What about the predictions of climate denialists that nothing will happen if we megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere? Should we trust those predictions?
I don't really care, who you trust. But if you want to convince and force me to change my ways, the burden of proof is on you, not on "denialists".
I wonder, if you are slow, or am I so unclear... Did you not see the requirement for pairs of links? One to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation?
The projections in that paper were made in the IPCC AR3 (2001) and IPCC AR4 (2007) which were published well before the paper was written. You can read those reports to verify that.
Yes, you stated this before, but for some mysterious reasons never published a single link to those predictions — angrily calling me names instead. No, I can not read them, until you post the links to them.
Maybe the attention to the subject has increased the money going into it but by no means would there be no grants for study of climate if AGW wasn't happening.
Sure, some money would've been spent on climate-studies, but nowhere near the amounts being spent today. You know it, I know it. The conflict of interest exists — no doubt about that.
They are different, but even if cnaummann sincerely misunderstood them to be much more lax, than I intended, well, he did not offer a list anyway.
To clarify, the 80% would apply to the predicted changes. For example, if somebody predicted in 2005, that by 2015 the oceans will rise 10 cm, I would consider a rise of 8 cm as confirmation of the prediction.
Can you put together the list I described above? Kindly hold your peace until you can — and only post a follow-up, if you've found at least two pairs to list. Thank you.
Several times I've pointed out to you a scientific paper [...] You reject it since it is not in your required format
Those several times should've been enough for you to understand the point: predictions lauded after coming true aren't acceptable. That — despite several months of being challenged, you remain unable to come up with a prediction publicized before its "success", tells everyone, that no such predictions exist.
I just don't see any good reasons to disbelieve the climate scientists.
Well, the obvious conflict of interest would be one reason — if climate is not a problem, there go their grants and the very employment. But even besides such dark suspicions, their seeming inability to make a falsifiable statement, that is not eventually falsified, is a reason for scepticism in itself.
I asked you — months ago — to list the counterexamples, and you remain unable to do so...
governments are necessary to ensure freedoms exist. who else would there be to ensure criminals don't deprive others of their freedoms? who else would there be to ensure contracts are enforced and not just useless words on paper? without courts, who would determine if people have been injured or mistreated and ensure justice for those people? these are roles that only the government can play, not corporations or for-profit organizations, or individuals on their own.
That's a nice list you put together — omitting only defense from the external enemies as a legitimate undertaking for any government. But why is the same government, which is supposed to be involved in the above-mentioned tasks, is also involved in providing healthcare, education, food and shelter and other "welfare"?
Now, of course, you did not mean to say, your list is exclusive, but I find it strange, that you listed the things, on which the government spends the smallest portions of its budget... One would expect a post like yours to put the biggest appropriations first...
IF you do something don't critisize the others because they do the same!
The same? There has not been a single misdeed done by the US in the last 100 years, that USSR/Russia or China has not exceeded with gusto in the last 50.
You, spoiled Westerners, simply don't realize, how deeply evil your opponents are. After moving to the US, I was flabbergasted, for example, over people sincerely comparing Senator McCarthy (responsible for several dozen people losing their jobs) with Beria (responsible for several million people losing their lives).
The US — under the internationally-celebrated moron named Obama — may have been sponsoring "moderate terrorists" in Syria in the last couple of years, but the USSR/Russia has been sponsoring — arming and protecting — the very Assad regime for decades.
And note too, how reluctant Russia is to bomb the real assholes in today's Syria — the ISIS. So reluctant, one may be forgiven for suspecting, Russia had a hand in ISIS springing into existence in the first place...
I do not know, which part of the world you are coming from, Anonymous Coward, but here in the West we believe in presumption of innocence. If you wish to call them liars, then you have to offer proof (or, at least, some evidence) of it.
Why should we assume they're sincerely-held views, instead of someone with an ideological agenda?
First of all, you seem to be seeing a contradiction, where there is not one. "An ideological agenda" can — and usually is — stemming from one's sincerely held beliefs.
Pretty much the only people saying it's not happening seem to be on the payroll of oil companies
And your proof of that is?..
So, we question if they're actually "sincerely-held views", or merely self serving bullshit.
RDP made no suggestion, that the opinions of Register are insincere — he merely called them "deniers". You are calling them liars — a serious accusation. Do you have proof? Semblance of proof?
The truth remains — there have not been many climate-related predictions published, that came true in due time. In fact, I can't find even a single one such prediction, but there really ought to be many by now. We see new ones made in the press quite often...
Don't call me a troll — simply try to put together a list of such predictions, and you too will come to realize, it is an impossible task... The list must consist of pairs of links: first link in each pair will be to a prediction, the second — to its confirmation within, say, 80% of predicted value (if applicable). The linked pages must be dated a few years apart — that is, a "prediction" celebrated after coming true does not count.
Yep. And I have macros here (dating to the prior millennium) for things like xterm -bg navajowhite -fg midnightblue, etcaetera. Some things don't need changing.
The Finnish government, along with the banking and insurance sector, have together invested €100M into the project. That investment is expected to pay for itself many times over once the business sector gets a boost from the new telecom jump
Frankly, if it requires government investment, it is doubtful, there will be any payoff.
To support the "many times over" claim, I'd like to see more details — such returns aren't that common even among truly capitalist investments.
The only way to get around a bunch of these major attacks is by requesting new IPs for your servers and trying to mask those from being leaked.
If you use Akamai, you can turn on the G2O feature and configure your servers to check for it. Apache, Nginx, F5 load-balancers, IIS, and Varnish all have extensions to support it (though the last one is not, unfortunately, open-sourced — for purely bureaucratic reasons, I might add).
Then, even if the enemies find your origin, all their hits will cost you is computing a digest of the requested URI and issuing a 403 or whatever — no file-lookups, no database-lookups, very little bandwidth. I suppose, your server can still be punished, but it certainly raises the bar quite a bit for any attacker.
Enjoy the indefinite detention as you're held as a terrorist for failing to decrypt. A little "parallel construction"/perjury to trump up some charges if you don't play along.
See, non-compliant citizens will be presumed guilty and treated as a security risk. Just to be safe you understand.
20+ posts already, and no one mentioned Global Warming yet? How could you, guys, miss this opportunity to refresh the fear in the hearts of your followers? If you keep burning fossil fuels, our planet too will become an airless desert devoid of life. Whether it will heat up or cool down is an impolite question, but something will happen, unless you install solar panels on your roof.
The "point of now return" — like the second coming of a deity of some unscientific cult followed by the unwashed — has been within "only a few years" for the past 4 decades.
So, taking the cop-out, as I predicted... You could've been more graceful surrendering your position, but I'll take it.
stuff I didn't even mention!
Yes, you did mention it — when you posted the truism about taxes being unavoidable, and invited me to expand with "Let's hear it"... Well, now you heard it. Hop along.
Yes, you did — you are in full agreement with Dutchmaan as evidenced by your own talk of "complete control" and "gorging".
So, answer the question: are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough?
This piece of rustic but still colorful rhetoric is too vague too agree or disagree with. Debating this is pointless — it will come down to trying to nail jellybeans like what constitutes "completeness" of control.
1) Obama would've gotten the vast majority of the black/poor (your cell video) vote without giving away cell phones
Not at all obvious. And, of course, it was not just the cell-phones — many people expected something: "free" healthcare, "free" college education, etcaetera. Those people "gorge themselves", as you put it, at the public trough and/or want to. That Obama got elected — despite being a junior senator (from a State famous for its corruption) without any notable accomplishment to his name — suggests rather strongly, it was that expectation of "spreading the wealth around" he promised, that helped him.
2) The cost of Obamaphones doesn't even qualify as a gnat's eyelash when compared the the largesse handed out to the corporations
Complete and utter bullshit. The single largest and dominating "hand out" given by the US government to KKKorporations (the proper spelling in the rants like yours, BTW) is for the military — planes, tanks, ships et al. It is big, but it is dwarfed by the costs of "War on Poverty", which costed the "public trough" more (inflation-adjusted), than all of the USA's real wars combined. Indeed, the much maligned Military-Industrial Complex, that Illiberals constantly complain about, constitutes "only" 13% of federal spending today less than education (14%) and healthcare (22%) (on which no tax monies should be spent at all). Now, which of these is a "gnat's eyelash"?
With both of your "clues" crumbled, I would not be surprised, if you claimed a sudden "lack of time" for debating me further. But let me answer your other questions, in case you decide to become a better human being by educating yourself quietly...
Why would I?
I don't know, why you would, but you did — by putting "confiscating the monies" into quotes.
Whatever term is your preference, government needs funds to operate.
Federal Income Taxdid not exist in the US until 1913 — earlier attempts to introduce it were deemed unconstitutional by the courts. (My point here is not to question its constitutionality, but to show, how it is unnecessary.) Yes, I prefer the term "confiscate", because it is more to the point. "Collect" may apply to donations as well as willing purchases, whereas "confiscate" unmistakably refers to involuntary payments.
Yes, government needs to collect taxes, but their levels in today's Western world are outrageously high and a burden on our growth.
Let's hear it! (anarchy doesn't count)
Anarchy my behind — not forcing people to "help the poor" is not anarchy. What taxes would I approve of? Consider the following hypothetical scenario: a town facing an assault by barbarians... They need to organize fighting units, train, arm and feed them, and build fortifications — so they can confiscate money and food, disassemble wrought-iron fences to make pikes, melt church bells into cannon, conscript non-fighters into construction, and the like. In other words, taxation is justified, when the alternative is destruction and d
I don't why so many in the Linux community are so hooked on ZFS.
Because it is good. In particular, it offers the only sensible way to make good use of the ephemeral storage offered by Amazon's Web Services (AWS) in a general case — the fast (SSD) storage can be used as read-cache for a ZFS stable of mount-points.
Why not just put your energy there?
Why do put any energy into reinventing the wheel? And struggle with triangular "wheels" in the process?
Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society... it's not money "confiscated,"
The two aren't necessarily contradicting. You may wish to call such involuntary payments something else and comfort yourself with the thoughts of "buying civilization", but as long as you are forced to part with the money — on pain of going to prison and/or losing your possessions — the term "confiscation" most certainly applies.
a bunch of fucking idiots who like to term it that way
You fucking asshole, who you calling "idiot"?! Nice having a civilized discussion with you, crotch-stink.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really care, who you trust. But if you want to convince and force me to change my ways, the burden of proof is on you, not on "denialists".
I wonder, if you are slow, or am I so unclear... Did you not see the requirement for pairs of links? One to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation?
Yes, you stated this before, but for some mysterious reasons never published a single link to those predictions — angrily calling me names instead. No, I can not read them, until you post the links to them.
Sure, some money would've been spent on climate-studies, but nowhere near the amounts being spent today. You know it, I know it. The conflict of interest exists — no doubt about that.
They are different, but even if cnaummann sincerely misunderstood them to be much more lax, than I intended, well, he did not offer a list anyway.
To clarify, the 80% would apply to the predicted changes. For example, if somebody predicted in 2005, that by 2015 the oceans will rise 10 cm, I would consider a rise of 8 cm as confirmation of the prediction.
Not at all predictions are quantifiable — statements like "Arctic will be ice-free by 2013" or Scotland's ski-industry will be bankrupt would've been acceptable too. But neither he nor you, nor anyone else, apparently, can find successful predictions to list...
Can you put together the list I described above? Kindly hold your peace until you can — and only post a follow-up, if you've found at least two pairs to list. Thank you.
Those several times should've been enough for you to understand the point: predictions lauded after coming true aren't acceptable. That — despite several months of being challenged, you remain unable to come up with a prediction publicized before its "success", tells everyone, that no such predictions exist.
Well, the obvious conflict of interest would be one reason — if climate is not a problem, there go their grants and the very employment. But even besides such dark suspicions, their seeming inability to make a falsifiable statement, that is not eventually falsified, is a reason for scepticism in itself.
I asked you — months ago — to list the counterexamples, and you remain unable to do so...
Every bit of control over the Internet, that the US surrenders, is the bit, that governments like China and Russia pick up.
That's a nice list you put together — omitting only defense from the external enemies as a legitimate undertaking for any government. But why is the same government, which is supposed to be involved in the above-mentioned tasks, is also involved in providing healthcare, education, food and shelter and other "welfare"?
Now, of course, you did not mean to say, your list is exclusive, but I find it strange, that you listed the things, on which the government spends the smallest portions of its budget... One would expect a post like yours to put the biggest appropriations first...
The same? There has not been a single misdeed done by the US in the last 100 years, that USSR/Russia or China has not exceeded with gusto in the last 50.
You, spoiled Westerners, simply don't realize, how deeply evil your opponents are. After moving to the US, I was flabbergasted, for example, over people sincerely comparing Senator McCarthy (responsible for several dozen people losing their jobs) with Beria (responsible for several million people losing their lives).
The US — under the internationally-celebrated moron named Obama — may have been sponsoring "moderate terrorists" in Syria in the last couple of years, but the USSR/Russia has been sponsoring — arming and protecting — the very Assad regime for decades.
And note too, how reluctant Russia is to bomb the real assholes in today's Syria — the ISIS. So reluctant, one may be forgiven for suspecting, Russia had a hand in ISIS springing into existence in the first place...
"The same" my tail.
I do not know, which part of the world you are coming from, Anonymous Coward, but here in the West we believe in presumption of innocence. If you wish to call them liars, then you have to offer proof (or, at least, some evidence) of it.
First of all, you seem to be seeing a contradiction, where there is not one. "An ideological agenda" can — and usually is — stemming from one's sincerely held beliefs.
And your proof of that is?..
RDP made no suggestion, that the opinions of Register are insincere — he merely called them "deniers". You are calling them liars — a serious accusation. Do you have proof? Semblance of proof?
The truth remains — there have not been many climate-related predictions published, that came true in due time. In fact, I can't find even a single one such prediction, but there really ought to be many by now. We see new ones made in the press quite often...
Don't call me a troll — simply try to put together a list of such predictions, and you too will come to realize, it is an impossible task... The list must consist of pairs of links: first link in each pair will be to a prediction, the second — to its confirmation within, say, 80% of predicted value (if applicable). The linked pages must be dated a few years apart — that is, a "prediction" celebrated after coming true does not count.
Why should one be ashamed of publicizing his own sincerely-held views?
The "offload to CDN" method is exactly, what you need something like G2O for...
Yep. And I have macros here (dating to the prior millennium) for things like xterm -bg navajowhite -fg midnightblue, etcaetera. Some things don't need changing.
Frankly, if it requires government investment, it is doubtful, there will be any payoff.
To support the "many times over" claim, I'd like to see more details — such returns aren't that common even among truly capitalist investments.
If you use Akamai, you can turn on the G2O feature and configure your servers to check for it. Apache, Nginx, F5 load-balancers, IIS, and Varnish all have extensions to support it (though the last one is not, unfortunately, open-sourced — for purely bureaucratic reasons, I might add).
Then, even if the enemies find your origin, all their hits will cost you is computing a digest of the requested URI and issuing a 403 or whatever — no file-lookups, no database-lookups, very little bandwidth. I suppose, your server can still be punished, but it certainly raises the bar quite a bit for any attacker.
Fortunately, the next elections aren't very far and we have a chance to elect somebody, who, for once, gets the modern-day issues and uses mobile devices and e-mail himself — not some dinosaur, who can't even type.
A couple of bovine decafarts?
20+ posts already, and no one mentioned Global Warming yet? How could you, guys, miss this opportunity to refresh the fear in the hearts of your followers? If you keep burning fossil fuels, our planet too will become an airless desert devoid of life. Whether it will heat up or cool down is an impolite question, but something will happen, unless you install solar panels on your roof.
The "point of now return" — like the second coming of a deity of some unscientific cult followed by the unwashed — has been within "only a few years" for the past 4 decades.
Gebyy zl gnvy.
So, taking the cop-out, as I predicted... You could've been more graceful surrendering your position, but I'll take it.
Yes, you did mention it — when you posted the truism about taxes being unavoidable, and invited me to expand with "Let's hear it"... Well, now you heard it. Hop along.
Yes, you did — you are in full agreement with Dutchmaan as evidenced by your own talk of "complete control" and "gorging".
This piece of rustic but still colorful rhetoric is too vague too agree or disagree with. Debating this is pointless — it will come down to trying to nail jellybeans like what constitutes "completeness" of control.
Not at all obvious. And, of course, it was not just the cell-phones — many people expected something: "free" healthcare, "free" college education, etcaetera. Those people "gorge themselves", as you put it, at the public trough and/or want to. That Obama got elected — despite being a junior senator (from a State famous for its corruption) without any notable accomplishment to his name — suggests rather strongly, it was that expectation of "spreading the wealth around" he promised, that helped him.
Complete and utter bullshit. The single largest and dominating "hand out" given by the US government to KKKorporations (the proper spelling in the rants like yours, BTW) is for the military — planes, tanks, ships et al. It is big, but it is dwarfed by the costs of "War on Poverty", which costed the "public trough" more (inflation-adjusted), than all of the USA's real wars combined. Indeed, the much maligned Military-Industrial Complex, that Illiberals constantly complain about, constitutes "only" 13% of federal spending today less than education (14%) and healthcare (22%) (on which no tax monies should be spent at all). Now, which of these is a "gnat's eyelash"?
With both of your "clues" crumbled, I would not be surprised, if you claimed a sudden "lack of time" for debating me further. But let me answer your other questions, in case you decide to become a better human being by educating yourself quietly...
I don't know, why you would, but you did — by putting "confiscating the monies" into quotes.
Federal Income Tax did not exist in the US until 1913 — earlier attempts to introduce it were deemed unconstitutional by the courts. (My point here is not to question its constitutionality, but to show, how it is unnecessary.) Yes, I prefer the term "confiscate", because it is more to the point. "Collect" may apply to donations as well as willing purchases, whereas "confiscate" unmistakably refers to involuntary payments.
Yes, government needs to collect taxes, but their levels in today's Western world are outrageously high and a burden on our growth.
Anarchy my behind — not forcing people to "help the poor" is not anarchy. What taxes would I approve of? Consider the following hypothetical scenario: a town facing an assault by barbarians... They need to organize fighting units, train, arm and feed them, and build fortifications — so they can confiscate money and food, disassemble wrought-iron fences to make pikes, melt church bells into cannon, conscript non-fighters into construction, and the like. In other words, taxation is justified, when the alternative is destruction and d
Because it is good. In particular, it offers the only sensible way to make good use of the ephemeral storage offered by Amazon's Web Services (AWS) in a general case — the fast (SSD) storage can be used as read-cache for a ZFS stable of mount-points.
Why do put any energy into reinventing the wheel? And struggle with triangular "wheels" in the process?
I fail to see, why you'd single-out the corporations. There is no difference between a citizen voting for a candidate to get free cell-phone and a corporation helping a candidate win in exchange for government's cheap loans and other help.
Are you going to challenge the assertion, that the IRS' very purpose is to confiscate the taxpayers' monies?
The two aren't necessarily contradicting. You may wish to call such involuntary payments something else and comfort yourself with the thoughts of "buying civilization", but as long as you are forced to part with the money — on pain of going to prison and/or losing your possessions — the term "confiscation" most certainly applies.
You fucking asshole, who you calling "idiot"?! Nice having a civilized discussion with you, crotch-stink.
Please, don't hate.