They even have an article on Examples of Bias in Wikipedia to prove it. It's their 9th most viewed page. Because proof for Conservapedia whatever they pull out of their asses.
Their second most viewed page is THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA. See the full list. It's unusual that only one of their top ten is about homosexuality. In the past as many as seven of the top ten most viewed pages have been about it.
Actually no. I figured out that smart people are harder to treat for emotional disorders long long before I knew anything about AGW. And I had a fear of flying long before 9/11. Anyway, I don't think stupid people like being teabagged by arrogant TSA agents either. A dog knows when it's being treated badly.
Smarter people are better at justifying their own ignorance. Unless they have critical thinking skills they are better able to cherry pick and fit whatever information they find to support their views rather than derive their views from the big picture. I've met some very smart people who believe weird shit. I myself know that flying commercially is safe, but the monkey in brain is going we're all going to die! and mull over a million different ways a plane could crash.
Anyway, skimming the paper lends neither support for nor contradicts the evidence that humans have caused and are causing the climate to change. It only addresses the likely belief systems of people in their peer groups and how that information can be used to communicate effectively with those groups:
For the ordinary individual, the most consequential effect of his beliefs about climate change is likely to be on his relations with his peers. A hierarchical individualist who expresses anxiety about climate change might well be shunned by his co-workers at an oil refinery in Oklahoma City. A similar fate will probably befall the egalitarian communitarian English professor who reveals to colleagues in Boston that she thinks the scientific consensus on climate change is a hoax.
Short answer. Science fiction you see on televisions is called Sci-Fi because it is less rigorous than written science fiction. Star Trek and Serenity are Sci-Fi. The Mote in God's Eye and A Canticle for Liebowitz are science fiction.
Anyway, I listened to the piece. At the end she said it would work in fiction. They do discuss the downside of chipping everyone. I guess the question is, do the benefits outweigh the risks? There are benefits, but the dangers posed by chipping are far greater. There would be no anonymity for the most powerful and spies. The apparatus of power would want the 99% chipped, but not themselves, the 1%. We already live in a police state. If your name gets put on a no fly list, you are screwed. There is no appeal even when the government fucks up. The technology is getting so we don't need to be chipped.
If you know anything about Elizabeth and her politics she is anything but a totalitarian. But as usual slashdot distorts and commenters blather on what they know jack shit about.
And yes there are places you can take your burned out CFLs to dispose of the mercury in them safely. The CFLs are supposed to last 5-7 years, and I'm sure by that time (assuming civilization hasn't collapsed to Mad Max scenario) LEDs will have come down in price.
Lunacy on stilts. (Oh, and let me add, the residents don't get any choice over having missiles billeted on top of their homes.)
If one of those things is ever fired, either in anger or by accident, it'll shower white-hot supersonic shrapnel across the extremely crowded residential heart of a city.
No attempt at humor. I'm not going to be offended by you calling me willfully ignorant, because I didn't give you enough information. I've just noticed there seems to be an editorial bias on slashdot towards stories that deny anthropogenic global warming. I'd seen the science paper retraction story on another site. It is indeed disturbing, but it does show that the process of science still works. If those bad papers weren't being retracted then we'd be in a much worse situation. As soon as I saw the globalwarming tag, I knew the asshats who put them there were still trying to cast doubt on that humans were changing the climate. I'm not seeing anything in the article about retractions of papers on global warming, or rather about the study of ice cores, of tree rings, of sediment cores, of analysis of weather records over time--all the disciplines that are studied to form a picture of our climate and to predict what is happening.
The rise in retractions seems to have almost become exponential over the past 6 years. That we knew and had predicted humans were causing climate change by increasing the warming of the climate was pretty well understood by the late 1980's. In fact many of the predictions have been born out since then. We aren't seeing retractions of papers from the 1980's, but the late 2000's.
Anyway, here is an excellent resource called The Discovery of Global Warming (See the timeline: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm). It's also a book. I hope that clarifies where I stand on the issue and why I called them asshats. Because only an asshat would try to make a connection. And I'm still waiting for that list of retracted papers about global warming.
I thought it was bad enough there were global warming denialists running slashdot, but now antivaxxers. The people running this site should know better than to feed these trolls. What has this become? The last refuge of semi tech-literate libertarian nutjobs?
the cost of LED lighting will have come down. The Chinese will have done what they did to the solar cell market and flood the market with cheap LED bulbs. Anyway, you people do know there are energy efficient incandescent bulbs. They're not as efficient as LED or CFL bulbs but use about I think about 70% the energy a regular bulb does. I'm using those where I can't use CFL or LEDs.
There is no such thing as an 'extreme position' on carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The Earth would be a colder without it. Without any atmosphere the Earth's surface would be frozen. It is the thousands of years of empirical data that shows unequivocally that humans have changed and are changing the climate. Humans have pumped tens of millions of years of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere in a little over two centuries. It means that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the oceans. Not only is the climate getting warmer our oceans are acidifying.
For those who don't wish to remain willfully ignorant as some slashdotters seem to want to, here's an excellent resource that discuss the 100+ years worth of science of the study of global warming and the climate: The Discovery of Global Warming.
how the Moon was formed. It is not the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis. It is called the Giant Impact Hypothesis and that's what it is an hypothesis, not a theory. It doesn't cast any doubt on the Moon's origins. It is a strike against the GIH. It just means that scientists have to come up with a new idea of how it was formed. Now this isotopic analysis will help to formulate a new hypothesis and even theory about the Moon's origin.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's hope the Chinese don't clone Hitler too.
and Comic Sans, or if you are feeling sophisticated use Papyrus.
Daily Kos is biased too, but as a rule their writers are much much better informed.
They even have an article on Examples of Bias in Wikipedia to prove it. It's their 9th most viewed page. Because proof for Conservapedia whatever they pull out of their asses.
Their second most viewed page is THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA. See the full list. It's unusual that only one of their top ten is about homosexuality. In the past as many as seven of the top ten most viewed pages have been about it.
Actually no. I figured out that smart people are harder to treat for emotional disorders long long before I knew anything about AGW. And I had a fear of flying long before 9/11. Anyway, I don't think stupid people like being teabagged by arrogant TSA agents either. A dog knows when it's being treated badly.
Anyway, skimming the paper lends neither support for nor contradicts the evidence that humans have caused and are causing the climate to change. It only addresses the likely belief systems of people in their peer groups and how that information can be used to communicate effectively with those groups:
Short answer. Science fiction you see on televisions is called Sci-Fi because it is less rigorous than written science fiction. Star Trek and Serenity are Sci-Fi. The Mote in God's Eye and A Canticle for Liebowitz are science fiction.
NOT a sci-fi writer.
Anyway, I listened to the piece. At the end she said it would work in fiction. They do discuss the downside of chipping everyone. I guess the question is, do the benefits outweigh the risks? There are benefits, but the dangers posed by chipping are far greater. There would be no anonymity for the most powerful and spies. The apparatus of power would want the 99% chipped, but not themselves, the 1%. We already live in a police state. If your name gets put on a no fly list, you are screwed. There is no appeal even when the government fucks up. The technology is getting so we don't need to be chipped.
If you know anything about Elizabeth and her politics she is anything but a totalitarian. But as usual slashdot distorts and commenters blather on what they know jack shit about.
If they get enough people like Massie in the Tea Party, they might bring up the average IQ into triple digits.
I was so hoping Ron Paul would cause Mitt Romney as much trouble as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum combined.
head into the bed of each member of the patent mafia. Just license the technology and I'll make them an offer they can't refuse.
And yes there are places you can take your burned out CFLs to dispose of the mercury in them safely. The CFLs are supposed to last 5-7 years, and I'm sure by that time (assuming civilization hasn't collapsed to Mad Max scenario) LEDs will have come down in price.
the shit by posting this article. What are you a sophomore high school tabloid? Why, yes. As a matter of fact you are.
But it is "security theater."
Handedness is genetic. There are plenty of stories of people trying to beat their children out of being left-handed.
I think "You have been Björked" will now enter the Android lexicon.
No attempt at humor. I'm not going to be offended by you calling me willfully ignorant, because I didn't give you enough information. I've just noticed there seems to be an editorial bias on slashdot towards stories that deny anthropogenic global warming. I'd seen the science paper retraction story on another site. It is indeed disturbing, but it does show that the process of science still works. If those bad papers weren't being retracted then we'd be in a much worse situation. As soon as I saw the globalwarming tag, I knew the asshats who put them there were still trying to cast doubt on that humans were changing the climate. I'm not seeing anything in the article about retractions of papers on global warming, or rather about the study of ice cores, of tree rings, of sediment cores, of analysis of weather records over time--all the disciplines that are studied to form a picture of our climate and to predict what is happening.
The rise in retractions seems to have almost become exponential over the past 6 years. That we knew and had predicted humans were causing climate change by increasing the warming of the climate was pretty well understood by the late 1980's. In fact many of the predictions have been born out since then. We aren't seeing retractions of papers from the 1980's, but the late 2000's.
Anyway, here is an excellent resource called The Discovery of Global Warming (See the timeline: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm). It's also a book. I hope that clarifies where I stand on the issue and why I called them asshats. Because only an asshat would try to make a connection. And I'm still waiting for that list of retracted papers about global warming.
on this story. Asshats. Seriously? How many of those retracted papers dealt with the studies relating to climate change?
I thought it was bad enough there were global warming denialists running slashdot, but now antivaxxers. The people running this site should know better than to feed these trolls. What has this become? The last refuge of semi tech-literate libertarian nutjobs?
with the best of them.
the cost of LED lighting will have come down. The Chinese will have done what they did to the solar cell market and flood the market with cheap LED bulbs. Anyway, you people do know there are energy efficient incandescent bulbs. They're not as efficient as LED or CFL bulbs but use about I think about 70% the energy a regular bulb does. I'm using those where I can't use CFL or LEDs.
There is no such thing as an 'extreme position' on carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The Earth would be a colder without it. Without any atmosphere the Earth's surface would be frozen. It is the thousands of years of empirical data that shows unequivocally that humans have changed and are changing the climate. Humans have pumped tens of millions of years of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere in a little over two centuries. It means that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the oceans. Not only is the climate getting warmer our oceans are acidifying.
For those who don't wish to remain willfully ignorant as some slashdotters seem to want to, here's an excellent resource that discuss the 100+ years worth of science of the study of global warming and the climate: The Discovery of Global Warming.
these planets shouldn't exist according to our current understanding, or challenged what we think we know.
how the Moon was formed. It is not the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis. It is called the Giant Impact Hypothesis and that's what it is an hypothesis, not a theory. It doesn't cast any doubt on the Moon's origins. It is a strike against the GIH. It just means that scientists have to come up with a new idea of how it was formed. Now this isotopic analysis will help to formulate a new hypothesis and even theory about the Moon's origin.