Why do you assume that anyone who would say "stay the fuck away from my code" must be a male? Is it not possible for a female programmer to say that? Would that be toxic femininity?
Well said. Good to see you are fair-minded. Oh, wait --
It's hard to keep track of all these bigoted memes the Left invents each day to signal how non-bigoted they are.
You must be pretty damn sanctimonious to have never used "fuck" or any other language someone else might find objectionable in a professional setting. Maybe you have the benefit of only working with individuals just as or more competent than yourself, but there are some people who need to be told to stay the fuck away from something, or they will fuck it up and make a real fucking mess of things.
Try repeatedly dropping f-bombs on people face to face at a workplace, and see how long you last.
It's easy to be far less civil with someone you're not in the same room with. Just look at the way people behave on this site. Often it is not "professional."
By burying them underground, the climate conscious trees can more easily start a grass roots movement to affect real change. Just look at how well it worked for Bernie Sanders!
Summarizing your post: you say that scientists should avoid proposing political solutions to climate change, and instead busy themselves with trying to find technological solutions. This sounds like the "stay in your lane" argument that the NRA volleyed back at medical doctors who spoke out recently about the health consequences of gun violence.
Good scientists endeavor to do their research well, because not only does it lay the foundation for future studies, but often it is used to inform public policy. As such, they often have the best vantage point for proposing solutions. And at the very least, they are also citizens, with a stake in what their governments do. It seems you would just pat them on the head, and tell them to run along back to their labs to find a way to save us.
You're obviously on my side, but I must gently disagree on one point regarding consensus.
If the 1% that disagrees with the other 99% has a strong case -- and evidence to back it up -- then they must be considered. If they prevail, then oh well, so much the worse for AGW. The 1% and 99% are all smart people. They would all find something else to do.
But what has happened is that the 1% do not have a strong case. Yet they are vocal, and often backed by parties with a vested interest in attacking AGW.
Your UID shows you have been around here longer than most of us. If I were you, I'd post with the bonus modifier on. You have earned it by contributing well-received posts for a long time. It encourages others to do likewise.
I'm not sure that turning your modifier off protects you from the effect of down-mods. And where can you see your karma points? Slashdot stopped showing these a long time ago -- before I even joined, I think.
So, IMHO, my advice is, when you post on slashdot, be honest, rational, and polite as much as possible. Karma will take care of itself.
That and people keep claiming science is all about fact/truth etc when it's nothing of the sort. It's about best explanation of the day.
Science does not know everything. IAAS and I'll be the first to tell you that. However, science is indisputably the best tool humans have to investigate a great number of things in the universe.
You are right that science is not about the truth, but only insofar as science considers absolute truth to be inaccessible. However, science most definitely does deal in facts -- observable facts -- as the foundation of a process that tries to place the tightest possible shrink-wrap around the truth.
As for science being about the "best explanation of the day", you overlook that science continually strives to find better and better "explanations" (aka theories or laws) -- ones that last longer and longer before they need to be replaced, modified, or extended. This is a strength, not a weakness. And some of these "explanations" are venerable indeed -- ones such as thermodynamics, the atomic theory of matter, darwinian evolution, and so on. They can be challenged at any time by contrary evidence, but we have yet to see any.
This is probably a stupid question because I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet, but why would you want a 000 file? That's just an inode and a chunk of disk space that can't be used for anything.
Oh. It still has attributes. It can be used for something. Never mind.
---------- 1 root root 0 Oct 15 22:07 this_file_is_inaccessible_but_its_name_means_something
Your proposed solution of just moving to higher ground or putting our houses on stilts is just not realistic. Temperature and sea levels are not the only things that will change. We will also see shifts in the location of weather. Habitable and arable land will shift and dwindle. Not all crops can simply be moved and cultivated elsewhere.
Recall what has happened in human history when a resource has become scarce: war.
Unless you can show us your credentials to be making authoritative statements about climate science (a PhD in it from an accredited University will do), you need to shut the fuck up about things you know NOTHING about.
I'm sure you say the same thing about politicians, too! Unless you have a law degree and a decade or more of experience, you have NO RIGHT to criticize any politician.
False equivalence. I don't agree with Rick Schumann's tone, but he's in the right here.
Scientists and politicians have a different covenant. Scientists observe the universe and present explanations for what they see. Politicians present their proposals to an electorate and seek a mandate for carrying them out. You don't vote on science. You do vote on public policy.
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do!
So if someone burns down your house, assaults your mother, and dumps plutonium into the town water supply, that's the "natural flow of the universe?"
Humans can make choices. It is wise for us to make choices that are in our collective interest as a species if we are going to survive. We are perfectly capable of driving ourselves to extinction if we don't.
- Eiffel Tower: nobody really knows, it's ugly as f..k, and for decades even the french wanted to tear it down
Built as an entrance for the 1889 World's Fair. Yes, it's rusty and ugly when you get up close to it. But it's a quintessential Paris landmark because of its distinctive design.
- The White House: nobody ever claimed there's anything "special" about it
Being the home and workplace of the POTUS qualifies as somewhat "special." There's a story that it was painted white after the British (from the land later known as Canada) burned it in 1814, but actually it was first whitewashed to protect it from freezing water damage in 1798. Later it was painted white and the name stuck, made official by Teddy R.
- The Great Wall of China: it carries historical value (not architectural)
It is arguably the oldest (but not the only) man-made object visible from space.
It turns out the Tower of Pisa is by far the most "special" of these buildings.
Special yes, but most special? That's in the eye of the beholder.
Slashdot Mirror
I've left threats of physical violence in comments, for good reason.
Well that's more than a few levels above an f-bomb. Someone who does that shouldn't just be fired. They should be served a restraining order.
I don't 'act' professional, I am professional.
Given the nuanced distinction between acting professional and being professional, I must agree.
Why do you assume that anyone who would say "stay the fuck away from my code" must be a male? Is it not possible for a female programmer to say that? Would that be toxic femininity?
Well said. Good to see you are fair-minded. Oh, wait --
It's hard to keep track of all these bigoted memes the Left invents each day to signal how non-bigoted they are.
Uh, never mind.
You must be pretty damn sanctimonious to have never used "fuck" or any other language someone else might find objectionable in a professional setting. Maybe you have the benefit of only working with individuals just as or more competent than yourself, but there are some people who need to be told to stay the fuck away from something, or they will fuck it up and make a real fucking mess of things.
Try repeatedly dropping f-bombs on people face to face at a workplace, and see how long you last.
It's easy to be far less civil with someone you're not in the same room with. Just look at the way people behave on this site. Often it is not "professional."
He'll figure it out.
More like his daughter will.
So now it's device that can measure not just time, but gravity too.
Starbucks is not an ISP, they're a coffee company that happens to offer customers some internet service under certain conditions.
This. But NN is moot, because the Pai FCC killed it, remember?
This. This tragic episode was on the level of criminal negligence or manslaughter, but definitely not murder.
Here you go.
By burying them underground, the climate conscious trees can more easily start a grass roots movement to affect real change. Just look at how well it worked for Bernie Sanders!
Brings new meaning to "feel the Bern" doesn't it?
Summarizing your post: you say that scientists should avoid proposing political solutions to climate change, and instead busy themselves with trying to find technological solutions. This sounds like the "stay in your lane" argument that the NRA volleyed back at medical doctors who spoke out recently about the health consequences of gun violence.
Good scientists endeavor to do their research well, because not only does it lay the foundation for future studies, but often it is used to inform public policy. As such, they often have the best vantage point for proposing solutions. And at the very least, they are also citizens, with a stake in what their governments do. It seems you would just pat them on the head, and tell them to run along back to their labs to find a way to save us.
What do you teach? :-/
This isn't convincing. The curvature is caused by the fisheye lense.
True. But what is convincing is that after 90 minutes you come back pretty much to where you started, with some shift due to the Earth's rotation.
Why do you give a shit about Ukraine, which is on the other end of the world and which isn't a major US trade partner or ally?
Oh, say ... perhaps because Ukraine has borders with these countries:
- Belarus
- Russia
- Moldova
- Poland
- Slovakia
- Hungary
- Romania
And from many of them, it's a short hop to Western Europe.
Tax breaks for the rich, and their corporate overlords.
FTFY
You're obviously on my side, but I must gently disagree on one point regarding consensus.
If the 1% that disagrees with the other 99% has a strong case -- and evidence to back it up -- then they must be considered. If they prevail, then oh well, so much the worse for AGW. The 1% and 99% are all smart people. They would all find something else to do.
But what has happened is that the 1% do not have a strong case. Yet they are vocal, and often backed by parties with a vested interest in attacking AGW.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
2) it is not 99% anyway,
A popular (and sloppy) figure of speech. The point is that scientists who disagree with AGW conclusions (and the need for action) are a tiny minority.
3) th AGW crowd does not follow the scientific method and therefore is not performing science.
Citation please.
Your UID shows you have been around here longer than most of us. If I were you, I'd post with the bonus modifier on. You have earned it by contributing well-received posts for a long time. It encourages others to do likewise.
I'm not sure that turning your modifier off protects you from the effect of down-mods. And where can you see your karma points? Slashdot stopped showing these a long time ago -- before I even joined, I think.
So, IMHO, my advice is, when you post on slashdot, be honest, rational, and polite as much as possible. Karma will take care of itself.
When science gets it wrong, it's still wrong.
That and people keep claiming science is all about fact/truth etc when it's nothing of the sort. It's about best explanation of the day.
Science does not know everything. IAAS and I'll be the first to tell you that. However, science is indisputably the best tool humans have to investigate a great number of things in the universe.
You are right that science is not about the truth, but only insofar as science considers absolute truth to be inaccessible. However, science most definitely does deal in facts -- observable facts -- as the foundation of a process that tries to place the tightest possible shrink-wrap around the truth.
As for science being about the "best explanation of the day", you overlook that science continually strives to find better and better "explanations" (aka theories or laws) -- ones that last longer and longer before they need to be replaced, modified, or extended. This is a strength, not a weakness. And some of these "explanations" are venerable indeed -- ones such as thermodynamics, the atomic theory of matter, darwinian evolution, and so on. They can be challenged at any time by contrary evidence, but we have yet to see any.
This is probably a stupid question because I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet, but why would you want a 000 file? That's just an inode and a chunk of disk space that can't be used for anything.
Oh. It still has attributes. It can be used for something.
Never mind.
---------- 1 root root 0 Oct 15 22:07 this_file_is_inaccessible_but_its_name_means_something
Yeah, it's stupid. But it's not entirely useless.
Humans are indeed the cause of climate change. I'll just leave this right here.
Your proposed solution of just moving to higher ground or putting our houses on stilts is just not realistic. Temperature and sea levels are not the only things that will change. We will also see shifts in the location of weather. Habitable and arable land will shift and dwindle. Not all crops can simply be moved and cultivated elsewhere.
Recall what has happened in human history when a resource has become scarce: war.
Unless you can show us your credentials to be making authoritative statements about climate science (a PhD in it from an accredited University will do), you need to shut the fuck up about things you know NOTHING about.
I'm sure you say the same thing about politicians, too! Unless you have a law degree and a decade or more of experience, you have NO RIGHT to criticize any politician.
False equivalence. I don't agree with Rick Schumann's tone, but he's in the right here.
Scientists and politicians have a different covenant. Scientists observe the universe and present explanations for what they see. Politicians present their proposals to an electorate and seek a mandate for carrying them out. You don't vote on science. You do vote on public policy.
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do!
So if someone burns down your house, assaults your mother, and dumps plutonium into the town water supply, that's the "natural flow of the universe?"
Humans can make choices. It is wise for us to make choices that are in our collective interest as a species if we are going to survive. We are perfectly capable of driving ourselves to extinction if we don't.
"Slightly Less leaning", didn't you read? Slightly less is slightly more, at least to some schoolchildren.
Found the geometry pendant. So if it's upside-down, then it's not leaning at all? :-p
- Eiffel Tower: nobody really knows, it's ugly as f..k, and for decades even the french wanted to tear it down
Built as an entrance for the 1889 World's Fair. Yes, it's rusty and ugly when you get up close to it. But it's a quintessential Paris landmark because of its distinctive design.
- The White House: nobody ever claimed there's anything "special" about it
Being the home and workplace of the POTUS qualifies as somewhat "special." There's a story that it was painted white after the British (from the land later known as Canada) burned it in 1814, but actually it was first whitewashed to protect it from freezing water damage in 1798. Later it was painted white and the name stuck, made official by Teddy R.
- The Great Wall of China: it carries historical value (not architectural)
It is arguably the oldest (but not the only) man-made object visible from space.
It turns out the Tower of Pisa is by far the most "special" of these buildings.
Special yes, but most special? That's in the eye of the beholder.
Granted, I may have been Poed. But on this site, I find it's better to err on the side of sincerity when someone is trolling.
It's funny how Poe's Law is kind of orthogonal to Hanlon's Razor.