"I am among a very secret an tightly knit circle of experts. Currently 3 x 10^9 members pertain to this club. We recognize each other by a prurient grin on our faces."
Its one of the things that lets me remain optimistic that there is indeed, still hope in our world.
No matter how politically correct the world gets, no matter how relentless the indoctrination of gender respect and overall metrosexualization of our culture generally...men are ultimately men.
In any context, from the most blue-collar industrial zone to the rarefied heights of government, academia, or business - if a woman with a sweet ass walks past, and they think that they can 'get away with it', the slightest glance plus a faint smirk or barely raised eyebrow will IMMEDIATELY join those men in a brief fraternity of appreciation. Politics, culture, language, economics, social class - any differences instantly disappear as they look at each other and all share a moment of joy.
"Thus any scoops or special announcements that they can come up with help keep them popular in the taxpayer's eye and help keep the budget cutters away."
Ah, so the 'root of veracity' as it were, is to be found in determining which is the more credible attention-whore?
Either: - the desperate-for-publicity agency of a democracy careening full speed into bread-and-circuses governance; or - the British press
Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US, 1890-2010, omitted ].
In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous."
You're right - it's the old "correlation doesn't equal causation" trope....one could with almost equal validity assert that ninjas were protecting us from global warming, since a decrease in ninjas over time has correlated to an increase in global temps. (The hitch being, of course, that it's REALLY hard to count ninjas.)
Of course, the critics of AGW might make the same assertions of faulty, overgeneralized cause-effect relationships of the IPCC report and the anthropogenic theory of global warming in general. It's like most of the "look at the recent data" justifications, it's just a matter of cherry-picking data ranges that support your point: "Look, global warming is real! Look at the trend!" "Yeah, but this year it's cold" "Stupid, this year is weather, we're talking about CLIMATE" "But it really hasn't been warming in the last 10 years" "But it has over the last 100 years!" "But it hasn't over the last 250." "But it has over the last 1000." "But it hasn't over the last 10,000"
- ignore the ACTUAL point being argued, and attack the source(s) - claim the AGW critic takes money from biased source, ergo critic MUST be biased (yet somehow thousands of scientists 2000-2008 were able to take money from the US Gov't yet be anti-Bush...they must just be especially morally pure, I guess?) - ad-hominem attack on the critics - ad-hominem attack on anyone referencing the critics - claim that the anti-AGW forces are in it for money, imply that AGW zealots are somehow more high minded than that. - posting anonymously (yeah, I'm guessing those black helicopters must be close, eh?)...pretty much by-the-book attack post by the AGW ecomarxists. Any they wonder why they are failing to convince reasonable people?
...and this EVEN explains why most men do the driving - our wives, knowing the secret right ear thing, prefer to sit on the right, making us drive and simultaneously compelling us to do their bidding!...or it could just be some bullshit theory where the data was cherry picked to make some sort of pop science conclusion.
The US uses Imperial Measurements for just about everything.
This makes the rest of the world cry. (Shrug)
If you want to ride on our rocket, cope. If you really insist on the metric system, then hey, build your own space program.
Bullshit navel-contemplation/-aggrandizing nerds
on
On the Humble Default
·
· Score: 1
"Default" as a concept is the result of INDUSTRIALIZATION and mass production. To suggest that somehow this is a result of computerization is amazingly naive.
"the lifetime cost of treating an HIV-positive person exceeds $400,000 and can run as high as $648,000"
Of course, one could assert that the government has no business rescuing people from their OWN SHITTY LIFE CHOICES (then the lifetime cost would be $0), but that would apparently be too radical for 2009.:(
"Subjective." "Also subjective." "Exactly. It's all subjective."
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that the moment some chick is moaning about how she wants you to nail her NOW, that if there is EVER a time that 'objectivity' should be tossed out the flippin' window, that would be the time.
Sounds like most of the 'features' you recommend are the reason most business users think that their admins are Nazis.
Google Maps? (a *far* better app than the shitty garbage installed by default on BBs) Sorry, no installs allowed. Ebook reader for all those hours I spend in airports traveling for your goddamned company? Sorry, no installs allowed. Opera, so I can make more business flight arrangements reasonably easily, instead of the crappy BB default browser?
As an email reader, it's the bomb. As a 'multifunction' device - entirely due to FASCIST IT departments - my BB is nearly worthless.
As I've seen more devices proliferate that will do the 'email synch' thing as well or better than BB, I'm delightedly looking forward to the expiry of my BB so I can hurl it in the trash.
(And by the way, I entirely understand that businesses don't necessarily want their staff filling the BB's with dodgy grey-market apps that end up locking the BB and causing the IT dept more hours supporting them. I get it. But the BES is *so* easy for lazy IT depts to totally lockdown without any consideration that there ARE useful external apps, THAT is what I object to. BES is like the electronic version of The Stanford Expiriment, where we get to see the 'Closet Commissar' lurking in the heart of every Dew-swilling IT manager.)
If a change in the human emission of CO2 (which is what, a small % of 0.04% of our atmosphere) is allegedly so catastrophic that it's going to end the world, what would that level of windmill power do to our atmosphere?
I mean, aside from allowing some FUTURE has-been lefty politician to generate $100 million in windfall revenues, would it really be a danger?
The reason it does less damage to society than cigarettes and alcohol is only because it remains illegal. Don't get me wrong, I agree that alcohol and nicotine ARE entry-drugs, far moreso than pot. I also think pot should be legal, but probably not for the same reasons you do.
What astonishes me is that potheads asserting the harmlessness of weed all cheerfully (lol) ignore what's obvious to ANYONE ELSE WHO KNOWS THEM: pot has long-term personality effects. Disassociation and inability to focus are two fairly significant deleterious effects of Mary Jane. My understanding is that there are also long term physiological retention issues of THC staying in the human system for a period far longer than would theoretically be expected.
Like any drug, if abused, it can be dangerous.
Again, I still support legalization, as well as the legalization of a number of other drugs as long as there are draconian penalties established for using while driving, etc. I see it as simply encouraging Darwin, actually.
Never actually HAD your ass kicked downtown, have you? I'm not saying that everytime you go through an urban area it's The Warriors 2009, but seriously, if you think the whole "urban fear" is just an invention, you're simply naive.
From the article: (the guy was thinking)"You probably think the angels of death have found you."
No, what crossed my mind was that if he was an actual criminal and not just some opportunistic teen, his thought would be more like "Sweet iPhone, and there are 3 dickweeds running around with a laptop too. All we have to do is roll them, and we get a laptop as well."
"Natal Technology a Gift To the Disabled, Amputees"
GIFT Considering that "gift" pretty much presupposes there's no compensation given in return, and this is Micro$oft we're talking about, I'd imagine any serious editor would change that simply to BENEFIT.
I know accusing/. editors of sloppy editing is like calling water wet, but hey.
...considering that in 2009 if you're stupid enough to post a pic of your family online, that means you are entirely fair game for followup comments:
Is it just me or does she have an enormous head? Or her husband has a teeny head. Either way, she and the kid she's holding look bizarrely large-headed, and I don't think it's just perspective.
...PT Barnum is proved right: there IS no such thing as bad publicity.
Anyone want to guess what became the most downloaded/torrented game this morning?
Deviant fringe sex behavior (whacking to images of CGI girls being raped) -even though it actually directly harms nobody- is abhorrent, sure. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of banning it because then you have the difficult question about consensus and control: at what point does societal consensus kick in, and if enough of us agree, we can force our behavior preferences on someone? Is 99% cultural agreement required, or only 90%? 80%? 52%?
There are some communities where I bet I could find 95%+ agreement that homosexuality in general should be banned in PRECISELY the same context. Do those 95% get to tell the other 5% what to do?
Of course the alternative is equally problematic: does this mean that anything that doesn't ACTUALLY hurt someone is ALLOWED....? Are we really asserting that a given cultural group is not morally allowed to assert any sort sort of cogent preferences? Are we saying that "culture" as a concept is indefensible in the enlightened postmodern era? To restate in reverse the last question from the previous paragraph, how small a minority is ethically entitled to their own 'way'? Can a single family or couple insist that they be allowed to do what they want contrary to the will of the ENTIRE rest of the community?
You claim 'effective banning' yet it wasn't banned in ANY other country, it wasn't banned from the funding of private foundations (who have $billions themselves), it wasn't banned from STATE funding (as I recall California was ponying up $billions as well).......and where are all the therapies?
EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD could pursue this 'miracle' cure for everything from the common cold to cancer, yet *somehow* since the US refuses to fund it with federal dollars, it's "banned"?
Personally, I think some folks got a little TOO used to sucking from the US taxpayer's teat, and this has made them very, very crabby.
The people who demanded stem cells research be funded by the government (it was never banned, despite the rhetoric of the Left), now they will be able to gather as many stem cells as they want to follow any potential lead in terms of therapies.
The people who had moral qualms about the circumstances of gathering stem cells and the potential for abuse will be able to rest easy that there is NO moral context in the harvesting of petri-originated stem cells.
I know it's really, really hard not to fling poo at each other (if only from habit) but can we all agree this is a good thing?
Not sure why I'm responding to someone who's so brave to post as an AC, but it's already KNOWN that something as simple as the change to latex paint on the Stevenson boxes (that contain temp sensors in the US) in the 1970's already accounts for 1-2 degrees of recent warming, yet was never corrected-for in the Global Warming data.
So, no, I'm no expert, but the "appeal to the masses, look at what all the experts say" is a bullshit worthless response that proves nothing, in any case because you don't (apparently) understand the meaning of the word "ALL".
ALL the climate scientists don't agree on Global Warming either, sport.
"...resurfacing about two-third of the pavements and rooftops with reflective surfaces and planting three trees per house can cool down LA by an average of 2-3 (deg C)...."
Wouldn't that then imply that the "great global WARMING" that we're all terrified of, whose data is derived from temperature sensors that have in many cases been surrounded by urbanization, might be caused by localized temperature increases of, I dunno, maybe 2-3 deg C due to the URBANIZATION and not some somewhat-speculative CO2 mechanism that's not even known for sure whether it's a cause or effect?
Slashdot Mirror
"I am among a very secret an tightly knit circle of experts. Currently 3 x 10^9 members pertain to this club. We recognize each other by a prurient grin on our faces."
Its one of the things that lets me remain optimistic that there is indeed, still hope in our world.
No matter how politically correct the world gets, no matter how relentless the indoctrination of gender respect and overall metrosexualization of our culture generally...men are ultimately men.
In any context, from the most blue-collar industrial zone to the rarefied heights of government, academia, or business - if a woman with a sweet ass walks past, and they think that they can 'get away with it', the slightest glance plus a faint smirk or barely raised eyebrow will IMMEDIATELY join those men in a brief fraternity of appreciation. Politics, culture, language, economics, social class - any differences instantly disappear as they look at each other and all share a moment of joy.
Really, that makes me happy.
"Thus any scoops or special announcements that they can come up with help keep them popular in the taxpayer's eye and help keep the budget cutters away."
Ah, so the 'root of veracity' as it were, is to be found in determining which is the more credible attention-whore?
Either:
- the desperate-for-publicity agency of a democracy careening full speed into bread-and-circuses governance; or
- the British press
It is a challenge, grasshopper, indeed....
"Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote:
Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US, 1890-2010, omitted ].
In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous."
You're right - it's the old "correlation doesn't equal causation" trope....one could with almost equal validity assert that ninjas were protecting us from global warming, since a decrease in ninjas over time has correlated to an increase in global temps. (The hitch being, of course, that it's REALLY hard to count ninjas.)
Of course, the critics of AGW might make the same assertions of faulty, overgeneralized cause-effect relationships of the IPCC report and the anthropogenic theory of global warming in general. It's like most of the "look at the recent data" justifications, it's just a matter of cherry-picking data ranges that support your point:
"Look, global warming is real! Look at the trend!"
"Yeah, but this year it's cold"
"Stupid, this year is weather, we're talking about CLIMATE"
"But it really hasn't been warming in the last 10 years"
"But it has over the last 100 years!"
"But it hasn't over the last 250."
"But it has over the last 1000."
"But it hasn't over the last 10,000"
ad infinitum ad nauseum.
- ignore the ACTUAL point being argued, and attack the source(s) ...pretty much by-the-book attack post by the AGW ecomarxists. Any they wonder why they are failing to convince reasonable people?
- claim the AGW critic takes money from biased source, ergo critic MUST be biased (yet somehow thousands of scientists 2000-2008 were able to take money from the US Gov't yet be anti-Bush...they must just be especially morally pure, I guess?)
- ad-hominem attack on the critics
- ad-hominem attack on anyone referencing the critics
- claim that the anti-AGW forces are in it for money, imply that AGW zealots are somehow more high minded than that.
- posting anonymously (yeah, I'm guessing those black helicopters must be close, eh?)
/unimpressed.
Call when they develop THIS app.
http://www.pictureshack.net/images/9846newlayar.JPG
(Yes, it's sloppy; it was a very quick photoshop.)
In a couple of years, when she turns 18, would nudes of her be child porn? Eh?
(listens for the sounds of heads exploding)
...and this EVEN explains why most men do the driving - our wives, knowing the secret right ear thing, prefer to sit on the right, making us drive and simultaneously compelling us to do their bidding! ...or it could just be some bullshit theory where the data was cherry picked to make some sort of pop science conclusion.
The US uses Imperial Measurements for just about everything.
This makes the rest of the world cry. (Shrug)
If you want to ride on our rocket, cope.
If you really insist on the metric system, then hey, build your own space program.
"Default" as a concept is the result of INDUSTRIALIZATION and mass production.
To suggest that somehow this is a result of computerization is amazingly naive.
"the lifetime cost of treating an HIV-positive person exceeds $400,000 and can run as high as $648,000"
Of course, one could assert that the government has no business rescuing people from their OWN SHITTY LIFE CHOICES (then the lifetime cost would be $0), but that would apparently be too radical for 2009. :(
"Subjective."
"Also subjective."
"Exactly. It's all subjective."
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that the moment some chick is moaning about how she wants you to nail her NOW, that if there is EVER a time that 'objectivity' should be tossed out the flippin' window, that would be the time.
Sounds like most of the 'features' you recommend are the reason most business users think that their admins are Nazis.
Google Maps? (a *far* better app than the shitty garbage installed by default on BBs) Sorry, no installs allowed.
Ebook reader for all those hours I spend in airports traveling for your goddamned company? Sorry, no installs allowed.
Opera, so I can make more business flight arrangements reasonably easily, instead of the crappy BB default browser?
As an email reader, it's the bomb. As a 'multifunction' device - entirely due to FASCIST IT departments - my BB is nearly worthless.
As I've seen more devices proliferate that will do the 'email synch' thing as well or better than BB, I'm delightedly looking forward to the expiry of my BB so I can hurl it in the trash.
(And by the way, I entirely understand that businesses don't necessarily want their staff filling the BB's with dodgy grey-market apps that end up locking the BB and causing the IT dept more hours supporting them. I get it. But the BES is *so* easy for lazy IT depts to totally lockdown without any consideration that there ARE useful external apps, THAT is what I object to. BES is like the electronic version of The Stanford Expiriment, where we get to see the 'Closet Commissar' lurking in the heart of every Dew-swilling IT manager.)
If a change in the human emission of CO2 (which is what, a small % of 0.04% of our atmosphere) is allegedly so catastrophic that it's going to end the world, what would that level of windmill power do to our atmosphere?
I mean, aside from allowing some FUTURE has-been lefty politician to generate $100 million in windfall revenues, would it really be a danger?
The reason it does less damage to society than cigarettes and alcohol is only because it remains illegal. Don't get me wrong, I agree that alcohol and nicotine ARE entry-drugs, far moreso than pot. I also think pot should be legal, but probably not for the same reasons you do.
What astonishes me is that potheads asserting the harmlessness of weed all cheerfully (lol) ignore what's obvious to ANYONE ELSE WHO KNOWS THEM: pot has long-term personality effects. Disassociation and inability to focus are two fairly significant deleterious effects of Mary Jane. My understanding is that there are also long term physiological retention issues of THC staying in the human system for a period far longer than would theoretically be expected.
Like any drug, if abused, it can be dangerous.
Again, I still support legalization, as well as the legalization of a number of other drugs as long as there are draconian penalties established for using while driving, etc. I see it as simply encouraging Darwin, actually.
Never actually HAD your ass kicked downtown, have you? I'm not saying that everytime you go through an urban area it's The Warriors 2009, but seriously, if you think the whole "urban fear" is just an invention, you're simply naive.
From the article: (the guy was thinking)"You probably think the angels of death have found you."
No, what crossed my mind was that if he was an actual criminal and not just some opportunistic teen, his thought would be more like "Sweet iPhone, and there are 3 dickweeds running around with a laptop too. All we have to do is roll them, and we get a laptop as well."
"...[an] 852-page draft bill that would require all Americans to obtain health insurance, force employers to provide benefits or help pay for them..."
*require*
*force* ...I don't see a lot of 'voluntary' there?
"Natal Technology a Gift To the Disabled, Amputees"
GIFT
Considering that "gift" pretty much presupposes there's no compensation given in return, and this is Micro$oft we're talking about, I'd imagine any serious editor would change that simply to BENEFIT.
I know accusing /. editors of sloppy editing is like calling water wet, but hey.
...considering that in 2009 if you're stupid enough to post a pic of your family online, that means you are entirely fair game for followup comments:
Is it just me or does she have an enormous head? Or her husband has a teeny head.
Either way, she and the kid she's holding look bizarrely large-headed, and I don't think it's just perspective.
...PT Barnum is proved right: there IS no such thing as bad publicity.
Anyone want to guess what became the most downloaded/torrented game this morning?
Deviant fringe sex behavior (whacking to images of CGI girls being raped) -even though it actually directly harms nobody- is abhorrent, sure. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of banning it because then you have the difficult question about consensus and control: at what point does societal consensus kick in, and if enough of us agree, we can force our behavior preferences on someone? Is 99% cultural agreement required, or only 90%? 80%? 52%?
There are some communities where I bet I could find 95%+ agreement that homosexuality in general should be banned in PRECISELY the same context. Do those 95% get to tell the other 5% what to do?
Of course the alternative is equally problematic: does this mean that anything that doesn't ACTUALLY hurt someone is ALLOWED....? Are we really asserting that a given cultural group is not morally allowed to assert any sort sort of cogent preferences? Are we saying that "culture" as a concept is indefensible in the enlightened postmodern era? To restate in reverse the last question from the previous paragraph, how small a minority is ethically entitled to their own 'way'? Can a single family or couple insist that they be allowed to do what they want contrary to the will of the ENTIRE rest of the community?
"It's SO unfair that we have to like obey our nations tax laws!"
For what it's worth, please note: they ARE obeying our tax laws now.
Please.
You claim 'effective banning' yet it wasn't banned in ANY other country, it wasn't banned from the funding of private foundations (who have $billions themselves), it wasn't banned from STATE funding (as I recall California was ponying up $billions as well).... ...and where are all the therapies?
EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD could pursue this 'miracle' cure for everything from the common cold to cancer, yet *somehow* since the US refuses to fund it with federal dollars, it's "banned"?
Personally, I think some folks got a little TOO used to sucking from the US taxpayer's teat, and this has made them very, very crabby.
...this is GOOD news for everyone, right?
The people who demanded stem cells research be funded by the government (it was never banned, despite the rhetoric of the Left), now they will be able to gather as many stem cells as they want to follow any potential lead in terms of therapies.
The people who had moral qualms about the circumstances of gathering stem cells and the potential for abuse will be able to rest easy that there is NO moral context in the harvesting of petri-originated stem cells.
I know it's really, really hard not to fling poo at each other (if only from habit) but can we all agree this is a good thing?
...so clearly I'm not qualified to be on Obama's cabinet.
Not sure why I'm responding to someone who's so brave to post as an AC, but it's already KNOWN that something as simple as the change to latex paint on the Stevenson boxes (that contain temp sensors in the US) in the 1970's already accounts for 1-2 degrees of recent warming, yet was never corrected-for in the Global Warming data.
So, no, I'm no expert, but the "appeal to the masses, look at what all the experts say" is a bullshit worthless response that proves nothing, in any case because you don't (apparently) understand the meaning of the word "ALL".
ALL the climate scientists don't agree on Global Warming either, sport.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.cbslocal.com%2Fstation%2Fwbz%2Fwbz%2F2009%2Fmay%2FSurfaceStations.pdf&ei=iqMeSuGGK5mGsAaOuOjLCg&usg=AFQjCNGs2VoYFQPM7XthdPDS9FKHqOvGeA
"...resurfacing about two-third of the pavements and rooftops with reflective surfaces and planting three trees per house can cool down LA by an average of 2-3 (deg C)...."
Wouldn't that then imply that the "great global WARMING" that we're all terrified of, whose data is derived from temperature sensors that have in many cases been surrounded by urbanization, might be caused by localized temperature increases of, I dunno, maybe 2-3 deg C due to the URBANIZATION and not some somewhat-speculative CO2 mechanism that's not even known for sure whether it's a cause or effect?