Well that will depend on a lot of things. If a socket upgrade is available they can just put in a new CPU. Even if the "server" is taken out of service you are just talking about the mainboard, CPU, and memory. The CPU and memory might be offered for sale as "used" or "refurbished". The board will be recycled, the power supply and rest will probably be reused unless a more efficient solution is available. Servers tend to have a longer life than say cell phones, desktops, and PCs.
A blog posting over a peer reviews journal? Yes I found it interesting and yes I find it annoying when all I get from and expert is "This is wrong and you should believe me." They may have good reasons to say that and probably do but how about saying what they are. And what are the massive problems? Do you know? I have not seen those published. You are still taking it on faith. You may have believed right but that is just luck not science.
"Obviously I'm not calling Google racist or comparing their policy to segregation; but I AM saying that, just as brick-and-mortar spaces must grant certain rights to the public which have been established over time, so virtual social spaces are a domain for the establishment of public rights, of standards for the treatment of the public, which are enforced whether through legal or social mechanisms." But there are restaurant with dress codes. Try walking into one wearing a mask? If Google plus was the only social network on the planet then maybe there would be a need for concern. But their are internet spaces that offer the us of aliases or just posting as an AC. The point of a social net work is to be found and to share. There is nothing wrong for some like Google+ to require a real name and their is nothing legally or morally wrong with sites that do not. They are just different sites that can serve different needs. Just as to use your example of public spaces it is okay that your butt will be tossed in jail if walk into an elementary school naked using profanities and it is okay for their to be clothing optional resorts where you can walk about naked. It is choice. Now if some place tried to pass a law preventing a websites from allowing ACs and Aliases then that would be wrong. For Google to require them for their Social site is just a choice. Frankly one that I happen to like.
"Now to me this brings up two main scenarios. a) Either the bad astronomer (Phil Plait) and the scientists he cites are wrong/unqualified/biased and are somehow wrong about the paper.
b) Or the paper is crap, in which case I was right about it being crap and you (if I read you properly) were wrong." No. I never said the paper was correct. EVER. I said that to dismiss it based on anything but the data was wrong. Frankly those dismissals are a bit annoying but then again they are in "popular press". I was being critical of your methods. You kept missing my point. I never said there was no climate change, I never said that the paper was true. I said that the paper needed to be verified before being dismissed! That is all I have ever said.
"Not to be harsh, but this is almost exactly what I think is happening when I read most of the AGW-denialists on/., including you." Again the zealotry is over the top. I am not claim that we are not in a warming trend. In fact I have said time and time again "that even if the warming is not caused by CO2 that working to reduce CO2 is the safe course." I question the "true believers" not science. In fact if you read what I wrote I said that "one study is not enough to prove anything". I am anti making science into a religion. Come on just read what I wrote and the response. Me "That is an interesting observation and easy to verify. The only logical, rational, and scientific reaction to that is this. We need to verify these observations. No attack on the source because of unrelated writings but an open and rational look at the data. Anything else is an emotional reaction to having a belief threatened. There is zero room in scientific and rational thought for personal attacks and name calling." You "Did the authors do the analysis correctly? Are they missing coverage from some areas that would be expected to make up the difference? Are they looking at the right radiation? Do the models really not take this into account? Does the extra heat given off actually make a significant dent in AGW?" I already answered your reply I said we need to verify these observations. BTW the satellite coverage is very good missed spots are unlikely, again that would be in that we need to verify to be 100% sure but the orbital elements and sensor coverage specs are available to the public. BTW I have done work with earth sensing systems in the past not this bird but others. Also CO2 captures long wave IR which is what this study was looking at. Other parts of the spectrum could be looked at but CO2 is pretty transparent to large sections of that and is the part of the spectrum that CO2 reflects. That is how greenhouse gases work they let in "light" which then is absorbed and re-radiated as long wave IR which CO2 traps. Think of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and a one way valve. Do the models not take it into account? Well that is the entire point of the paper. The models predict x and the sensors are seeing x-n. So no the models at this point seem to be in error. Do you really think we have perfect climate models? No we are still learning and this seems to be a learning moment. "Does the extra heat given off actually make a significant dent in AGW?", that isn't relevant to the validity of this paper. The paper doesn't say that there is not global warming. What it says is that the models and the observed data are not matching. That means that the predictive value of the models is in doubt. Here is an example of how the model might be in error. THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF ANY FACT ON MY PART OF WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE EARTH RIGHT NOW. Suppose the increase in coal burning by China is putting soot, SOx, and or NOx, high in the atmosphere and the models are missing that data or not allowing for it. High altitude aerosols can absorb sun light before it reaches the lower atmosphere and re radiate it. This could be very bad because that is the cause then China at sometime in the future china could cut the release of those aerosols. They tend to settle out long before CO2 gets absorbed. If that is the cause then you could have a huge problem and a giant spike. This a worst case BTW with this data. Or there may be some other heat transport method that we underestimate that means change will happen slower. Those are two things that could explain the data if it is verified. But it was the bad author of the news story that was making the over the top claims not the author of the paper that you where attacking. Again I am pro science and reason. You where making claims about me in specific that where totally with out reason and where based again not on reason but on an emotional attachment to the current models of global climate change. As I said the news story was trash. This paper on th
Again attack the person and ignore the data. Now you challenge the validity of the peer review process because the results threaten your faith. Really just step back and forget everything but the data. The study says that several satellites are showing that the Earth is re radiation more long wave IR than is predicted by the current models. That is the key statment here. And it is not something that is really open to opinion or interpretation. For that key fact all the peer review needs to do is take a look at the satellite data which is available from NASA and compare it to the climate models.
That is an interesting observation and easy to verify. The only logical, rational, and scientific reaction to that is this. We need to verify these observations. No attack on the source because of unrelated writings but an open and rational look at the data. Anything else is an emotional reaction to having a belief threatened. There is zero room in scientific and rational thought for personal attacks and name calling.
Now the author of the article, which is not the author of the paper, should be roasted alive for biased, sensationalist journalism. That is a given so you can blast his professionalism all you want.
Let me clue you in on a common human failing. Really smart people and some not so smart people fall in this trap. "I am smart because I am an expert in X so I can understand Y with no problem." You see it on slashdot all the time. I am an expert in computers so I will spout off about biology, chemistry. politics, and or economics! Often the spout is pure manure. Which may be the case for this gentleman. Sometimes really smart even brilliant people will believe really odd stuff outside the field. A prime example was Tesla. That man was brilliant but also bat crap crazy. Actually I would guess that he suffered real mental health problems involving OCD combined with almost pathological narcissism. That doesn't mean you can ignore all that he did or should. Of course even some of his "science" got way off into the land of crazy. The sad thing IMHO is that way to many of his fans ignore his real contributions for his fantasy works, but that is another subject.
A did you read the link? "The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted."
This is direct observational data of the remission of long wave IR from the earth comparing it to the predictive models. So one needs to ask, is the data flawed? If so then we have big problems since sat data is the heart of a lot of weather models. Are the models flawed and need to be fine tunned? Or is there an other cause for the warming trend. Now the news story I also terribly slanted but the studies author is not the author of the news story. And B."If some qualified and credible scientists investigate and vouch for his paper than I may be willing to give it a second thought. " Well again if you had read the link with an open mind. In the first paragraph ", reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. " A peer reviewed journal means that the paper was reviewed by a panel of qualified and credible scientists! Yes the news article is full of spin. I really think that the term alarmist should be be used because it is an un needed and dismissive term that shows a bias. It is almost as bad as your personal attack on the author and the use of the term Quack and other personal attacks because you have "faith" in the global warming caused by increased man made CO2.
Let me make this one thing clear. Any personal attacks on the author completely blows any creditability you have as a so called "rational" thinker. Being a true rational thinker means just looking at the data in a scientific way. Sorry to be blunt but "I don't know enough to question this but I will dismiss this study because the author believes this unrelated thing" is just wrong. Just read the meat of article and toss out the journalistic "spice" and you may actually find it interesting.
Really? No it just means he doesn't know biology. But that doesn't matter to most people on Slashdot, they are perfectly happy to listen to a biologist about how dangerous a nuclear power plant is over a Nuclear engineer. In case you didn't know it is terrible science to try and discredit the man instead of the data, experiment, and or procedures.
Actually I believe that there are under 10 stories or something like that. Every book, movie, and play are just variations on those stories. Take Star Wars for example. It is the same as the tale of King Author which is the same of any number of other stories.
The reason why super hero movies are doing well is technology. We now have the ability to do them on screen now and not have them look cheesy. Combine that with the fact that people will pay to see big visual movies on the screen. If the movie is just a romantic comedy or some other character driven movie they may just wait for it to be in Red Box or Netflix and save the time, money, and hassle of going to the movies. If you get popcorn and two drinks and two movie ticket it is big bucks these days. Whats next? Who knows but it will have to be something worth seeing on a big screen.
Well yes. If you can create lab animals with the same fatal condition you can then test treatments for the condition on them. You then get into that whole animal testing issue. It is one of those areas where people will have different opinions for sure. I am in the cost vs benefit camp. Animal testing for cosmetics == bad. Animal testing to save lives == acceptable. Others have different opinions on that.
Create your own public space. Think about Social networks as a modern day phonebook. You can have an unlisted number or you can put your name in.
As to what to do if you don't like that? Well create your own social network. With modern technology you can do it yourself for not much money. You might even get rich doing it.
Teacher went out with the kids. Heck I had one teacher that only taught science once every two weeks and used a science book from 1966 in 1976! She didn't use the new books because she had the lessons already made. There are good teachers but there also a lot of really bad ones that the union protects. Yes I remember asking when would we get to study science. And I remember that book with a picture of Gemini on the cover and talking about how some day we would land on the moon. BTW then next school in the system we where allowed to bring water, because the water at the school was unfit to drink. Things do seem better now but man it was bad back then and I would say no more than 50% of my teachers should have had that job.
You are just incoherent. At first you say that you want Anonymity to protect people from harassment. Then you say. "If it is stupid and insulting, block them or filter them, but don't force everybody else to use real name." In the end all that you are saying is that you don't want to be held responsible for what you say and you want the world to work they way you want it to. You do not have to be on Facebook or Google plus. I know more than a few people that live pretty active lives that are not. You want to be protected from having to stand by your words. You are not really afraid of going to jail but you don't want people judge you by what you say. You want Google to run Google plus the way you want them too. Because you feel you have some right to that free service on your own terms. And you really don't care about protecting others from bullies even though you posted that you did because those kids that where bullied and committed suicide should have just blocked those bullies? I was wrong, you are just trying to justify what you want, which is disappointing.
"Nothing stops them from harassing the victim via other channels. The whole point is that you don't want to leak if somebody is gay or not by forcing them to use a real name in the first place." That doesn't make any sense. Then they might as well just not let anyone know they are gay in the first place. That makes no sense. Unless you are going to be in the closet somebody is going to know that you aka your real name is gay. And they can then tell other people. Then you can get attacked. You are claiming that by using a fake name you can hide. While that is of use in some instances, in most others those that are hiding are attacking not being attacked. Read the examples you gave again. And read it carefully, both children where bullied at school and on Facebook. Truth is that Facebook is being used as a Red Herring in both cases. You really can block people on Facebook or just not go to the site. Heck you have to make your own page. Being anonymous probably help the villains in this case because it allowed them to snipe from the bushes with no real fear of being found out. Blaming Facebook is also a way of shifting blame. What seemed to have happened in both cases is a failure by the parents and the school to protect vulnerable children. Lots of children get bullied very few kill themselves. I will make this statement again. It is not evil it is a choice. You do not have to be on Google+ you do not have to be on any social network site that requires you to give a real name. You can still have Blogs where you can say what ever you want with some degree of anonymity including Google's Blogger. I will as say that in free societies things work best when people do stand behind what they say. Light is better than shadows. I do think that you have the best of intentions but I also feel that you are painting with a way to broad of a stroke. Anonymity and even alter egos have their place. The authoring of a blog is a good example. But in what is a social network I do not feel it's value overrides it's cost. But that is just my opinion.
"Some [advocate.com] people [croatiantimes.com] might disagree." And using the nicks Snickerdoodle and Verdle would have made a difference? I think not. It isn't Facebook's fault. And you could use a fake name on Facebook if you wanted. Kind of defeats the function but hey that is up to you. And frankly your examples I feel prove my point. Odds are if the people posting those vile things had to have their real names tied to their acts maybe they wouldn't have done it. Or law enforcement could have been called because of the harassment. Bet you a dollar to a donut that those attacks where from people not using their real names!
And a good bit of what is outside the norm isn't good. And why shouldn't you be in judged in part by who are? Really so what you want is a place where you can hide when you want to but snipe from the bushes. Yes Facebook has been used as evidence why ever not? If you are accused of drunk driving and you post a picture of yourself funneling beers well? I doubt that people just a little outside the norm will have a problem with Google+ or Facebook. By some peoples standards I am a little outside the norm. I do not hide who I am. My nick is one I have used for decades. Frankly is what a lot of people know me by. I have been harassed for my differences but that is their problem not mine. And about 99% of that online harassment has been from people that lack the guts to even use a handle. Nope I would be glad to silence those that fear acting like an jerk in public. Those that hide most of the time are not part of the solution.
Actually I would say the worst is CNNs. I don't have a problem with not seeing obscenity. In fact I wish more people would reframe from it in communication. It has gotten to the point where I wonder what people use for expletives anymore. I know of people that will drop the F bomb if their soda is warm, or they have to walk back a meter because they left their keys on their desk! I mean really what do they use when they are really angry? The oppression from what? The government? Again not here. From society? Well that is how society and free speech work. You are judged by what you say and do. If one isn't judged by their actions then by what. Like too many people you believe that free speech and tolerance means that you get to say what you want, act how you want to act, and yes judge who you want to judge all without repercussions. It is okay for people to look down on those that they feel are acting in a way that is offensive. If that action is not allowed that all voicing of opinion is wrong. You deciding that you want this person as a friend or you do not want to be around another person because voice an opinion that you don't like is repression. Yes I feel that the requirement to post with your real name is positive for the reason that you think it is bad. It brings with it restraint and hopefully thoughtfulness to a discourse. People hopefully will pick words that will convince vs bully and help people reach shared conclusions or at least some level of respect.
You have the same very odd concept of what freedom of speech means. Why should one not be judged by what they say, do, and stand for. Freedom of speech means that I will not go to jail for an unpopular idea. It doesn't mean that I can not be judged for what I say. Gee if I say X the majority of people may think I am a jerk. Well maybe that is because if you do say X you are a jerk. A good example is the latest comment by Glenn Beck comparing the children that died on that island in Norway to Hitler Youth. By your standards nobody should be anger, dislike, or boycott him. I mean that would not be tolerant of his freedom of speech. Sorry but it is a good thing only say what you are willing to stand behind. There are places where their isn't freedom of speech but the US, Canada, Europe, and a lot of other nations have that freedom. YouTube as an example of a system that works? Your are just nuts. I have never seen a high percentage of just trash than the comments on YouTube. Most of the time when people post anonymously on the internet it so they can be jerks. I find the ACs on Slashdot to be the worst case. I mean really people will not say what they want because of a Karma hit? What weak willed cowards post on this site.
Then don't use Google+. I also do not see it as being evil, maybe you should read this post http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/25/2132238/The-Internets-Age-of-Rage it is about how being anonymous inspires people to act in unethical ways. And I also disagree completely that anonymity is what makes the internet interesting. It for the most part is the cause of greifing and flamewars. That is not what is interesting at all. I would also say that using real names does not reduce the free exchange of ideas. A good example from the early days was the famous debate between an unknown Finnish student and a very well known and respected professor over monolithic vs micro kernels.
Or when the Amiga mopped the floor with MS-DOS when it offered multi-tasking, no 640k limit, no segments, system support for stereo sound, graphics, and printing. Actually Google+ has become less useful because of Googles removing of some users. What makes Twitter useful to me are a few "users". Breaking News, BBC, NASA, and some other news sources. The tech bloggers that I follow on twitter I also follow on Plus but those news services are the ones that I want back. But then I have mostly left Facebook years ago. I show up once a week or so and almost all my posts are just my Twitter posts.
Exactly. I did Habitat for Humanity build with my church. I was slinging sod with a lawyer, rocket scientist, and a microbiologist while several of our other members where doing the skilled job of putting in windows. It was a lot of fun and we since we did two weeks worth of work that day. Because of our efforts a single mom and her two kids got to move in on Mothers day weekend. Why just use the skills you have when you can gain more skills, Do you know how to hang dry wall, lay tile, install cabinets, or frame a wall? Now is the time to learn. The skill of being a geek is the ability to learn. So use that skill. Find out what needs to be done where you live and do it. I could be helping in a school, Big Brother/Big Sisters, or a local food bank. Not as glamourous as going to Africa but then you may be needed down the street now. Just find a cause your interested in and say, "How can I help?"
Slashdot Mirror
Well that will depend on a lot of things. If a socket upgrade is available they can just put in a new CPU. Even if the "server" is taken out of service you are just talking about the mainboard, CPU, and memory. The CPU and memory might be offered for sale as "used" or "refurbished". The board will be recycled, the power supply and rest will probably be reused unless a more efficient solution is available. Servers tend to have a longer life than say cell phones, desktops, and PCs.
A blog posting over a peer reviews journal? Yes I found it interesting and yes I find it annoying when all I get from and expert is "This is wrong and you should believe me." They may have good reasons to say that and probably do but how about saying what they are. And what are the massive problems? Do you know? I have not seen those published.
You are still taking it on faith. You may have believed right but that is just luck not science.
"Obviously I'm not calling Google racist or comparing their policy to segregation; but I AM saying that, just as brick-and-mortar spaces must grant certain rights to the public which have been established over time, so virtual social spaces are a domain for the establishment of public rights, of standards for the treatment of the public, which are enforced whether through legal or social mechanisms."
But there are restaurant with dress codes. Try walking into one wearing a mask? If Google plus was the only social network on the planet then maybe there would be a need for concern. But their are internet spaces that offer the us of aliases or just posting as an AC. The point of a social net work is to be found and to share. There is nothing wrong for some like Google+ to require a real name and their is nothing legally or morally wrong with sites that do not. They are just different sites that can serve different needs. Just as to use your example of public spaces it is okay that your butt will be tossed in jail if walk into an elementary school naked using profanities and it is okay for their to be clothing optional resorts where you can walk about naked. It is choice. Now if some place tried to pass a law preventing a websites from allowing ACs and Aliases then that would be wrong. For Google to require them for their Social site is just a choice. Frankly one that I happen to like.
"Now to me this brings up two main scenarios.
a) Either the bad astronomer (Phil Plait) and the scientists he cites are wrong/unqualified/biased and are somehow wrong about the paper.
b) Or the paper is crap, in which case I was right about it being crap and you (if I read you properly) were wrong."
No.
I never said the paper was correct. EVER. I said that to dismiss it based on anything but the data was wrong.
Frankly those dismissals are a bit annoying but then again they are in "popular press". I was being critical of your methods. You kept missing my point. I never said there was no climate change, I never said that the paper was true. I said that the paper needed to be verified before being dismissed!
That is all I have ever said.
"Not to be harsh, but this is almost exactly what I think is happening when I read most of the AGW-denialists on /., including you."
Again the zealotry is over the top. I am not claim that we are not in a warming trend. In fact I have said time and time again "that even if the warming is not caused by CO2 that working to reduce CO2 is the safe course." I question the "true believers" not science. In fact if you read what I wrote I said that "one study is not enough to prove anything". I am anti making science into a religion.
Come on just read what I wrote and the response.
Me
"That is an interesting observation and easy to verify. The only logical, rational, and scientific reaction to that is this. We need to verify these observations. No attack on the source because of unrelated writings but an open and rational look at the data. Anything else is an emotional reaction to having a belief threatened. There is zero room in scientific and rational thought for personal attacks and name calling."
You
"Did the authors do the analysis correctly? Are they missing coverage from some areas that would be expected to make up the difference? Are they looking at the right radiation? Do the models really not take this into account? Does the extra heat given off actually make a significant dent in AGW?"
I already answered your reply
I said we need to verify these observations.
BTW the satellite coverage is very good missed spots are unlikely, again that would be in that we need to verify to be 100% sure but the orbital elements and sensor coverage specs are available to the public. BTW I have done work with earth sensing systems in the past not this bird but others. Also CO2 captures long wave IR which is what this study was looking at. Other parts of the spectrum could be looked at but CO2 is pretty transparent to large sections of that and is the part of the spectrum that CO2 reflects. That is how greenhouse gases work they let in "light" which then is absorbed and re-radiated as long wave IR which CO2 traps. Think of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and a one way valve.
Do the models not take it into account? Well that is the entire point of the paper. The models predict x and the sensors are seeing x-n. So no the models at this point seem to be in error. Do you really think we have perfect climate models? No we are still learning and this seems to be a learning moment.
"Does the extra heat given off actually make a significant dent in AGW?", that isn't relevant to the validity of this paper. The paper doesn't say that there is not global warming. What it says is that the models and the observed data are not matching. That means that the predictive value of the models is in doubt.
Here is an example of how the model might be in error. THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF ANY FACT ON MY PART OF WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE EARTH RIGHT NOW.
Suppose the increase in coal burning by China is putting soot, SOx, and or NOx, high in the atmosphere and the models are missing that data or not allowing for it. High altitude aerosols can absorb sun light before it reaches the lower atmosphere and re radiate it. This could be very bad because that is the cause then China at sometime in the future china could cut the release of those aerosols. They tend to settle out long before CO2 gets absorbed. If that is the cause then you could have a huge problem and a giant spike. This a worst case BTW with this data. Or there may be some other heat transport method that we underestimate that means change will happen slower.
Those are two things that could explain the data if it is verified. But it was the bad author of the news story that was making the over the top claims not the author of the paper that you where attacking.
Again I am pro science and reason. You where making claims about me in specific that where totally with out reason and where based again not on reason but on an emotional attachment to the current models of global climate change. As I said the news story was trash. This paper on th
Again attack the person and ignore the data. Now you challenge the validity of the peer review process because the results threaten your faith.
Really just step back and forget everything but the data. The study says that several satellites are showing that the Earth is re radiation more long wave IR than is predicted by the current models. That is the key statment here. And it is not something that is really open to opinion or interpretation. For that key fact all the peer review needs to do is take a look at the satellite data which is available from NASA and compare it to the climate models.
That is an interesting observation and easy to verify. The only logical, rational, and scientific reaction to that is this. We need to verify these observations. No attack on the source because of unrelated writings but an open and rational look at the data. Anything else is an emotional reaction to having a belief threatened. There is zero room in scientific and rational thought for personal attacks and name calling.
Now the author of the article, which is not the author of the paper, should be roasted alive for biased, sensationalist journalism. That is a given so you can blast his professionalism all you want.
Let me clue you in on a common human failing. Really smart people and some not so smart people fall in this trap. "I am smart because I am an expert in X so I can understand Y with no problem." You see it on slashdot all the time. I am an expert in computers so I will spout off about biology, chemistry. politics, and or economics! Often the spout is pure manure. Which may be the case for this gentleman. Sometimes really smart even brilliant people will believe really odd stuff outside the field. A prime example was Tesla. That man was brilliant but also bat crap crazy. Actually I would guess that he suffered real mental health problems involving OCD combined with almost pathological narcissism. That doesn't mean you can ignore all that he did or should. Of course even some of his "science" got way off into the land of crazy. The sad thing IMHO is that way to many of his fans ignore his real contributions for his fantasy works, but that is another subject.
A did you read the link?
"The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted."
This is direct observational data of the remission of long wave IR from the earth comparing it to the predictive models. So one needs to ask, is the data flawed? If so then we have big problems since sat data is the heart of a lot of weather models. Are the models flawed and need to be fine tunned? Or is there an other cause for the warming trend.
Now the news story I also terribly slanted but the studies author is not the author of the news story.
And B."If some qualified and credible scientists investigate and vouch for his paper than I may be willing to give it a second thought. "
Well again if you had read the link with an open mind.
In the first paragraph ", reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. " A peer reviewed journal means that the paper was reviewed by a panel of qualified and credible scientists!
Yes the news article is full of spin. I really think that the term alarmist should be be used because it is an un needed and dismissive term that shows a bias. It is almost as bad as your personal attack on the author and the use of the term Quack and other personal attacks because you have "faith" in the global warming caused by increased man made CO2.
Let me make this one thing clear. Any personal attacks on the author completely blows any creditability you have as a so called "rational" thinker. Being a true rational thinker means just looking at the data in a scientific way.
Sorry to be blunt but "I don't know enough to question this but I will dismiss this study because the author believes this unrelated thing" is just wrong. Just read the meat of article and toss out the journalistic "spice" and you may actually find it interesting.
Really? No it just means he doesn't know biology. But that doesn't matter to most people on Slashdot, they are perfectly happy to listen to a biologist about how dangerous a nuclear power plant is over a Nuclear engineer. In case you didn't know it is terrible science to try and discredit the man instead of the data, experiment, and or procedures.
Actually I believe that there are under 10 stories or something like that. Every book, movie, and play are just variations on those stories.
Take Star Wars for example. It is the same as the tale of King Author which is the same of any number of other stories.
The reason why super hero movies are doing well is technology. We now have the ability to do them on screen now and not have them look cheesy. Combine that with the fact that people will pay to see big visual movies on the screen. If the movie is just a romantic comedy or some other character driven movie they may just wait for it to be in Red Box or Netflix and save the time, money, and hassle of going to the movies. If you get popcorn and two drinks and two movie ticket it is big bucks these days.
Whats next? Who knows but it will have to be something worth seeing on a big screen.
Well yes. If you can create lab animals with the same fatal condition you can then test treatments for the condition on them. You then get into that whole animal testing issue. It is one of those areas where people will have different opinions for sure.
I am in the cost vs benefit camp.
Animal testing for cosmetics == bad.
Animal testing to save lives == acceptable.
Others have different opinions on that.
Create your own public space. Think about Social networks as a modern day phonebook. You can have an unlisted number or you can put your name in.
As to what to do if you don't like that? Well create your own social network. With modern technology you can do it yourself for not much money. You might even get rich doing it.
Teacher went out with the kids. Heck I had one teacher that only taught science once every two weeks and used a science book from 1966 in 1976! She didn't use the new books because she had the lessons already made. There are good teachers but there also a lot of really bad ones that the union protects. Yes I remember asking when would we get to study science. And I remember that book with a picture of Gemini on the cover and talking about how some day we would land on the moon.
BTW then next school in the system we where allowed to bring water, because the water at the school was unfit to drink.
Things do seem better now but man it was bad back then and I would say no more than 50% of my teachers should have had that job.
You are just incoherent. At first you say that you want Anonymity to protect people from harassment. Then you say. "If it is stupid and insulting, block them or filter them, but don't force everybody else to use real name."
In the end all that you are saying is that you don't want to be held responsible for what you say and you want the world to work they way you want it to. You do not have to be on Facebook or Google plus. I know more than a few people that live pretty active lives that are not. You want to be protected from having to stand by your words. You are not really afraid of going to jail but you don't want people judge you by what you say. You want Google to run Google plus the way you want them too. Because you feel you have some right to that free service on your own terms. And you really don't care about protecting others from bullies even though you posted that you did because those kids that where bullied and committed suicide should have just blocked those bullies?
I was wrong, you are just trying to justify what you want, which is disappointing.
Physics + economics.
"Nothing stops them from harassing the victim via other channels. The whole point is that you don't want to leak if somebody is gay or not by forcing them to use a real name in the first place."
That doesn't make any sense. Then they might as well just not let anyone know they are gay in the first place. That makes no sense. Unless you are going to be in the closet somebody is going to know that you aka your real name is gay. And they can then tell other people. Then you can get attacked. You are claiming that by using a fake name you can hide. While that is of use in some instances, in most others those that are hiding are attacking not being attacked. Read the examples you gave again. And read it carefully, both children where bullied at school and on Facebook. Truth is that Facebook is being used as a Red Herring in both cases. You really can block people on Facebook or just not go to the site. Heck you have to make your own page. Being anonymous probably help the villains in this case because it allowed them to snipe from the bushes with no real fear of being found out. Blaming Facebook is also a way of shifting blame. What seemed to have happened in both cases is a failure by the parents and the school to protect vulnerable children. Lots of children get bullied very few kill themselves.
I will make this statement again. It is not evil it is a choice. You do not have to be on Google+ you do not have to be on any social network site that requires you to give a real name. You can still have Blogs where you can say what ever you want with some degree of anonymity including Google's Blogger.
I will as say that in free societies things work best when people do stand behind what they say. Light is better than shadows. I do think that you have the best of intentions but I also feel that you are painting with a way to broad of a stroke. Anonymity and even alter egos have their place. The authoring of a blog is a good example. But in what is a social network I do not feel it's value overrides it's cost. But that is just my opinion.
No but children are not slaves that should be forced to sweat and get dehydrated with the overseer is cooled by a personal fan and sipping tea.
Do you think that lawyers tell students when they can go to the restroom?
"Some [advocate.com] people [croatiantimes.com] might disagree."
And using the nicks Snickerdoodle and Verdle would have made a difference? I think not. It isn't Facebook's fault. And you could use a fake name on Facebook if you wanted. Kind of defeats the function but hey that is up to you. And frankly your examples I feel prove my point. Odds are if the people posting those vile things had to have their real names tied to their acts maybe they wouldn't have done it. Or law enforcement could have been called because of the harassment. Bet you a dollar to a donut that those attacks where from people not using their real names!
And a good bit of what is outside the norm isn't good. And why shouldn't you be in judged in part by who are? Really so what you want is a place where you can hide when you want to but snipe from the bushes. Yes Facebook has been used as evidence why ever not? If you are accused of drunk driving and you post a picture of yourself funneling beers well?
I doubt that people just a little outside the norm will have a problem with Google+ or Facebook. By some peoples standards I am a little outside the norm. I do not hide who I am. My nick is one I have used for decades. Frankly is what a lot of people know me by. I have been harassed for my differences but that is their problem not mine. And about 99% of that online harassment has been from people that lack the guts to even use a handle. Nope I would be glad to silence those that fear acting like an jerk in public. Those that hide most of the time are not part of the solution.
Actually I would say the worst is CNNs.
I don't have a problem with not seeing obscenity. In fact I wish more people would reframe from it in communication. It has gotten to the point where I wonder what people use for expletives anymore. I know of people that will drop the F bomb if their soda is warm, or they have to walk back a meter because they left their keys on their desk! I mean really what do they use when they are really angry?
The oppression from what? The government? Again not here. From society? Well that is how society and free speech work. You are judged by what you say and do. If one isn't judged by their actions then by what. Like too many people you believe that free speech and tolerance means that you get to say what you want, act how you want to act, and yes judge who you want to judge all without repercussions. It is okay for people to look down on those that they feel are acting in a way that is offensive. If that action is not allowed that all voicing of opinion is wrong. You deciding that you want this person as a friend or you do not want to be around another person because voice an opinion that you don't like is repression.
Yes I feel that the requirement to post with your real name is positive for the reason that you think it is bad. It brings with it restraint and hopefully thoughtfulness to a discourse. People hopefully will pick words that will convince vs bully and help people reach shared conclusions or at least some level of respect.
Sorry my bad and an example of just how under whelming he was in the movie.
You have the same very odd concept of what freedom of speech means. Why should one not be judged by what they say, do, and stand for. Freedom of speech means that I will not go to jail for an unpopular idea. It doesn't mean that I can not be judged for what I say. Gee if I say X the majority of people may think I am a jerk. Well maybe that is because if you do say X you are a jerk.
A good example is the latest comment by Glenn Beck comparing the children that died on that island in Norway to Hitler Youth.
By your standards nobody should be anger, dislike, or boycott him. I mean that would not be tolerant of his freedom of speech.
Sorry but it is a good thing only say what you are willing to stand behind. There are places where their isn't freedom of speech but the US, Canada, Europe, and a lot of other nations have that freedom.
YouTube as an example of a system that works? Your are just nuts. I have never seen a high percentage of just trash than the comments on YouTube.
Most of the time when people post anonymously on the internet it so they can be jerks.
I find the ACs on Slashdot to be the worst case. I mean really people will not say what they want because of a Karma hit? What weak willed cowards post on this site.
Then don't use Google+.
I also do not see it as being evil, maybe you should read this post http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/25/2132238/The-Internets-Age-of-Rage it is about how being anonymous inspires people to act in unethical ways. And I also disagree completely that anonymity is what makes the internet interesting. It for the most part is the cause of greifing and flamewars. That is not what is interesting at all. I would also say that using real names does not reduce the free exchange of ideas. A good example from the early days was the famous debate between an unknown Finnish student and a very well known and respected professor over monolithic vs micro kernels.
Or when the Amiga mopped the floor with MS-DOS when it offered multi-tasking, no 640k limit, no segments, system support for stereo sound, graphics, and printing.
Actually Google+ has become less useful because of Googles removing of some users. What makes Twitter useful to me are a few "users". Breaking News, BBC, NASA, and some other news sources. The tech bloggers that I follow on twitter I also follow on Plus but those news services are the ones that I want back.
But then I have mostly left Facebook years ago. I show up once a week or so and almost all my posts are just my Twitter posts.
Exactly. I did Habitat for Humanity build with my church. I was slinging sod with a lawyer, rocket scientist, and a microbiologist while several of our other members where doing the skilled job of putting in windows. It was a lot of fun and we since we did two weeks worth of work that day. Because of our efforts a single mom and her two kids got to move in on Mothers day weekend. Why just use the skills you have when you can gain more skills, Do you know how to hang dry wall, lay tile, install cabinets, or frame a wall? Now is the time to learn.
The skill of being a geek is the ability to learn. So use that skill. Find out what needs to be done where you live and do it. I could be helping in a school, Big Brother/Big Sisters, or a local food bank.
Not as glamourous as going to Africa but then you may be needed down the street now. Just find a cause your interested in and say, "How can I help?"