You're missing the point. When somebody says "I won't sue you for doing this", the law does not allow them to retract that. Worry about more likely things happening, like getting hit by lightning, or having civilization come to an end because of a meteorite strike, or global warming actually having any bad effects.
This is insane, of course. If I link to your website, I'm just telling people where to find it. To say that one cannot link to your address would be to say that you're allowed to restrict people's speech. It would be like having a secret street address which cannot be said out loud. Absurd! Batshit insane!
Lovelock is too stupid to survive. If you suspend democracy, how do you know that the people who are then running things will 1) agree that climate change is real, 2) agree that man is causing climate change, 3) agree that man should take action to stop the climate from changing, 4) agree to do something, 5) agree to do something that might work, or 6) agree to do something that actually WILL work (and just what that might be, I don't see anybody seriously proposing, other than to kill most people and go back to being hunter-gatherers).
So in exchange for all that uncertainty, Lovelock wants to give up democracy? Just kill the moron now before he says something even MORE stupid.
The price of computers has been deflating pretty uniformly for the last 30 years. By your theory, consumers will stop spending when their money is deflating because anything they could buy would cost less later. Again, in your system of economics (Hi, JMK!), it's stupid to have bought a computer at any time, because you could get a better computer just by waiting. And yet, here you are on Slashdot, disproving your own theory at about 3 billion cycles per second.
Yo! India politicians! Another word for remittances is: FOREIGN CAPITAL. They're a GOOD THING. You want your citizens to GET LOTS OF THEM. Getting foreign money into your country is a FREE LUNCH. It's the reason your EXPORT STUFF.
Why are we seeking a new boss for the TSA when we should disband the TSA (Terrorist Security Agency). Are you terrorized? I'm not! So why are we being asked to be terrorized when IT IS OUR ENEMIES THAT WISH US TO BE TERRORIZED?
Who's paying for the shirts? I hope that the boss is. But if she isn't, then ANY clothing which is required for continued employment is tax deductible as an unreimbursed employer expense.
it's only risky for the bad drivers... and I'm not one of the bad drivers, so I can safely talk on my cellphone while I'm driving.
No, seriously! I mean it! Stop laughing!
Actually, the trick to driving safely is to be willing to tell the other person to shut up when you need to pay full attention. Ever had somebody do that? Um-hum, I thought so. Well, now you know, so you can do it too.
Climate change is a fact. What is up in the air is whether we caused it or not. And it's certainly not decided whether the best course of action is to try to stop the climate from changing (think King Canute), or whether it's better to mitigate the bad effects of climate change. Unfortunately, some people try to tie these last two issues together.
Yes. Well, of oil, anyway. We have lots and lots of coal left. But coal is dangerous to mine (it's killed 1000x as many people as nuclear power), dangerous to transport, and dangerous to burn (coal ash is radioactive).
Of course he has to sell the idea. How else will he make money without carbon credits? We're talking about millions of dollars for Al Gore. Why would anybody expect him to argue against his own business's interests?
It's a lot more than that. You can see people conspiring to delete data which might impugn their conclusion, and they're trying to do it before they can be hit by a freedom of information request. Criminal conspiracy to hide publicly-funded data by destroying it, hmmmm? Prosecutors in the UK should definitely be hitting these folks with an order not to destroy any data nor to delete any emails, and then they should be seeking a copy of the emails directly from the site.
Except that everyone acknowledges that there's been no warming since 2000.
I'm sure that 10,000 years ago, the hominids were worrying about the end of the ice age. Consider that most people's sense of "normal" extends from whatever conditions existed when they were 18 years old. Since rap music didn't exist when I was 18, all rap is completely worthless in my mind, and needs to go away for the world to be restored to the conditions when I was 18. Oh, the music those young kids listen to! (excepting of course that people now my age were saying the same thing back then.)
Basically, all this worrying about AGW is simply overwrought Christian guilt. "Oh noes! We've changed the world! We're guilty, God, punish us!" The sensible thing to do is to carry on and keep calm, and address problems as we find them... just like we've always done. But that would disappoint a lot of people, because it's fun to be in crisis mode.
The time for debate is over. Scientists have spoken. It's now time for the technocrats to take over, decide what human behavior is needed for us to survive, and then control us so that we comply with that behavior. If you don't want to do that, well, there's always the final solution. It worked for Hitler. He killed off most of the Jews within reach, and look at Germany now. It's a prosperous country without the Jews. Well, we can equally do without the climate deniers. Time to line 'em up and start shooting.
Doin' my best to move this discussion to its logical conclusion!
However, the rate of climate change is far faster than previous cyclic rates.
There have been at least 60 previous cycles, ranging between 500 and 2500 years. How do you know that the rate is "far faster" than the rate in any previous cycle? I mean, c'mon, pull the other one -- it's got bells on.
So, if you were to do some research that went against the religion of anthrogenic global warming, exactly WHO is going to pay for it? You're not going to get it published anywhere, because it's heresy, so you can't use it towards getting tenure. You've GOT to get it paid-for by somebody, and the only people willing to fund such research are the oil companies and their allies. So the fact that science that contradicts AGW is paid-for by them in NO WAY undermines the quality of the research. Find another reason to dismiss it (like that it goes against your religion to believe that man isn't responsible for the warming).
Thank god we have environmental loony-bins to save us from getting rid of landmines. Cuz y'know it might mutate into flesh-eating bacteria that could cause you to lose a leg. Or you could step on a landmine (which actually exist, as opposed to bio-engineered bacteria mutating into flesh-eating bacteria).
Sure it's doable, if you're a megacorporation. So if you want to have only big soulless companies that exploit their workers, impose all the complicated regulations you can think of. Or if you want to have right-sized companies, then what you want is a free market.
Comments exist NOT to explain the existing code, but to explain all the other code that could have been written, but wasn't. They also point to things like test cases (which if your language doesn't suck, you can put in line), and explanatory standards documented elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point. When somebody says "I won't sue you for doing this", the law does not allow them to retract that. Worry about more likely things happening, like getting hit by lightning, or having civilization come to an end because of a meteorite strike, or global warming actually having any bad effects.
This is insane, of course. If I link to your website, I'm just telling people where to find it. To say that one cannot link to your address would be to say that you're allowed to restrict people's speech. It would be like having a secret street address which cannot be said out loud. Absurd! Batshit insane!
Lovelock is too stupid to survive. If you suspend democracy, how do you know that the people who are then running things will 1) agree that climate change is real, 2) agree that man is causing climate change, 3) agree that man should take action to stop the climate from changing, 4) agree to do something, 5) agree to do something that might work, or 6) agree to do something that actually WILL work (and just what that might be, I don't see anybody seriously proposing, other than to kill most people and go back to being hunter-gatherers).
So in exchange for all that uncertainty, Lovelock wants to give up democracy? Just kill the moron now before he says something even MORE stupid.
The price of computers has been deflating pretty uniformly for the last 30 years. By your theory, consumers will stop spending when their money is deflating because anything they could buy would cost less later. Again, in your system of economics (Hi, JMK!), it's stupid to have bought a computer at any time, because you could get a better computer just by waiting. And yet, here you are on Slashdot, disproving your own theory at about 3 billion cycles per second.
In the long run, Keynes' theory is dead.
Yo! India politicians! Another word for remittances is: FOREIGN CAPITAL. They're a GOOD THING. You want your citizens to GET LOTS OF THEM. Getting foreign money into your country is a FREE LUNCH. It's the reason your EXPORT STUFF.
My god. I shake my head.
Why are we seeking a new boss for the TSA when we should disband the TSA (Terrorist Security Agency). Are you terrorized? I'm not! So why are we being asked to be terrorized when IT IS OUR ENEMIES THAT WISH US TO BE TERRORIZED?
Who's paying for the shirts? I hope that the boss is. But if she isn't, then ANY clothing which is required for continued employment is tax deductible as an unreimbursed employer expense.
it's only risky for the bad drivers ... and I'm not one of the bad drivers, so I can safely talk on my cellphone while I'm driving.
No, seriously! I mean it! Stop laughing!
Actually, the trick to driving safely is to be willing to tell the other person to shut up when you need to pay full attention. Ever had somebody do that? Um-hum, I thought so. Well, now you know, so you can do it too.
I thought Bush lost the election, but here we have him in blackface.
Northern NY has had MANY people come out against wind farms.
Climate change is a fact. What is up in the air is whether we caused it or not. And it's certainly not decided whether the best course of action is to try to stop the climate from changing (think King Canute), or whether it's better to mitigate the bad effects of climate change. Unfortunately, some people try to tie these last two issues together.
Yes. Well, of oil, anyway. We have lots and lots of coal left. But coal is dangerous to mine (it's killed 1000x as many people as nuclear power), dangerous to transport, and dangerous to burn (coal ash is radioactive).
Of course he has to sell the idea. How else will he make money without carbon credits? We're talking about millions of dollars for Al Gore. Why would anybody expect him to argue against his own business's interests?
It's a lot more than that. You can see people conspiring to delete data which might impugn their conclusion, and they're trying to do it before they can be hit by a freedom of information request. Criminal conspiracy to hide publicly-funded data by destroying it, hmmmm? Prosecutors in the UK should definitely be hitting these folks with an order not to destroy any data nor to delete any emails, and then they should be seeking a copy of the emails directly from the site.
Except that everyone acknowledges that there's been no warming since 2000.
I'm sure that 10,000 years ago, the hominids were worrying about the end of the ice age. Consider that most people's sense of "normal" extends from whatever conditions existed when they were 18 years old. Since rap music didn't exist when I was 18, all rap is completely worthless in my mind, and needs to go away for the world to be restored to the conditions when I was 18. Oh, the music those young kids listen to! (excepting of course that people now my age were saying the same thing back then.)
Basically, all this worrying about AGW is simply overwrought Christian guilt. "Oh noes! We've changed the world! We're guilty, God, punish us!" The sensible thing to do is to carry on and keep calm, and address problems as we find them ... just like we've always done. But that would disappoint a lot of people, because it's fun to be in crisis mode.
If they're not falsifying data, why do they need to hide it from freedom of information requests? If you're not guilty, why are you hiding?
The time for debate is over. Scientists have spoken. It's now time for the technocrats to take over, decide what human behavior is needed for us to survive, and then control us so that we comply with that behavior. If you don't want to do that, well, there's always the final solution. It worked for Hitler. He killed off most of the Jews within reach, and look at Germany now. It's a prosperous country without the Jews. Well, we can equally do without the climate deniers. Time to line 'em up and start shooting.
Doin' my best to move this discussion to its logical conclusion!
However, the rate of climate change is far faster than previous cyclic rates.
There have been at least 60 previous cycles, ranging between 500 and 2500 years. How do you know that the rate is "far faster" than the rate in any previous cycle? I mean, c'mon, pull the other one -- it's got bells on.
So, if you were to do some research that went against the religion of anthrogenic global warming, exactly WHO is going to pay for it? You're not going to get it published anywhere, because it's heresy, so you can't use it towards getting tenure. You've GOT to get it paid-for by somebody, and the only people willing to fund such research are the oil companies and their allies. So the fact that science that contradicts AGW is paid-for by them in NO WAY undermines the quality of the research. Find another reason to dismiss it (like that it goes against your religion to believe that man isn't responsible for the warming).
Thank god we have environmental loony-bins to save us from getting rid of landmines. Cuz y'know it might mutate into flesh-eating bacteria that could cause you to lose a leg. Or you could step on a landmine (which actually exist, as opposed to bio-engineered bacteria mutating into flesh-eating bacteria).
Sure it's doable, if you're a megacorporation. So if you want to have only big soulless companies that exploit their workers, impose all the complicated regulations you can think of. Or if you want to have right-sized companies, then what you want is a free market.
(stick that in your ear, leftists!)
Revolutions have been fought over MUCH LESS taxation than we're currently enjoying.
Only saw two streaks in 15m starting at 01:40 in a clear sky with no discernible ground light. YMMV (Your Meteors May Vary).
Comments exist NOT to explain the existing code, but to explain all the other code that could have been written, but wasn't. They also point to things like test cases (which if your language doesn't suck, you can put in line), and explanatory standards documented elsewhere.
Economics has nothing to do with math, nothing to do with games, nothing to do with money. Economics is the study of the choices that people make.
Or Apache if you expect to contribute it to Apache, or Eclipse if to Eclipse, or Python if to Python, etc.