I went ahead and read the regulation, with which the "boot camps" are being forced to comply.
The regulation is actually extremely minimal. It requires the educational institutions to pay a yearly fee ($3500) plus various other fees; it requires the educational institutions to track all their students and track who gets jobs, how soon, how long they took to graduate, and so on; it prohibits education institutions from making promises about future employment; it requires the educational institution to hire only teachers or instructors who have some kind of qualification; etc. There are also various other provisions, all of which seem very minimalistic.
It seemed to me that most of the regulation involved requiring that schools provide certain kinds of truthful information, such as job placement rates.
The regulation would not prevent any reasonable educational institution from operating. It would still be possible to open a "boot camp" for coding in a building you rented, provided that the instructors have some kind of qualification and you submit truthful job placement information.
Nor would the regulation impose very much burden upon small organizations. It seems to me that the cost of compliance would be fairly small.
...which your doctor DEFINITELY DOES NOT want you to know about.
The thing is, I think those companies will actually offer you your money back if you complain their remedy didn't work. Those companies still make money because: 1) the amount they charge is low enough that many people don't bother to go through the procedure of getting their money back; 2) confirmation bias etc will lead some people to believe the remedies helped them when they obviously didn't.
With the WTC knocked down 3/5 of the tallest skyscrapers in the world are now Muslim, at least 1 of them was build by bin Laden construction firms, and between 'preferential access to oil' and Halliburton's recent relocation to Dubai, the whole situation begins seeming overly suspect.
To me, this seems like a series of very loose associations.
Why does it support your point if 3/5 of the tallest skyscrapes are in Muslim countries?
Nevermind the fact that 9/11 happened just in time to keep Bush from getting impeached
Bush was not about to be impeached when 9/11 happened.
does anybody remember what his approval rating were looking like pre-9/11?
According to Gallup, Bush's approval ratings were above 50% right before 9/11.
You are a liar, either due to ignorance or intentionally.
No, because the word "liar" implies an intent to deceive. If he were ignorant about it and also wrong, then he would be mistaken, not lying. (In fact, he is not mistaken about it. He was correct, and you are mistaken).
Socrates did not have three classes of people
He certainly did. The three classes of people are clearly laid out in the Republic. The classes are not entirely hereditary, since it's possible for rulers to give birth to a lesser person, but there are three distinct classes that correspond to Plato's idea of the tripartite division of the soul.
Nope, they don't. You have been trained to have this belief, but that belief is nowhere near reality. Study Plato's "The Republic", the answer has been known for thousands of years (about 2,500 that we know of).
What? I think you misunderstood something in the parent post. The parent poster was claiming that it's impossible (or at least very difficult) to win high elections, like US Senate elections, unless you are a career politician. He was making a claim about the current political system of the United States. Plato's "Republic" certainly does not contain any information about how difficult it is to obtain high office in the current US if you are not a career politician.
You have been trained to have this belief,
By whom? How would you know? Do you even know who the poster is? Were you present during his training?
Such training certainly is not part of the standard educational curriculum in the US. In fact, young people in the US are trained to have the opposite belief.
This is why people are not taught this information, and in most College classes you will only study a few of the books.
You are making a statement about the motives of people who create college curricula. Are college professors all really part of the political agenda which you're implying (to suppress information in Plato's Republic)? What evidence do you have to support that?
Your insinuation that the buses are only on 101 is also wrong,
That's not what I said, at all. READ AND UNDERSTAND what you're responding to. What I said is that congestion is worse on the 101 than at residential bus stops.
...Is what you started with, and it's wrong.
READ AND UNDERSTAND what you're responding to. The very next sentence I wrote explains that cars take more space when you include the space between the cars.
it takes junior high level knowledge of geometry to know you are wrong.
It may require only "junior high level knowledge" to get the right answer, but you still screwed it up. You did the calculation incorrectly, and you made two separate mistakes, as two separate people have pointed out to you now.
Your ignorance perfectly explains your use of ad hominem, it's the only way for you to feel intelligent.
Speaking of ad hominem, here is your first sentence in this thread (which you said to someone else):
I realize that it's easier to be an asshole than think and read, but failing to educate yourself makes you 'just' an asshole.
Apparently you didn't even realize that your remarks about "ad hominem" would apply to you especially.
You need to read more carefully, understand what you're reading, and think before posting.
I think from there you can do some basic geometry and see that you are completely wrong. 510sq ft vs 85.6sq ft per passenger car means you have 6 people per bus to save space.
Man, read and understand what you're responding to.
I was pointing out that cars do not travel bumper-to-bumper. They must leave at least a few cars' distances between cars, depending upon the speed. If each car has only one driver, then there must be several cars' worth of space on the freeway for each driver.
If there are two cars (each with one driver) and two car distances between them, then the two cars (with the distance between them) exceed the length of the bus on the freeway, by your own figures, even when the traffic is moving fairly slowly.
I pointed that out to you, very clearly, in the original post. In fact, that was the point I was making. Somehow, you failed totally to understand it. It would be one thing if you had provided a counterpoint, but you didn't even GET it.
Also, you failed to use the relevant calculation anyway. It's the length of the vehicle and the spaces between vehicles which matters, not the area, as long as the vehicle is narrower than the lane it occupies. Even if a car is much narrower than the lane it occupies, it still takes the entire lane.
You not only show extreme ignorance, but a failure to correct that ignorance with a basic web search.
You're an idiot. Not just with regard to that post, but your earlier post also.
If you truly believe it's greener show me some stats that prove that since these bus services started there has been improvement in traffic in the bay area.
No, because there has been an increase in population in the bay area, and other changes besides. It's obvious that you cannot determine whether buses have helped by just comparing the level of traffic across the two periods.
This does not even address the main issue people have with congestion, which is that these buses block traffic by stopping... and blocking municipal bus services.
No, because the congestion is along the 101 corridor, and not in residential bus stops which are rarely congested.
I already had to explain basic geometry for you,
No, you failed to carry out basic geometry because you forgot to include a factor which had just been pointed out to you, and you also did not use the relevant calculation anyway.
I'm not wasting more time trying to explain the differences between city, county, state, and federal tax revenue.
No, because the question was whether googlers would live in San Francisco or silicon valley, and whether they would deprive a locality of their tax revenues. Obviously, federal taxes are not relevant here since those are income taxes, which are the same regardless of which of the two localities the googlers reside in.
Does this group have a record blocking new residential developments?
They certainly do have a record of that. If you read their flyer, you would discover that one of the things they're protesting is the construction of new dense condos in Berkeley (new condos are apparently "sterile", as opposed to old ones for established residents).
I'm sure you could point out the evidence supporting your assertion to me, right?
Very easily, by simply reading the flyer and prose which the protesters have produced.
Google wasn't the one forbidding the construction of dense urban housing in California. Google had nothing to do with it. It was the protesters specifically (who are doing that now) and other members of the far left.
people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own
It certainly is through fault of their own! It's the protesters (and other far leftists) who are protesting and preventing the construction of new urban housing. That is why rents are going up--because of increasing demand and a fixed supply. It's the protesters (and the far left more generally) who directly caused the increased rents, and are causing it now.
When the far leftists in California disallow the construction of any dense urban housing, it obviously implies that some people are not going to be able to live how and where they want. It means that there won't be enough dense urban housing for everyone. So now, the protesters wish to make sure that they are the beneficiaries, and not the victims, of the housing discrimination scheme which they set up. As a result, they wish to kick out newcomers by force, intimidation and harassment, whereas older residents are entitled to live in dense urban areas because of established privilege and because they were born in a certain region. Bear in mind that both groups of people could easily live in dense urban areas, but the protesters (and other far leftists) would never allow that, and they won't allow construction of new urban dwellings.
In short, the protesters want two things: 1) there must be massive discrimination in housing with no new urban units, thereby driving up prices and pushing many people into suburbs; 2) the protesters and other established residents must be the beneficiaries of that discrimination, whereas newcomers and outsiders will be the victims of it and will be kicked out by force, intimidation, physical bullying, and outright discrimination against an entire class of people (nerds in this case; "fuck techies").
it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.
They should direct their energy against themselves. In fact, everyone else should direct their energy against them. The protesters should stop preventing the construction of new dense urban housing, stop discriminating against newcomers, stop physically harassing people, stop using slurs ("fuck techies"), and allow more people to live in dense urban areas if those people prefer it.
Hint: property taxes start going up and the established population can't afford to buy/rent a new place in their current neighborhood and possibly can't afford their current residence anymore and will be forced to move potentially far from where they currently live.
No, because property taxes are fixed for life in San Francisco bay area and never go up once you've bought a place, so long as you stay there. Property taxes don't even increase at the rate of inflation, so they actually go down (in real terms) over time, for "established residents". Furthermore, your children can inherit your low property taxes and so pay tax rates from 50+ years ago (NOT inflation adjusted).
Also, the established residents in San Francisco who are renters have rent control, and pay rents from years ago, whereas new residents must pay far higher rents.
That is all part of the MASSIVE discrimination in california practiced by established residents against newcomers. Newcomers must pay most taxes, regardless of their income. I grew up near San Francisco, and I know many people in Belvedere and Tiburon (Belvedere is the richest town in the United States) who pay less than $1,000 per year in property taxes on houses than cost more than $5 million.
What the protesters are advocating is further massive discrimination against newcomers and in favor of themselves. What the protesters want is the following. They won't allow the construction of any new urban housing, which is an obvious act of discrimination by itself since it is an attempt to determine how and where others may live. They want a fixed number of residents in dense urban areas, with the fixed number being THEM--everyone else is forced to live in the suburbs even if they want to live in dense urban housing. However, the protesters don't want to actually buy a place, thereby locking in their property taxes forever, because that would require saving money. Instead, they want their rents to be fixed for life, for them, but not for newcomers. Newcomers are people they want to kick out by force and harassment, by physically interfering with their lives and preventing them from going to work. The protesters even use derogatory terms for a class of people ("fuck techies") who they feel are interfering with their massive privileges, and the massive privileges of established residents. Furthermore, the protesters are not subtle about any of these things.
No, it doesn't reduce congestion. It convinces employees working 40 miles away from the city that they can still live in San Francisco and don't have to worry about driving the commute.
Except silicon valley is a massive sprawl of parking lots and freeways, like Los Angeles. So the employees still wouldn't live very close to their place of employment, but the sprawl would prevent them from using shared modes of transportation. Also, the sprawl will force them to drive long distances to perform everyday tasks like going to the supermarket.
How does that work? They force their employees to live near each other?
No, but buses facilitate people living in dense urban areas which allows them to walk to bus stops, and bus operators can increase or decrease the number of buses based upon the number of people at a stop on average. Living in dense urban areas is what allows shared rides.
Say I live 5 miles out from any other employee
The buses have allowed the employees to live in San Francisco, which is densely populated, and which is 8 miles across, from one end to the other. Almost all the google employees live in the northeastern quadrant of the city and so almost all of them live within 5 miles of each other.
Buses are much larger than cars (obviously) and they block traffic and cause congestion
Cars are larger per traveller than buses. If the bus has 2 people or more on it, it takes less space on the freeway than a car. Cars do not travel bumper-to-bumper, so two people driving separate cars take a lot of space, whereas only two people on the bus are perhaps 30 feet from each other.
Tax revenue for cities that house these companies suffer as a result of people _not_ moving closer to work.
But tax revenue is helped in the dense urban areas where the employees move to. If people move from San Jose to San Francisco, it doesn't cause their tax contribution just to disappear. Instead, the taxes are paid somewhere else. In this case, the taxes are paid in a dense urban area which contributes to public transportation rather than the endless roadways in SJ where the taxes were going before.
The excuse that it's "Greener" is questionable at best, if not dishonest.
Residents of dense urban areas typically emit less than 1/3rd the CO2 of suburban residents. It is not helpful to prevent the construction of dense urban housing (which the protesters are doing). Nor is it helpful to protest a bus.
It is SF. If you are not protesting something you are not cool.
It's also cool if your protest is hysterical, pointless, stupid, irrational, and likely to accomplish nothing. It's even more cool if your protest causes exactly the problems you complain about, for example, by protesting new urban housing construction and then complaining about insufficient places to live and increased rents. Or, protesting the bus and then complaining about the environment.
When I was a child taking the school bus in San Francisco, ACT UP protested what they perceived as insufficient AIDS research by laying down in the roadway in front of our school bus. I didn't mind; I wasn't eager to go to school. However it certainly didn't increase AIDS funding. As a child, I didn't start researching AIDS right away while blocked on the bus.
Instead of doing that, they could have spent the same time helping AIDS patients, or working, and then giving the money to AIDS research charities. But that would have actually helped.
These people in the SF Bay area don't really want to help anyone, because they never do anything that would help anyone. What they want is a random, hysterical outburst against someone picked at random.
When you create conditions in the rest of the world such that we give them pieces of paper, and they are willing to die trying to get something to sell for those pieces of paper... we have some social responsibility... The US exports paper promises of... (well, nothing actually, Nixon closed the Gold window in 1971) paper, and over throws any resource rich country that wants to sell for some other paper, or... gasp... actual Gold.
Except those pieces of paper you talk about, can be used to buy medicine and food. Those pieces of paper can be used to pay for imports and thereby gives those countries access to things like capital equipment and medicine.
Do we really want to stop the flow of money ("pieces of paper") to the third world?
We've got a gun to the heads of the rest of humanity....
Poor people want money ("pieces of paper") because we have a gun to their heads?
is that enough of a rant to show it's not about the technology.... its the economics?
The protesters are doing nothing to help people in the third world. Their main action has been to protest the bus. If they succeed in shutting down the buses between San Francisco and silicon valley, then it won't help people in the third world at all.
In fact, it doesn't seem like the protesters are even trying to help people in the third world. Most of what they are doing is trying to reduce rent for themselves by kicking out other people.
Do you understand, that living in the first world, you are likely richer than 90% if not 99% of the rest of the population? How much of your wealth are you willing to give up in the name of inequality?
What does that have to do with it? The protesters are also richer than 99% of the rest of the population, and their actions are doing nothing to help poor people. Instead of giving their time or money to third world causes, or encouraging techies to give some of their money to such causes, the protesters wish to boycott the only export of the Congo (gold), while preventing new urban housing development and thereby forcing increased surburbanization and increased co2 emissions.
What the protesters primarily want is reduced rent for themselves. Their main complaint is that rents are too high, even though they cause the problem by preventing the construction of urban housing. The protesters are spoiled, wealthy first worlders, just like the techies, except they cause the problems they complain about and are harming the poor (or trying to harm them).
they have valid points about the Congo and rising rent caused by google's self-driving cars spreading their high-earning workers into lower-rent neighborhoods.
The protesters certainly do not have valid points. The rising rents in the SF Bay Area are caused by fixed supply despite growing demand, which in turn is caused by the relentless opposition to constructing any new urban housing there.
The far left in the SF Bay Area has fought tooth and nail, for decades, to disallow any dense urban housing construction. That is why rents are increasing. Demand increases every year while supply is fixed.
From the protesters' flier:
Levandowski is now making his contribution to the further sterilization and gentrification of Downtown Berkeley and Shattuck Avenue [by sponsoring new condominium buildings]. The proposed project is a testament to the arrogance, disconnection, and luxury of the ruling class. Growing their own vegetables in a rooftop garden and selling them to other wealthy people allows them, somehow...
Here the protesters will not allow the construction of new urban housing. When rents continue to go up, which is what the protesters are causing by their own actions, they will complain again that rents are too high.
The protesters are causing additional carbon emissions and environmental destruction. If they successfully prevent the construction of dense urban housing, then obviously that will force those people to live in suburban housing (because people don't protest new construction there), and suburban housing has vastly worse carbon emissions that urban.
Newsflash: if you prevent the construction of dense urban housing, then that doesn't cause the potential occupants just to disappear magically. Instead, it causes them to live in suburban housing instead, which is far worse for the environment in every regard. Suburban residents usually have triple the carbon emissions or more, of urban residents.
Furthermore, if the protesters manage to shut down the bus (!?), then obviously that will force some people to drive which will contribute to the gridlock on the 101, and will cause thousands of cars on the gridlocked 101 to idle even longer during their travels.
valid points about the Congo
If you care about the Congo, as the protesters claim to do, then you should send part of your money as charity to the Congo. It does not help the people there, to boycott their only product and to boycott the only major export from the entire country. It causes economic devastation to a country to prevent its exports. That is why a blockade on exports is forbidden by the UN as an international crime.
If exports are exploitation, then the Israelis are doing the Palestinians a big favor by blockading the ports at the Gaza strip. It is preventing the palestinians from being "exploited" by selling what they have on the international market.
It's nice of you to try to find something positive about the protesters. However, in my opinion, the protesters are just stupid. What they are doing is silly, poorly thought out, unintentionally destructive, and it causes precisely the problems which they are trying to cure.
But you are. You cherry picked the article and blog from which you choose to read comments.
No. I am not cherry-picking. The article was selected at random (I ended up there by accident) and the comments I provided were the first 20 comments, leaving out only a few which were unrelated. That is not cherry-picking. Furthermore, most of the other comments are also like that. It was a representative sample, so it's not cherry picking.
First, the author's [linkedin.com] area of expertise is not climate science nor do they have a degree from Stanford.
NO!! Read more carefully. The article was a summary of results which were produced by climate scientists. From the article: "Stanford climate scientists Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field report that it's on pace to occur at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period..."
The derogatory remarks from the comments I provided, were against the climate scientists (specifically Diffenbaugh) and their conclusions--not against the summary or its author! You typed the wrong name into linkedin.
If the deniers were disputing just the summary, that would be one thing. If they claimed that the summary did not accurately reflect the actual climate science, that would be one thing. However, that's not what occurred. The deniers were disputing climate scientists and climate research, on the basis of nothing.
Note every sentence in that stretch contains a qualifying term or what your quoted poster called "weasel words".
No! Words like "some", "likely", and "largely", and so on, are not "weasel words". They are legitimate words to convey the extent of some effect, or to convey some degree of uncertainty.
There are many scientific disciplines with ranges of uncertainty. Also, there are scientific fields where things aren't always due to one cause, and therefore "some" effects could be produced by a given cause. For example, "some" (but not all) of the changes in tides are caused by gravitational pull from the moon, while "some" are caused by gravitational pull from the Sun. The word "some" is not a weasel word in those cases.
It's also worth noting here that the Stanford article discusses a review of literature and computer models, not new research.
No it's not worth noting, because it's just not relevant to the point here. The point was whether climate deniers pass judgement without knowing anything about the topic. That is true or false regardless of whether the paper is a summary, or is original research.
No actual "denier" concerns are addressed by the work in question such as whether the research and computer models in question accurately reflect the state of Earth's climate.
Again, that is just not the point. The point was whether climate deniers pass judgement without knowing anything about the topic. That is true or false regardless of whether the paper is addressing their specific concerns. Even if the paper is not about climate denier arguments specifically, the deniers are still passing judgement while knowing nothing about it, which was my point.
But there's another opportunity to regurgitate the usual climate change propaganda.
Unfortunately, you are the one regurgitating lines taken from the climate denier movement. I realize everyone does stuff like that sometimes, without even noticing. We all repeat things we have heard. However, I have heard your remark 100 times before you said it, and it's just absurd.
you're attacking only a weak sideshow rather than the core legitimate concern.
It's not a "weak sideshow" since the climate denier movement rarely produces anything more serious than that. I am attacking typical climate denier rhe
Is it really a fantasy? Here are a the first few of comments, from the last article I read on WattsUpWithThat.com:
Is this from the renowned Stanford University School of Computer Modeling and Wild Conjecture?..
How the mighty are fallen – even Stanford has succumbed to climatitis. What purulent drivel...
The Stupid is strong in this one, very strong...
Seem like the claims are coming 10x faster th.at is all. Has any model or scientist been right?..
It seems you don’t have to be very bright to be a climate scientist...
This is recycled, derivative garbage presented as science...
(But, this is Staaaanford, what do we expect?)..
Stanford is #1 in the world for weasel words...
Drivel...
I think it is rush to cash in on the grants before the whole scam dries up...
This guy is so FOS that his eyes are turning brown and he needs SuperMandia’s hipwaders...
The obvious diagnosis, Mass Hyperventilation Syndrome of The Pinheads...
I’ve been sticking my head out the window down here in Texas to check the weather for 63 years. It seems the same as it’s always been...
Stanford has fallen into the ranks of the idiocy.. No longer a school of learning but a school of political bull S**t...
The only conclusion I can come up with is that this guy is a moron, the peer reviewers are morons, and whoever publishes or supports this guy is also a moron...
THEY ARE EITHER FOOLS OR LIARS PROBABLY A COMBINATION OF THE TWO...
I am not cherry-picking. Those constitute about 80% of the early comments on the article I was reading. I only skipped a few of them which were different. Also, I could provide far more, since the comments continue in that fashion for more than 20 additional pages.
What's more, the comments on climate denial websites are frequently like that.
Bear in mind that the posters are referring to STANFORD UNIVERSITY which is one of the top 15 Universities in the physical sciences worldwide. Most of the posters claim that professors of climate science at Stanford University are just fucking idiots compared to them. Most claim that the professors know nothing about their OWN FIELD of expertise, but the commenters have it all figured out.
And you demonstrate your intellectual maturity and humbleness
I am far more humble than almost anyone in the climate denier camp. They are willing to dismiss an entire serious field of study, while not having any knowledge about it. Instead, they just pass judgment. They just know already, and are already competent to reach conclusions and to label professors at Stanford (and peer reviewers) as "morons".
As for maturity. If you realize that there is something you don't know, and you suspend judgment about a topic until you know something about it, then you have reached a level of intellectual maturity which is beyond most climate science deniers.
I'd caution against taking the media as representative of most americans... That doesn't mean everyone is listening to miley cyrus, that just means that they're losing a significant number of people, so they're doubling down on those demographics that are still watching or listening.
I hope you're right, but I suspect you're not. I have found that average people in their everyday conversations are less intelligent than what prevails in the media. On this very website, which is "news for nerds", I can find quite a few commenters who still say things like "why was it cold today where I live if it's supposed to be GLOBAL warming?". If you don't believe me, then scroll up a few pages. Bear in mind that this is a website which caters to technology professionals, and that most people here probably have college degrees. I expect that the average person here is much brighter than the average citizen.
Furthermore, the problem isn't just ignorance. The problem is that many people are defiantly, stubbornly ignorant, and will actively resist information as if their lives depended upon not learning anything. Again, the comment "why was it cold today where I live if it's supposed to be GLOBAL warming?". Climate scientists have EXPLAINED that, over and over again, for YEARS, but to no avail. Furthermore, the person who says that will then call into question the entire field of climate science, without knowing anything about it.
Insofar as I can tell, about half the population not only knows nothing about climate science (which is fine) but actively opposes people who do know something about it. That is beyond ordinary ignorance. That is a proud, defiant ignorance. That is the problem. Ordinary ignorant people can listen and learn, but defiantly ignorant people will interfere with the application of knowledge and are utter fools forever.
Many people who accept global warming are just as scientifically illiterate as those who reject it.
Yes, but there is a big difference. The people who accept global warming, realize that they're not experts about it, and are willing to listen and learn. The deniers, on the other hand, are little armchair climate scientists in their own heads. They wrongly believe that they are already the world's experts on the topic, and are competent to pass judgment on the entire field. They think that having read an article on WattsUpWithThat.com makes them far more knowledgeable about the topic than (say) James Hansen. They are full of confident opinions on a topic about which they know nothing.
If you read the comments on denier websites, you will find that the deniers have very little regard for climate scientists. Usually the deniers make derogatory remarks which imply that climate scientists really know nothing about the topic compared to the deniers themselves. It is very common to hear remarks like "James Hansen is a fool who couldn't pass a 1st year math course" and so on. I would estimate that more than 33% of the comments on climate denier websites consist of that. Much of the rest consist of self-flattery or flattery of each other.
Another example is a comment here on slashdot yesterday, in which the commenter said that climate science does not pass a "first year college level physics course" or something like that. Apparently, the commenter believed that he understood undergraduate physics. More remarkably, however, he believed that James Hansen does not, and neither do the other climate scientists.
In fact, the deniers don't even realize that they are ignorant about the topic. In that regard, they have a second-order ignorance, which differentiates them from acceptors who suffer from only ordinary ignorance and therefore could easily learn.
This second-order ignorance prevents the deniers from gaining the benefit of someone else's knowledge. In order to benefit from someone else's knowledge, they would need to realize that somebody else even has knowledge which they lack. As long as the deniers believe that they already know more than climate scientists, then they will never learn anything, because they wrongly think that their knowledge is already complete and climate science has nothing to teach them, so why learn?
I find it especially amusing when deniers leave comments on websites saying things like "SHOW ME THE DATA". First of all, what the fuck would they do with it? It requires more than just staring at the data to interpret it. It requires complicated mathematical operations, with which the deniers are unfamiliar. Second, the data is publicly available. If they didn't know that, or don't know how to obtain it, then they obviously couldn't make use of the data, since making use of the data requires far more knowledge than just knowing where to download it.
In short, deniers don't even realize they are ignorant, which prevents them from ever learning, and also prevents them from benefitting from others' knowledge.
Let me give an analogy, to demonstrate my point. Suppose two different people both have an infection, both are infected with the same bacteria, both go to a physician, and both are prescribed an antibiotic. We'll call one patient "the accepter" and the other "the denier.". The first person ("the accepter") believes that the physician knows something about the topic and so takes his advice and takes the antibiotic. The second ("the denier") has read a blog post, and now believes that he is the world's expert, that his physician and in fact the entire field of medicine consists of fucking morons compared to him (now that he has read that blog post), that he's not doing anything until the physicians SHOW HIM THE DATA, that he is more capable of diagnosing himself, and that the physicians are neglecting the true cause of the disease (blue-green algae deficiency) either because they
So 23% of people in the USA do not believe in science. That actually comes to about 1% of humanity... I suspect that it will be under 5% of the world would admit to this opinion.
Regrettably, that's not true. The US is not an outlier and does not have especially high rates of AGW denial. For example, AGW denial is more common in the countries of the former soviet union.
A gallop poll of world opinion found that in the vast majority of countries, most people either have not heard of climate change or dispute what scientists are telling them that CO2 is the cause. Only in a handful of countries (most of which are in South America) do large majorities believe in AGW.
No, because that is a definition of the term "cargo cult science". I obviously will not "understand" that James Hansen is a cargo cult scientist just by reading the definition of the term again.
Scientists who try to prevent others from validating their work
How is Hansen preventing others from validating his work? Is he not providing his data? Sabotaging others' equipment? How?
who put confidence in extrapolation of curve fits to chaotic systems
Hansen certainly doesn't do that. That is certainly not the basis of climate science, or of Hansen's work.
Slashdot Mirror
I went ahead and read the regulation, with which the "boot camps" are being forced to comply.
The regulation is actually extremely minimal. It requires the educational institutions to pay a yearly fee ($3500) plus various other fees; it requires the educational institutions to track all their students and track who gets jobs, how soon, how long they took to graduate, and so on; it prohibits education institutions from making promises about future employment; it requires the educational institution to hire only teachers or instructors who have some kind of qualification; etc. There are also various other provisions, all of which seem very minimalistic.
It seemed to me that most of the regulation involved requiring that schools provide certain kinds of truthful information, such as job placement rates.
The regulation would not prevent any reasonable educational institution from operating. It would still be possible to open a "boot camp" for coding in a building you rented, provided that the instructors have some kind of qualification and you submit truthful job placement information.
Nor would the regulation impose very much burden upon small organizations. It seems to me that the cost of compliance would be fairly small.
...which your doctor DEFINITELY DOES NOT want you to know about.
The thing is, I think those companies will actually offer you your money back if you complain their remedy didn't work. Those companies still make money because: 1) the amount they charge is low enough that many people don't bother to go through the procedure of getting their money back; 2) confirmation bias etc will lead some people to believe the remedies helped them when they obviously didn't.
To me, this seems like a series of very loose associations.
Why does it support your point if 3/5 of the tallest skyscrapes are in Muslim countries?
Bush was not about to be impeached when 9/11 happened.
According to Gallup, Bush's approval ratings were above 50% right before 9/11.
No, because the word "liar" implies an intent to deceive. If he were ignorant about it and also wrong, then he would be mistaken, not lying. (In fact, he is not mistaken about it. He was correct, and you are mistaken).
He certainly did. The three classes of people are clearly laid out in the Republic. The classes are not entirely hereditary, since it's possible for rulers to give birth to a lesser person, but there are three distinct classes that correspond to Plato's idea of the tripartite division of the soul.
What? I think you misunderstood something in the parent post. The parent poster was claiming that it's impossible (or at least very difficult) to win high elections, like US Senate elections, unless you are a career politician. He was making a claim about the current political system of the United States. Plato's "Republic" certainly does not contain any information about how difficult it is to obtain high office in the current US if you are not a career politician.
By whom? How would you know? Do you even know who the poster is? Were you present during his training?
Such training certainly is not part of the standard educational curriculum in the US. In fact, young people in the US are trained to have the opposite belief.
You are making a statement about the motives of people who create college curricula. Are college professors all really part of the political agenda which you're implying (to suppress information in Plato's Republic)? What evidence do you have to support that?
Grow up before posting or something?
That's not what I said, at all. READ AND UNDERSTAND what you're responding to. What I said is that congestion is worse on the 101 than at residential bus stops.
READ AND UNDERSTAND what you're responding to. The very next sentence I wrote explains that cars take more space when you include the space between the cars.
It may require only "junior high level knowledge" to get the right answer, but you still screwed it up. You did the calculation incorrectly, and you made two separate mistakes, as two separate people have pointed out to you now.
Speaking of ad hominem, here is your first sentence in this thread (which you said to someone else):
Apparently you didn't even realize that your remarks about "ad hominem" would apply to you especially.
You need to read more carefully, understand what you're reading, and think before posting.
Man, read and understand what you're responding to.
I was pointing out that cars do not travel bumper-to-bumper. They must leave at least a few cars' distances between cars, depending upon the speed. If each car has only one driver, then there must be several cars' worth of space on the freeway for each driver.
If there are two cars (each with one driver) and two car distances between them, then the two cars (with the distance between them) exceed the length of the bus on the freeway, by your own figures, even when the traffic is moving fairly slowly.
I pointed that out to you, very clearly, in the original post. In fact, that was the point I was making. Somehow, you failed totally to understand it. It would be one thing if you had provided a counterpoint, but you didn't even GET it.
Also, you failed to use the relevant calculation anyway. It's the length of the vehicle and the spaces between vehicles which matters, not the area, as long as the vehicle is narrower than the lane it occupies. Even if a car is much narrower than the lane it occupies, it still takes the entire lane.
You're an idiot. Not just with regard to that post, but your earlier post also.
No, because there has been an increase in population in the bay area, and other changes besides. It's obvious that you cannot determine whether buses have helped by just comparing the level of traffic across the two periods.
No, because the congestion is along the 101 corridor, and not in residential bus stops which are rarely congested.
No, you failed to carry out basic geometry because you forgot to include a factor which had just been pointed out to you, and you also did not use the relevant calculation anyway.
No, because the question was whether googlers would live in San Francisco or silicon valley, and whether they would deprive a locality of their tax revenues. Obviously, federal taxes are not relevant here since those are income taxes, which are the same regardless of which of the two localities the googlers reside in.
You're a moron.
I have read your other comments here, and the parent poster is a hell of a lot smarter than you are.
They certainly do have a record of that. If you read their flyer, you would discover that one of the things they're protesting is the construction of new dense condos in Berkeley (new condos are apparently "sterile", as opposed to old ones for established residents).
Very easily, by simply reading the flyer and prose which the protesters have produced.
Google wasn't the one forbidding the construction of dense urban housing in California. Google had nothing to do with it. It was the protesters specifically (who are doing that now) and other members of the far left.
It certainly is through fault of their own! It's the protesters (and other far leftists) who are protesting and preventing the construction of new urban housing. That is why rents are going up--because of increasing demand and a fixed supply. It's the protesters (and the far left more generally) who directly caused the increased rents, and are causing it now.
When the far leftists in California disallow the construction of any dense urban housing, it obviously implies that some people are not going to be able to live how and where they want. It means that there won't be enough dense urban housing for everyone. So now, the protesters wish to make sure that they are the beneficiaries, and not the victims, of the housing discrimination scheme which they set up. As a result, they wish to kick out newcomers by force, intimidation and harassment, whereas older residents are entitled to live in dense urban areas because of established privilege and because they were born in a certain region. Bear in mind that both groups of people could easily live in dense urban areas, but the protesters (and other far leftists) would never allow that, and they won't allow construction of new urban dwellings.
In short, the protesters want two things: 1) there must be massive discrimination in housing with no new urban units, thereby driving up prices and pushing many people into suburbs; 2) the protesters and other established residents must be the beneficiaries of that discrimination, whereas newcomers and outsiders will be the victims of it and will be kicked out by force, intimidation, physical bullying, and outright discrimination against an entire class of people (nerds in this case; "fuck techies").
They should direct their energy against themselves. In fact, everyone else should direct their energy against them. The protesters should stop preventing the construction of new dense urban housing, stop discriminating against newcomers, stop physically harassing people, stop using slurs ("fuck techies"), and allow more people to live in dense urban areas if those people prefer it.
No, because property taxes are fixed for life in San Francisco bay area and never go up once you've bought a place, so long as you stay there. Property taxes don't even increase at the rate of inflation, so they actually go down (in real terms) over time, for "established residents". Furthermore, your children can inherit your low property taxes and so pay tax rates from 50+ years ago (NOT inflation adjusted).
Also, the established residents in San Francisco who are renters have rent control, and pay rents from years ago, whereas new residents must pay far higher rents.
That is all part of the MASSIVE discrimination in california practiced by established residents against newcomers. Newcomers must pay most taxes, regardless of their income. I grew up near San Francisco, and I know many people in Belvedere and Tiburon (Belvedere is the richest town in the United States) who pay less than $1,000 per year in property taxes on houses than cost more than $5 million.
What the protesters are advocating is further massive discrimination against newcomers and in favor of themselves. What the protesters want is the following. They won't allow the construction of any new urban housing, which is an obvious act of discrimination by itself since it is an attempt to determine how and where others may live. They want a fixed number of residents in dense urban areas, with the fixed number being THEM--everyone else is forced to live in the suburbs even if they want to live in dense urban housing. However, the protesters don't want to actually buy a place, thereby locking in their property taxes forever, because that would require saving money. Instead, they want their rents to be fixed for life, for them, but not for newcomers. Newcomers are people they want to kick out by force and harassment, by physically interfering with their lives and preventing them from going to work. The protesters even use derogatory terms for a class of people ("fuck techies") who they feel are interfering with their massive privileges, and the massive privileges of established residents. Furthermore, the protesters are not subtle about any of these things.
Except silicon valley is a massive sprawl of parking lots and freeways, like Los Angeles. So the employees still wouldn't live very close to their place of employment, but the sprawl would prevent them from using shared modes of transportation. Also, the sprawl will force them to drive long distances to perform everyday tasks like going to the supermarket.
No, but buses facilitate people living in dense urban areas which allows them to walk to bus stops, and bus operators can increase or decrease the number of buses based upon the number of people at a stop on average. Living in dense urban areas is what allows shared rides.
The buses have allowed the employees to live in San Francisco, which is densely populated, and which is 8 miles across, from one end to the other. Almost all the google employees live in the northeastern quadrant of the city and so almost all of them live within 5 miles of each other.
Cars are larger per traveller than buses. If the bus has 2 people or more on it, it takes less space on the freeway than a car. Cars do not travel bumper-to-bumper, so two people driving separate cars take a lot of space, whereas only two people on the bus are perhaps 30 feet from each other.
But tax revenue is helped in the dense urban areas where the employees move to. If people move from San Jose to San Francisco, it doesn't cause their tax contribution just to disappear. Instead, the taxes are paid somewhere else. In this case, the taxes are paid in a dense urban area which contributes to public transportation rather than the endless roadways in SJ where the taxes were going before.
Residents of dense urban areas typically emit less than 1/3rd the CO2 of suburban residents. It is not helpful to prevent the construction of dense urban housing (which the protesters are doing). Nor is it helpful to protest a bus.
It's also cool if your protest is hysterical, pointless, stupid, irrational, and likely to accomplish nothing. It's even more cool if your protest causes exactly the problems you complain about, for example, by protesting new urban housing construction and then complaining about insufficient places to live and increased rents. Or, protesting the bus and then complaining about the environment.
When I was a child taking the school bus in San Francisco, ACT UP protested what they perceived as insufficient AIDS research by laying down in the roadway in front of our school bus. I didn't mind; I wasn't eager to go to school. However it certainly didn't increase AIDS funding. As a child, I didn't start researching AIDS right away while blocked on the bus.
Instead of doing that, they could have spent the same time helping AIDS patients, or working, and then giving the money to AIDS research charities. But that would have actually helped.
These people in the SF Bay area don't really want to help anyone, because they never do anything that would help anyone. What they want is a random, hysterical outburst against someone picked at random.
Except those pieces of paper you talk about, can be used to buy medicine and food. Those pieces of paper can be used to pay for imports and thereby gives those countries access to things like capital equipment and medicine.
Do we really want to stop the flow of money ("pieces of paper") to the third world?
Poor people want money ("pieces of paper") because we have a gun to their heads?
The protesters are doing nothing to help people in the third world. Their main action has been to protest the bus. If they succeed in shutting down the buses between San Francisco and silicon valley, then it won't help people in the third world at all.
In fact, it doesn't seem like the protesters are even trying to help people in the third world. Most of what they are doing is trying to reduce rent for themselves by kicking out other people.
What does that have to do with it? The protesters are also richer than 99% of the rest of the population, and their actions are doing nothing to help poor people. Instead of giving their time or money to third world causes, or encouraging techies to give some of their money to such causes, the protesters wish to boycott the only export of the Congo (gold), while preventing new urban housing development and thereby forcing increased surburbanization and increased co2 emissions.
What the protesters primarily want is reduced rent for themselves. Their main complaint is that rents are too high, even though they cause the problem by preventing the construction of urban housing. The protesters are spoiled, wealthy first worlders, just like the techies, except they cause the problems they complain about and are harming the poor (or trying to harm them).
The protesters certainly do not have valid points. The rising rents in the SF Bay Area are caused by fixed supply despite growing demand, which in turn is caused by the relentless opposition to constructing any new urban housing there.
The far left in the SF Bay Area has fought tooth and nail, for decades, to disallow any dense urban housing construction. That is why rents are increasing. Demand increases every year while supply is fixed.
From the protesters' flier:
Here the protesters will not allow the construction of new urban housing. When rents continue to go up, which is what the protesters are causing by their own actions, they will complain again that rents are too high.
The protesters are causing additional carbon emissions and environmental destruction. If they successfully prevent the construction of dense urban housing, then obviously that will force those people to live in suburban housing (because people don't protest new construction there), and suburban housing has vastly worse carbon emissions that urban.
Newsflash: if you prevent the construction of dense urban housing, then that doesn't cause the potential occupants just to disappear magically. Instead, it causes them to live in suburban housing instead, which is far worse for the environment in every regard. Suburban residents usually have triple the carbon emissions or more, of urban residents.
Furthermore, if the protesters manage to shut down the bus (!?), then obviously that will force some people to drive which will contribute to the gridlock on the 101, and will cause thousands of cars on the gridlocked 101 to idle even longer during their travels.
If you care about the Congo, as the protesters claim to do, then you should send part of your money as charity to the Congo. It does not help the people there, to boycott their only product and to boycott the only major export from the entire country. It causes economic devastation to a country to prevent its exports. That is why a blockade on exports is forbidden by the UN as an international crime.
If exports are exploitation, then the Israelis are doing the Palestinians a big favor by blockading the ports at the Gaza strip. It is preventing the palestinians from being "exploited" by selling what they have on the international market.
It's nice of you to try to find something positive about the protesters. However, in my opinion, the protesters are just stupid. What they are doing is silly, poorly thought out, unintentionally destructive, and it causes precisely the problems which they are trying to cure.
No. I am not cherry-picking. The article was selected at random (I ended up there by accident) and the comments I provided were the first 20 comments, leaving out only a few which were unrelated. That is not cherry-picking. Furthermore, most of the other comments are also like that. It was a representative sample, so it's not cherry picking.
NO!! Read more carefully. The article was a summary of results which were produced by climate scientists. From the article: "Stanford climate scientists Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field report that it's on pace to occur at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period..."
The derogatory remarks from the comments I provided, were against the climate scientists (specifically Diffenbaugh) and their conclusions--not against the summary or its author! You typed the wrong name into linkedin.
If the deniers were disputing just the summary, that would be one thing. If they claimed that the summary did not accurately reflect the actual climate science, that would be one thing. However, that's not what occurred. The deniers were disputing climate scientists and climate research, on the basis of nothing.
No! Words like "some", "likely", and "largely", and so on, are not "weasel words". They are legitimate words to convey the extent of some effect, or to convey some degree of uncertainty.
There are many scientific disciplines with ranges of uncertainty. Also, there are scientific fields where things aren't always due to one cause, and therefore "some" effects could be produced by a given cause. For example, "some" (but not all) of the changes in tides are caused by gravitational pull from the moon, while "some" are caused by gravitational pull from the Sun. The word "some" is not a weasel word in those cases.
No it's not worth noting, because it's just not relevant to the point here. The point was whether climate deniers pass judgement without knowing anything about the topic. That is true or false regardless of whether the paper is a summary, or is original research.
Again, that is just not the point. The point was whether climate deniers pass judgement without knowing anything about the topic. That is true or false regardless of whether the paper is addressing their specific concerns. Even if the paper is not about climate denier arguments specifically, the deniers are still passing judgement while knowing nothing about it, which was my point.
Unfortunately, you are the one regurgitating lines taken from the climate denier movement. I realize everyone does stuff like that sometimes, without even noticing. We all repeat things we have heard. However, I have heard your remark 100 times before you said it, and it's just absurd.
It's not a "weak sideshow" since the climate denier movement rarely produces anything more serious than that. I am attacking typical climate denier rhe
Is it really a fantasy? Here are a the first few of comments, from the last article I read on WattsUpWithThat.com:
I am not cherry-picking. Those constitute about 80% of the early comments on the article I was reading. I only skipped a few of them which were different. Also, I could provide far more, since the comments continue in that fashion for more than 20 additional pages.
What's more, the comments on climate denial websites are frequently like that.
Bear in mind that the posters are referring to STANFORD UNIVERSITY which is one of the top 15 Universities in the physical sciences worldwide. Most of the posters claim that professors of climate science at Stanford University are just fucking idiots compared to them. Most claim that the professors know nothing about their OWN FIELD of expertise, but the commenters have it all figured out.
I am far more humble than almost anyone in the climate denier camp. They are willing to dismiss an entire serious field of study, while not having any knowledge about it. Instead, they just pass judgment. They just know already, and are already competent to reach conclusions and to label professors at Stanford (and peer reviewers) as "morons".
As for maturity. If you realize that there is something you don't know, and you suspend judgment about a topic until you know something about it, then you have reached a level of intellectual maturity which is beyond most climate science deniers.
I hope you're right, but I suspect you're not. I have found that average people in their everyday conversations are less intelligent than what prevails in the media. On this very website, which is "news for nerds", I can find quite a few commenters who still say things like "why was it cold today where I live if it's supposed to be GLOBAL warming?". If you don't believe me, then scroll up a few pages. Bear in mind that this is a website which caters to technology professionals, and that most people here probably have college degrees. I expect that the average person here is much brighter than the average citizen.
Furthermore, the problem isn't just ignorance. The problem is that many people are defiantly, stubbornly ignorant, and will actively resist information as if their lives depended upon not learning anything. Again, the comment "why was it cold today where I live if it's supposed to be GLOBAL warming?". Climate scientists have EXPLAINED that, over and over again, for YEARS, but to no avail. Furthermore, the person who says that will then call into question the entire field of climate science, without knowing anything about it.
Insofar as I can tell, about half the population not only knows nothing about climate science (which is fine) but actively opposes people who do know something about it. That is beyond ordinary ignorance. That is a proud, defiant ignorance. That is the problem. Ordinary ignorant people can listen and learn, but defiantly ignorant people will interfere with the application of knowledge and are utter fools forever.
Yes, but there is a big difference. The people who accept global warming, realize that they're not experts about it, and are willing to listen and learn. The deniers, on the other hand, are little armchair climate scientists in their own heads. They wrongly believe that they are already the world's experts on the topic, and are competent to pass judgment on the entire field. They think that having read an article on WattsUpWithThat.com makes them far more knowledgeable about the topic than (say) James Hansen. They are full of confident opinions on a topic about which they know nothing.
If you read the comments on denier websites, you will find that the deniers have very little regard for climate scientists. Usually the deniers make derogatory remarks which imply that climate scientists really know nothing about the topic compared to the deniers themselves. It is very common to hear remarks like "James Hansen is a fool who couldn't pass a 1st year math course" and so on. I would estimate that more than 33% of the comments on climate denier websites consist of that. Much of the rest consist of self-flattery or flattery of each other.
Another example is a comment here on slashdot yesterday, in which the commenter said that climate science does not pass a "first year college level physics course" or something like that. Apparently, the commenter believed that he understood undergraduate physics. More remarkably, however, he believed that James Hansen does not, and neither do the other climate scientists.
In fact, the deniers don't even realize that they are ignorant about the topic. In that regard, they have a second-order ignorance, which differentiates them from acceptors who suffer from only ordinary ignorance and therefore could easily learn.
This second-order ignorance prevents the deniers from gaining the benefit of someone else's knowledge. In order to benefit from someone else's knowledge, they would need to realize that somebody else even has knowledge which they lack. As long as the deniers believe that they already know more than climate scientists, then they will never learn anything, because they wrongly think that their knowledge is already complete and climate science has nothing to teach them, so why learn?
I find it especially amusing when deniers leave comments on websites saying things like "SHOW ME THE DATA". First of all, what the fuck would they do with it? It requires more than just staring at the data to interpret it. It requires complicated mathematical operations, with which the deniers are unfamiliar. Second, the data is publicly available. If they didn't know that, or don't know how to obtain it, then they obviously couldn't make use of the data, since making use of the data requires far more knowledge than just knowing where to download it.
In short, deniers don't even realize they are ignorant, which prevents them from ever learning, and also prevents them from benefitting from others' knowledge.
Let me give an analogy, to demonstrate my point. Suppose two different people both have an infection, both are infected with the same bacteria, both go to a physician, and both are prescribed an antibiotic. We'll call one patient "the accepter" and the other "the denier.". The first person ("the accepter") believes that the physician knows something about the topic and so takes his advice and takes the antibiotic. The second ("the denier") has read a blog post, and now believes that he is the world's expert, that his physician and in fact the entire field of medicine consists of fucking morons compared to him (now that he has read that blog post), that he's not doing anything until the physicians SHOW HIM THE DATA, that he is more capable of diagnosing himself, and that the physicians are neglecting the true cause of the disease (blue-green algae deficiency) either because they
Regrettably, that's not true. The US is not an outlier and does not have especially high rates of AGW denial. For example, AGW denial is more common in the countries of the former soviet union.
A gallop poll of world opinion found that in the vast majority of countries, most people either have not heard of climate change or dispute what scientists are telling them that CO2 is the cause. Only in a handful of countries (most of which are in South America) do large majorities believe in AGW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
No, because that is a definition of the term "cargo cult science". I obviously will not "understand" that James Hansen is a cargo cult scientist just by reading the definition of the term again.
How is Hansen preventing others from validating his work? Is he not providing his data? Sabotaging others' equipment? How?
Hansen certainly doesn't do that. That is certainly not the basis of climate science, or of Hansen's work.