much money is spent on keeping bodies alive long after the mind has fled them.
And yet actual research seems to suggest it works to at least a degree. Of course, the leap from rat to human is HUGE. We have no idea of the quality of the memory since we can't really ask the rats.
Yeah, quite the jump from a rat to Grandma. And let's not forget that Grandma will need an internet connection to get Windows 10 Alzheimer's edition mandatory updates, and won't be able to talk when tehy mess up their tongue driver with their Golden anniversary edition.
But think of all the ads that can be served - no doubt ad blockers will be disallowed.
There is a whole potential industry here as we take the Internet of Things to it's unlimate goal - humans.
Just imagine, GPS to make certain Grams doesn't run off, Pharmaceutical companies can deliver their maintenance ads directly to the users. "Honey be a sweetheart and ask doctor Benson if Cialis is right for me, would you? That's a good boy!".
Let us not forget the malware - the ultimate in Ransomware.... You get a text message on your phone....
"Greetings Mr. Smith - Perhaps you see your Mother up on the ledge. We hope she is enjoying the view - it is such a lovely time of year. It would be such a pity if she jumped off. If you were to be so kind as to send us 50 thousand bitcoins, we can ensure she gets back in safely."
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.
No, you didn't If you gave me some facts and figures, you could claim as refutation I will accept that. I am asking for facts and figures, and science.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in the early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.
I understand much, and if all you can do is calll me names, that appears to be your best argument. The idea that we will somehow help poor people by ignoring the greenhouse effect is quite simply, ludicrous.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.
Oh dear. My point is that there might be some point that we would want to worry about it. When and where is that point? The Carteret Islands are now uninhabitble due to saltwater incursion. At the present rate, the island will be totally submerged by 2020 - athough some have said 2015. In 2005, the Papua New Guinea Government funded total evacuation of the island because of the incursions, and storm surges flooding the island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While mistakenly calling it the first climate change refugees, New Zealand has granted residency to residents of Tuvalu in 2014. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... The confusion over the "first" moniker was probably coming from being the first time refugee status was from a different country.
Just ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and it is mainly poor people who are affected by some of the effects. So the concept of ignoring AGW to help the poor as econmic wisdom is simply bizarre.
Seriously, you must be drunk or something because your normal posts are much better than this one which looks like you didn't read anything.
It was in the morning, I haven't had a drink since my son's wedding in June, and that was 1 IPA. You really didn't do a good job reacting to my post, finding it an excuse to unload on me. You are falling victim to "bullying guy on the internet" tactics. Nah - homie don't play that.
It's a little weird, your response to my pointing out the fallacies of the scientific skeptics as if I were making an unforgivable personal insult to you. Is that some way of saying you hold every single scientific skeptic outlook that you pointed out personally, and at the same time?
I'm not drunk, not on any drugs stronger than Aspirin, but you dear phantomfive, have some reallysevere anger issues. Perhaps there are some stressors going on in your life that make you need to lash out at people and it makes you feel better. I'm most sorry for arousing your indignant anger.
But I'm certainly not going to have a rational conversation with you about this, so you can go spout your anger elsewhere.
Slashdot does not censor, and this AC that brings this up often doesn't understand what the word means.
Or they don't want to.
Which of course, would be the result if someone posted the text of "The Hobbit", which copyright the Tolkien family defends vigorously. If its copyrighted, its copyrighted.
It is obvious that some folks here simply cannot stand that someone would disagree with their opinion. And that someone using their mod points to disagree enrages them - where the (ScoreX) after their post somehow becomes censorship.
As Merriam-Webster defines it:
Censor:
: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
Considering the only thing ever removed was copyrighted material, that doesn't even count.
A few of the most emphatic deniers I know actually like the idea at the same time as rejecting the science. One likes his temps in the upper 80s - honest to gawd, he keeps his house at around 85, and has been reveling in the tropical weather here in the Northeast this summer. I think there might be something a little wrong with him physically.
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
2) Those who agree with the standard science line, but disagree on economics principals. Thus Bjorn Lomborg claims that economically speaking, it's better spend our resources on growing our economy, and helping poor people now, rather than trying to stop AGW.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in th early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
They consider AGW to be worth watching, but not worth worrying about yet.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
Some AGW predictions get wild, such as that the oceans will boil and it will be the end of civilization.
Which of course is preposterous. But all that proves is that there are kooks on both sides. That claim is right up there with denialists claiming that in the 1970's that scientists believed we were entering a new ice age, based on an article in Time Magazine.
But I'm not around to try to claim that AGW doesn't exist because of an article in time magazine that was laughable and merely trying to do a populist extrapolation of a cold and snowy winter to the future.
It's not an ad hominem attack to call a pseudoskeptic out. The poster made no indication of understanding how data is analyzed, but basically claimed either incompetence or conspiracy by NOAA scientists.
That is called the "Michael Mann is an asshole" attack. (he isn't, by the way)
Claim that the enemy doesn't know what they are doing, Claim they are abusing the statistics claim they are doctoring the data. Then sit back and act like you won the argument. with nothing but the claim, nothing to support their dismissal. Note that I took specific wording from the AC's post.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going?
The amount of radiative forcing added to the atmosphere since the semi arbitrary date in 1750 is nothing short of mind boggling. 800 TeraWatts. 1.6 watts per squar meter sounds pretty innocent, of course, but you don't pump in 800 TW without some effect.
To expect that to not have an effect is extraordinary. It needs some better proof than dismissing the whole thing.
After all, thermodynamics still reigns supreme last time I heard, so there's no perpetual magic refrigeration unit in the sky getting rid of excess energy be capture due to higher CO2 concentrations, so where is it?
You do know that the next thing is for some wag to dredge up the Data showing the discrepancy between Radiosonde data and satellite data By Christy from the University of Alabama.
Denialists consider this their smoking gun argument.
Unfortunately for them, the discrepancy between the two have long since been eliminated, and attested to as correct by Christy himself. For some reason however, denialists are not capable of finding the updated and correct data.
Just how much longer are you going to keep up this pseudo skepticism? Basically you're calling scientists liars, or at best, morons. So let's here your interpretation, and let's hear who you've submitted it to, and how it has been received.
Take pity on them.
This is what we get when people get their science education from politicians.
Take pity on them. It is summer, hotter than blue blazes, and they can't look out the window, see s few snowflakes, and yell - "So much for global warming!"
Take pity on them.
This is the summertime lull, where they have to pretend that they understand statistics, and lo and behold, a guy or gal who thinks that if you flip a coin 25 times and it comes up heads, its a dead lock the next 25 will be tails.
Take pity on them.
For they believe there is no greenhouse effect - without we wouldn't exist, either that or grudginly admit there is one, but it automagically fails at a convenient place.
Take pity on them
For they think that calling Michael Mann an asshole, it invalidates an entire field of work.
Take pity on them
For they can endlessly cite old data, and cherry pick anomalous data, yet cannot find newer data that clears the anomaly and brings the data into agreement.
Take pity on them
For they are reduced to the search for smaller and smaller gaps, and are left only with their faith.
Moderation is a form of censorship, though. You can say it's not, but it is. It reduces the audience that reads a comment, thus suppressing it. That is, by definition, a form of censorship. Claiming that moderation isn't censorship, is being highly disingenuous.
And allowing everyone to post whatever they feel like, whether that be threats, calling the people trying to carry on a legitimate conversation names or spoofing their posts will just kill it in short order. You might not like that, but its how it is. Happened to Usenet, and is happening to Twitter.
People who are actully doing things move on to other places where they don't have to deal with that crap. And you'll have all of teh free speech with no content that you want where they used to be. And if you want to join the fun where they moved to, you'll have ot use an actual name, and get kicked if you don't follow the rules.
And what you are calling censorship, where you just get a lower score, yet the posts remain right there for the world to see, is kind of a special snowflake definition of censorship. It's a big world, and not everyone is going to agree with what you post. As I tols another AC (perhaps it was you i dunno, perhaps the time is right for you to open up a completely open tech site, with no moderation whatsoever.
You don't know that you're a modern day KKK member, as viewed by future society. They didn't realize it was wrong. They thought they were protecting their community.
Had they access to all viewpoints, no matter how offensive, maybe they would have understood more quickly that what they believed was wrong.
They would have realised that they were dealing with an offensive asshole. Of what particulr use is it for me to read that someone enjoys writing their projecting homosexal haiku about a man getting a penis inserted into his rectum, or has an issue with people with dark pigmentation, in a conversation about say, the Internet of Things? None at all - only that someone has some deep psychosexuall issues, because most of society doesn't particularly care what two guys do to each other. Of what use is it to read yo mamma comments, or rother ridiculous commentary that isn't even related to the conversation?
Because commentary that is relevant, and not completely fucked up or designed to be fucked up and doesn't contribute anything, often gets voted up.
And the Psychosexual fantasies of gay sex or fear of people that don't look like the poster, are all still there. All you have to do is set your filter level low enough to read them in all their sad projection fantasy glory
So when it isn't removed, it isn't censored anyhow. And we don't have to listen to fucked up ranting by unhinged people. But if someone wants to, it's right there for them.
Which is the oddest thing - AC's make a lot of complaints about Slashdot censorship. I know, because I read hundreds of them. If you don't catch the irony and lie in the AC's statements, well, you just want everyone to read the offtopic and trollish shit that you write.
While I agree that Reddit is the nadir of the internet, I am not fond of Slashdot's system, as it also suppresses any dissent that is actually threatening to the narrative, while tolerating token dissent in a public show of how virtuous Slashdot is for tolerating such outre opinions.
You folks have a different internet than I do? I see every post, and the only difference is the mod level. Altogether too many people seem to think that they can post whatever they want, and others have to agree.
I've had posts modded to -1 flamebait and troll, and not one has disappeared yet. I've had people reply to them at that point, so unless they are psychic, they are seeing them as well.
You have a strange idea of "suppressing dissent". You have the right to say what you wish. You do not have the right to make people listen to you and approve of what you say.
Is there a risk that moderating results in not providing for opportunities for opposing points of view to surface as part of the conversation?
Nope. If a person posts as AC, they just start out at a lower rung on the ladder. If it is really important to have your dissenting voice heard, you can post under a pseudonym, or engage in conversations with people who don't set their browsers to cut off at whatever level. I tend towards no cutoff, but will use it if the AC's get into a "faggot" war, or we get APK involved. That's life in the trenches.
Let me pose a question to you. Since one of your objections to my post is calling out unnamed moderators, how am I supposed to name them? Moderators operate behind the cover of anonymity,
So do you. This is perhaps the most assholish post I've ever read on slashdot ever.
It's just something that tends to go along with being a Coward. You have the same user name as Cow guy, APK, Haiku faggot, or any other person who usually has a good reason to post AC. We can all read your posts, if we care to browse at -1.
And since you are much butthurt, I suspect that your real issue is that if I want, I have that little slider near the top of the page that I can make your post disappear pretty easily.
You just want us to have to read your whining. Don't you?
How often are opposing views labeled as "trolling" on Slashdot? I have submitted a thoughtful post without any inflators words and it was modded down.
So what? I've had posts marked as troll, and I don't get much butthurt about it. If you had the balls to post with even a pseudonym, you might see that sometimes mini range wars erupt over posts. I get email notifications of mods to my posts, and sometimes its a litany of a post getting modded insightful, then troll, then insightful, ant overrated, then informative, then flamebait. I consider that as showing I am onto something.
Then again, I don't have the bitched up idea that everyone has to agree with me. If I end up as Troll in the end, then maybe I was being an asshole. So what.
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website, changing that would be foolish.
And Twitter is finding out what Usenet found out. When you have 0 restraints, you do indeed become a honeypot for assholes. It's called the "Tragedy of the Commons". When completely unfettered, any common era sinks to the bottom, as productive people find out that the assholes have made the place completely unproductive. The term TofC came about from public parks with completely open access that ended up becoming grazing grounds as farmers brought livestock which of course chased out the people using it as a park. But hey! free access for all right?
A good example more akin to online sites is what happened to usenet. A small example is at one time, there was an electronics group called rec.radio.antenna. I was on the group for a number of years. It was a tremendous resource, with some highly respected professional designers, Amateurs who also made contributions to the SoA, and a lot of people there to learn from them.
It also had a few kooks, but not the jackass variety, just guys with strange theories. You could have a rational exchange with them, and often they served as a goad to make you think.
And a few weirdos - but they were manageable.
Then, as the entry requirements to the internet became lower, a new element snuck in. And they were strange to say the least. Some had definite psycho-sexual issues that would make the typical "haiku faggot" AC here in slashdot blush. And of course, they would get into flame wars with each other, and try to draw the rest of us in.
As well, there was the odd equalization issue. Some kid with mom and dad's computer could get in the group, and go after the experts. A group of people carrying on a real conversation, and here's the kid screeching about how the expert likes to fuck pigs, or even physical threats.
And Usenet was so big on allowing the folks with the severe issues to have their say, even if it was turning the group into literary porn, and allowing the expert to be hammered with insult and threats. Their answer? block them with your newsreader.
Then the kooks started opening up dozens, in one case thousands of new accounts to get around the blocks. It was so freaking weird, as they not only wanted their insane range war, they wanted the normal users to have to see it as well.
So one by one, the actual users of the group went away. First it was the experts, then the rest of us. Now? well, a few of the kooks are still there, and precious little else. Group after group went through the same assault. Usenet is dead for all practical purposes.
Tragedy of the commons.
And yeah, Twitter is going the same way. It is a honeypot for assholes, no matter what they might think.
Here in Slashdot, the moderation system is not perfect, but it is about as perfect as you can get in a world with both normal people and assholes.
And when the battery from my Samsung Galaxy Note II from the same era (five days more modern) stops working, I can buy a new battery.
Because all average users do exactly that. Back in the days of feature phones I got new batteries and was laughed at by the same folks that continuously get new Androids. Just like their smartphones, they replaced their feature phones quite often.
For me, a phone is a device that needs to work, for texts and actually speaking to people. As computing devices they suck big time. They even suck at email. So I save my computing for actual computers. So as I say, I'll keep using mine until the battery goes dead. Considering they way it's holding a charge, I'm expecting to keep it maybe 7 years overall - about 3 years more.
side point. Why do you think you cannot replace the battery in an iPhone? Perhaps we hipsters need to file a class action suit against Amazon for selling batteries and kits for an impossible task that cannot be done? https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UT...
Seriously, you can take a 2012 Nexus 4 and run Android M on it. It'll be slow, but it'll run. I was secretly happy when my son broke our first gen Nexus 7, as it ran Lollipop so amazingly slow.
These people don't root their phones, and they tend to get them gummed up wiht crapware untilthey run slow as molasses. THeb they get a new phone because "The old one is messed up". Typical users, not geeks.
Slightly OT, but in the x86 vs. ARM tests/benchmarks I've seen so far current x86 chips don't look so bad. Apple even switched from PowerPC to x86 several years ago, because x86 was arguably superior at the time.
One of the biggest reasons that Apple switched to Intel was that while the PowePC chips performed okay, size and heat were huge issues. My dual Processor PowerMac G5's CPU modules weren't a lot smaller than a Mini Mac, and it had 5 fans in it. When I was doing 3-D rendering on it, it sounded like a jet taking off.
They did manage to stuff a G5 into an iMac, but tearing one apart shows clearly that that form was the absolute limit. They were hard to keep cool. They could never stuff one in a laptop, and G4 PPC was the limit.
Despite promised advances, IBM never reduced the size enough to keep up. I was skeptical at the time, but the switch to X86 and the creation of the Unix based OSX was an excellent move.
And all of this is different from old iPhones, old Android phones, old Blackberry phones...how?
Scrolling down, you are the first post to mention iPhones, Android phones, or Blackberry phones. Pay attention, this is a factual news item about Skype for Windows.
This is the very first time there has ever been topic drift on Slashdot! Thanks for pointing it out.
Slashdot Mirror
For some people it will be a trade-off between being unable to function or even stay alive, and trusting a medical device manufacturer and the government not to screw with your implants.
If we were to say, use these devices on an Alzheimer's patient - assuming they actually worked - the device would not prevent the continued deterioration the sufferers experience. Because that's what eventually does them in. The parts of the body that need the brain to regulate them stop working.
Having watched loved ones slowly die and the surge of drugs to "slow the progression" of end stage dementia, I'm kind of fearful that the people who are in charge of Grandma will move from memory implants to organ maintenance implants. I have no doubt this will be internet connected - the better to keep Grandma's memory in the cloud. Android might be prophetic, and no doubt Apple will make an iBrain. Geeks will argue about how much better one or the other is.. Well, that's a little goofy - I hope.
No thanks - Nope, nope, nope. My family is already under orders that if I were to become demented, there will be no intervention other than pain killers, and the goal at that time will be for me to die as soon as possible. Way too much money is spent on keeping bodies alive long after the mind has fled them.
And yet actual research seems to suggest it works to at least a degree. Of course, the leap from rat to human is HUGE. We have no idea of the quality of the memory since we can't really ask the rats.
Yeah, quite the jump from a rat to Grandma. And let's not forget that Grandma will need an internet connection to get Windows 10 Alzheimer's edition mandatory updates, and won't be able to talk when tehy mess up their tongue driver with their Golden anniversary edition.
But think of all the ads that can be served - no doubt ad blockers will be disallowed.
There is a whole potential industry here as we take the Internet of Things to it's unlimate goal - humans.
Just imagine, GPS to make certain Grams doesn't run off, Pharmaceutical companies can deliver their maintenance ads directly to the users. "Honey be a sweetheart and ask doctor Benson if Cialis is right for me, would you? That's a good boy!".
Let us not forget the malware - the ultimate in Ransomware.... You get a text message on your phone....
"Greetings Mr. Smith - Perhaps you see your Mother up on the ledge. We hope she is enjoying the view - it is such a lovely time of year. It would be such a pity if she jumped off. If you were to be so kind as to send us 50 thousand bitcoins, we can ensure she gets back in safely."
"What's your password or you go to jail?"
"I don't remember what's my password."
"He's lying, throw him in jail!"
Five years later, released from jail because they crack the password, finding embarrassing porn, but nothing illegal..
And it turned out the password was "I don't remember what's my password."
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.
No, you didn't If you gave me some facts and figures, you could claim as refutation I will accept that. I am asking for facts and figures, and science.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in the early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.
I understand much, and if all you can do is calll me names, that appears to be your best argument. The idea that we will somehow help poor people by ignoring the greenhouse effect is quite simply, ludicrous.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.
Oh dear. My point is that there might be some point that we would want to worry about it. When and where is that point? The Carteret Islands are now uninhabitble due to saltwater incursion. At the present rate, the island will be totally submerged by 2020 - athough some have said 2015. In 2005, the Papua New Guinea Government funded total evacuation of the island because of the incursions, and storm surges flooding the island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While mistakenly calling it the first climate change refugees, New Zealand has granted residency to residents of Tuvalu in 2014. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... The confusion over the "first" moniker was probably coming from being the first time refugee status was from a different country.
Then there is Bangladesh. http://www.worldwatch.org/clim...
Just ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and it is mainly poor people who are affected by some of the effects. So the concept of ignoring AGW to help the poor as econmic wisdom is simply bizarre.
Seriously, you must be drunk or something because your normal posts are much better than this one which looks like you didn't read anything.
It was in the morning, I haven't had a drink since my son's wedding in June, and that was 1 IPA. You really didn't do a good job reacting to my post, finding it an excuse to unload on me. You are falling victim to "bullying guy on the internet" tactics. Nah - homie don't play that.
It's a little weird, your response to my pointing out the fallacies of the scientific skeptics as if I were making an unforgivable personal insult to you. Is that some way of saying you hold every single scientific skeptic outlook that you pointed out personally, and at the same time?
I'm not drunk, not on any drugs stronger than Aspirin, but you dear phantomfive, have some really severe anger issues. Perhaps there are some stressors going on in your life that make you need to lash out at people and it makes you feel better. I'm most sorry for arousing your indignant anger.
But I'm certainly not going to have a rational conversation with you about this, so you can go spout your anger elsewhere.
As far as I know, only one post has been removed from Slashdot.
https://slashdot.org/story/01/...
Slashdot does not censor, and this AC that brings this up often doesn't understand what the word means.
Or they don't want to.
Which of course, would be the result if someone posted the text of "The Hobbit", which copyright the Tolkien family defends vigorously. If its copyrighted, its copyrighted.
It is obvious that some folks here simply cannot stand that someone would disagree with their opinion. And that someone using their mod points to disagree enrages them - where the (ScoreX) after their post somehow becomes censorship.
As Merriam-Webster defines it:
Censor:
: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
Considering the only thing ever removed was copyrighted material, that doesn't even count.
The thinking is this:
1. I don't like climate change
2. It doesn't exist
A few of the most emphatic deniers I know actually like the idea at the same time as rejecting the science. One likes his temps in the upper 80s - honest to gawd, he keeps his house at around 85, and has been reveling in the tropical weather here in the Northeast this summer. I think there might be something a little wrong with him physically.
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
2) Those who agree with the standard science line, but disagree on economics principals. Thus Bjorn Lomborg claims that economically speaking, it's better spend our resources on growing our economy, and helping poor people now, rather than trying to stop AGW.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in th early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
They consider AGW to be worth watching, but not worth worrying about yet.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
Some AGW predictions get wild, such as that the oceans will boil and it will be the end of civilization.
Which of course is preposterous. But all that proves is that there are kooks on both sides. That claim is right up there with denialists claiming that in the 1970's that scientists believed we were entering a new ice age, based on an article in Time Magazine.
But I'm not around to try to claim that AGW doesn't exist because of an article in time magazine that was laughable and merely trying to do a populist extrapolation of a cold and snowy winter to the future.
It's not an ad hominem attack to call a pseudoskeptic out. The poster made no indication of understanding how data is analyzed, but basically claimed either incompetence or conspiracy by NOAA scientists.
That is called the "Michael Mann is an asshole" attack. (he isn't, by the way)
Claim that the enemy doesn't know what they are doing, Claim they are abusing the statistics claim they are doctoring the data. Then sit back and act like you won the argument. with nothing but the claim, nothing to support their dismissal. Note that I took specific wording from the AC's post.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going?
The amount of radiative forcing added to the atmosphere since the semi arbitrary date in 1750 is nothing short of mind boggling. 800 TeraWatts. 1.6 watts per squar meter sounds pretty innocent, of course, but you don't pump in 800 TW without some effect.
Here is one of the best descriptions for the lay audience http://news.mit.edu/2010/expla...
To expect that to not have an effect is extraordinary. It needs some better proof than dismissing the whole thing.
After all, thermodynamics still reigns supreme last time I heard, so there's no perpetual magic refrigeration unit in the sky getting rid of excess energy be capture due to higher CO2 concentrations, so where is it?
You do know that the next thing is for some wag to dredge up the Data showing the discrepancy between Radiosonde data and satellite data By Christy from the University of Alabama.
Denialists consider this their smoking gun argument.
Unfortunately for them, the discrepancy between the two have long since been eliminated, and attested to as correct by Christy himself. For some reason however, denialists are not capable of finding the updated and correct data.
I'm sorry, but ad hominem arguments don't rebut the points I made. It's not my job to interpret the data and draw conclusions.
But you did just that. Now that you did, instead of just saying "Something is wrong here" Give us your conclusions, and support them.
Just how much longer are you going to keep up this pseudo skepticism? Basically you're calling scientists liars, or at best, morons. So let's here your interpretation, and let's hear who you've submitted it to, and how it has been received.
Take pity on them.
This is what we get when people get their science education from politicians.
Take pity on them. It is summer, hotter than blue blazes, and they can't look out the window, see s few snowflakes, and yell - "So much for global warming!"
Take pity on them.
This is the summertime lull, where they have to pretend that they understand statistics, and lo and behold, a guy or gal who thinks that if you flip a coin 25 times and it comes up heads, its a dead lock the next 25 will be tails.
Take pity on them.
For they believe there is no greenhouse effect - without we wouldn't exist, either that or grudginly admit there is one, but it automagically fails at a convenient place.
Take pity on them
For they think that calling Michael Mann an asshole, it invalidates an entire field of work.
Take pity on them
For they can endlessly cite old data, and cherry pick anomalous data, yet cannot find newer data that clears the anomaly and brings the data into agreement.
Take pity on them
For they are reduced to the search for smaller and smaller gaps, and are left only with their faith.
You should post about Scientology and see if it disappears. (showing my Slashdot age.. what was that? 2001 that happened?)
I would if there was a story about it. Meanwhile, I saw your post and replied.
Moderation is a form of censorship, though. You can say it's not, but it is. It reduces the audience that reads a comment, thus suppressing it. That is, by definition, a form of censorship. Claiming that moderation isn't censorship, is being highly disingenuous.
And allowing everyone to post whatever they feel like, whether that be threats, calling the people trying to carry on a legitimate conversation names or spoofing their posts will just kill it in short order. You might not like that, but its how it is. Happened to Usenet, and is happening to Twitter.
People who are actully doing things move on to other places where they don't have to deal with that crap. And you'll have all of teh free speech with no content that you want where they used to be. And if you want to join the fun where they moved to, you'll have ot use an actual name, and get kicked if you don't follow the rules.
And what you are calling censorship, where you just get a lower score, yet the posts remain right there for the world to see, is kind of a special snowflake definition of censorship. It's a big world, and not everyone is going to agree with what you post. As I tols another AC (perhaps it was you i dunno, perhaps the time is right for you to open up a completely open tech site, with no moderation whatsoever.
It's healthy to read opposing viewpoints.
You don't know that you're a modern day KKK member, as viewed by future society. They didn't realize it was wrong. They thought they were protecting their community.
Had they access to all viewpoints, no matter how offensive, maybe they would have understood more quickly that what they believed was wrong.
They would have realised that they were dealing with an offensive asshole. Of what particulr use is it for me to read that someone enjoys writing their projecting homosexal haiku about a man getting a penis inserted into his rectum, or has an issue with people with dark pigmentation, in a conversation about say, the Internet of Things? None at all - only that someone has some deep psychosexuall issues, because most of society doesn't particularly care what two guys do to each other. Of what use is it to read yo mamma comments, or rother ridiculous commentary that isn't even related to the conversation?
Because commentary that is relevant, and not completely fucked up or designed to be fucked up and doesn't contribute anything, often gets voted up.
And the Psychosexual fantasies of gay sex or fear of people that don't look like the poster, are all still there. All you have to do is set your filter level low enough to read them in all their sad projection fantasy glory
So when it isn't removed, it isn't censored anyhow. And we don't have to listen to fucked up ranting by unhinged people. But if someone wants to, it's right there for them.
Which is the oddest thing - AC's make a lot of complaints about Slashdot censorship. I know, because I read hundreds of them. If you don't catch the irony and lie in the AC's statements, well, you just want everyone to read the offtopic and trollish shit that you write.
While I agree that Reddit is the nadir of the internet, I am not fond of Slashdot's system, as it also suppresses any dissent that is actually threatening to the narrative, while tolerating token dissent in a public show of how virtuous Slashdot is for tolerating such outre opinions.
You folks have a different internet than I do? I see every post, and the only difference is the mod level. Altogether too many people seem to think that they can post whatever they want, and others have to agree.
I've had posts modded to -1 flamebait and troll, and not one has disappeared yet. I've had people reply to them at that point, so unless they are psychic, they are seeing them as well.
You have a strange idea of "suppressing dissent". You have the right to say what you wish. You do not have the right to make people listen to you and approve of what you say.
Is there a risk that moderating results in not providing for opportunities for opposing points of view to surface as part of the conversation?
Nope. If a person posts as AC, they just start out at a lower rung on the ladder. If it is really important to have your dissenting voice heard, you can post under a pseudonym, or engage in conversations with people who don't set their browsers to cut off at whatever level. I tend towards no cutoff, but will use it if the AC's get into a "faggot" war, or we get APK involved. That's life in the trenches.
Let me pose a question to you. Since one of your objections to my post is calling out unnamed moderators, how am I supposed to name them? Moderators operate behind the cover of anonymity,
So do you. This is perhaps the most assholish post I've ever read on slashdot ever.
It's just something that tends to go along with being a Coward. You have the same user name as Cow guy, APK, Haiku faggot, or any other person who usually has a good reason to post AC. We can all read your posts, if we care to browse at -1.
And since you are much butthurt, I suspect that your real issue is that if I want, I have that little slider near the top of the page that I can make your post disappear pretty easily.
You just want us to have to read your whining. Don't you?
How often are opposing views labeled as "trolling" on Slashdot? I have submitted a thoughtful post without any inflators words and it was modded down.
So what? I've had posts marked as troll, and I don't get much butthurt about it. If you had the balls to post with even a pseudonym, you might see that sometimes mini range wars erupt over posts. I get email notifications of mods to my posts, and sometimes its a litany of a post getting modded insightful, then troll, then insightful, ant overrated, then informative, then flamebait. I consider that as showing I am onto something.
Then again, I don't have the bitched up idea that everyone has to agree with me. If I end up as Troll in the end, then maybe I was being an asshole. So what.
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website, changing that would be foolish.
And Twitter is finding out what Usenet found out. When you have 0 restraints, you do indeed become a honeypot for assholes. It's called the "Tragedy of the Commons". When completely unfettered, any common era sinks to the bottom, as productive people find out that the assholes have made the place completely unproductive. The term TofC came about from public parks with completely open access that ended up becoming grazing grounds as farmers brought livestock which of course chased out the people using it as a park. But hey! free access for all right?
A good example more akin to online sites is what happened to usenet. A small example is at one time, there was an electronics group called rec.radio.antenna. I was on the group for a number of years. It was a tremendous resource, with some highly respected professional designers, Amateurs who also made contributions to the SoA, and a lot of people there to learn from them.
It also had a few kooks, but not the jackass variety, just guys with strange theories. You could have a rational exchange with them, and often they served as a goad to make you think.
And a few weirdos - but they were manageable.
Then, as the entry requirements to the internet became lower, a new element snuck in. And they were strange to say the least. Some had definite psycho-sexual issues that would make the typical "haiku faggot" AC here in slashdot blush. And of course, they would get into flame wars with each other, and try to draw the rest of us in.
As well, there was the odd equalization issue. Some kid with mom and dad's computer could get in the group, and go after the experts. A group of people carrying on a real conversation, and here's the kid screeching about how the expert likes to fuck pigs, or even physical threats.
And Usenet was so big on allowing the folks with the severe issues to have their say, even if it was turning the group into literary porn, and allowing the expert to be hammered with insult and threats. Their answer? block them with your newsreader.
Then the kooks started opening up dozens, in one case thousands of new accounts to get around the blocks. It was so freaking weird, as they not only wanted their insane range war, they wanted the normal users to have to see it as well.
So one by one, the actual users of the group went away. First it was the experts, then the rest of us. Now? well, a few of the kooks are still there, and precious little else. Group after group went through the same assault. Usenet is dead for all practical purposes.
Tragedy of the commons.
And yeah, Twitter is going the same way. It is a honeypot for assholes, no matter what they might think.
Here in Slashdot, the moderation system is not perfect, but it is about as perfect as you can get in a world with both normal people and assholes.
Each moderator here is basically a little Hitler, with the power to censor five posts they don't like.
Well lookie here! Some guy gets modded to -1, and here I see it as the very first post. Some censorship!
Let's just hope they don't make a hobbit of it.
And when the battery from my Samsung Galaxy Note II from the same era (five days more modern) stops working, I can buy a new battery.
Because all average users do exactly that. Back in the days of feature phones I got new batteries and was laughed at by the same folks that continuously get new Androids. Just like their smartphones, they replaced their feature phones quite often.
For me, a phone is a device that needs to work, for texts and actually speaking to people. As computing devices they suck big time. They even suck at email. So I save my computing for actual computers. So as I say, I'll keep using mine until the battery goes dead. Considering they way it's holding a charge, I'm expecting to keep it maybe 7 years overall - about 3 years more. side point. Why do you think you cannot replace the battery in an iPhone? Perhaps we hipsters need to file a class action suit against Amazon for selling batteries and kits for an impossible task that cannot be done? https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UT...
Iphone 5 was released Sept. 21, 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Awp - My bad. I indeed got it in 2012, the year after I retired. All the other stuff is accurate.
Seriously, you can take a 2012 Nexus 4 and run Android M on it. It'll be slow, but it'll run. I was secretly happy when my son broke our first gen Nexus 7, as it ran Lollipop so amazingly slow.
These people don't root their phones, and they tend to get them gummed up wiht crapware untilthey run slow as molasses. THeb they get a new phone because "The old one is messed up". Typical users, not geeks.
Slightly OT, but in the x86 vs. ARM tests/benchmarks I've seen so far current x86 chips don't look so bad. Apple even switched from PowerPC to x86 several years ago, because x86 was arguably superior at the time.
One of the biggest reasons that Apple switched to Intel was that while the PowePC chips performed okay, size and heat were huge issues. My dual Processor PowerMac G5's CPU modules weren't a lot smaller than a Mini Mac, and it had 5 fans in it. When I was doing 3-D rendering on it, it sounded like a jet taking off.
They did manage to stuff a G5 into an iMac, but tearing one apart shows clearly that that form was the absolute limit. They were hard to keep cool. They could never stuff one in a laptop, and G4 PPC was the limit.
Despite promised advances, IBM never reduced the size enough to keep up. I was skeptical at the time, but the switch to X86 and the creation of the Unix based OSX was an excellent move.
And all of this is different from old iPhones, old Android phones, old Blackberry phones...how?
Scrolling down, you are the first post to mention iPhones, Android phones, or Blackberry phones. Pay attention, this is a factual news item about Skype for Windows.
This is the very first time there has ever been topic drift on Slashdot! Thanks for pointing it out.