Why don't you do that? Because you're not a fool doing your job like a dancing clown on a stage, but rather to get the work done with your colleagues?
Anyone who thinks climate scientists aren't reliable as a result of the shitstorm over the totally non-issue emails isn't going to start thinking they're reliable for any reason whatsoever. They're going to keep seeing Fox Lies tell them they're unreliable, and repeat that to their friends.
Since they are the ones who actually know they're right, and deniers like you don't even have a legitimate basis on which to deny they're right, of course they're firmly convinced that they're right. They're not just guessing; they are smart people spending a lot of time figuring out what's right. Scientists like being right.
They also think that people who question their science without legitimate basis are either evil or complete fools. Because they are. Show me an example of one of these scientists considering evil or a complete fool another climate scientist who dares question their work.
Scientists aren't supposed to be either saints who suffer fools gladly, or indecisive people who never know when they're right or value the work to be right. No, it's precisely the opposite.
The fact that you're a denier and can't see those obvious facts about scientists are surely related.
They'd also get lots of nuclear's problems. Like the waste, the pollution from making the fuel, the huge costs, the uninsurable risks (that the public pays for). All for an expensive, dirty, dangerous industry.
The fact is that we have much better solutions. Solar and wind already are starting to cost the same as nukes, even as nukes keep their subsidies. That's why people are looking to sustainable replacements, instead of another bad one.
Not at all. Saying some rude words in disagreement doesn't make your argument irrational. What they said was completely rational.
Your post, though, does demonstrate that deniers like you are irrational. You claim that that post is as irrational as the ones that can't claim evidence or expertise, that invoke the dumbest fallacies, that are far ruder - an irrational claim. And, since it's so insulting to call someone rational irrational, it's just as rude as the words in the post you replied to. Except that post's words are earned by who they're directed to. Your post's rudeness was undeserved.
You think climate scientists appreciate that person not speaking for them? I'd say they wouldn't appreciate you speaking for them.
Only a very few people have rejected the IPCC assessment. They're practically all not climate scientists. There's over 97% agreement with the IPCC report. The report is detailed, in which climate scientists have a pretty damn good idea of how the Earth reacts to these changes over time.
If you did more than 10 minutes googling you might know what you're talking about. Instead it's obvious that you don't care to know. You just want to post anonymous lies about climate science.
The emails don't show what you said. You just want them to show that.
The emails show competitive professionals who have the same kinds of human flaws in any line of work. Yet they do have the integrity to produce science that is reliable.
Even if what you said were true about their conduct, it would only show that the scientific method, the scientific community and science are exactly the opposite of what you said about the institution: the reliable science is fundamentally strong.
You and the deniers, though, are extremely counterproductive.
Showing just how hard it is to pervert the science. Not all scientists have the integrity of the BEST researchers. But even their science was rejected by the deniers. Deniers who are also funded by the Koch brothers.
Just because two evil brothers aren't all-powerful doesn't mean they're not evil and powerful.
To the degree that scientists actually aren't open, it's explainable by a few non-paranoid things:
1. Climate change deniers intimidate scientists. Most scientists aren't very brave, and aren't interested in conflict, especially with the kind of morons they watched punch nerds in high school.
2. Until they publish, scientists don't want to start rumors or make unsupported conclusions.
3. Scientists want credit for their best work, when they release it.
#2 and 3 are common to all science. Science is a balance between cooperation and competition. Especially more recently, with the commercialization of science, many scientists collaborate only more directly, until they actually publish and get credit they can claim.
You said yourself the emails showed no corruption of the science. That is the only potential interest of those emails. The rest is just the way that science is actually done, by actual people who are actually scientists. You want it different, do something to protect them from the costs and risks of sharing too much too soon. I'd like it, but I don't expect it.
There is none. You are not only a brainwashed ideological climate change denier, you are a denial projector, calling other people exactly what you yourself are.
So oil companies are paying for research that makes stuff up to force oil companies to pay higher taxes and leave dirty oil in the ground. Right.
It couldn't possibly be that oil companies are forced to help pay for climate science in public to greenwash their polluting image, while quietly paying much more for fake science that creates deniers like you. Nah.
Well, the self-selection problem means that PPCs worse in perf:W could be explained by Jobs' prophecy becoming self fulfilling, as you say. If PPC beat Intel over the next 3-5 years, though, that would show Jobs was wrong.
But your anandtech article does show Intel beating PPC in the very next generation. However, while h.264 encoding is in fact a good test for a lot of Mac users, I'm not sure it's a good test overall, as usually even Mac users are doing exactly what most Windows users are doing, which isn't media encoding.
There are lots of PPCs released after Mac switched to Intel. The one I'd compare would be a Cell, which is a PPC with up to 8 working DSPs that do h.264 type work, probably more efficiently than x86 cores do. Yes, Cell was optimized for machines without the power constraints of mobiles, but if there's any evidence a PPC architecture would have satisfied Jobs' perf:W requirements then I'm interested to know the real reasons. Or just that Steve was wrong, if he was.
Are there any trailers that can split into front and back towed halves, that can be parked side by side (with facing sides flipped up into a roof), for a 25x30' living space? Give me one of those powered by fuelcell into electric motorized wheels, and split the cab into a little electric commuter, and I might go fulltime, too.
No, I totally agree with you. Including your scorn for "worker drones" who think all who wander are lost.
I'm perfectly OK with even more Americans spending more time out among nature. That's why I'm happy to pay for our public parks with my taxes.
My point was rather more subtle: the demographics of people who permanently occupy the public parks that I pay to maintain are rather more likely to have people who complain about their fellow Americans getting "free rides". If it keeps them out of trouble, I'm willing to pay for it - they're not.
I'm also interested in getting people to think more about the value of these public places, and ways for more of us to use them (without using them up).
I didn't say it's a problem worth solving. In fact, I'm perfectly OK with even more Americans spending more time out among nature. That's why I'm happy to pay for our public parks with my taxes.
My point was rather more subtle: the demographics of people who permanently occupy the public parks that I pay to maintain are rather more likely to have people who complain about their fellow Americans getting "free rides". If it keeps them out of trouble, I'm willing to pay for it - they're not.
Private businesses offering access to the public (as opposed to private membership or individual invitation) don't have complete power to deny access to classes of people, as dead Jim Crow would tell you. It will be interesting to see whether a court can rule that publicly accessible private spaces are required to allow access to people regardless of with whom they associate. What state are you in? I haven't seen any other reports of this.
The zipcodes are already set, and have an accepted basis for setting them. Gerrymandering zipcodes would be a lot more obvious than gerrymandering districts, which makes it harder. But of course ultimately any basis for districting can be gerrymandered, if the people don't pay attention. Zipcodes are easier to pay attention to.
The main advantage to zipcodes is that they're small in population, and lots of their population sees each other at the post office, parks, and other, private places in the area. Zipcodes are actually a lot more like the original US Congressional districts, with average population of 30,000, which is about the largest group of people that any American can really relate to directly (a large auditorium or medium arena). Everyone notices when their zipcode changes, and can relate to the other people in their zipcode. Plus there's a government office everyone understands in practically every zipcode, where people can vote, and where they can file their taxes, etc.
"Let the free market decide" our rights is currently the most discredited argument for anything. The free market, as we can see everywhere it's not regulated to protect rights, merely abuses the rights of at least some people to exploit them. And you can tell a business what it can't do with its product: it can't sell recycled asbestos in baby food, for example.
We have the right to freely travel, even if not necessarily using any specific travel technology - which would limit that right to the modes specified. So roads in 1790, railroads in 1890, airplanes in 1990, and spaceliners in 2090. Internet in 2011, and "psychic friends network" or something in 2111.
It's true that the right to "Internet access" is not really the right in question. It's the right to free press (not exactly speech), that currently in the Constitution doesn't make clear that the people have the right to consume the press freely.
A Constitutional amendment might be necessary. Just as the 4th Amendment clear definition of the right to privacy as "secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" doesn't force the government to protect our privacy instead of invading it, the 1st Amendment doesn't force the government to protect our speech and press freedoms. (In fact it has never protected our religious freedoms, since it's been turned on its head making Congress respect establishments of religion in tax exemptions while requiring them to operate their establishments in ways exempted from free speech and press exemptions.) The Constitution that creates the only powers our government legitimately holds needs amendments clarifying our rights in modern language that lawyers don't find so easy to pervert.
One amendment would simply state that Congress shall protect the right to freedom of religion, making no law that includes distinctions on the basis of religion, and protects the rights to freedom of the press and of speech by making no law that infringes on them without due process. Another amendment would simply state that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects is the right to privacy. Might as well go the next step in stating that the right to keep and bear arms necessary to supplying a militia that defends a free state is protected from infringement by law. All these clarifications make the Constitution direct the government to actually protect our freedoms, rather than allow weasel words (and weasel lawyers) to get the government to abuse our freedoms.
We need another amendment that states that a person is only any individual human who can understand these rights. That eliminates the corporate "person", and even the related fetal "person" that some people have used get the government to increasingly deprive real people our rights. In fact, if we passed that amendment first, the others might not be necessary.
Actually, this is freedom of the press more than freedom of speech. "Press" is tech enhanced speech, which has been clearly different from speech since the 1700s when the 1st Amendment was created and agreed. Press freedom clearly includes the right of the people to read what's "printed" by the press; otherwise the freedom of the "printers" is meaningless.
A Constitutional amendment might still be necessary, though. Just as the 4th Amendment clear definition of the right to privacy as "secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" doesn't force the government to protect our privacy instead of invading it, the 1st Amendment doesn't force the government to protect our speech and press freedoms. (In fact it has never protected our religious freedoms, since it's been turned on its head making Congress respect establishments of religion in tax exemptions while requiring them to operate their establishments in ways exempted from free speech and press exemptions.) The Constitution that creates the only powers our government legitimately holds needs amendments clarifying our rights in modern language that lawyers don't find so easy to pervert.
One amendment would simply state that Congress shall protect the right to freedom of religion, making no law that includes distinctions on the basis of religion, and protects the rights to freedom of the press and of speech by making no law that infringes on them without due process. Another amendment would simply state that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects is the right to privacy. Might as well go the next step in stating that the right to keep and bear arms necessary to supplying a militia that defends a free state is protected from infringement by law. All these clarifications make the Constitution direct the government to actually protect our freedoms, rather than allow weasel words (and weasel lawyers) to get the government to abuse our freedoms.
We need another amendment that states that a person is only any individual human who can understand these rights. That eliminates the corporate "person", and even the related fetal "person" that some people have used get the government to increasingly deprive real people our rights. In fact, if we passed that amendment first, the others might not be necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
You're disputing the results.
You're a liar.
They should publish all of their emails?
Why don't you do that? Because you're not a fool doing your job like a dancing clown on a stage, but rather to get the work done with your colleagues?
Anyone who thinks climate scientists aren't reliable as a result of the shitstorm over the totally non-issue emails isn't going to start thinking they're reliable for any reason whatsoever. They're going to keep seeing Fox Lies tell them they're unreliable, and repeat that to their friends.
Since they are the ones who actually know they're right, and deniers like you don't even have a legitimate basis on which to deny they're right, of course they're firmly convinced that they're right. They're not just guessing; they are smart people spending a lot of time figuring out what's right. Scientists like being right.
They also think that people who question their science without legitimate basis are either evil or complete fools. Because they are. Show me an example of one of these scientists considering evil or a complete fool another climate scientist who dares question their work.
Scientists aren't supposed to be either saints who suffer fools gladly, or indecisive people who never know when they're right or value the work to be right. No, it's precisely the opposite.
The fact that you're a denier and can't see those obvious facts about scientists are surely related.
They'd also get lots of nuclear's problems. Like the waste, the pollution from making the fuel, the huge costs, the uninsurable risks (that the public pays for). All for an expensive, dirty, dangerous industry.
The fact is that we have much better solutions. Solar and wind already are starting to cost the same as nukes, even as nukes keep their subsidies. That's why people are looking to sustainable replacements, instead of another bad one.
Not at all. Saying some rude words in disagreement doesn't make your argument irrational. What they said was completely rational.
Your post, though, does demonstrate that deniers like you are irrational. You claim that that post is as irrational as the ones that can't claim evidence or expertise, that invoke the dumbest fallacies, that are far ruder - an irrational claim. And, since it's so insulting to call someone rational irrational, it's just as rude as the words in the post you replied to. Except that post's words are earned by who they're directed to. Your post's rudeness was undeserved.
You think climate scientists appreciate that person not speaking for them? I'd say they wouldn't appreciate you speaking for them.
Only a very few people have rejected the IPCC assessment. They're practically all not climate scientists. There's over 97% agreement with the IPCC report. The report is detailed, in which climate scientists have a pretty damn good idea of how the Earth reacts to these changes over time.
If you did more than 10 minutes googling you might know what you're talking about. Instead it's obvious that you don't care to know. You just want to post anonymous lies about climate science.
The emails don't show what you said. You just want them to show that.
The emails show competitive professionals who have the same kinds of human flaws in any line of work. Yet they do have the integrity to produce science that is reliable.
Even if what you said were true about their conduct, it would only show that the scientific method, the scientific community and science are exactly the opposite of what you said about the institution: the reliable science is fundamentally strong.
You and the deniers, though, are extremely counterproductive.
Showing just how hard it is to pervert the science. Not all scientists have the integrity of the BEST researchers. But even their science was rejected by the deniers. Deniers who are also funded by the Koch brothers.
Just because two evil brothers aren't all-powerful doesn't mean they're not evil and powerful.
To the degree that scientists actually aren't open, it's explainable by a few non-paranoid things:
1. Climate change deniers intimidate scientists. Most scientists aren't very brave, and aren't interested in conflict, especially with the kind of morons they watched punch nerds in high school.
2. Until they publish, scientists don't want to start rumors or make unsupported conclusions.
3. Scientists want credit for their best work, when they release it.
#2 and 3 are common to all science. Science is a balance between cooperation and competition. Especially more recently, with the commercialization of science, many scientists collaborate only more directly, until they actually publish and get credit they can claim.
You said yourself the emails showed no corruption of the science. That is the only potential interest of those emails. The rest is just the way that science is actually done, by actual people who are actually scientists. You want it different, do something to protect them from the costs and risks of sharing too much too soon. I'd like it, but I don't expect it.
What dirt? Link to some real dirt.
There is none. You are not only a brainwashed ideological climate change denier, you are a denial projector, calling other people exactly what you yourself are.
So oil companies are paying for research that makes stuff up to force oil companies to pay higher taxes and leave dirty oil in the ground. Right.
It couldn't possibly be that oil companies are forced to help pay for climate science in public to greenwash their polluting image, while quietly paying much more for fake science that creates deniers like you. Nah.
Climate scientists don't make much money.
Lying climate change deniers like the Koch brothers and many thousands of their other petrofuel and polluter cronies do make millions.
You are a lying fool.
If you're a liar it's what you ask for.
Even wrong and invalid info is still info.
Well, the self-selection problem means that PPCs worse in perf:W could be explained by Jobs' prophecy becoming self fulfilling, as you say. If PPC beat Intel over the next 3-5 years, though, that would show Jobs was wrong.
But your anandtech article does show Intel beating PPC in the very next generation. However, while h.264 encoding is in fact a good test for a lot of Mac users, I'm not sure it's a good test overall, as usually even Mac users are doing exactly what most Windows users are doing, which isn't media encoding.
There are lots of PPCs released after Mac switched to Intel. The one I'd compare would be a Cell, which is a PPC with up to 8 working DSPs that do h.264 type work, probably more efficiently than x86 cores do. Yes, Cell was optimized for machines without the power constraints of mobiles, but if there's any evidence a PPC architecture would have satisfied Jobs' perf:W requirements then I'm interested to know the real reasons. Or just that Steve was wrong, if he was.
Are there any trailers that can split into front and back towed halves, that can be parked side by side (with facing sides flipped up into a roof), for a 25x30' living space? Give me one of those powered by fuelcell into electric motorized wheels, and split the cab into a little electric commuter, and I might go fulltime, too.
No, I totally agree with you. Including your scorn for "worker drones" who think all who wander are lost.
I'm perfectly OK with even more Americans spending more time out among nature. That's why I'm happy to pay for our public parks with my taxes.
My point was rather more subtle: the demographics of people who permanently occupy the public parks that I pay to maintain are rather more likely to have people who complain about their fellow Americans getting "free rides". If it keeps them out of trouble, I'm willing to pay for it - they're not.
I'm also interested in getting people to think more about the value of these public places, and ways for more of us to use them (without using them up).
I didn't say it's a problem worth solving. In fact, I'm perfectly OK with even more Americans spending more time out among nature. That's why I'm happy to pay for our public parks with my taxes.
My point was rather more subtle: the demographics of people who permanently occupy the public parks that I pay to maintain are rather more likely to have people who complain about their fellow Americans getting "free rides". If it keeps them out of trouble, I'm willing to pay for it - they're not.
Private businesses offering access to the public (as opposed to private membership or individual invitation) don't have complete power to deny access to classes of people, as dead Jim Crow would tell you. It will be interesting to see whether a court can rule that publicly accessible private spaces are required to allow access to people regardless of with whom they associate. What state are you in? I haven't seen any other reports of this.
The zipcodes are already set, and have an accepted basis for setting them. Gerrymandering zipcodes would be a lot more obvious than gerrymandering districts, which makes it harder. But of course ultimately any basis for districting can be gerrymandered, if the people don't pay attention. Zipcodes are easier to pay attention to.
The main advantage to zipcodes is that they're small in population, and lots of their population sees each other at the post office, parks, and other, private places in the area. Zipcodes are actually a lot more like the original US Congressional districts, with average population of 30,000, which is about the largest group of people that any American can really relate to directly (a large auditorium or medium arena). Everyone notices when their zipcode changes, and can relate to the other people in their zipcode. Plus there's a government office everyone understands in practically every zipcode, where people can vote, and where they can file their taxes, etc.
You have the right to make a phone call.
"Let the free market decide" our rights is currently the most discredited argument for anything. The free market, as we can see everywhere it's not regulated to protect rights, merely abuses the rights of at least some people to exploit them. And you can tell a business what it can't do with its product: it can't sell recycled asbestos in baby food, for example.
Like a lawyer?
We have the right to freely travel, even if not necessarily using any specific travel technology - which would limit that right to the modes specified. So roads in 1790, railroads in 1890, airplanes in 1990, and spaceliners in 2090. Internet in 2011, and "psychic friends network" or something in 2111.
It's true that the right to "Internet access" is not really the right in question. It's the right to free press (not exactly speech), that currently in the Constitution doesn't make clear that the people have the right to consume the press freely.
A Constitutional amendment might be necessary. Just as the 4th Amendment clear definition of the right to privacy as "secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" doesn't force the government to protect our privacy instead of invading it, the 1st Amendment doesn't force the government to protect our speech and press freedoms. (In fact it has never protected our religious freedoms, since it's been turned on its head making Congress respect establishments of religion in tax exemptions while requiring them to operate their establishments in ways exempted from free speech and press exemptions.) The Constitution that creates the only powers our government legitimately holds needs amendments clarifying our rights in modern language that lawyers don't find so easy to pervert.
One amendment would simply state that Congress shall protect the right to freedom of religion, making no law that includes distinctions on the basis of religion, and protects the rights to freedom of the press and of speech by making no law that infringes on them without due process. Another amendment would simply state that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects is the right to privacy. Might as well go the next step in stating that the right to keep and bear arms necessary to supplying a militia that defends a free state is protected from infringement by law. All these clarifications make the Constitution direct the government to actually protect our freedoms, rather than allow weasel words (and weasel lawyers) to get the government to abuse our freedoms.
We need another amendment that states that a person is only any individual human who can understand these rights. That eliminates the corporate "person", and even the related fetal "person" that some people have used get the government to increasingly deprive real people our rights. In fact, if we passed that amendment first, the others might not be necessary.
Actually, this is freedom of the press more than freedom of speech. "Press" is tech enhanced speech, which has been clearly different from speech since the 1700s when the 1st Amendment was created and agreed. Press freedom clearly includes the right of the people to read what's "printed" by the press; otherwise the freedom of the "printers" is meaningless.
A Constitutional amendment might still be necessary, though. Just as the 4th Amendment clear definition of the right to privacy as "secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" doesn't force the government to protect our privacy instead of invading it, the 1st Amendment doesn't force the government to protect our speech and press freedoms. (In fact it has never protected our religious freedoms, since it's been turned on its head making Congress respect establishments of religion in tax exemptions while requiring them to operate their establishments in ways exempted from free speech and press exemptions.) The Constitution that creates the only powers our government legitimately holds needs amendments clarifying our rights in modern language that lawyers don't find so easy to pervert.
One amendment would simply state that Congress shall protect the right to freedom of religion, making no law that includes distinctions on the basis of religion, and protects the rights to freedom of the press and of speech by making no law that infringes on them without due process. Another amendment would simply state that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects is the right to privacy. Might as well go the next step in stating that the right to keep and bear arms necessary to supplying a militia that defends a free state is protected from infringement by law. All these clarifications make the Constitution direct the government to actually protect our freedoms, rather than allow weasel words (and weasel lawyers) to get the government to abuse our freedoms.
We need another amendment that states that a person is only any individual human who can understand these rights. That eliminates the corporate "person", and even the related fetal "person" that some people have used get the government to increasingly deprive real people our rights. In fact, if we passed that amendment first, the others might not be necessary.
Politicians agreeing that voters don't know how to pick politicians is the most powerful truism of all.