It does seem to be simple fear of technology (Child molestation? Meh, happens all the time. Wait WHAT?!? THE INTERNET WAS INVOLVED?!?! OH GOD!!!) but does make some sense by accident. People are bolder online than they are in real life, some pervs may start something online that they would be too scared to start face to face.
Moreover, in my experience, I was -never- alone with a teacher in school, I'm guessing school policies dictate that. Online it's just you and whoever you're talking to. If a teacher is going to make his or her move on a student, it won't be in school, and it won't be at the student's home, it will be via phone, e-mails, facebook, etc. Just the victim and the perv.
If he has been there and formed his opinions off of that, then no. Anyway, as a former Missouri resident, I'm okay with the "prejudice" if it exists. There's a reason you never hear "the great state of Missouri."
Even the state motto sucks. "The Show-me state?" Here's a new motto for ya: "At least we're not West Virginia."
and if you count up the thousands of Thomas Drakes in the government, well, if they had all been listened to for the past 10+ years, we could have saved a trillion dollars.
Maybe if they just hired fewer people named "Thomas Drake," or made them change their names. Thousands of people with the same name is going to get confusing in any organization...
Trolls of yesteryear were trying to provoke an angry reaction. While that was still pathetic, at least they seemed to have a goal in mind. And we liked it! We loved it! Gave you something to get your blood in a boil about if that's what you wanted, gave you someone to feel superior to if you didn't! "I may be a 22 year old virgin living in my mom's basement, but at least I'm not a 22 year old virgin living in my mom's basement and posting racist stuff online anonymously in a desperate attempt to feel like anyone takes any notice of my sad existence!!!"
Trolls these days seem to just be wasting electricity. And their computers are a lot more efficient than ours were, so they're not even doing THAT well.
But back to my point, which was: STAY OFF MY LAWN! And while you're at it, clean up that space launch crap you've got on yours.
It sounds like it's part of an immature back and forth between two buddhist twitter camps actually. The KPC it refers to is evidently the tara.org camp. I guess the other guys were saying mean things? I could be misinterpreting. The author there seems to think that obviously, everyone knows who is who in the American Buddhist twitter community.
Maybe they felt that Buddhism wasn't competing well in the "Religious loons online" contest, and they were worried scientology was going to take home the cup again this year.
After learning that corporations are people too, and have rights, and that money is speech, so restricting the amount of politicans that corporations can buy is unconstitutional, I'd say that anything can be made constitutional. All it requires is absurd interpretation of the constitution and/or reality.
That's a bit shrill. It's true that there will be resistance to you reproducing name brand products for free. If the technology gets there, manufacturing as an industry is going to face that change exactly as the RIAA and MPAA are, fighting it tooth and claw, and not caring about collateral damage.
Just as the RIAA and MPAA have not killed downloadable music or streaming movies, and publishers have not killed the internet as distribution for news, I doubt manufacturers are going to be able to kill 3D printers. Likely, the worst case scenario would be a mandatory registry for 3D printers, to make sure they're not being used to print out something that is copyright/patented/trademarked without paying a royalty.
Your willingness to spend other people's daily labors on things that have no bearing on reality - to enslave someone else for some portion of their waking hours
I'd come up with a witty reply and say I was using Camino, except I'm pretty sure they just made it up.
Wiki tells me it's an alternative browser for Macs, but it seems like it would be heresy for a mac owner to imply that Safari did not meet their needs, and they'd be burned at the stake. Therefore it cannot possibly exist.
And, of course (as always happens), we now get the unctuous complaint about the rhetorical device as a way to avoid addressing the actual consequences of the position you're supporting.
Imagine that, imply that addressing climate change is similar to killing children and you fail to get a good discussion. How odd.
Hey man, both churches are out in full force, having been primed by the article yesterday.
This is easily the most volatile moderation I've seen. Be nice to make a graph of moderation points. Anyone know why all of a sudden I can't see the comment history on posts? It used to have things like "30% troll, 30% funny, 30% underrated" when I clicked on the score. Now it just brings up settings. Is there some way I can still see the proportion of mods, or see the actual numbers?
According to this it wasn't revoked by some authority for being ridiculous, it was pulled by Disney themselves after widespread public backlash. That won't happen in most cases. Also in the most problematic cases of large hollywood studios stealing the public domain, they won't be going up against the world's best military.
So, you're for killing all but one of each family's kids, right?
Could you guys stop with that tactic already? I know that taking a statement to the furthest extreme in order to make it sound stupid or immoral is a more effecitve and mature than comparing someone to Hitler, but only slightly so.
How about YOU cite a source where there is an actual hypothesis and repeatable experiment?
How about YOU verify the accuracy and methodology of temperature measurements and estimates throughout Earth's history?
How about YOU certify current temperature measurements?
I haven't made any accusations to back up with a citation.
The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER.
Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
In skimming the wiki article on the medival warm period I came across a graph that made it look like the Earth had already warmed more than the medieval warm period. And another source pointed that out though I'm not sure how serious to take that website.
At any rate, you seem to be saying that "The weather being warm was good for Vikings hundreds of years ago" and taking that to imply that temperatures going up is always "beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole" which doesn't seem like a sound conclusion. It sounds like mild warming was better for a small subset of people who had to deal with ice more often than tropical diseases, flooding, or droughts.
how would you feel if I demanded that all governments around the world provide massive carbon *subsidies* because I believe that a warm world is a good world, and that CO2 helps warm the planet?
There's nothing really hypothetical about your scenario. That's the situation we have NOW. We're already producing a ton of carbon and doing little about it besides talking about reducing it. We're already getting artificially cheap gas thanks to government subsidies, so I don't see anything really changing.
So I feel that you're wrong and irresponsible. Wear a sweater if you feel the earth isn't warm enough.
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial
And naturally you just happen to think that government non-intervention is the completely correct position to take. My opinion on environmental matters is "Better safe than sorry."
The only people saying "We have to tax anyone heavily to fight global warming" are people who are opposed to doing anything about global warming. If you're opposed to legislative action, an effective tactic is to paint it in the most extreme terms possible, but doing so is pretty scummy and shameless. "You want to reform patent law? Well you're just going to do away with all patents and all products and we're going to be living in CAVES!!!"
Carbon taxes are necessarily going to be a part of the solution, yes, but the effect could and would be offset by tax breaks elsewhere. Hell, for some reason tax breaks are a part of the debt reduction plans, to think that businesses would fail miserably under a mountain of taxes because we're trying to reduce pollution is nonsense and not backed up by history.
Nice of you to speak up for those poor widdle corporations though against those big, mean treehuggers, by the way.
Also, if you read the article -really closely- (IE, with your eyes) you'll notice that the reasons they give have nothing to do with dogmatic beliefs.
You have fudged data from the last century or so and think you've got a model that shows anything whatsoever? This is not to say AGW proponents are right or wrong- just that they haven't the foggiest as they've not honestly done any science with the subject yet.
Sigh... citation needed.
A real citation too. Not just speculation, potential for bias, alleged scientific misconduct. Show me the proof that the entire field is "fudging the data". And when I say proof, I do not mean other researchers trash talking, I mean actual data of fudged data. Because I suspect you are fudging it more than they are.
There are tons of flaws in today's global warming models, which is obvious if you actually read the reports. Several scientists even admit they are inaccurate. Unfortunately, tons of urban hippies have hijacked the movement and turned it into the same old religious belief that seems to be ingrained in human being
I've not found the reports that I've read to be obviously flawed. "Several scientists" questioning something is also what scientists are supposed to do, and is not a sign that something is flawed. Several scientists, including some nobel prize winners, question the link between HIV and AIDS.
Hippies and environmental nutters are off topic at best. The number of idiots endorsing an idea says nothing about how good or bad that idea is. Whether global warming is or is not happening has nothing to do with how dogmatic their beliefs are, nor should distain for such people enter the question of whether we should do anything about it. It's kind of like how there are greedy bastards who are for smaller government and lower taxes. The fact that they're greedy and calling for cuts in government spending doesn't mean that cutting government spending is an inherently bad idea.
Because it's totally OK to shut up people who have a different religion than you do.
That's close to the opposite of what I was saying. Does the fact that you misinterpreted a 2 sentence post make you think that maybe you're wrong about OTHER things?
I'm guessing it ended up on slashdot because climate change deniers, like evolution deniers, throw a royal tantrum when they're "suppressed." Better to put their dribble up for public commentary, where it will take the beating it deserves.
Evolution is much more obvious than climate change. If he's a creationist, he's rejected overwhelming evidence in favor of his own beliefs. That does call into question his abilities to interpret data.
Very good skewering of all of those electricity-hating, pro-Chinese hippies I've never seen or heard of. If they are real, and are somehow reading that (maybe pedal-powered computers?) they must feel pretty stupid.
There is a fanatically liberal, pro-western slant to topics and opinions
Scientists are overwhelmingly liberal. 52% identify as liberal vs only 9% as conservative. That has also been my personal experience. I'm not sure what constitutes "fanatically liberal" in your opinion, but I run into far more commenters with conservative views here on slashdot that I do in the scientific community. If slashdot is "fanatically liberal" then information coming from scientists would have to be even more so.
I think you overestimate me. If someone scooped me when I set up said google alert, I would not have been one or two months behind, I would have been a year or more behind. Also, while the nobel-prize level stuff is important enough to publish independent confirmation in a high-ranking journal, I doubt publishers would be interested in publishing confirmation of my little obscure area of cell biology. I think I'd have an even harder time getting it published than I am now, and as it is, we're not talking about first or second tier journals in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
It does seem to be simple fear of technology (Child molestation? Meh, happens all the time. Wait WHAT?!? THE INTERNET WAS INVOLVED?!?! OH GOD!!!) but does make some sense by accident. People are bolder online than they are in real life, some pervs may start something online that they would be too scared to start face to face.
Moreover, in my experience, I was -never- alone with a teacher in school, I'm guessing school policies dictate that. Online it's just you and whoever you're talking to. If a teacher is going to make his or her move on a student, it won't be in school, and it won't be at the student's home, it will be via phone, e-mails, facebook, etc. Just the victim and the perv.
If he has been there and formed his opinions off of that, then no. Anyway, as a former Missouri resident, I'm okay with the "prejudice" if it exists. There's a reason you never hear "the great state of Missouri."
Even the state motto sucks. "The Show-me state?" Here's a new motto for ya: "At least we're not West Virginia."
and if you count up the thousands of Thomas Drakes in the government, well, if they had all been listened to for the past 10+ years, we could have saved a trillion dollars.
Maybe if they just hired fewer people named "Thomas Drake," or made them change their names. Thousands of people with the same name is going to get confusing in any organization...
Trolls of yesteryear were trying to provoke an angry reaction. While that was still pathetic, at least they seemed to have a goal in mind. And we liked it! We loved it! Gave you something to get your blood in a boil about if that's what you wanted, gave you someone to feel superior to if you didn't! "I may be a 22 year old virgin living in my mom's basement, but at least I'm not a 22 year old virgin living in my mom's basement and posting racist stuff online anonymously in a desperate attempt to feel like anyone takes any notice of my sad existence!!!"
Trolls these days seem to just be wasting electricity. And their computers are a lot more efficient than ours were, so they're not even doing THAT well.
But back to my point, which was: STAY OFF MY LAWN! And while you're at it, clean up that space launch crap you've got on yours.
It sounds like it's part of an immature back and forth between two buddhist twitter camps actually. The KPC it refers to is evidently the tara.org camp. I guess the other guys were saying mean things? I could be misinterpreting. The author there seems to think that obviously, everyone knows who is who in the American Buddhist twitter community.
Maybe they felt that Buddhism wasn't competing well in the "Religious loons online" contest, and they were worried scientology was going to take home the cup again this year.
After learning that corporations are people too, and have rights, and that money is speech, so restricting the amount of politicans that corporations can buy is unconstitutional, I'd say that anything can be made constitutional. All it requires is absurd interpretation of the constitution and/or reality.
Really bad at math, don't care about the math, or are -really- good at math.
That's a bit shrill. It's true that there will be resistance to you reproducing name brand products for free. If the technology gets there, manufacturing as an industry is going to face that change exactly as the RIAA and MPAA are, fighting it tooth and claw, and not caring about collateral damage.
Just as the RIAA and MPAA have not killed downloadable music or streaming movies, and publishers have not killed the internet as distribution for news, I doubt manufacturers are going to be able to kill 3D printers. Likely, the worst case scenario would be a mandatory registry for 3D printers, to make sure they're not being used to print out something that is copyright/patented/trademarked without paying a royalty.
Your willingness to spend other people's daily labors on things that have no bearing on reality - to enslave someone else for some portion of their waking hours
Wow, you're just full of hyperbole, aren't you?
I'd come up with a witty reply and say I was using Camino, except I'm pretty sure they just made it up.
Wiki tells me it's an alternative browser for Macs, but it seems like it would be heresy for a mac owner to imply that Safari did not meet their needs, and they'd be burned at the stake. Therefore it cannot possibly exist.
(posted via something other than Camino)
And, of course (as always happens), we now get the unctuous complaint about the rhetorical device as a way to avoid addressing the actual consequences of the position you're supporting.
Imagine that, imply that addressing climate change is similar to killing children and you fail to get a good discussion. How odd.
Hey man, both churches are out in full force, having been primed by the article yesterday.
This is easily the most volatile moderation I've seen. Be nice to make a graph of moderation points. Anyone know why all of a sudden I can't see the comment history on posts? It used to have things like "30% troll, 30% funny, 30% underrated" when I clicked on the score. Now it just brings up settings. Is there some way I can still see the proportion of mods, or see the actual numbers?
According to this it wasn't revoked by some authority for being ridiculous, it was pulled by Disney themselves after widespread public backlash. That won't happen in most cases. Also in the most problematic cases of large hollywood studios stealing the public domain, they won't be going up against the world's best military.
So, you're for killing all but one of each family's kids, right?
Could you guys stop with that tactic already? I know that taking a statement to the furthest extreme in order to make it sound stupid or immoral is a more effecitve and mature than comparing someone to Hitler, but only slightly so.
How about YOU cite a source where there is an actual hypothesis and repeatable experiment? How about YOU verify the accuracy and methodology of temperature measurements and estimates throughout Earth's history? How about YOU certify current temperature measurements?
I haven't made any accusations to back up with a citation.
The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER.
No part of that statement is in any way accurate.
Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
In skimming the wiki article on the medival warm period I came across a graph that made it look like the Earth had already warmed more than the medieval warm period. And another source pointed that out though I'm not sure how serious to take that website.
At any rate, you seem to be saying that "The weather being warm was good for Vikings hundreds of years ago" and taking that to imply that temperatures going up is always "beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole" which doesn't seem like a sound conclusion. It sounds like mild warming was better for a small subset of people who had to deal with ice more often than tropical diseases, flooding, or droughts.
how would you feel if I demanded that all governments around the world provide massive carbon *subsidies* because I believe that a warm world is a good world, and that CO2 helps warm the planet?
There's nothing really hypothetical about your scenario. That's the situation we have NOW. We're already producing a ton of carbon and doing little about it besides talking about reducing it. We're already getting artificially cheap gas thanks to government subsidies, so I don't see anything really changing.
So I feel that you're wrong and irresponsible. Wear a sweater if you feel the earth isn't warm enough.
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial
And naturally you just happen to think that government non-intervention is the completely correct position to take. My opinion on environmental matters is "Better safe than sorry."
The only people saying "We have to tax anyone heavily to fight global warming" are people who are opposed to doing anything about global warming. If you're opposed to legislative action, an effective tactic is to paint it in the most extreme terms possible, but doing so is pretty scummy and shameless. "You want to reform patent law? Well you're just going to do away with all patents and all products and we're going to be living in CAVES!!!"
Carbon taxes are necessarily going to be a part of the solution, yes, but the effect could and would be offset by tax breaks elsewhere. Hell, for some reason tax breaks are a part of the debt reduction plans, to think that businesses would fail miserably under a mountain of taxes because we're trying to reduce pollution is nonsense and not backed up by history.
Nice of you to speak up for those poor widdle corporations though against those big, mean treehuggers, by the way.
Also, if you read the article -really closely- (IE, with your eyes) you'll notice that the reasons they give have nothing to do with dogmatic beliefs.
You have fudged data from the last century or so and think you've got a model that shows anything whatsoever? This is not to say AGW proponents are right or wrong- just that they haven't the foggiest as they've not honestly done any science with the subject yet.
Sigh... citation needed.
A real citation too. Not just speculation, potential for bias, alleged scientific misconduct. Show me the proof that the entire field is "fudging the data". And when I say proof, I do not mean other researchers trash talking, I mean actual data of fudged data. Because I suspect you are fudging it more than they are.
There are tons of flaws in today's global warming models, which is obvious if you actually read the reports. Several scientists even admit they are inaccurate. Unfortunately, tons of urban hippies have hijacked the movement and turned it into the same old religious belief that seems to be ingrained in human being
I've not found the reports that I've read to be obviously flawed. "Several scientists" questioning something is also what scientists are supposed to do, and is not a sign that something is flawed. Several scientists, including some nobel prize winners, question the link between HIV and AIDS.
Hippies and environmental nutters are off topic at best. The number of idiots endorsing an idea says nothing about how good or bad that idea is. Whether global warming is or is not happening has nothing to do with how dogmatic their beliefs are, nor should distain for such people enter the question of whether we should do anything about it. It's kind of like how there are greedy bastards who are for smaller government and lower taxes. The fact that they're greedy and calling for cuts in government spending doesn't mean that cutting government spending is an inherently bad idea.
Because it's totally OK to shut up people who have a different religion than you do.
That's close to the opposite of what I was saying. Does the fact that you misinterpreted a 2 sentence post make you think that maybe you're wrong about OTHER things?
I'm guessing it ended up on slashdot because climate change deniers, like evolution deniers, throw a royal tantrum when they're "suppressed." Better to put their dribble up for public commentary, where it will take the beating it deserves.
Evolution is much more obvious than climate change. If he's a creationist, he's rejected overwhelming evidence in favor of his own beliefs. That does call into question his abilities to interpret data.
Very good skewering of all of those electricity-hating, pro-Chinese hippies I've never seen or heard of. If they are real, and are somehow reading that (maybe pedal-powered computers?) they must feel pretty stupid.
There is a fanatically liberal, pro-western slant to topics and opinions
Scientists are overwhelmingly liberal. 52% identify as liberal vs only 9% as conservative. That has also been my personal experience. I'm not sure what constitutes "fanatically liberal" in your opinion, but I run into far more commenters with conservative views here on slashdot that I do in the scientific community. If slashdot is "fanatically liberal" then information coming from scientists would have to be even more so.
I think you overestimate me. If someone scooped me when I set up said google alert, I would not have been one or two months behind, I would have been a year or more behind. Also, while the nobel-prize level stuff is important enough to publish independent confirmation in a high-ranking journal, I doubt publishers would be interested in publishing confirmation of my little obscure area of cell biology. I think I'd have an even harder time getting it published than I am now, and as it is, we're not talking about first or second tier journals in the first place.