Ideas qua ideas are completely valueless, and thinking otherwise is the height of hubris. Someone else has already had your brilliant insight, and beyond that, execution is the only thing that matters. I am sure that the rejection of your ideas by all of these companies represents an accurate evaluation of their value.
What are your objections to the mirror test? Doesn't self-recognition inherently imply a concept of self? I suspect that you acquired that factoid without examining it.
In a true "free market" everything is free and equally available to all participants at equal cost: most importantly knowledge.
False. This assumption assumes that all goods are of equal value and availability and cost the same to make everywhere.
There are a number of conditions required by perfect competition. I don't think you've said quite what you meant to say there.
rather than have my only option be Comcast with Net Neutrality.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with broadband competition.
the problem (government interference in free market
The real solution is to build out last mile in such a way that the free market offers people the services they want, at whatever price the market will bear. I want municipal owned infrastructure
Yeah, me too. I'm a bit of a socialist, so it makes sense. What schizophrenic crack pipe did you pick up on your way home from the Church of the Free Market?
I'm curious as to how you think this is Marxist. Pretty sure that the answer is that you're simply using the word as an epithet, but I'm hoping you're not tanking the SNR of this discussion.
It is quite a leap to go from caffeine to LSD, or claim that LSD is fine because you drink a glass of wine on occasion. You may want to think over that bit of logic.
You have no basis for comparison. Contrary to how they are often depicted, drugs are typically pretty boring. Specifically, any depictions of "tripping" that you have seen are essentially not true. LSD is not necessarily much more inebriating than alcohol, and you're pretty unlikely to get any open-eye visual hallucinations. There are other drugs that are better for that, but LSD is really just a cheap feeling of enlightenment.
That's not what confirmation bias is, as well. I understand that much of your worldview is predicated on your inability to distinguish logical fallacies from empirical fallacies, but you're really being aggressively stupid today.
If you have a real IT job then you don't get drug tested, and certainly not at random. Insurance might compel one for certain types of accidents (that aren't common to keyboard jockeys) but that's about it. Also, to a first approximation they only test for cannabis use: most other drugs are consumed in pretty small quantities and don't leave many lingering metabolites, and this is most true for LSD, which is one of the most potent psychoactive substances known.
Other people's drug habits are terrible; only the ones I use are okay.
Of that insignificant portion, anthropogenic gas is an infinitesimally smaller portion
It used to be, yes. Since we started burning a cubic kilometer of oil per year there's quite a bit more than it used to be. I mean, unless you're arguing that the oil we're burning and the excess carbon are completely unrelated.
The real question is, home much of the anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed into the mountaintops consisting of limestone?
Not enough to prevent atmospheric concentrations from rising, clearly.
You haven't asked all the questions that would be required in a court of law to prosecute a case
"But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it?"
Why don't you convince me, rather than make attempt to make me disprove your religion?
Well, since you don't dispute Tyndall then the next step would be Arrhenius' 1896 paper on the properties of atmospheric carbonic acid. For a more general study of the science, there's always the IPCC reports. And for a historical perspective I would recommend starting here
But yes, you are expected to disprove my 'religion'. Either you can point to a contrary observation or you're blowing smoke. "Why don't you convince me," you ask? Because you can look it up in a textbook, the same as you can with plate tectonics. Either you find that explanation convincing or you can damn well say why not, but the onus is firmly yours to discharge.
It's *all* basically not very well thought out or documented. I have no need to have an alternative theory, as global **is** the "alternative theory"--and it's not proven.
Are you aware of the gigatons of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere or do you suggest this has no effect? I mean, you've made an ass out of yourself already, I'm just curious how far you'll take it.
Show your work, and then discuss why other people haven't noticed solar output increasing, and then discuss why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas despite your being able to confirm that at home.
That you even bring religion to the table is pure psychological projection. You have no evidence and have never bothered to examine the opposing evidence. Reality is not going to be swayed: you will be imposed upon one way or another.
And then we can revisit the mandatory charity of providing health care to the fools, who haven't bothered procuring health insurance in advance, school-lunches for kids, whose parents can't afford them, etc. Whoever feels those people should be helped, is welcome to do that on their own â" without the government confiscating money at the point of weapon from others.
We've been doing this gunpoint-money-charity thing for a while, it's worked out pretty well so far. Your distress about this issue is presumably the result of the conflict between your frothing lunacy and how the world really works.
Why don't we instead point you to the experiments of Tyndall regarding the heat properties of atmospheric gases, and those of Keeling showing that the composition of the atmosphere is changing. If you increase the partial pressure of CO2, the atmosphere must retain more heat. This isn't rocket surgery. It's not like there's more than one way for IR to escape to space.
That said, if there were some sort of non-nonsensical interpretation of your comment then I'm sure I would be happy to find you research. Generally in researching the climatic effects of past volcanic events the work of Terrence Gerlach of the USGS have been pretty valuable, and probably also the most relevant to the topic. A good search term would be 'large igneous provinces' (LIPs) which have been responsible for the largest outgassings in Earth's history. If you would also like information about Milankovitch cycles, solar output, or the climatic effects of the positions of the continents we can find those too. The idea that people have been researching climate for nearly 200 years and are unaware of the major drivers is, again, either the product of total ignorance or a malicious disregard for truth.
Incidentally, what you'll find in the research is that, modulo the aforementioned other drivers, changes in volcanism have historically been the major driver for different climatic periods of Earth. You will also find that the largest outgassing events correlate well (but not perfectly) with mass extinction events, and that the most extreme example of this released something like three orders of magnitude more CO2 than humanity has to date, and that the Earth has indeed continued to spin since that calamity. You will also note that we are on track to equal that level of emissions in less than a tenth of the time it took for Mother Nature to do her thing, and that our rate of emissions continues to increase. There is a near-zero chance that we will actually reach that goal, but it won't be for lack of trying, and we've definitely beat all previous records for the rate of emissions. Human CO2 output is equivalent to about two Pinatubo-sized eruptions per day, or one or more Yellowstone-supervolcano-sized events per year. Now ask yourself honestly, what sort of effect do you think that is likely to have?
Protip: One counterexample does not negate decades of history.
Entertainment lobbying has been solidly blue for decades, and the energy lobby is even more extremely biased in the other direction. The DMCA specifically had broad bipartisan support, passing the Senate unanimously. The entertainment industry tends to have broader representation of LGBTQ persons, and is also heavily unionized, and the Republican party opposes both of these things. The 2016 election shows the same bias in funding, with HRC getting the vast majority of entertainment industry funding and also being the only 'D' on this list. This is not exactly new or controversial.
After the Election Integrity Commission debacle, it wouldn't surprise me if this was plan C to obtain shittons of voter information.
The major parties already have all the information they could want on you. More information is not always better. The most important predictors of your voting behavior are your age, political registration, parents' political registrations, income level, education level and other such things which tend to be either public or legally obtainable. The major parties have this information for the vast majority of citizens. Knowing the details of your past addresses or credit history isn't necessarily going to be any better of a predictor of your behavior than knowing that you're left-handed and like sushi, and it's not like you're able to do more targeted advertising based on this information.
So the simplest answer here is that your credit score doesn't have all that much to do with your political opinions. The cynical answer is that if it did, the major parties would probably have legal access to it already. My general impression of the tech writeups of the recent campaigns seems to be that they are drowning in data, and they're more or less incompetent at doing anything with it. Which to my mind is all to the good.
What part of AGW do you feel is insufficiently well supported? What's your alternate theory?
(this line of questioning is a trap designed to reveal your ignorance of the empirical evidence; you could save some time by admitting your dishonesty up front)
Okay. So an interglacial means the opposite of what would make that sentence sensible, and do you think maybe sometime in the last 120 years someone may have thought of that objection? Are you able to identify a problem with the chain of evidence, or are we going to watch you flail around your total ignorance of this subject? Not that it matters either way, you just get to choose whether you'd rather be wrong or intellectually dishonest. But I suppose we already know the answer to that.
additional CO impedes that IR retransmission into space, preventing that energy loss
Well, yes and no. "impede" is not a great verb for that. One of the reasons Arrhenius was originally discredited is that there's already many times more CO2 floating around than it takes to make the Earth opaque to IR. The "impedence" is that a higher partial pressure of CO2 increases the extent of the CO2-rich layer of the atmosphere, raising the effective "top of atmosphere", or the level at which the IR photons are statistically more likely to escape to space than to hit another CO2 molecule. The energy loss is not prevented — energy in must equal energy out — but the additional CO2 acts like an insulator to slow heat escape. Sorry to nitpick, I just don't like leaving openings for the "motivated reasoning" crowd.
Arrhenius provided the mechanism in 1896, and subsequent studies in the middle of the 20th Century excluded scenarios that did not lead to warming. The warming signal began to be detected at the end of the 20th Century, conforming with earlier predictions. The fundamental evidence for AGW can be proven in your basement with technology from the 1850s -- because that's what happened.
Your intentional misunderstanding is that you're focusing on the question of how the warming will happen, rather than whether there will be warming. The latter is certain; the former depends on human responses to that fact. If you think there is some misunderstanding of the carbon cycle you'd best be prepared to say what that might be. Purely political objections require an international conspiracy of scientists spanning at least 120 years and cannot be considered plausible. Especially since the theory was entirely discredited in the early 20th Century.
I'm also not convinced that predicting climate is worth billions, especially since that would imply a multidecadal investment strategy. The Pentagon does have that kind of planning horizon, and they are correspondingly deeply concerned about climate change. Your worldview doesn't seem terribly inconvenienced by empirical evidence.
You're sure that isn't the sort of thing that would cause more problems than it solves? We're not exactly ten for ten on those kind of violent interventions. Probably the cost of a bullet is pretty close to the cost of a meal in those parts, without considering the money spent to put a warship and trained soldiers there to fire said bullets. It's also possible that some of these people might shoot back. I'm not saying that your plan is bad, but I think you should maybe revisit the idea that shooting people is a good way to solve problems. Many people do not like to be shot, and at the very least it tends to be extremely expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you do me the favor of reading the link? What you're saying makes no sense in context.
Ideas qua ideas are completely valueless, and thinking otherwise is the height of hubris. Someone else has already had your brilliant insight, and beyond that, execution is the only thing that matters. I am sure that the rejection of your ideas by all of these companies represents an accurate evaluation of their value.
What are your objections to the mirror test? Doesn't self-recognition inherently imply a concept of self? I suspect that you acquired that factoid without examining it.
In a true "free market" everything is free and equally available to all participants at equal cost: most importantly knowledge.
False. This assumption assumes that all goods are of equal value and availability and cost the same to make everywhere.
There are a number of conditions required by perfect competition. I don't think you've said quite what you meant to say there.
rather than have my only option be Comcast with Net Neutrality.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with broadband competition.
the problem (government interference in free market
The real solution is to build out last mile in such a way that the free market offers people the services they want, at whatever price the market will bear. I want municipal owned infrastructure
Yeah, me too. I'm a bit of a socialist, so it makes sense. What schizophrenic crack pipe did you pick up on your way home from the Church of the Free Market?
I'm curious as to how you think this is Marxist. Pretty sure that the answer is that you're simply using the word as an epithet, but I'm hoping you're not tanking the SNR of this discussion.
It is quite a leap to go from caffeine to LSD, or claim that LSD is fine because you drink a glass of wine on occasion. You may want to think over that bit of logic.
You have no basis for comparison. Contrary to how they are often depicted, drugs are typically pretty boring. Specifically, any depictions of "tripping" that you have seen are essentially not true. LSD is not necessarily much more inebriating than alcohol, and you're pretty unlikely to get any open-eye visual hallucinations. There are other drugs that are better for that, but LSD is really just a cheap feeling of enlightenment.
That's not what confirmation bias is, as well. I understand that much of your worldview is predicated on your inability to distinguish logical fallacies from empirical fallacies, but you're really being aggressively stupid today.
If you have a real IT job then you don't get drug tested, and certainly not at random. Insurance might compel one for certain types of accidents (that aren't common to keyboard jockeys) but that's about it. Also, to a first approximation they only test for cannabis use: most other drugs are consumed in pretty small quantities and don't leave many lingering metabolites, and this is most true for LSD, which is one of the most potent psychoactive substances known.
Other people's drug habits are terrible; only the ones I use are okay.
Of that insignificant portion, anthropogenic gas is an infinitesimally smaller portion
It used to be, yes. Since we started burning a cubic kilometer of oil per year there's quite a bit more than it used to be. I mean, unless you're arguing that the oil we're burning and the excess carbon are completely unrelated.
The real question is, home much of the anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed into the mountaintops consisting of limestone?
Not enough to prevent atmospheric concentrations from rising, clearly.
You haven't asked all the questions that would be required in a court of law to prosecute a case
"But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it?"
Why don't you convince me, rather than make attempt to make me disprove your religion?
Well, since you don't dispute Tyndall then the next step would be Arrhenius' 1896 paper on the properties of atmospheric carbonic acid. For a more general study of the science, there's always the IPCC reports. And for a historical perspective I would recommend starting here
But yes, you are expected to disprove my 'religion'. Either you can point to a contrary observation or you're blowing smoke. "Why don't you convince me," you ask? Because you can look it up in a textbook, the same as you can with plate tectonics. Either you find that explanation convincing or you can damn well say why not, but the onus is firmly yours to discharge.
It's *all* basically not very well thought out or documented. I have no need to have an alternative theory, as global **is** the "alternative theory"--and it's not proven.
Are you aware of the gigatons of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere or do you suggest this has no effect? I mean, you've made an ass out of yourself already, I'm just curious how far you'll take it.
What is my alternative theory? The Sun.
Show your work, and then discuss why other people haven't noticed solar output increasing, and then discuss why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas despite your being able to confirm that at home.
That you even bring religion to the table is pure psychological projection. You have no evidence and have never bothered to examine the opposing evidence. Reality is not going to be swayed: you will be imposed upon one way or another.
And then we can revisit the mandatory charity of providing health care to the fools, who haven't bothered procuring health insurance in advance, school-lunches for kids, whose parents can't afford them, etc. Whoever feels those people should be helped, is welcome to do that on their own â" without the government confiscating money at the point of weapon from others.
We've been doing this gunpoint-money-charity thing for a while, it's worked out pretty well so far. Your distress about this issue is presumably the result of the conflict between your frothing lunacy and how the world really works.
Why don't we instead point you to the experiments of Tyndall regarding the heat properties of atmospheric gases, and those of Keeling showing that the composition of the atmosphere is changing. If you increase the partial pressure of CO2, the atmosphere must retain more heat. This isn't rocket surgery. It's not like there's more than one way for IR to escape to space.
That said, if there were some sort of non-nonsensical interpretation of your comment then I'm sure I would be happy to find you research. Generally in researching the climatic effects of past volcanic events the work of Terrence Gerlach of the USGS have been pretty valuable, and probably also the most relevant to the topic. A good search term would be 'large igneous provinces' (LIPs) which have been responsible for the largest outgassings in Earth's history. If you would also like information about Milankovitch cycles, solar output, or the climatic effects of the positions of the continents we can find those too. The idea that people have been researching climate for nearly 200 years and are unaware of the major drivers is, again, either the product of total ignorance or a malicious disregard for truth.
Incidentally, what you'll find in the research is that, modulo the aforementioned other drivers, changes in volcanism have historically been the major driver for different climatic periods of Earth. You will also find that the largest outgassing events correlate well (but not perfectly) with mass extinction events, and that the most extreme example of this released something like three orders of magnitude more CO2 than humanity has to date, and that the Earth has indeed continued to spin since that calamity. You will also note that we are on track to equal that level of emissions in less than a tenth of the time it took for Mother Nature to do her thing, and that our rate of emissions continues to increase. There is a near-zero chance that we will actually reach that goal, but it won't be for lack of trying, and we've definitely beat all previous records for the rate of emissions. Human CO2 output is equivalent to about two Pinatubo-sized eruptions per day, or one or more Yellowstone-supervolcano-sized events per year. Now ask yourself honestly, what sort of effect do you think that is likely to have?
Protip: One counterexample does not negate decades of history.
Entertainment lobbying has been solidly blue for decades, and the energy lobby is even more extremely biased in the other direction. The DMCA specifically had broad bipartisan support, passing the Senate unanimously. The entertainment industry tends to have broader representation of LGBTQ persons, and is also heavily unionized, and the Republican party opposes both of these things. The 2016 election shows the same bias in funding, with HRC getting the vast majority of entertainment industry funding and also being the only 'D' on this list. This is not exactly new or controversial.
After the Election Integrity Commission debacle, it wouldn't surprise me if this was plan C to obtain shittons of voter information.
The major parties already have all the information they could want on you. More information is not always better. The most important predictors of your voting behavior are your age, political registration, parents' political registrations, income level, education level and other such things which tend to be either public or legally obtainable. The major parties have this information for the vast majority of citizens. Knowing the details of your past addresses or credit history isn't necessarily going to be any better of a predictor of your behavior than knowing that you're left-handed and like sushi, and it's not like you're able to do more targeted advertising based on this information.
So the simplest answer here is that your credit score doesn't have all that much to do with your political opinions. The cynical answer is that if it did, the major parties would probably have legal access to it already. My general impression of the tech writeups of the recent campaigns seems to be that they are drowning in data, and they're more or less incompetent at doing anything with it. Which to my mind is all to the good.
Kay. So none of that is true, but even if it were, then we would still have this issue of excess atmospheric carbon, n'est-ce pas?
we don't yet understand what drives either cooling or warming effects on climate and on a geological scale human effects can't really be quantified.
Either you are uninformed or deliberately lying.
No, it's cooling after the Holocene Optimum.
What part of AGW do you feel is insufficiently well supported? What's your alternate theory?
(this line of questioning is a trap designed to reveal your ignorance of the empirical evidence; you could save some time by admitting your dishonesty up front)
Okay. So an interglacial means the opposite of what would make that sentence sensible, and do you think maybe sometime in the last 120 years someone may have thought of that objection? Are you able to identify a problem with the chain of evidence, or are we going to watch you flail around your total ignorance of this subject? Not that it matters either way, you just get to choose whether you'd rather be wrong or intellectually dishonest. But I suppose we already know the answer to that.
additional CO impedes that IR retransmission into space, preventing that energy loss
Well, yes and no. "impede" is not a great verb for that. One of the reasons Arrhenius was originally discredited is that there's already many times more CO2 floating around than it takes to make the Earth opaque to IR. The "impedence" is that a higher partial pressure of CO2 increases the extent of the CO2-rich layer of the atmosphere, raising the effective "top of atmosphere", or the level at which the IR photons are statistically more likely to escape to space than to hit another CO2 molecule. The energy loss is not prevented — energy in must equal energy out — but the additional CO2 acts like an insulator to slow heat escape. Sorry to nitpick, I just don't like leaving openings for the "motivated reasoning" crowd.
Arrhenius provided the mechanism in 1896, and subsequent studies in the middle of the 20th Century excluded scenarios that did not lead to warming. The warming signal began to be detected at the end of the 20th Century, conforming with earlier predictions. The fundamental evidence for AGW can be proven in your basement with technology from the 1850s -- because that's what happened.
Your intentional misunderstanding is that you're focusing on the question of how the warming will happen, rather than whether there will be warming. The latter is certain; the former depends on human responses to that fact. If you think there is some misunderstanding of the carbon cycle you'd best be prepared to say what that might be. Purely political objections require an international conspiracy of scientists spanning at least 120 years and cannot be considered plausible. Especially since the theory was entirely discredited in the early 20th Century.
I'm also not convinced that predicting climate is worth billions, especially since that would imply a multidecadal investment strategy. The Pentagon does have that kind of planning horizon, and they are correspondingly deeply concerned about climate change. Your worldview doesn't seem terribly inconvenienced by empirical evidence.
Follow the money to see who is behind it.
It was Arrhenius! With the lead pipe, in the library!
The AGW deniers beg us to believe in a hundred-year-old financial conspiracy. One assumes they think this started in 2006 rather than 1896.
You're sure that isn't the sort of thing that would cause more problems than it solves? We're not exactly ten for ten on those kind of violent interventions. Probably the cost of a bullet is pretty close to the cost of a meal in those parts, without considering the money spent to put a warship and trained soldiers there to fire said bullets. It's also possible that some of these people might shoot back. I'm not saying that your plan is bad, but I think you should maybe revisit the idea that shooting people is a good way to solve problems. Many people do not like to be shot, and at the very least it tends to be extremely expensive.
It's usually, "on the arxiv". The name puns x => greek letter chi, because internets are serious business.
Personally I blame Hollywood for not giving us more positive cultural depictions of Nazis.