Left and right only exist in extremes anymore. Both are religious zealots that don't allow anyone to have a diverging opinion lest they need to be fought tooth and nail until they submit or are eliminated from existence.
The sane people have left that arena a long time ago, we've gathered at the sidelines and watch them, hoping for mutual annihilation while munching popcorn.
If said blog has nothing to do with your employment and it's not that you mix private and "official" statements on your blog. It's fundamentally different if you make work related statements on that account, too.
For this? Nah. I have no idea who your employer is, and since you're responding to an AC, nobody would take it serious anyway.
I'd dare say it's different if you first identify yourself as a representative of your employer and respond with that sexist remark to someone who is a huge influence on your customer base. That might well cost you your job.
You see, if I posted here how awful the security of some company is, it wouldn't really affect me or my job. Because this account here has no connection whatsoever with my job.
If I now told you first of all that I'm the CISO of $big_security_research_company and that we do regular audits with $big_but_insecure_rubbish_company and post details about how horrible their whole IT security setup is, not only would I probably have lawsuits up the ass and beyond, I'd very likely also get fired before I've really hit that submit button.
If you want to represent your opinion, first of all make sure that it is very obvious that it's your opinion and by no means connected to your job in any way whatsoever. Else it WILL be taken as your professional opinion and you WILL deal with the consequences.
Don't get me wrong, but nothing short of Stalin deserves that you're relieved by his death. This was a game critic, nothing more. If you're relieved that a game critic dies... boy, your games must suck.
Care to inform me how to turn this to her advantage? Nobody with at least a shred of sanity would hire someone like that. If anything, I'd pay someone to find me a reason so I don't have to hire someone like her.
Say, how do you tell on the internet whether someone is a man or woman? Or, for that matter, an artificial intelligence chat bot. And no, not all racist assholes are AI chat bots, unfortunately. Unless they themselves bring it up, I don't really see (or, for that matter, care) whether they're male, female or whatever else there is now.
She wasn't the only one. Critics are rarely well liked, especially if the rip your product apart in their reviews. David Crooks of Bioware was a similar asshole.
Still, celebrating the death of a person should lead to your termination. At the very least your career termination.
The left was happy to gloat about the right having their religious fundamentalists nutjobs. You know, the kind that thinks that THEY alone are perpetually right because they have "seen the light" and now have to preach it to all humankind, and should someone DARE to disagree with them they make it their holy mission to burn that heretic with fire and brimstone, and slander and character assassination, if need be.
The gloating kinda stopped now that the left got their own religious fundy nutjobs.
Optimal is neither. We can actually survive in a wider range of climates than most other higher animals, in part because we can adjust our surroundings to our needs. But you will notice that neither Greenland nor Morocco are very highly populated. Mostly because the area cannot feed many humans. You'll find far more people in areas that are more agreeable to our needs, and more importantly, our food's needs. Changing this is most likely not going to end well. Morocco and Greenland are certainly more prone to becoming uninhabitable, depending on what direction the climate changes, than, say, Europe or the US, but it's also likely that living in what's now fertile areas becomes a lot harder and these areas become a lot less able to sustain the amount of people living there, while living in areas that already barely allow you to survive will become uninhabitable altogether, like the Sahara desert (or Antarctica).
however the measurement error is greater than the measurement. which real science would never accept as proof.
The models are getting better. Research isn't really ever over, what you do is refine your model with more and more accurate data you get. Takes time, I know, and most likely time we don't have, but some things you just can't rush.
that we have proof we cant predict the weather, climate we cant even prove we can measure? is that what you meant?
What I mean is that minute details are harder to predict than the grand scheme. I can't tell you how many people get killed in the US tomorrow, but I can tell you with some certainty how many will get killed within a year. Likewise, just because I can't tell you whether it's going to be 30 or 32 degrees tomorrow doesn't mean I can't say with some credibility that the average temperature is changing.
still here after a few billion years, what makes you so arrogant you think you can save it by not using a car. More likely Trump causes thermo nuclear war next week.
I can't rely on that, fickle as he is he probably changes his mind, and what then?
couple if ice ages and sea levels an average 10 meters higher than they are now barely a few thousand years ago.
True, and the coast lines have been WAY higher than that in the more distant past. Then again, nobody had beach houses back then, either.
Funny enough, it's exactly the other way around with us. Managers would love to send us home (and, if you promise not to tell the higher-ups, they let us routinely work from home as long as we can be around quickly in case one of the top echelons somehow materializes), but it's frowned upon by the top dogs.
Beats me why. I can see of course that team meetings and customer meetings you can't simply phone in, but for 99% of the rest of our work it matters little where we do it. And let's face it, hacking in your underwear is more comfy than doing it in jeans and shirt.
Answer me one question: Why do managers sit in their own office instead of the open office floor when it was in any way beneficial to the one subjected to it?
Research has shown that earth's climate isn't stable.
Correct. But also that human populations react quite drastically to changes, mostly due to whether our food can still grow.
Research can't show us what the proper climate should be.
Actually, it can. Or rather, it can show us what climate we as humans consider optimal.
Research cannot show us how much co2 and other gases affect the climate
Again, we can. We have records of CO2 levels through the ages and we also know what temperatures occurred in those times.
Research cannot even predict next day's weather.
Please, you don't have to be so blatant in your ignorance of the difference between climate and weather, we already pretty much assumed that much.
Earth is a sandbox. Everything will always be in balance. If you have a long period of high temps you'll have a period with low temps.
Now that's a great one. What makes you think that there is anything remotely resembling balance? Furthermore, yes, there have been periods when it was warmer on this planet. Unfortunately for us, those were periods when no humans had to survive on the planet.
Sometimes you get ice ages sometimes you get scorching periods with huge fauna and flora.
Again, I have no idea why you think the climate has to remain in some sort of bracket between X and Y, but you might want to ponder that during the times when it was actually warmer than today were no times when humans wanted to survive on this planet.
Oil, plastic, e.t.c. belong in the same bucket, in several thousands of years they will becone sone other material.
In several million years. Several thousand years is too short a time span to have any relevant effect on it. And oil, plastic etc. are not the problem. Actually, the very last thing you want is to burn that plastic and turn it into a much bigger problem.
The concern of many is whether we kill ourselves faster or not.
We probably will. When places become uninhabitable, we'll have quite a few people trying to survive on our hands. And, well, if my choice is only to kill you for your spot or die trying because I'll be dead anyway if I don't try...
Even if it will become 2 times hotter, the planet will cool down again, eventually and dinosaurs might come back again.
Again, I have no idea why you think that the planet must cool down again eventually, a runaway greenhouse effect is absolutely possible, though we'd probably have to really force it, but... you might well be right. Humans won't survive in much hotter climate, but there is absolutely no reason that other lifeforms cannot.
What's not to like about that? It means that tax money taken from the people to fund silly wars is wrong, and if you have to tax people in the first place, make sure that tax money is spent at home to further the progress of your own people.
Fact is that Eisenhower laid the foundation for the steady increase in prosperity for all people in the US that lasted until well into the 1970s. Only Reagan's completely insane bullshit in the 80s stopped this when tax laws were skewed to put the burden on the average man to let the rich get richer to silly proportions. What we need is to get back to tax laws of the 50s to regulate this back to saner levels.
Working must be the way to prosperity. If you have to be rich to become rich, the american dream is over and what you replaced it with is a money aristocracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Left and right only exist in extremes anymore. Both are religious zealots that don't allow anyone to have a diverging opinion lest they need to be fought tooth and nail until they submit or are eliminated from existence.
The sane people have left that arena a long time ago, we've gathered at the sidelines and watch them, hoping for mutual annihilation while munching popcorn.
Well, apparently the concept of branching dialogue needs to be explained. Because so far I haven't seen one implementation that doesn't suck.
Probably. I usually don't even look who I'm responding to, mostly because I don't care. I argue with an argument, not with the person behind it.
If said blog has nothing to do with your employment and it's not that you mix private and "official" statements on your blog. It's fundamentally different if you make work related statements on that account, too.
It's a bit like Trump's twitter account.
Would you consider "my girl" sexist, if coming from what's essentially a stranger?
How DARE you say there's something women can't do!
For this? Nah. I have no idea who your employer is, and since you're responding to an AC, nobody would take it serious anyway.
I'd dare say it's different if you first identify yourself as a representative of your employer and respond with that sexist remark to someone who is a huge influence on your customer base. That might well cost you your job.
That shit doesn't fly? I say it did, and hit the fan right in the middle.
You see, if I posted here how awful the security of some company is, it wouldn't really affect me or my job. Because this account here has no connection whatsoever with my job.
If I now told you first of all that I'm the CISO of $big_security_research_company and that we do regular audits with $big_but_insecure_rubbish_company and post details about how horrible their whole IT security setup is, not only would I probably have lawsuits up the ass and beyond, I'd very likely also get fired before I've really hit that submit button.
If you want to represent your opinion, first of all make sure that it is very obvious that it's your opinion and by no means connected to your job in any way whatsoever. Else it WILL be taken as your professional opinion and you WILL deal with the consequences.
Just outta curiosity: Does that apply to Trump to, and if not, why.
So she attacked not an actual business partner but someone who influences customers?
This is not really better, ya know...
Don't get me wrong, but nothing short of Stalin deserves that you're relieved by his death. This was a game critic, nothing more. If you're relieved that a game critic dies ... boy, your games must suck.
Care to inform me how to turn this to her advantage? Nobody with at least a shred of sanity would hire someone like that. If anything, I'd pay someone to find me a reason so I don't have to hire someone like her.
Say, how do you tell on the internet whether someone is a man or woman? Or, for that matter, an artificial intelligence chat bot. And no, not all racist assholes are AI chat bots, unfortunately. Unless they themselves bring it up, I don't really see (or, for that matter, care) whether they're male, female or whatever else there is now.
She wasn't the only one. Critics are rarely well liked, especially if the rip your product apart in their reviews. David Crooks of Bioware was a similar asshole.
Still, celebrating the death of a person should lead to your termination. At the very least your career termination.
Of course there is. Kindesqualproblemsvermeidungsgesetzesinitiativantrag. Which eventually led to the Kindesqualproblemsvermeidungsgesetz.
But it's not a long word, sorry.
The left was happy to gloat about the right having their religious fundamentalists nutjobs. You know, the kind that thinks that THEY alone are perpetually right because they have "seen the light" and now have to preach it to all humankind, and should someone DARE to disagree with them they make it their holy mission to burn that heretic with fire and brimstone, and slander and character assassination, if need be.
The gloating kinda stopped now that the left got their own religious fundy nutjobs.
So where is it, greenland or morroco?
Optimal is neither. We can actually survive in a wider range of climates than most other higher animals, in part because we can adjust our surroundings to our needs. But you will notice that neither Greenland nor Morocco are very highly populated. Mostly because the area cannot feed many humans. You'll find far more people in areas that are more agreeable to our needs, and more importantly, our food's needs. Changing this is most likely not going to end well. Morocco and Greenland are certainly more prone to becoming uninhabitable, depending on what direction the climate changes, than, say, Europe or the US, but it's also likely that living in what's now fertile areas becomes a lot harder and these areas become a lot less able to sustain the amount of people living there, while living in areas that already barely allow you to survive will become uninhabitable altogether, like the Sahara desert (or Antarctica).
however the measurement error is greater than the measurement. which real science would never accept as proof.
The models are getting better. Research isn't really ever over, what you do is refine your model with more and more accurate data you get. Takes time, I know, and most likely time we don't have, but some things you just can't rush.
that we have proof we cant predict the weather, climate we cant even prove we can measure? is that what you meant?
What I mean is that minute details are harder to predict than the grand scheme. I can't tell you how many people get killed in the US tomorrow, but I can tell you with some certainty how many will get killed within a year. Likewise, just because I can't tell you whether it's going to be 30 or 32 degrees tomorrow doesn't mean I can't say with some credibility that the average temperature is changing.
still here after a few billion years, what makes you so arrogant you think you can save it by not using a car. More likely Trump causes thermo nuclear war next week.
I can't rely on that, fickle as he is he probably changes his mind, and what then?
couple if ice ages and sea levels an average 10 meters higher than they are now barely a few thousand years ago.
True, and the coast lines have been WAY higher than that in the more distant past. Then again, nobody had beach houses back then, either.
What, no computer?
Ok, who left the door open and let the middle manager in? I clearly said to shut the door to keep the vermin out!
Funny enough, it's exactly the other way around with us. Managers would love to send us home (and, if you promise not to tell the higher-ups, they let us routinely work from home as long as we can be around quickly in case one of the top echelons somehow materializes), but it's frowned upon by the top dogs.
Beats me why. I can see of course that team meetings and customer meetings you can't simply phone in, but for 99% of the rest of our work it matters little where we do it. And let's face it, hacking in your underwear is more comfy than doing it in jeans and shirt.
Answer me one question: Why do managers sit in their own office instead of the open office floor when it was in any way beneficial to the one subjected to it?
Well, yes, they put the sensors right outside the White House, oblivious to the effect all the hot air produced there would have.
Research has shown that earth's climate isn't stable.
Correct. But also that human populations react quite drastically to changes, mostly due to whether our food can still grow.
Research can't show us what the proper climate should be.
Actually, it can. Or rather, it can show us what climate we as humans consider optimal.
Research cannot show us how much co2 and other gases affect the climate
Again, we can. We have records of CO2 levels through the ages and we also know what temperatures occurred in those times.
Research cannot even predict next day's weather.
Please, you don't have to be so blatant in your ignorance of the difference between climate and weather, we already pretty much assumed that much.
Earth is a sandbox. Everything will always be in balance. If you have a long period of high temps you'll have a period with low temps.
Now that's a great one. What makes you think that there is anything remotely resembling balance? Furthermore, yes, there have been periods when it was warmer on this planet. Unfortunately for us, those were periods when no humans had to survive on the planet.
Sometimes you get ice ages sometimes you get scorching periods with huge fauna and flora.
Again, I have no idea why you think the climate has to remain in some sort of bracket between X and Y, but you might want to ponder that during the times when it was actually warmer than today were no times when humans wanted to survive on this planet.
Oil, plastic, e.t.c. belong in the same bucket, in several thousands of years they will becone sone other material.
In several million years. Several thousand years is too short a time span to have any relevant effect on it. And oil, plastic etc. are not the problem. Actually, the very last thing you want is to burn that plastic and turn it into a much bigger problem.
The concern of many is whether we kill ourselves faster or not.
We probably will. When places become uninhabitable, we'll have quite a few people trying to survive on our hands. And, well, if my choice is only to kill you for your spot or die trying because I'll be dead anyway if I don't try...
Even if it will become 2 times hotter, the planet will cool down again, eventually and dinosaurs might come back again.
Again, I have no idea why you think that the planet must cool down again eventually, a runaway greenhouse effect is absolutely possible, though we'd probably have to really force it, but ... you might well be right. Humans won't survive in much hotter climate, but there is absolutely no reason that other lifeforms cannot.
What's not to like about that? It means that tax money taken from the people to fund silly wars is wrong, and if you have to tax people in the first place, make sure that tax money is spent at home to further the progress of your own people.
Fact is that Eisenhower laid the foundation for the steady increase in prosperity for all people in the US that lasted until well into the 1970s. Only Reagan's completely insane bullshit in the 80s stopped this when tax laws were skewed to put the burden on the average man to let the rich get richer to silly proportions. What we need is to get back to tax laws of the 50s to regulate this back to saner levels.
Working must be the way to prosperity. If you have to be rich to become rich, the american dream is over and what you replaced it with is a money aristocracy.
And how are we going to know whether the US still has a president without it?