What was requested was one prediction from one citation
This is amazing... That Communism-seeking Illiberals would lie — for the Greater Good(TM) — is well known. But to lie so blatantly, when it is so easy to get caught? Here is my request, with emphasis added:
I invite you to cite actual falsifiable predictions
See? Plural — a single prediction, however singular, just would not do...
I've also asked for the predictions to have come true within 20% of the predicted values — so my follow-up question about numbers is highly relevant. Without satisfactory answers even the single citation you managed to offer is null and void.
meeting the specification in full
No, it was not — I gave you a chance to add the necessary details, but you turned openly adversarial and tried to "win" on a technicality, which also happened to be against you.
You must be from the stupid (rather than the evil) wing of the Progressive movement... Remember to logout.
Individuals might have gone out on a limb, but then individuals will believe almost anything.
How cute! You've cited one individual with a (seemingly) successful prediction to prove, that Climate Science is actually science, but are now dismissing multiple other individuals as "out on a limb", because their predictions have proved spectacularly wrong.
You can't have it both ways — cherry-picking some predictions as solidly scientific, dismissing others. The discipline's record remains in shambles and even its practitioners and adherents admit, it is "not always" falsifiable.
It is obvious, that Climate Science is not, so to speak. Perhaps, you need to argue from a more religious point of view, as these guys are doing (and as was predicted you'd do many years prior).
You've cited exactly one prediction, with plenty of questions remaining about it. For example, how big a rise was he predicting — and how big is claimed by the measurements both back then and today? Can we trust the accuracies of both, given how small the claimed changes actually are?
Are you satisfied? Of course not!
By now, with countless billions spent on "climate science" world-wide, you should've had many more predictions to offer — and obvious ones too, without the legitimate follow-up questions like above.
Because this was never about facts
So, you admit, it was never a scientific argument for you... And you project your own insincerity on the opponents.
this was about your fears that science might contradict something important to you.
Yeah, not important at all — I've got my own Elysium up there and ready, and really care not what happens to Earth. Right.
How convenient it must be, to be able to declare anyone that does not agree with you "a cynic" and issue yourself a free get-out-of-burden-of-proof card.
"Climate Science" is not science any more than guinea pig is a pig.
I invite you to cite actual falsifiable predictions made by its practitioners, that have not been falsified in due time. Each citation must include a pair of links: to the original prediction, and to a report of it materializing within 20% of the predicted value(s) (if quantifiable).
To avoid survival bias, the links must be several years apart. Try it, I'll wait.
reason is against you
Reason is on my side.
Global warming is happening.
Yes, when the weather is warm, it is global warming. And when it is cold — it is "extreme cold", which is also global warming.
your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong
If we don't stop lighting fires, the seas will rise and our land will be isolated from the continent! We must stop our runaway consumption of meat, that needs frying, or face the wrath of the offended spirits.
A tiny piece of software I released into the world once is almost BSD-licensed. Almost, because a separate clause prevents its usage by anyone possessing any item of clothing with a Che Guevara likeness on it.
To my surprise, someone once reached out to me — years ago — asking, if I can remove the requirement, because it makes it more difficult for them to include my software in their distro...
No, no, you don't get to use that pass to get out. Not after you've acknowledged that Assange has been "exposing truth" some time ago...
Or, to use your own analogy, once you've admitted having worshiped one supernatural being, asking you, which one you worship today — and why — is fair.
This is dumb. The abolition explicitly reduced the government's role in the Internet. Reduced — while the TFA argues for an increase: all of the analogies mentioned (speed-limits, prescription- and licensing-requirements) are enforced by government.
Assange quit exposing things for the sake of truth years ago.
Translation: you loved him, when he was exposing the evil RethugliKKKunt$. Then, after his exposures of Her Who Should Be President, you began hating him.
He was so eager to pillory his target that he sold himself out
Yes, that disheveled billionaire hiding in a 3rd-rate embassy — sold himself...
not only to their domestic opponents, but to a not-exactly-friendly foreign nation as well.
Funny, how this possibility hasn't bothered you, when he targeted your own political opponents.
After all, you left your property far outside the boundaries of this nation altogether.
Thank you, once again, for confirming, FCC has no jurisdiction.
It makes far more sense for the government to simply forbid
In a free country, the government can not "simply forbid" anything. In the US in particular, the Congress has to pass a law making the practice illegal first — just as murder already is.
It is too bad, your kind of feeble-mindedness is so wide-spread...
1% of the electorate
Argumentum ad populum... A fallacy...
This is my last response to you — I have no time for hostile morons. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of cooperation in space, look into how humanity has cooperated at sea, outside of any country's territorial waters. But you aren't going to find anything justifying the FCC's mandate there either. Nor is there anything about "simply forbidding" private enterprises to sail where they please.
The government. Unlike retirement, healthcare, education, and the like, enforcing law actually is the government's prerogative even according to Libertarians.
But for the Executive to enforce the judgement, the Judiciary would need to first render it. Because separation of powers...
FCC does seem to be in charge of regulating satellite orbits
Then I can only inquire once again: "WTF does SpaceX need FCC's permission?"
Somebody has to do it [regulate satellite orbits -mi]
An unsubstantiated claim...
what happens to the happiness of the Free Citizens who paid billions of dollars for the existing satellites that will get wiped out by all this sand and gravel?
They can sue the dispenser of the gravel for damages, duh...
Right: SpaceX ought to be able to disperse truckloads of sand and gravel in long-lived orbits if paying customers ask them to.
First of all, thank you for admitting, it is none of Federal Communications Commission's business. Second, yes, if dispersing gravel is how one chooses to pursue happiness, Executive Branch has no right to interfere with the pursuit.
The F-35's Greatest Vulnerability Isn't Enemy Weapons. It's Being Hacked.
Although we should not discount the danger of such hacks, I doubt, it is the greatest vulnerability of the weapon.
TFA goes to great length explaining the potential dangers, but offers no justification for using "the greatest" in the title... Seems like a cheap sensationalism...
That's right: any attempt to regulate the radio spectrum is FASCIST!!!1!!!
SpaceX are merely delivering other people's devices to space. Even if we were to stipulate, that those other people do need government's permission, SpaceX does not... Or, rather, should not...
I'm not your "bud" — you should not even dream about any kind of familiar affiliation, or you may be overcome by suicidal disappointment upon waking up...
SpaceX won permission to deploy more than 7,000 satellites
How did we get into the state of Fascism so advanced, a private enterprise needs government's permission to offer services to other private enterprises? And I mean huge private enterprises — not the hapless individuals, nor the "mom-and-pop" shops, that politicians love to talk about?
But I'm not talking about rights per se, but about whether or not such surveillance make sense at all. That is, whether the costs (the time and money, leaving the morals aside) of it justify the benefits.
What TFA is arguing for is a layer of verifications performed by the program's execution environment, checking its every move.
The checks aren't free — they make everything a little slower and/or consuming more resources (such as RAM). Whether that slow-down is worth the increased safety may be subject to debate...
But the parallels with human lives are inescapable. The checks argued for are no different from the much-denounced police practices, such as "stop-and-frisk", tracking citizens' identifications, and movements — and the arguments for and against them are much the same...
Slashdot Mirror
This is amazing... That Communism-seeking Illiberals would lie — for the Greater Good(TM) — is well known. But to lie so blatantly, when it is so easy to get caught? Here is my request, with emphasis added:
See? Plural — a single prediction, however singular, just would not do...
I've also asked for the predictions to have come true within 20% of the predicted values — so my follow-up question about numbers is highly relevant. Without satisfactory answers even the single citation you managed to offer is null and void.
No, it was not — I gave you a chance to add the necessary details, but you turned openly adversarial and tried to "win" on a technicality, which also happened to be against you.
You must be from the stupid (rather than the evil) wing of the Progressive movement... Remember to logout.
How cute! You've cited one individual with a (seemingly) successful prediction to prove, that Climate Science is actually science, but are now dismissing multiple other individuals as "out on a limb", because their predictions have proved spectacularly wrong.
You can't have it both ways — cherry-picking some predictions as solidly scientific, dismissing others. The discipline's record remains in shambles and even its practitioners and adherents admit, it is "not always" falsifiable.
It is obvious, that Climate Science is not, so to speak. Perhaps, you need to argue from a more religious point of view, as these guys are doing (and as was predicted you'd do many years prior).
You've cited exactly one prediction, with plenty of questions remaining about it. For example, how big a rise was he predicting — and how big is claimed by the measurements both back then and today? Can we trust the accuracies of both, given how small the claimed changes actually are?
By now, with countless billions spent on "climate science" world-wide, you should've had many more predictions to offer — and obvious ones too, without the legitimate follow-up questions like above.
So, you admit, it was never a scientific argument for you... And you project your own insincerity on the opponents.
Yeah, not important at all — I've got my own Elysium up there and ready, and really care not what happens to Earth. Right.
How convenient it must be, to be able to declare anyone that does not agree with you "a cynic" and issue yourself a free get-out-of-burden-of-proof card.
There is not.
"Climate Science" is not science any more than guinea pig is a pig.
I invite you to cite actual falsifiable predictions made by its practitioners, that have not been falsified in due time. Each citation must include a pair of links: to the original prediction, and to a report of it materializing within 20% of the predicted value(s) (if quantifiable).
To avoid survival bias, the links must be several years apart. Try it, I'll wait.
Reason is on my side.
Yes, when the weather is warm, it is global warming. And when it is cold — it is "extreme cold", which is also global warming.
No u.
— Shamans in Tasmania, about 12000 years ago.
Curiously, Russia can not populate its own vast lands — and is ceding sovereignty over them to China, which can. Millions of acres...
This may justify covering the expenses from military budget...
I was merely explaining, why population density is relevant to the conversation. And not just relevant — important.
If I move to live on the ice at Northern Pole — will you be willing to fund all of the:
No? Why not? Is it, perhaps, because I'll live in too remote a place — as determined by the population density?
A tiny piece of software I released into the world once is almost BSD-licensed. Almost, because a separate clause prevents its usage by anyone possessing any item of clothing with a Che Guevara likeness on it.
To my surprise, someone once reached out to me — years ago — asking, if I can remove the requirement, because it makes it more difficult for them to include my software in their distro...
True story...
No, no, you don't get to use that pass to get out. Not after you've acknowledged that Assange has been "exposing truth" some time ago...
Or, to use your own analogy, once you've admitted having worshiped one supernatural being, asking you, which one you worship today — and why — is fair.
So, nothing about the likes of Facebook, yet, right?
What I don't understand is the above sentence...
Well, as they ought to be — they aren't a governmental institution...
As long as government can not tell them, whom to censor....
This would be against the First Amendment — do you have citations?
This is dumb. The abolition explicitly reduced the government's role in the Internet. Reduced — while the TFA argues for an increase: all of the analogies mentioned (speed-limits, prescription- and licensing-requirements) are enforced by government.
Like the early US, Internet was Libertarian — treating censorship as damage and routing around it, remember? The same unfortunate tendencies, which make the countries increasingly authoritarian, can now be observed online...
Translation: you loved him, when he was exposing the evil RethugliKKKunt$. Then, after his exposures of Her Who Should Be President, you began hating him.
Yes, that disheveled billionaire hiding in a 3rd-rate embassy — sold himself...
Funny, how this possibility hasn't bothered you, when he targeted your own political opponents.
Thank you, once again, for confirming, FCC has no jurisdiction.
In a free country, the government can not "simply forbid" anything. In the US in particular, the Congress has to pass a law making the practice illegal first — just as murder already is.
It is too bad, your kind of feeble-mindedness is so wide-spread...
Argumentum ad populum... A fallacy...
This is my last response to you — I have no time for hostile morons. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of cooperation in space, look into how humanity has cooperated at sea, outside of any country's territorial waters. But you aren't going to find anything justifying the FCC's mandate there either. Nor is there anything about "simply forbidding" private enterprises to sail where they please.
Property damage.
The government. Unlike retirement, healthcare, education, and the like, enforcing law actually is the government's prerogative even according to Libertarians.
But for the Executive to enforce the judgement, the Judiciary would need to first render it. Because separation of powers...
Creation of FCC — pushed by an authoritarian President beloved by contemporary Fascists — was Congress abdicating (some of) its powers to the Executive.
Then I can only inquire once again: "WTF does SpaceX need FCC's permission?"
An unsubstantiated claim...
They can sue the dispenser of the gravel for damages, duh...
First of all, thank you for admitting, it is none of Federal Communications Commission's business. Second, yes, if dispersing gravel is how one chooses to pursue happiness, Executive Branch has no right to interfere with the pursuit.
Although we should not discount the danger of such hacks, I doubt, it is the greatest vulnerability of the weapon.
TFA goes to great length explaining the potential dangers, but offers no justification for using "the greatest" in the title... Seems like a cheap sensationalism...
SpaceX are merely delivering other people's devices to space. Even if we were to stipulate, that those other people do need government's permission, SpaceX does not... Or, rather, should not...
Yes, having government control interactions between private entities is an element of Fascism. Not surprising, the FCC happened, when Fascism was hot, introduced by an authoritarian President beloved by contemporary Fascists.
I'm not your "bud" — you should not even dream about any kind of familiar affiliation, or you may be overcome by suicidal disappointment upon waking up...
How did we get into the state of Fascism so advanced, a private enterprise needs government's permission to offer services to other private enterprises? And I mean huge private enterprises — not the hapless individuals, nor the "mom-and-pop" shops, that politicians love to talk about?
There is nothing in the Constitution against tracking your car's movements on a public road either.
But I'm not talking about rights per se, but about whether or not such surveillance make sense at all. That is, whether the costs (the time and money, leaving the morals aside) of it justify the benefits.
What TFA is arguing for is a layer of verifications performed by the program's execution environment, checking its every move.
The checks aren't free — they make everything a little slower and/or consuming more resources (such as RAM). Whether that slow-down is worth the increased safety may be subject to debate...
But the parallels with human lives are inescapable. The checks argued for are no different from the much-denounced police practices, such as "stop-and-frisk", tracking citizens' identifications, and movements — and the arguments for and against them are much the same...