OK, sure. When you take a study about "differences in connectivity" in the brain, and claim it has established implications for behavior, that is vague handwaving.
Reading comprehension isn't you strong suit, is it?
The only claim I made was that there are differences in the biology of human brains based on gender, and these differences are correlated with observed behavior. You do know what correlated means, don't you? Have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? Jumping to the conclusion that I claimed gender differences in brain biology explains gender differences of cognition/behavior only speaks to your obvious bias.
Refusing to entertain the possibility that biology might play a role in the cognitive differences between men and women is the stuff of dogma. It is textbook black and white thinking, and all it shows is your devotion to some kind of social viewpoint that has nothing to do with science...it's a lot closer to religion.
Indeed, and in this case you used it to sarcastically express your unhappiness that your preferred alternative wasn't being argued. You should own it instead of backpedaling.
Backpedaling? Hardly.
I do own my statement, I just don't own your interpretation of it. My statement simply bemoans the assertion that the answer to the question has an either/or answer - contrary to the position of the person I replied to. Your continued insistence that it means something it doesn't is just plain hardheaded.
My preference is to allow for the possibility that biology may be a factor (in addition to culture) that explains observed gender differences in behavior/cognition/skills. You shut out this possibility based solely on an assumption that men and women are able to all perform tasks equally, and any observed difference to the contrary MUST be due to some kind of cultural injustice forced on women by a patriarchal society. You've closed your mind to any other possible factor that may have an influence on gender differences.
But by all means, continue to put words into the mouths of any one challenging your beliefs, continue to misrepresent their positions, continue to claim they've made arguments they haven't, and continue to clasp your hands to your ears and shout "NA! NA! NA!" when presented with inconvenient truths.
Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.
Sigh.
Talk about willful blindness. Why don't you take a look at this and tell me about vague handwaving. That's not the only "systematic evidence" either. And I'm not inclined to spoon feed you any other scientific studies on this subject...you're unlikely to open your eyes to anything that conflicts with your preconceived notions.
"God forbid" that figures of speech imply meaning.
And what meaning is that? How does "God forbid" - a common idiom - indicate that I prefer biology over culture? Perhaps English isn't your first language.
Whether this statement is an expression of your anecdotal experience or just willful blindness is impossible to say.
Fine. I'm prepared to change my mind if you can show me some "systematic evidence" to the contrary. And please don't waste my time by citing something more than a couple of years old. My statement was unambiguously qualified.
But since you prefer to divine "implied meaning" over the actual meaning of plain spoken words (and you don't know what constitutes an anecdote) I'm not hoping for much out of you.
There is no evidence that biology has anything to do with the proclivities of the genders for computer science. There is lots of evidence that many gender differences which are popularly ascribed to biology are in fact cultural, for example competitiveness.
Last time I checked, competitiveness is a behavior, not a skill. In any event, there is plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women, and there are strong correlations between these differences and observed strengths/weaknesses of the sexes relative to one another. Do you need a citation for that, or do you know how to use a search engine?
Your anecdotes and personal preferences for what might be true just aren't as convincing as systematically gathered evidence.
What anecdotes? I don't believe I told any stories. Care to point out these supposed anecdotes to me?
And what personal preference did I relate? If you're referring to my comment on biology, I was merely stating that dismissing biological factors in these matters is foolish.
If you read my statement and concluded that I somehow prefer a biological explanation to a cultural one, you are stuck in a black and white world. There are shades of grey here, and there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days. This is 2015, not 1955.
There are countless accounts of women facing gender related problems studying CS. What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.
There are also countless accounts of men facing gender related problems in securing jobs at breastaurants. Like your accounts, they are also anecdotal. Are you going to let your position on those instances of blatant discrimination be known as well? Would it prove anything?
This whole idea of looking at gender statistics and then deducing there is a problem is stupid.
That part isn't stupid.
While you make a fair point, that part has a fair share of stupidity as well. Assuming statistics tell us something about reality, someone is looking at the numbers and declaring that reality is a problem. But why is the reality that men outnumber women in tech related positions a problem? Conversely, why is the reality that women outnumber men in Accounting/Auditing not a problem?
It's a far deeper cultural phenomenon*.
So it's all nurture and no nature for you, eh? God forbid biology has anything to do with it.
Critical thinking is a pseudo-science and pseudo-didactics invented by anti-scientistic intellectuals and shabby pedagogues who tend to vigorously oppose to any solid training in math and logic.
What the fuck does that mean? If you don't want to be written off as a crank, you'd better explain yourself.
There was zippy chance that money would had ever be used for any social good.
Oh c'mon...many artificial persons have and will benefit from the F35 - FXX. It's one of the ways that we reward our job makers. All those profits are re-injected into the greater economy, and everybody benefits. We aren't like the banks where they borrow at 0% and invest at 4%. A monkey could run that con. We actually produce useless hardware that will thwart the tourorists.
We are on the right track...what could possibly go wrong?
It's also a boost to the economy, assuming just 1 former retiree finds work. If you can grow that employment number, Greece will be in better shape to get themselves out of this mess.
For fuck's sake how was that not obviously sarcasm? Only on fucking Slashdot do people think I seriously believe that queers are queer bashing.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I'm not talking about gay bashing, I'm talking about whether the LGBT population in Seattle is INCREASING or DECREASING. Your posts on the subject of trends in the community seem to be in conflict with one another...maybe I'm wrong on that.
Here is the question one more time: is the LGBT community in Seattle growing or shrinking? If you don't know, just say so. No need to get your knickers in a knot.
The most notable point is the that there is no firm agreement to restructure (cut) the debt. I wonder how Tsirpas will sell this to his constituents who just voted a firm "NO" to a deal without restructuring.
Why would he have to sell it to his constituents? Doesn't he know that when you owe a bank 1,000,000,000 the bank owns you - but if you owe the bank 380,534,382,133.32 you own the bank?
Maybe the leadership of Greece just doesn't know how to negotiate. Should we send in Donald Trump to work it out?
I asked for a US source to back up your position. I got a vague puff piece about someone doing it in the UK instead which wouldn't even be meaningful anyway... there was no information in it to audit the economics.
What are you talking about? When did you ask for a source? To back up what position?
Your response appears to be directed at someone else - but I'll go ahead and make a few comments anyway.
What I suspect with these things is that they get a lot of subsidy money or they charge a lot more at the market for the produce. That means they're not competitive.
Your suspicions of subsidies are pure speculation. Furthermore, if a farmer can charge more for his produce at the market, how is that not being competitive? Hasn't the market determined his product is superior to the competition, or at least price-competitive?
Besides, all sorts of farm products and producers already get subsidies, including your agrobusiness Death Stars...does that mean they aren't competitive? Does that mean they're on welfare?
If that is the case, isn't subsidizing vertical farms leveling the competitive playing field?
... we can see if your concept is competitive.
It won't be. But I'll keep an open mind and look at the data if you ever get around to posting it.
It won't be? Sounds to me like you've already got your mind made up. Hardly the posture you would expect of an open mind.
Alternatively... I can look it up for you and then post the information in black and white here.
Actually, I think it would be an excellent idea for you to do some research on your own. You probably won't have to speculate as much, and you can provide some outside data to back up your positions.
You put in the vertical qualifier like it is difficult to stack shit on top of each other.
I didn't put in the vertical qualifier, the referenced articles did.
There are plenty of pot growers that use "wavelength tuned" LEDs to grow pot.
None of them appear to be on youtube.
Give me a fucking break. In fact... just fuck me. That comment was so painfully annoying in its obtuseness that I deserve a blowjob just to take my mind off f'ing dumb that vertical qualifier was...
You really shouldn't let yourself get so easily upset.
As to costs declining... Sun light is free... good luck with your cost structure competiting with that. Here you're going to say "but in this urban factory blight area"... I'm sure... but you're not competiting against farms in other fucking factories. You're competiting against a sunny field some where with an unobstructed view of the sky, long clear days, good irrigation, and of course a global transit system that can move that produce anywhere in the world pretty damn cheaply pretty damn quick.
Vertical farms have been up and running profitably in countries across the world for some time now.
I am literally fucking sitting here chopping up a pineapple that was grown in Hawaii. I believe it cost me 4 dollars.
You're a clever guy. Perhaps you could figure a way to use that pineapple to relieve some of that pent up sexual frustration you frequently experience.
Have fun with your revolution sport. I rather suspect the Empire will surprise you with a fully operational agro business battle station.:D
How'd the Empire in your Star Wars reference turn out? Weren't those high and mighty dark side douchebags taken out by a small force of teddy bears?
... This is what passes for innovation? Go to youtube and you'll see an endless procession of pot growers that have been doing that since always.
I can't find any pot growers on youtube using wavelength tuned LEDs to grow weed in a vertical farm.
Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind.
The facilities used for vertical farming are frequently abandoned factories or unused warehouses. Building modification costs are negligible.
Often an urban farm is going to have less than perfect sunlight or be outright shaded.
Using wavelength tuned LED systems in vertical farms eliminates those factors.
Then you've got hydroponics...
Growing plants without soil is a lot more expensive that growing plants with soil.
Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.
They're not just thinking about selling their product, vertical farms with LED lighting are already in operation around the world. With Phillips recently demonstrating a 68% efficient LED, vertical farms will become commonplace as costs decline and technology improves.
Insult, insult, insult. Is your argument really that weak?
Yes, it is. You'll find that there's a direct relationship between the weakness of a given Karmashock argument, and the frequency of childish insults in his replies.
It's unfortunate that he's sucked another reasonable, rational, polite slashdotter into his black hole of denial. His hope is that because people like you have actual lives and can't afford to spend ALL DAY POSTING ON/. like he does, he can simply outlast someone by continually repeating the same invalid arguments loaded with his childish insults.
All you have to do is review a few days of his posting history, and you will see a very sorry and pathetic picture of an individual that has absolutely no life outside of this site - and has some very serious psychological issues to boot.
Please, take my word for it on this. DO NOT actually review this guy's posting history unless you are prepared to expose yourself to the utter darkness of the mind of a soulless, narcissistic, sociopath. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
I understand English just fine. I'm also familiar with logical fallacies, and it's clear that you are not - at least when it comes to the ad hominem/strawman types.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition."
For me to have created a strawman, YOU have to first advance a position.
So I ask you again, which one of your arguments/propositions/positions have I used as the basis to create a strawman?
Take all the time you need to respond. I have plenty of patience when it comes to you embarrassing yourself. Again.
LOL! Which position of yours do you think I've misrepresented?
Since you don't know what constitutes an ad hominen attack, it comes as no surprise that you don't know what forms a strawman argument. So let's add "false accusations of logical fallacies" to the list of your testy behaviors.
Keep posting. I look forward to another public demonstration of your ignorance.
quote where I said I was trying to win over AC trolls?
Doesn't matter whether you said it or not. The amount of time and effort you've spent on ACs in this thread speaks for itself.
Kill yourself. Slowly and painfully.
My my, aren't we testy today. Oh wait, judging by the frequency of insults, profanity and homoerotic imagery in your posts, you're testy *every* day. Maybe you should consider working with a therapist.
Yeah, I think it's best you get back to your fine work with all those AC trolls to you're trying to win over. That will be better than wasting your time here on an argument you can't win.
Ugh. I'm not in an argument with "Andrew" of Popular Technology. I'm in an argument with YOU, and I'm claiming that your citation of such an untrustworthy source demonstrates a lack of critical thinking on your part. I've bolstered my contention that Popular Technology is untrustworthy by stating FACTS about the nature of the site, and FACTS about the weaknesses of "Andrew's" supposed debunking of the Cook et al paper. You are deluding yourself if you think I've made any ad hominem attacks in this discussion.
Anyone who spends ten minutes looking at populartechnology.com with any degree of skepticism will see what it is - a crank site run by ONE guy who won't identify himself. Anyone who cites populartechnology.com in support of their positions needs to take a hard look at the quality of their critical thinking skills.
Respond to the peer reviewed paper...
I have responded to the peer reviewed paper:
"Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here." "Be that as it may, you did (finally) manage to provide a cite with some legitimacy" "I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times."
How many more responses do you need?
I have no patience or respect for this notion that a valid point can be dismissed on the grounds that you don't respect the person making it. It is a textbook logical fallacy.
You're still stuck with the notion that I'm making an argument I'm not. The only thing I'm arguing is that your citation of populartechnology.com represents a lack of critical thinking on your part. Christ, I even put my position in the title of my post. Apparently you didn't notice that.
If you can't... then you have nothing constructive to offer this discussion and I'll kindly ask you to stop wasting my time.
LOL, since I'm not forcing you to respond to my posts, no one's wasting your time but you. Given the number of your responses to ACs, I can only surmise that you *enjoy* wasting time.
So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.
In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.
As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper...
You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:
There you go, peer reviewed paper refuting cook's paper.
Yeah, I was able to find the abstract on my own. What I asked you for was a link to the full paper.
What you didn't understand because you were so biased against the source was that there was actually a valid argument being made.
Hardly. Like I said, my problem is with you citing opinion pieces in financial magazines as having some kind of scientific authority.
The argument has been made by multiple sources in and out of academia.
...yet it's taken you so very very long to find ONE legitimate rebuttal of the Cook paper. Christ, the thing was published in 2013. Yet you, a self-proclaimed authority on the subject, only became aware of the rebuttal within the last few hours.
You cannot simply dismiss all criticism this way.
I don't dismiss all criticism. I do however dismiss poorly supported claims by cranks with obvious agendas. Critical thinking demands being skeptical of "sources" in popular media, and when your source is an opinion piece penned by a non scientist citing dubious websites, well... you're just not doing a convincing job of supporting your arguments.
It is a prerequisite that you have to have some intellectual curiosity and integrity in matters such as these. Simply being mulish and tribalistically political is not acceptable.
WOW! Your complete lack of self awareness is truly impressive.
If you want to be scientific then you need to put all that baggage down for a moment and just address the issue tabula rasa.
The only baggage I'm carrying is a requirement for critical thinking when it comes to accepting claims - especially ones that aren't supported by legitimate scientific authority. The little turd of a Forbes article you cited doesn't even come close to be convincing anyone with a critical mind. The fact that you kept trying to feed that turd to people in this discussion isn't a sign of strong critical thinking skills.
Be that as it may, you did (finally) manage to provide a cite with some legitimacy, so congratulations - perhaps you are beginning to be competent enough to have a discussion of this nature.
You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.
If there was another source challenging the validity of the Cook et al paper, you didn't provide one. If you did provide one, I would've taken a hard look at the source and made a judgement as to it's trustworthiness. But since the only source you provided was populartechnology.com, I took a hard look at the quality of the information there and found it lacking.
BTW, I've made no claims about the validity of the Cook et al paper. To be honest, I've always been highly skeptical that there could be anything close to a 100% consensus on the subject. Be that as it may, the only thing I'm attacking here is your contention that citing a sketchy site like populartechnology.com provides authoritative support for ANY argument.
Since you're addicted to ad hominem...
Popular Technology puts itself up as a publication with editors and writers. Pointing out that there is but a single author for all their articles, pointing out the complete lack of methodology/data regarding "Andrew's" survey (which on the face of it is blatant cherry-picking) certainly speaks to their credibility or lack thereof. Sorry, providing facts about Popular Technology in order to support my contention that the site isn't trustworthy doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack.
I'll shift sources and we'll see if you're able to form a coherent thought without resorting to fallacious logic again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
That cites a peer reviewed audit of the study that showed Cook's methodology and conclusions to be in error.
Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here. It would've been a helluva lot better for you to cite the paper directly, instead of wrapping it in the rampant hyperbole of wattsupwiththat.com. Do you have a link to the full papery?
*gets out lube*
Bend over. I'm jamming your pretensions right back up the slimy hole they came out of...:-)
You're not helping yourself. Juvenile comments like that don't speak very well about your level of maturity.
You're linking to a site that doesn't list the names of it's publisher, editors, writers, or contributors. The listed editor of the site, one "Andrew K" is a "Computer Analyst" sporting a Gmail address - and he appears to have written ALL of the content on the site. I could not find one single article written by anyone other than "Andrew" on populartechnology.com. But I suppose these things don't represent red flags for you.
Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.
The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that conclusion.
Popular Technology lists seven scientists who have objected to the classification of their papers. Seven authors, seven papers. Out of almost 12,000 papers and hundreds of authors in the scope of the study. "Andrew" claims to have "emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper." "Andrew" gives no indication of how many researchers he contacted, or of the nature of their responses. "Andrew" provides no methodology or supporting data of his supposed survey. "Andrew" simply lists SEVEN of the scientists, and surprise, ALL of them objected. Surprise 2 electric boogaloo: ALL of the scientists mentioned in "Andrew's" analysis are climate skeptics, one of whom is a crackpot who claims to have paranormal abilities and can find water by dowsing.
But, apparently, you see nothing problematic here either.
Further analysis of the methodology of the statistical studies show that they had a graduate student review roughly 800 papers a day.
LOL, did you just pull that out of thin air? Making things up and stating them as fact doesn't help your credibility.
So many of your "sources" are easily debunked when subjected to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Maybe you should challenge yourself and your sources just a tiny little bit harder before offer up these supposed "sources" in support of your claims.
That was my reaction as well. If they actually managed to manufacture a reliable, durable 4 cylinder making 700 horses, that would be the real story - not the 3D printing bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you understand the difference between a press release and a peer reviewed article?
Yep, I do. Since you're obviously unable to navigate the internet, here's a link to the peer reviewed study.
OK, sure. When you take a study about "differences in connectivity" in the brain, and claim it has established implications for behavior, that is vague handwaving.
Reading comprehension isn't you strong suit, is it?
The only claim I made was that there are differences in the biology of human brains based on gender, and these differences are correlated with observed behavior. You do know what correlated means, don't you? Have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? Jumping to the conclusion that I claimed gender differences in brain biology explains gender differences of cognition/behavior only speaks to your obvious bias.
Refusing to entertain the possibility that biology might play a role in the cognitive differences between men and women is the stuff of dogma. It is textbook black and white thinking, and all it shows is your devotion to some kind of social viewpoint that has nothing to do with science...it's a lot closer to religion.
Indeed, and in this case you used it to sarcastically express your unhappiness that your preferred alternative wasn't being argued. You should own it instead of backpedaling.
Backpedaling? Hardly.
I do own my statement, I just don't own your interpretation of it. My statement simply bemoans the assertion that the answer to the question has an either/or answer - contrary to the position of the person I replied to. Your continued insistence that it means something it doesn't is just plain hardheaded.
My preference is to allow for the possibility that biology may be a factor (in addition to culture) that explains observed gender differences in behavior/cognition/skills. You shut out this possibility based solely on an assumption that men and women are able to all perform tasks equally, and any observed difference to the contrary MUST be due to some kind of cultural injustice forced on women by a patriarchal society. You've closed your mind to any other possible factor that may have an influence on gender differences.
But by all means, continue to put words into the mouths of any one challenging your beliefs, continue to misrepresent their positions, continue to claim they've made arguments they haven't, and continue to clasp your hands to your ears and shout "NA! NA! NA!" when presented with inconvenient truths.
Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.
Sigh.
Talk about willful blindness. Why don't you take a look at this and tell me about vague handwaving. That's not the only "systematic evidence" either. And I'm not inclined to spoon feed you any other scientific studies on this subject...you're unlikely to open your eyes to anything that conflicts with your preconceived notions.
"God forbid" that figures of speech imply meaning.
And what meaning is that? How does "God forbid" - a common idiom - indicate that I prefer biology over culture? Perhaps English isn't your first language.
Whether this statement is an expression of your anecdotal experience or just willful blindness is impossible to say.
Fine. I'm prepared to change my mind if you can show me some "systematic evidence" to the contrary. And please don't waste my time by citing something more than a couple of years old. My statement was unambiguously qualified.
But since you prefer to divine "implied meaning" over the actual meaning of plain spoken words (and you don't know what constitutes an anecdote) I'm not hoping for much out of you.
There is no evidence that biology has anything to do with the proclivities of the genders for computer science. There is lots of evidence that many gender differences which are popularly ascribed to biology are in fact cultural, for example competitiveness.
Last time I checked, competitiveness is a behavior, not a skill. In any event, there is plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women, and there are strong correlations between these differences and observed strengths/weaknesses of the sexes relative to one another. Do you need a citation for that, or do you know how to use a search engine?
Your anecdotes and personal preferences for what might be true just aren't as convincing as systematically gathered evidence.
What anecdotes? I don't believe I told any stories. Care to point out these supposed anecdotes to me?
And what personal preference did I relate? If you're referring to my comment on biology, I was merely stating that dismissing biological factors in these matters is foolish.
If you read my statement and concluded that I somehow prefer a biological explanation to a cultural one, you are stuck in a black and white world. There are shades of grey here, and there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days. This is 2015, not 1955.
There are countless accounts of women facing gender related problems studying CS. What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.
There are also countless accounts of men facing gender related problems in securing jobs at breastaurants. Like your accounts, they are also anecdotal. Are you going to let your position on those instances of blatant discrimination be known as well? Would it prove anything?
This whole idea of looking at gender statistics and then deducing there is a problem is stupid.
That part isn't stupid.
While you make a fair point, that part has a fair share of stupidity as well. Assuming statistics tell us something about reality, someone is looking at the numbers and declaring that reality is a problem. But why is the reality that men outnumber women in tech related positions a problem? Conversely, why is the reality that women outnumber men in Accounting/Auditing not a problem?
It's a far deeper cultural phenomenon*.
So it's all nurture and no nature for you, eh? God forbid biology has anything to do with it.
Critical thinking is a pseudo-science and pseudo-didactics invented by anti-scientistic intellectuals and shabby pedagogues who tend to vigorously oppose to any solid training in math and logic.
What the fuck does that mean? If you don't want to be written off as a crank, you'd better explain yourself.
There was zippy chance that money would had ever be used for any social good.
Oh c'mon...many artificial persons have and will benefit from the F35 - FXX. It's one of the ways that we reward our job makers. All those profits are re-injected into the greater economy, and everybody benefits. We aren't like the banks where they borrow at 0% and invest at 4%. A monkey could run that con. We actually produce useless hardware that will thwart the tourorists.
We are on the right track...what could possibly go wrong?
Raising pension age *is* a reduction in benefits.
It's also a boost to the economy, assuming just 1 former retiree finds work. If you can grow that employment number, Greece will be in better shape to get themselves out of this mess.
For fuck's sake how was that not obviously sarcasm? Only on fucking Slashdot do people think I seriously believe that queers are queer bashing.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I'm not talking about gay bashing, I'm talking about whether the LGBT population in Seattle is INCREASING or DECREASING. Your posts on the subject of trends in the community seem to be in conflict with one another...maybe I'm wrong on that.
Here is the question one more time: is the LGBT community in Seattle growing or shrinking? If you don't know, just say so. No need to get your knickers in a knot.
The most notable point is the that there is no firm agreement to restructure (cut) the debt. I wonder how Tsirpas will sell this to his constituents who just voted a firm "NO" to a deal without restructuring.
Why would he have to sell it to his constituents? Doesn't he know that when you owe a bank 1,000,000,000 the bank owns you - but if you owe the bank 380,534,382,133.32 you own the bank?
Maybe the leadership of Greece just doesn't know how to negotiate. Should we send in Donald Trump to work it out?
As the queer population in Seattle is decreasing, violence against queers is increasing.
That's odd, because in your post here, you say:
Seems pretty likely that a growing queer population has led to violence against queers.
So, honest question - is the LGBT community in Seattle growing or shrinking? Either way, a source backing up your position would be great.
I'm not upset so much as disappointed.
I asked for a US source to back up your position. I got a vague puff piece about someone doing it in the UK instead which wouldn't even be meaningful anyway... there was no information in it to audit the economics.
What are you talking about? When did you ask for a source? To back up what position?
Your response appears to be directed at someone else - but I'll go ahead and make a few comments anyway.
What I suspect with these things is that they get a lot of subsidy money or they charge a lot more at the market for the produce. That means they're not competitive.
Your suspicions of subsidies are pure speculation. Furthermore, if a farmer can charge more for his produce at the market, how is that not being competitive? Hasn't the market determined his product is superior to the competition, or at least price-competitive?
Besides, all sorts of farm products and producers already get subsidies, including your agrobusiness Death Stars...does that mean they aren't competitive? Does that mean they're on welfare?
If that is the case, isn't subsidizing vertical farms leveling the competitive playing field?
... we can see if your concept is competitive.
It won't be. But I'll keep an open mind and look at the data if you ever get around to posting it.
It won't be? Sounds to me like you've already got your mind made up. Hardly the posture you would expect of an open mind.
Alternatively... I can look it up for you and then post the information in black and white here.
Actually, I think it would be an excellent idea for you to do some research on your own. You probably won't have to speculate as much, and you can provide some outside data to back up your positions.
You put in the vertical qualifier like it is difficult to stack shit on top of each other.
I didn't put in the vertical qualifier, the referenced articles did.
There are plenty of pot growers that use "wavelength tuned" LEDs to grow pot.
None of them appear to be on youtube.
Give me a fucking break. In fact... just fuck me. That comment was so painfully annoying in its obtuseness that I deserve a blowjob just to take my mind off f'ing dumb that vertical qualifier was...
You really shouldn't let yourself get so easily upset.
As to costs declining... Sun light is free... good luck with your cost structure competiting with that. Here you're going to say "but in this urban factory blight area"... I'm sure... but you're not competiting against farms in other fucking factories. You're competiting against a sunny field some where with an unobstructed view of the sky, long clear days, good irrigation, and of course a global transit system that can move that produce anywhere in the world pretty damn cheaply pretty damn quick.
Vertical farms have been up and running profitably in countries across the world for some time now.
I am literally fucking sitting here chopping up a pineapple that was grown in Hawaii. I believe it cost me 4 dollars.
You're a clever guy. Perhaps you could figure a way to use that pineapple to relieve some of that pent up sexual frustration you frequently experience.
Have fun with your revolution sport. I rather suspect the Empire will surprise you with a fully operational agro business battle station. :D
How'd the Empire in your Star Wars reference turn out? Weren't those high and mighty dark side douchebags taken out by a small force of teddy bears?
... This is what passes for innovation? Go to youtube and you'll see an endless procession of pot growers that have been doing that since always.
I can't find any pot growers on youtube using wavelength tuned LEDs to grow weed in a vertical farm.
Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind.
The facilities used for vertical farming are frequently abandoned factories or unused warehouses. Building modification costs are negligible.
Often an urban farm is going to have less than perfect sunlight or be outright shaded.
Using wavelength tuned LED systems in vertical farms eliminates those factors.
Then you've got hydroponics...
Growing plants without soil is a lot more expensive that growing plants with soil.
Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.
They're not just thinking about selling their product, vertical farms with LED lighting are already in operation around the world. With Phillips recently demonstrating a 68% efficient LED, vertical farms will become commonplace as costs decline and technology improves.
Insult, insult, insult. Is your argument really that weak?
Yes, it is. You'll find that there's a direct relationship between the weakness of a given Karmashock argument, and the frequency of childish insults in his replies.
It's unfortunate that he's sucked another reasonable, rational, polite slashdotter into his black hole of denial. His hope is that because people like you have actual lives and can't afford to spend ALL DAY POSTING ON /. like he does, he can simply outlast someone by continually repeating the same invalid arguments loaded with his childish insults.
All you have to do is review a few days of his posting history, and you will see a very sorry and pathetic picture of an individual that has absolutely no life outside of this site - and has some very serious psychological issues to boot.
Please, take my word for it on this. DO NOT actually review this guy's posting history unless you are prepared to expose yourself to the utter darkness of the mind of a soulless, narcissistic, sociopath. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Cheers!
I understand English just fine. I'm also familiar with logical fallacies, and it's clear that you are not - at least when it comes to the ad hominem/strawman types.
So let's take a look at a definition of strawman attack:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition."
For me to have created a strawman, YOU have to first advance a position.
So I ask you again, which one of your arguments/propositions/positions have I used as the basis to create a strawman?
Take all the time you need to respond. I have plenty of patience when it comes to you embarrassing yourself. Again.
LOL! Which position of yours do you think I've misrepresented?
Since you don't know what constitutes an ad hominen attack, it comes as no surprise that you don't know what forms a strawman argument. So let's add "false accusations of logical fallacies" to the list of your testy behaviors.
Keep posting. I look forward to another public demonstration of your ignorance.
quote where I said I was trying to win over AC trolls?
Doesn't matter whether you said it or not. The amount of time and effort you've spent on ACs in this thread speaks for itself.
Kill yourself. Slowly and painfully.
My my, aren't we testy today. Oh wait, judging by the frequency of insults, profanity and homoerotic imagery in your posts, you're testy *every* day. Maybe you should consider working with a therapist.
Yeah, I think it's best you get back to your fine work with all those AC trolls to you're trying to win over. That will be better than wasting your time here on an argument you can't win.
So... more ad hominem?
Ugh. I'm not in an argument with "Andrew" of Popular Technology. I'm in an argument with YOU, and I'm claiming that your citation of such an untrustworthy source demonstrates a lack of critical thinking on your part. I've bolstered my contention that Popular Technology is untrustworthy by stating FACTS about the nature of the site, and FACTS about the weaknesses of "Andrew's" supposed debunking of the Cook et al paper. You are deluding yourself if you think I've made any ad hominem attacks in this discussion.
Anyone who spends ten minutes looking at populartechnology.com with any degree of skepticism will see what it is - a crank site run by ONE guy who won't identify himself. Anyone who cites populartechnology.com in support of their positions needs to take a hard look at the quality of their critical thinking skills.
Respond to the peer reviewed paper...
I have responded to the peer reviewed paper:
"Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here."
"Be that as it may, you did (finally) manage to provide a cite with some legitimacy"
"I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times."
How many more responses do you need?
I have no patience or respect for this notion that a valid point can be dismissed on the grounds that you don't respect the person making it. It is a textbook logical fallacy.
You're still stuck with the notion that I'm making an argument I'm not. The only thing I'm arguing is that your citation of populartechnology.com represents a lack of critical thinking on your part. Christ, I even put my position in the title of my post. Apparently you didn't notice that.
If you can't... then you have nothing constructive to offer this discussion and I'll kindly ask you to stop wasting my time.
LOL, since I'm not forcing you to respond to my posts, no one's wasting your time but you. Given the number of your responses to ACs, I can only surmise that you *enjoy* wasting time.
I didn't just cite one source, half wit.
I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.
Choke on it.
Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://articles.mercola.com/si... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://arstechnica.com/science... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... (opinion piece written by a lawyer (who doesn't appear to have ever practiced law) who claims to be a "trained scientist". The article relies exclusively on research done by unnamed "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.com - a blog that by all appearances is operated by a single unidentified individual.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... (first mention of a legitimate source rebutting the Cook paper)
http://link.springer.com/artic... (legitimate source debunking Cook)
So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.
In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.
As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper...
You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:
"To be honest, I
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
There you go, peer reviewed paper refuting cook's paper.
Yeah, I was able to find the abstract on my own. What I asked you for was a link to the full paper.
What you didn't understand because you were so biased against the source was that there was actually a valid argument being made.
Hardly. Like I said, my problem is with you citing opinion pieces in financial magazines as having some kind of scientific authority.
The argument has been made by multiple sources in and out of academia.
...yet it's taken you so very very long to find ONE legitimate rebuttal of the Cook paper. Christ, the thing was published in 2013. Yet you, a self-proclaimed authority on the subject, only became aware of the rebuttal within the last few hours.
You cannot simply dismiss all criticism this way.
I don't dismiss all criticism. I do however dismiss poorly supported claims by cranks with obvious agendas. Critical thinking demands being skeptical of "sources" in popular media, and when your source is an opinion piece penned by a non scientist citing dubious websites, well... you're just not doing a convincing job of supporting your arguments.
It is a prerequisite that you have to have some intellectual curiosity and integrity in matters such as these. Simply being mulish and tribalistically political is not acceptable.
WOW! Your complete lack of self awareness is truly impressive.
If you want to be scientific then you need to put all that baggage down for a moment and just address the issue tabula rasa.
The only baggage I'm carrying is a requirement for critical thinking when it comes to accepting claims - especially ones that aren't supported by legitimate scientific authority. The little turd of a Forbes article you cited doesn't even come close to be convincing anyone with a critical mind. The fact that you kept trying to feed that turd to people in this discussion isn't a sign of strong critical thinking skills.
Be that as it may, you did (finally) manage to provide a cite with some legitimacy, so congratulations - perhaps you are beginning to be competent enough to have a discussion of this nature.
You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.
If there was another source challenging the validity of the Cook et al paper, you didn't provide one. If you did provide one, I would've taken a hard look at the source and made a judgement as to it's trustworthiness. But since the only source you provided was populartechnology.com, I took a hard look at the quality of the information there and found it lacking.
BTW, I've made no claims about the validity of the Cook et al paper. To be honest, I've always been highly skeptical that there could be anything close to a 100% consensus on the subject. Be that as it may, the only thing I'm attacking here is your contention that citing a sketchy site like populartechnology.com provides authoritative support for ANY argument.
Since you're addicted to ad hominem...
Popular Technology puts itself up as a publication with editors and writers. Pointing out that there is but a single author for all their articles, pointing out the complete lack of methodology/data regarding "Andrew's" survey (which on the face of it is blatant cherry-picking) certainly speaks to their credibility or lack thereof. Sorry, providing facts about Popular Technology in order to support my contention that the site isn't trustworthy doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack.
I'll shift sources and we'll see if you're able to form a coherent thought without resorting to fallacious logic again: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
That cites a peer reviewed audit of the study that showed Cook's methodology and conclusions to be in error.
Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here. It would've been a helluva lot better for you to cite the paper directly, instead of wrapping it in the rampant hyperbole of wattsupwiththat.com. Do you have a link to the full papery?
*gets out lube*
Bend over. I'm jamming your pretensions right back up the slimy hole they came out of... :-)
You're not helping yourself. Juvenile comments like that don't speak very well about your level of maturity.
http://www.populartechnology.n...
You're linking to a site that doesn't list the names of it's publisher, editors, writers, or contributors. The listed editor of the site, one "Andrew K" is a "Computer Analyst" sporting a Gmail address - and he appears to have written ALL of the content on the site. I could not find one single article written by anyone other than "Andrew" on populartechnology.com. But I suppose these things don't represent red flags for you.
Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.
The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that conclusion.
Popular Technology lists seven scientists who have objected to the classification of their papers. Seven authors, seven papers. Out of almost 12,000 papers and hundreds of authors in the scope of the study. "Andrew" claims to have "emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper." "Andrew" gives no indication of how many researchers he contacted, or of the nature of their responses. "Andrew" provides no methodology or supporting data of his supposed survey. "Andrew" simply lists SEVEN of the scientists, and surprise, ALL of them objected. Surprise 2 electric boogaloo: ALL of the scientists mentioned in "Andrew's" analysis are climate skeptics, one of whom is a crackpot who claims to have paranormal abilities and can find water by dowsing.
But, apparently, you see nothing problematic here either.
Further analysis of the methodology of the statistical studies show that they had a graduate student review roughly 800 papers a day.
LOL, did you just pull that out of thin air? Making things up and stating them as fact doesn't help your credibility.
So many of your "sources" are easily debunked when subjected to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Maybe you should challenge yourself and your sources just a tiny little bit harder before offer up these supposed "sources" in support of your claims.
That was my reaction as well. If they actually managed to manufacture a reliable, durable 4 cylinder making 700 horses, that would be the real story - not the 3D printing bullshit.