Some Russian general wrote something equivalent to the Project for the New American Century. It laid out a goal of destabilizing the dominant Western governments by means of hacking. It's an extremely asymmetrical type of warfare, and Putin is actually a huge fan of both the author and the techniques. The CIA and NSA have been pretty explicit about Russian influence on the elections. You are unaware or dismissive of this because you're a stupid partisan of some description and don't realize that this can happen to any political party anywhere, and that since Putin was so successful in influencing our election (note: influencing, not deciding) this is extremely likely to be something we see over and over again both at home and abroad.
Asymmetric, deniable warfare. Welcome to the future, I guess.,
I've written a small book about bash. Tell me what about it you think is an improvement on any other scripting language.
Bash as a shell is mediocre. Bash as a programming language is shit. The language of Unix is C, and the Bash fanatics are the ones that cut their teeth on Unix in the mid-1990s and haven't learned anything since. There's a whole generation of programmers who didn't bother to learn anything about cgroups or why systemd exists in the first place.
While I admit that I don't like the SJW type (and I'm inclined to believe you are one),
You missed the point, there is no such thing as a SJW, it's just a way for you to show a tribal affiliation.
Your pathetic attempt to reinterpret my text, and in the process put in a few cheap shots on my person, suggests you are feeling threatened, which in turn indicates I came entirely too close to the truth for comfort.
Projection. You're not worth insulting. That was also the point: you're not saying anything, you're just raising the noise floor. I am also compelled to point out that in no sense were your words "reinterpreted", and I said nothing to suggest that your words should not be interpreted in their literal meaning. It would be convenient for you if that were true, and it would save you an awkward self-realization.
That position is exactly as valid as saying that the opposition to "Social Justice" is merely a bunch of amoral recalcitrants.
But really you're just using "Social Justice" to mean "people I don't like". Because to the degree that that has anything to do with this subject, basically the strongest argument that can be brought to bear would be that the "slave" women have internalized the Patriarchy to the point of self-degradation. But if you're wont to hold that opinion, there are quite a few things higher on the list than private sex games.
What you're doing is virtue signaling. It's not very intelligent and rather boring.
Your education on this subject is insufficient for discussion. You have no idea of the context of these topics in either current or historical Muslim philosophy. You're an adult and should not need to be spoon fed information. The book I mentioned will be a good introduction to the relevant phases of expansion and the beliefs on jihad at those times and in the present. And I can promise your opinion of Islam will be preserved.
The insults you deserve. What you are doing is more or less exactly what is meant by jihad. We as a nation do not need to engage in religious conflicts, domestic or abroad. The analysis of the threat from radical Islam needs to be driven by intelligence, in the military sense. Islam is a deeply divided religion, and understanding those divisions is very important in controlling the region. The suggestion that anyone is making a politically correct argument here is ludicrous.
Get off it. You know that you know next to nothing about Islam, and what you're objecting to is that you don't think I have any right to call you on that. You can't articulate what the Muslim idea of jihad is in either a historical or modern context, and you can't give any reasons why medieval interpretations of Islamic expansionism have any relevance to modern politics. You have never talked to any Muslim on this subject or read anything written by a Muslim on this subject, or you would know that violent interpretations of jihad are very much not the dominant view. Quote-mining Muhammad, whose every word has had centuries of religious and legal interpretation, is facile. You don't know Mughals from Ottomans from Umayyads. Go educate yourself.
Telling you to get your head out of your ass and learn something is not an insult. You deserve abuse. You're spreading a message of fear and hate, and as it happens you have an extremely loose understanding of who you're attempting to target. These are all bad things, but your argument isn't completely baseless. You just don't know which parts might be valid and which might not, because you don't understand your enemy. You prefer to dehumanize and demonize them, because it's an effective way to make other people fearful. You want people to sign up for a religious war, and to that end you don't particularly care if your knowledge of the other religion is accurate. And you don't care about the consequences of this mistaken belief because you're a general misanthrope.
That this is a common behavior pattern has a lot to do with why these brown people you don't like keep trying to kill us. Your post could be a recruiting message for ISIL -- "See? The Americans are going to treat you like a terrorist whether or not you are one, so you may as well take up arms." And among other things this is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to have happen: that the US would be so consumed by fear as to oppress our own citizens, and export our own brand of indiscriminate terror. You need to figure out how to be more dangerous than useful to your enemies.
That is one of the dumbest things I've read. If that's literally all the research you've bothered to do into the phenomenon, you're a complete retard to even begin to have an opinion on it. Your "lead scientist" was clearly has also not done any astrophysics.
We already have the causation. We've had the causation since 1896, and you could argue that it was evident since Tyndal 1856. The action of CO2 in the atmosphere is very well understood and has nothing to do with statistical data. Do you know how we can tell you know nothing about the science?
To be fair to NASA et al, a lot of their costs and processes are related to public oversight and government contracting in general. To the degree that NASA is an ineffective organization it's mostly at the dictum of Congress.
You don't know as much as you think you do, and you're spreading a message of fear which is unnecessary and uninformed. Get your head out of your ass and learn your enemy's teachings -- it's the only path to victory. You need to understand jihad as it is understood by Muslims, or you'll fight the wrong threats. Mostly you're a terrified moronic misanthrope, but to the degree to which you're not you need to actually understand what you're talking about.
But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud. It is still actively promoted by them and they want it to be the default sect of Islam. Wahhabism teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that praying five times a day and making a pilgrimage to Mecca is a duty. That would be the reason why 15/19 of the September 11th attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Al Queda is Wahhabist, and so is the Islamic State.
I hear Trump went to Saudi Arabia to kiss ass a couple weeks ago. Isn't interesting that at this height of anti-Islamic sentiment, our leaders are embracing the Saudis? Funny how this idea of Wahhabism has had zero press since 9/11 too.
By the way, if you want a real introduction to Islamic history, pick up a book called 'Destiny Disrupted'. I am the mushy liberal who welcomes all -law abiding- muslims, but I recommend the book in the sense of 'know your enemy'. It's not a book to change anyone's opinions. It may give you some perspective on exactly how far the Islamic world has fallen. It will refine your priorities of what sects to keep an eye on.
Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else. The religion is fucked, and more or less incompatible with either the modern concept of the nation-state and generally prohibitive of democracy. But western civilizations beat the Islamic world so badly in the 18th and 19th centuries that we don't even bother to teach that part of history. The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories. And if you'll take a look at (e.g.) the civil war going on in Afghanistan, it will hopefully become clear that these people are mostly dangerous to themselves (especially in the sense that sharia law does not apply to non-Muslims). However, to the degree that there is a threat, let's do be specific about which country is exporting terrorism and terrorist ideas.
Predicting the future is hard, especially when you have to take into account human reactions to what you're doing. Modeling the entire planet plus whether or not humans take action sounds hard enough to me that I'm willing to cut people a bit of slack. That the warming will happen is driven by fundamental properties of atmospheric gases, and this has been obvious since Tyndall in 1856.
Personally I have little doubt that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels into the atmosphere every year is contributing hugely to global warming, if global warming is indeed real, but I keep an open mind. Personally I don't give a fuck what the current scientific consensus for anything is. Most new scientific discoveries go against the current scientific consensus. Fuck scientific consensus up it's closed minded ass.
Dipshit. Go learn the science then come back and tell us what's wrong with it. We've been trying to falsify this theory for over 100 years. It was considered completely invalidated throughout the entire first half of the 20th Century. The consensus did change. Read about it.
And for the record, the distinguishing characteristic of Wahhabism is that it teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that a pilgrimage to Mecca is. Speaking of Mecca, the Wahhabists destroyed the tombs of Mohammed's followers when they took over that place. They're not big on iconography. You remember those al Queda guys right? And when they bombed those giant stone buddhas? Same sort of thing. Well, more or less the exact same thing.
The idea of Islam was nice and Mohammad was apparently a pretty good guy. But if your doctrine calls for holy war as a duty then you are an inherent threat to everyone around you. That the United States has been so enthusiastic about embracing the people who teach our enemies to kill us is completely fucked.
Plastics and packaging don't contribute the the problem of atmospheric carbon significantly. The issue is that we burn hydrocarbons.
The amount of shitposting here is getting out of hand, and this "junk science" phrase being repeated so often is more suggestive of a botnet. If there is a mind behind this though, it's one that posted anonymously specifically to insulate themselves from a contrary viewpoint. Denying basic reality is its own issue, but I'm not sure what's worse, that someone has an interest in making it seem like there's a wave of moronic activity, or that there actually is.
The theory of global warming is at least as well established as plate tectonics or relativity, and predates both.
It's cute how you think you have any idea what would make global warming falsifiable. It's cute because you have no idea what the evidence is or how the theory was developed. Global warming is not based on statistics, nor models. Also, when it was proposed initially in 1896 it was immediately discredited, and you can find meteorology textbooks from the 1950s that not only deny that climate changes but explicitly deny anything but the most minor role to carbon dioxide. This is a theory that had to fight for acceptance. Sufficiently good evidence was acquired in the middle of the 20th Century to change that consensus, almost in parallel with Wegener's theory of continental drift. If you don't know why, go look it the fuck up.
What sort of colossal moron would focus on percent generation and ignore the top-ten list of production capacity at the head of the page? What the fuck are you on?
He has a job to do with explaining why dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere should result in a cooling trend. Let me take a stab though and assume that you're talking about one David W. Titley, rear admiral USN, professor at Penn State. Let's see what Wikipedia says about him.
He was formerly a climate change skeptic, but later changed his mind after looking at the evidence of what factors influence climate—which are, according to Titley, "what are the larger things doing — what is the ocean doing? What is the sun doing? And what's our atmosphere doing?"[3] Since then, he has described climate change as "one of the driving forces in the 21st century" and said that it contributed to the 2011 Arab Spring.[4]
I guess you two don't keep in touch much. He had the courage to admit he was wrong and to learn the science. Maybe you should too.
I'm sorry you have chosen to disbelieve in objective reality. Unfortunately that issue does not seem to be self-corrective in the more typically abrupt sense. Would you like a remedial science education?
What an interesting inversion of logic. Yes, CO2 pollution is a first world problem, and therefore something about India? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
Muslims are mostly not the issue. The issue is with the specific sects. Mostly with Wahhabism, which was originated and continues to be actively promoted by the House of Saud. There's a reason most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. And you know those Islamic State jackasses? Wahhabist.
We should turn Saudi Arabia into glass. But otherwise Islam is just not an issue. I mean, what does anyone have against Indonesia? It's a total non-issue.
Think what it means that your leaders have kept this knowledge from you, even at this height of anti-Muslim sentiment. Trump is grandstanding and I am sure I appreciate him as an entertainer, but wake me up when he says word one about the Saudis or Wahhabism. I mean, word one other than the trip there he took ten days ago to kiss ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Some Russian general wrote something equivalent to the Project for the New American Century. It laid out a goal of destabilizing the dominant Western governments by means of hacking. It's an extremely asymmetrical type of warfare, and Putin is actually a huge fan of both the author and the techniques. The CIA and NSA have been pretty explicit about Russian influence on the elections. You are unaware or dismissive of this because you're a stupid partisan of some description and don't realize that this can happen to any political party anywhere, and that since Putin was so successful in influencing our election (note: influencing, not deciding) this is extremely likely to be something we see over and over again both at home and abroad.
Asymmetric, deniable warfare. Welcome to the future, I guess.,
Classic, and well played.
I've written a small book about bash. Tell me what about it you think is an improvement on any other scripting language.
Bash as a shell is mediocre. Bash as a programming language is shit. The language of Unix is C, and the Bash fanatics are the ones that cut their teeth on Unix in the mid-1990s and haven't learned anything since. There's a whole generation of programmers who didn't bother to learn anything about cgroups or why systemd exists in the first place.
While I admit that I don't like the SJW type (and I'm inclined to believe you are one),
You missed the point, there is no such thing as a SJW, it's just a way for you to show a tribal affiliation.
Your pathetic attempt to reinterpret my text, and in the process put in a few cheap shots on my person, suggests you are feeling threatened, which in turn indicates I came entirely too close to the truth for comfort.
Projection. You're not worth insulting. That was also the point: you're not saying anything, you're just raising the noise floor. I am also compelled to point out that in no sense were your words "reinterpreted", and I said nothing to suggest that your words should not be interpreted in their literal meaning. It would be convenient for you if that were true, and it would save you an awkward self-realization.
you're a wanker.
Deflect, dehumanize. How tedious
That position is exactly as valid as saying that the opposition to "Social Justice" is merely a bunch of amoral recalcitrants.
But really you're just using "Social Justice" to mean "people I don't like". Because to the degree that that has anything to do with this subject, basically the strongest argument that can be brought to bear would be that the "slave" women have internalized the Patriarchy to the point of self-degradation. But if you're wont to hold that opinion, there are quite a few things higher on the list than private sex games.
What you're doing is virtue signaling. It's not very intelligent and rather boring.
You don't even know what you're saying. Support that statement any way you can.
Your education on this subject is insufficient for discussion. You have no idea of the context of these topics in either current or historical Muslim philosophy. You're an adult and should not need to be spoon fed information. The book I mentioned will be a good introduction to the relevant phases of expansion and the beliefs on jihad at those times and in the present. And I can promise your opinion of Islam will be preserved.
The insults you deserve. What you are doing is more or less exactly what is meant by jihad. We as a nation do not need to engage in religious conflicts, domestic or abroad. The analysis of the threat from radical Islam needs to be driven by intelligence, in the military sense. Islam is a deeply divided religion, and understanding those divisions is very important in controlling the region. The suggestion that anyone is making a politically correct argument here is ludicrous.
Get off it. You know that you know next to nothing about Islam, and what you're objecting to is that you don't think I have any right to call you on that. You can't articulate what the Muslim idea of jihad is in either a historical or modern context, and you can't give any reasons why medieval interpretations of Islamic expansionism have any relevance to modern politics. You have never talked to any Muslim on this subject or read anything written by a Muslim on this subject, or you would know that violent interpretations of jihad are very much not the dominant view. Quote-mining Muhammad, whose every word has had centuries of religious and legal interpretation, is facile. You don't know Mughals from Ottomans from Umayyads. Go educate yourself.
Telling you to get your head out of your ass and learn something is not an insult. You deserve abuse. You're spreading a message of fear and hate, and as it happens you have an extremely loose understanding of who you're attempting to target. These are all bad things, but your argument isn't completely baseless. You just don't know which parts might be valid and which might not, because you don't understand your enemy. You prefer to dehumanize and demonize them, because it's an effective way to make other people fearful. You want people to sign up for a religious war, and to that end you don't particularly care if your knowledge of the other religion is accurate. And you don't care about the consequences of this mistaken belief because you're a general misanthrope.
That this is a common behavior pattern has a lot to do with why these brown people you don't like keep trying to kill us. Your post could be a recruiting message for ISIL -- "See? The Americans are going to treat you like a terrorist whether or not you are one, so you may as well take up arms." And among other things this is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to have happen: that the US would be so consumed by fear as to oppress our own citizens, and export our own brand of indiscriminate terror. You need to figure out how to be more dangerous than useful to your enemies.
That is one of the dumbest things I've read. If that's literally all the research you've bothered to do into the phenomenon, you're a complete retard to even begin to have an opinion on it. Your "lead scientist" was clearly has also not done any astrophysics.
We already have the causation. We've had the causation since 1896, and you could argue that it was evident since Tyndal 1856. The action of CO2 in the atmosphere is very well understood and has nothing to do with statistical data. Do you know how we can tell you know nothing about the science?
I really like that Slashdot is so ready with primary sources. Things like this are why I keep coming back here. That, and comments like, "But hey, what do I know. I only ran those propulsion plants for a couple of years."
To be fair to NASA et al, a lot of their costs and processes are related to public oversight and government contracting in general. To the degree that NASA is an ineffective organization it's mostly at the dictum of Congress.
You don't know as much as you think you do, and you're spreading a message of fear which is unnecessary and uninformed. Get your head out of your ass and learn your enemy's teachings -- it's the only path to victory. You need to understand jihad as it is understood by Muslims, or you'll fight the wrong threats. Mostly you're a terrified moronic misanthrope, but to the degree to which you're not you need to actually understand what you're talking about.
Everything quoted is true with one exception.
But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud. It is still actively promoted by them and they want it to be the default sect of Islam. Wahhabism teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that praying five times a day and making a pilgrimage to Mecca is a duty. That would be the reason why 15/19 of the September 11th attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Al Queda is Wahhabist, and so is the Islamic State.
I hear Trump went to Saudi Arabia to kiss ass a couple weeks ago. Isn't interesting that at this height of anti-Islamic sentiment, our leaders are embracing the Saudis? Funny how this idea of Wahhabism has had zero press since 9/11 too.
By the way, if you want a real introduction to Islamic history, pick up a book called 'Destiny Disrupted'. I am the mushy liberal who welcomes all -law abiding- muslims, but I recommend the book in the sense of 'know your enemy'. It's not a book to change anyone's opinions. It may give you some perspective on exactly how far the Islamic world has fallen. It will refine your priorities of what sects to keep an eye on.
Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else. The religion is fucked, and more or less incompatible with either the modern concept of the nation-state and generally prohibitive of democracy. But western civilizations beat the Islamic world so badly in the 18th and 19th centuries that we don't even bother to teach that part of history. The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories. And if you'll take a look at (e.g.) the civil war going on in Afghanistan, it will hopefully become clear that these people are mostly dangerous to themselves (especially in the sense that sharia law does not apply to non-Muslims). However, to the degree that there is a threat, let's do be specific about which country is exporting terrorism and terrorist ideas.
if you can't explain what's causing it
Bzzzt. It's very well explained.
predict the future by modelling the data
Predicting the future is hard, especially when you have to take into account human reactions to what you're doing. Modeling the entire planet plus whether or not humans take action sounds hard enough to me that I'm willing to cut people a bit of slack. That the warming will happen is driven by fundamental properties of atmospheric gases, and this has been obvious since Tyndall in 1856.
Personally I have little doubt that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels into the atmosphere every year is contributing hugely to global warming, if global warming is indeed real, but I keep an open mind. Personally I don't give a fuck what the current scientific consensus for anything is. Most new scientific discoveries go against the current scientific consensus. Fuck scientific consensus up it's closed minded ass.
Dipshit. Go learn the science then come back and tell us what's wrong with it. We've been trying to falsify this theory for over 100 years. It was considered completely invalidated throughout the entire first half of the 20th Century. The consensus did change. Read about it.
Open minded my ass.
And for the record, the distinguishing characteristic of Wahhabism is that it teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that a pilgrimage to Mecca is. Speaking of Mecca, the Wahhabists destroyed the tombs of Mohammed's followers when they took over that place. They're not big on iconography. You remember those al Queda guys right? And when they bombed those giant stone buddhas? Same sort of thing. Well, more or less the exact same thing.
The idea of Islam was nice and Mohammad was apparently a pretty good guy. But if your doctrine calls for holy war as a duty then you are an inherent threat to everyone around you. That the United States has been so enthusiastic about embracing the people who teach our enemies to kill us is completely fucked.
Plastics and packaging don't contribute the the problem of atmospheric carbon significantly. The issue is that we burn hydrocarbons.
The amount of shitposting here is getting out of hand, and this "junk science" phrase being repeated so often is more suggestive of a botnet. If there is a mind behind this though, it's one that posted anonymously specifically to insulate themselves from a contrary viewpoint. Denying basic reality is its own issue, but I'm not sure what's worse, that someone has an interest in making it seem like there's a wave of moronic activity, or that there actually is.
The theory of global warming is at least as well established as plate tectonics or relativity, and predates both.
It's cute how you think you have any idea what would make global warming falsifiable. It's cute because you have no idea what the evidence is or how the theory was developed. Global warming is not based on statistics, nor models. Also, when it was proposed initially in 1896 it was immediately discredited, and you can find meteorology textbooks from the 1950s that not only deny that climate changes but explicitly deny anything but the most minor role to carbon dioxide. This is a theory that had to fight for acceptance. Sufficiently good evidence was acquired in the middle of the 20th Century to change that consensus, almost in parallel with Wegener's theory of continental drift. If you don't know why, go look it the fuck up.
What sort of colossal moron would focus on percent generation and ignore the top-ten list of production capacity at the head of the page? What the fuck are you on?
He has a job to do with explaining why dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere should result in a cooling trend. Let me take a stab though and assume that you're talking about one David W. Titley, rear admiral USN, professor at Penn State. Let's see what Wikipedia says about him.
He was formerly a climate change skeptic, but later changed his mind after looking at the evidence of what factors influence climate—which are, according to Titley, "what are the larger things doing — what is the ocean doing? What is the sun doing? And what's our atmosphere doing?"[3] Since then, he has described climate change as "one of the driving forces in the 21st century" and said that it contributed to the 2011 Arab Spring.[4]
I guess you two don't keep in touch much. He had the courage to admit he was wrong and to learn the science. Maybe you should too.
I'm sorry you have chosen to disbelieve in objective reality. Unfortunately that issue does not seem to be self-corrective in the more typically abrupt sense. Would you like a remedial science education?
You've never examined the evidence for global warming it seems. Hint: it has nothing to do with models.
What an interesting inversion of logic. Yes, CO2 pollution is a first world problem, and therefore something about India? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
You misspelled 'Arrhenius'.
Muslims are mostly not the issue. The issue is with the specific sects. Mostly with Wahhabism, which was originated and continues to be actively promoted by the House of Saud. There's a reason most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. And you know those Islamic State jackasses? Wahhabist.
We should turn Saudi Arabia into glass. But otherwise Islam is just not an issue. I mean, what does anyone have against Indonesia? It's a total non-issue.
Think what it means that your leaders have kept this knowledge from you, even at this height of anti-Muslim sentiment. Trump is grandstanding and I am sure I appreciate him as an entertainer, but wake me up when he says word one about the Saudis or Wahhabism. I mean, word one other than the trip there he took ten days ago to kiss ass.