Yes, your ideology. I've noticed a pattern indeed: you loudly pontificate on long debunked talking points straight out of the Murdoch press, yet you seem strangely unfamiliar with the debunkings. This is a common pattern for Denialists.
So sod off with your fake outrage. Next time you make a fool of yourself, don't whine if you get called on it.
No, I will not, because those things were addressed in the inquiries. The reports of which you obviously didn't read, because they might conflict with your precious ideology.
No, you're labeled the equivalent of a Holocaust denier because you are.
When the Holocaust deniers see that historians don't have an exact number of the victims, they shout "See, there is no proof that millions of people died in the extermination camps". Never mind the eyewitness testimonials, civic records and the Nazi documents proving that systematic genocide was going on.
When the climate change deniers see that the climate scientists have a few unanswered questions in their data (such as why tree rings suddenly stop following all other temperature proxies), they shout "See, there is no proof of warming". Never mind that actual measurements do show a warming trend.
And again proving the point. That's essentially magical thinking: "the science fairies will whisk away billions of people into space!"
Do the math. If you accept that you need a significant part of the population off this rock to save the biosphere, then please show me how many billion that will be, and show me how much lift capacity that would need. Lift capacity, I should point out, that doesn't come free in terms of resources.
Not that I think that expanding into space is a bad idea, mind you, but it is not a panacea; ideally we'd both get off this rock and find a way to live within the carrying capacity of the biosphere.
You natter on about 'Climagegate', while ignoring that three inquiries and at least one independent research effort (BEST) have validated the CRU scientists and proven 'Climategate' to be a damp squib.
You nicely prove TFA's point: the outcomes of AGW research don't appeal to you, thus you believe the lies of Climategate, even though the scientists you're slandering have been cleared multiple times.
Yes, good comparison that: those who decline vaccines, a fringe movement, with those who deny the effects of CO2 on global climate or the health effects of cigarette smoking, big think tanks with massive funding. Surely these are equivalent.
As for insisting on organic produce, what's wrong with that? There are perfectly rational reasons for not wanting to pump even more insecticides into the biosphere.
reading from Harry Potter will probably get you lynched because of lack of a good solid Christian story line
Wait, what? The climax of the series is Harry willingly and knowingly going to his own death to save his friends and the world. How much more Christian can you get?
Oh, you mean 'American nutjob'? Sorry, that's not the same thing.
Yes, but that's a case of dimishing returns. Monty does cover this in TFA, but I'll repeat it: if you're cutting off at 22Khz, then 44Khz sampling will give you little headroom for your lowpass filter, 48 will give you more, 96 is practically perfect, more is overkill.
[...] we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender [...]
That viewpoint is not so unique to Japan, apparently.
Look at the supply line of those 6.5 million troops. Look at the available logistics resources. There is no way in Hell that these troops were a significant threat to the troops available to SHAEF in the same theater.
By the time the Red Army reached Berlin, it was well-equipped, experienced, and at the end of a very long supply line leading back to the Motherland, and largely dependent on Western aid to keep the supplies going. Without Lend-Lease, its supply of trucks would not last past the first offensive.
Actually, we do have the right not to be annoyed in public places. Even though we've given up a whole lot of it, we still have a modicum of private space that no-one gets to intrude on.
Conversations at a level and a duration that are easy to ignore fall outside of this private space; but I don't think these are the kind of conversations we are talking about in this thread.
And if you're arguing that we have zero private space while out in public, mind if I go stand on your toes? After all, we're both in public, and I have every right to stand where I want, don't I?
An who the hell are you to determine when someone can use their phone?
I'm a member of the public who doesn't want to spend his entire time in a public space listening to someone else's noise. A short, or low-volume conversation is one thing, but you are in public, among other people, and your right to do stops at their right to not be bothered by you.
Personally, I hope you run into someone with a short temper who rams that cellphone up your nostrils.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, your ideology. I've noticed a pattern indeed: you loudly pontificate on long debunked talking points straight out of the Murdoch press, yet you seem strangely unfamiliar with the debunkings. This is a common pattern for Denialists.
So sod off with your fake outrage. Next time you make a fool of yourself, don't whine if you get called on it.
To summarise your two points: modern parents want kids, but they don't want to work on actually raising them.
Mart
No, I will not, because those things were addressed in the inquiries. The reports of which you obviously didn't read, because they might conflict with your precious ideology.
Mart
Jawohl, herr Obersturmführer! Befehl ist Befehl!
No, you're labeled the equivalent of a Holocaust denier because you are.
When the Holocaust deniers see that historians don't have an exact number of the victims, they shout "See, there is no proof that millions of people died in the extermination camps". Never mind the eyewitness testimonials, civic records and the Nazi documents proving that systematic genocide was going on.
When the climate change deniers see that the climate scientists have a few unanswered questions in their data (such as why tree rings suddenly stop following all other temperature proxies), they shout "See, there is no proof of warming". Never mind that actual measurements do show a warming trend.
And again proving the point. That's essentially magical thinking: "the science fairies will whisk away billions of people into space!"
Do the math. If you accept that you need a significant part of the population off this rock to save the biosphere, then please show me how many billion that will be, and show me how much lift capacity that would need. Lift capacity, I should point out, that doesn't come free in terms of resources.
Not that I think that expanding into space is a bad idea, mind you, but it is not a panacea; ideally we'd both get off this rock and find a way to live within the carrying capacity of the biosphere.
Congratulations, you just proved the point.
You natter on about 'Climagegate', while ignoring that three inquiries and at least one independent research effort (BEST) have validated the CRU scientists and proven 'Climategate' to be a damp squib.
Mart
You would do well to actually read a paper on Climate Change, instead of regurgitating the conservative blogosphere.
Right now, you're proving TFA's point.
You nicely prove TFA's point: the outcomes of AGW research don't appeal to you, thus you believe the lies of Climategate, even though the scientists you're slandering have been cleared multiple times.
Mart
Yes, good comparison that: those who decline vaccines, a fringe movement, with those who deny the effects of CO2 on global climate or the health effects of cigarette smoking, big think tanks with massive funding. Surely these are equivalent.
As for insisting on organic produce, what's wrong with that? There are perfectly rational reasons for not wanting to pump even more insecticides into the biosphere.
Mart
That's exactly what the Unix greybeards said when Linux just got started: "Hundreds of amateur coders can never lead to a good thing".
And yet here we are, in 2012, and proprietary Unix is for all practical purposes dead.
Mart
And the Japanese diet is well-known for...?
Mart
That was not what you posted originally. Goalpost move detected, trolling assumed to be acknowledged.
Mart
You're trolling. The default on Ubuntu is brasero, which gives you the option to burn on the fly right in the dialog.
Next time, pick a less transparent lie.
Mart
Wait, what? The climax of the series is Harry willingly and knowingly going to his own death to save his friends and the world. How much more Christian can you get?
Oh, you mean 'American nutjob'? Sorry, that's not the same thing.
Mart
The SID volume control was four bits, so 0 to 15.
Mart
In some countries beer is actually more than just carbonated piss.
Mart
How about you just walk up to the counter, show your insurance papers, and they unlock the pump for you?
Really, if that is your only concern...
Mart
Yes, but that's a case of dimishing returns. Monty does cover this in TFA, but I'll repeat it: if you're cutting off at 22Khz, then 44Khz sampling will give you little headroom for your lowpass filter, 48 will give you more, 96 is practically perfect, more is overkill.
Mart
Erm no. If those harmonics are below the cutoff frequency for sampling, they will get sampled, perfectly.
Apparently you need to work on your maths comprehension.
Well, since I have the right to go wherever I like in a public space, I'm sure you don't mind if I stand on your toes or push you aside, now then?
That viewpoint is not so unique to Japan, apparently.
Amateurs discuss tactics, experts logistics.
Look at the supply line of those 6.5 million troops. Look at the available logistics resources. There is no way in Hell that these troops were a significant threat to the troops available to SHAEF in the same theater.
By the time the Red Army reached Berlin, it was well-equipped, experienced, and at the end of a very long supply line leading back to the Motherland, and largely dependent on Western aid to keep the supplies going. Without Lend-Lease, its supply of trucks would not last past the first offensive.
Actually, we do have the right not to be annoyed in public places. Even though we've given up a whole lot of it, we still have a modicum of private space that no-one gets to intrude on.
Conversations at a level and a duration that are easy to ignore fall outside of this private space; but I don't think these are the kind of conversations we are talking about in this thread.
And if you're arguing that we have zero private space while out in public, mind if I go stand on your toes? After all, we're both in public, and I have every right to stand where I want, don't I?
Mart
I'm a member of the public who doesn't want to spend his entire time in a public space listening to someone else's noise. A short, or low-volume conversation is one thing, but you are in public, among other people, and your right to do stops at their right to not be bothered by you.
Personally, I hope you run into someone with a short temper who rams that cellphone up your nostrils.
Mart