How much more destructive? What was the trend in storm intensity before and after climate change? How does the cause and effect relationship work exactly?
What specific, quantifiable cause and effect relationship are we acknowledging? And what clear evidence of this specific effect should we be sure not to ignore?
US Hurricanes stoped on their own from 2006 until 2017, with the lone exception of Sandy which was just barely a Category 1. Does climate change cause hurricanes? Where was it the last 10 years then?
Does climate change only cause bad weather and never good weather? How does it know which is which? Were there more hurricanes before climate change or fewer?
Please tell us how many hurricanes will happen at each level of emissions. Because you are stating a specific cause and effect linkage between emissions and hurricanes. Please quantify it and explain the cause and effect relationship.
Just a little bit. You seem to have the idea that so-called "conservative groups" must all agree on everything and always remain perfectly consistent in a very exacting set of beliefs. Nope. They're just people, like everyone else. No 2 agree on everything.
Using government to bully mom and pop Christian cake bakers for the benefit of gay marriage isn't popular with conservative groups. Bullying mom and pop cake bakers shouldn't be popular with anyone, but basic humanity and decency is secondary to politics for some true believers. Others just choose their team and don't give a shit if the other team is unfairly and cruelly fucked over.
Meanwhile, Google bullying an open discussion forum app isn't popular with free speech advocates and folks who just don't like the new censorship/no platforming power plays. There's some overlap -- people like me who don't like bullying in either case and people who don't like hypocritical double standards. Others just choose their team and don't give a shit if the other team is unfairly and cruelly fucked over.
It's an anti-trust issue because Google controls the Android App Store and Google has competing services: Google+. They have near-monopoly power and they're leveraging it, using it against a competitive app. Courts will decide if it's a genuine anti-trust issue or not.
Yes. Too many people have too much invested in milking grievances and hunting witches for such a thing to be excused.
If people started accepting apologies and being tolerant and magnanimous and kind and understanding, we'd all live happier, more peaceful lives.
And then what would community organizers do to become rich and powerful? Who would pay professional protestors? What would diversity coordinators do at colleges? How would you get out the racial vote to elect the same old politicians to continue to fail to solve any problems?
Google selectively enforces their terms and reinterprets them and moves the goalposts.
There are lots of apps that don't police content. If Slashdot had an app, Google could ban it for the same reason. But they wouldn't, because the rules don't exist to be obeyed, only to be abused. Gab committed the SJW version of driving while black.
Let's hear Google's religious freedom claim. That would at least be honest.
If Google was allowed to exclude apps based on religious freedom, then at least we would have religious freedoms. As it is, we have no religious freedom and companies like Google discriminate all the time because the rules only apply one way.
Then, what will you say if Google removed Reddit from it's search results?
You think this is about ideas when it's actually about power. If Google can't use it's power to bully nonbelievers and heretics, then what's that power good for at all?
Reddit is different because Reddit follows the cult rules to some extent. No need to bully them when they're on the same team.
Didn't the Supreme Court just rule that you can refuse to do business with someone for any reason you want? In that particular case it was cake makers...
No, that did not happen. Unless you're posting this from the future.
If they lose, they are no worse off than before. But the news coverage gives them lots of publicity to promote their business.
Google is clearly just blacklisting them because Google wants to shut them up. The cult leaders at Google are committed to persecuting nonbelievers and heretics.
We went from everything completely sucks to now some things don't suck, and a few of them are really good. And that works out good for regular people -- they like their phone, they text people, glance at email, use maps, get an Uber, make it somewhere on time, and watch a video. It's nice.
But Kay still sees all the problems and imagines a better world that appeals to him. But he's not like the regular people. So a world that appeals to Kay isn't as well suited to regular people as what we have.
That's the problem that smart idealists have: the people aren't ideal, and you can't make us ideal, and the most earnest and stubborn attempts to make us ideal turn out to be very destructive. Kay seems to understand this, but he still complains when you ask him.
False. You seriously want to say that food is the one area where there's been zero progress in the last 35 years?
Hunger in America was not more common 35 years ago.
I don't know what you think "more common" means. Food costs less and high calorie, ready to eat foods are clearly more available to more people at lower cost (measured in time spent working to earn the money to buy them) than 35 years ago.
Do you really think that childhood obesity tripled because of a vast decline in helpful people?
It's a factor. There are other factors. And it's not a decline in "helpful people", it's a specific unwillingness/failure to help a kid slim down. There's help for a kid to learn math or science or history. There's help for an injured kid or any number of other kids with other problems. Just not for the fat kid.
There are lots of other factors, but a kid is ultimately just a kid. A kid's health is the parents' responsibility, period. A fat kid's parents have fallen down on the job. If more kids are fat, more parents are failing their kids. No two ways about it.
1. Abundant tasty foods. 2. Parents should be helping their kids. In the past, bad parents had hungry kids. Now almost no one ever goes hungry and when bad parents neglect their kids' health and they're too fat instead of too thin.
Does anyone actually take the time to help a kid be less fat? I was a fat kid. Exactly zero people ever genuinely tried to help me with that.
Yes, but scanned paper ballots are individually numbered. So it's not just x number of votes, it's x specifically, uniquely numbered ballots with votes. The quantity has to match, but so do the ballot identifier numbers.
Ok, maybe. But maybe the electronic voting machine salesman just told them people could vote in 90 seconds so it's OK that they cost twice as much. Meanwhile voting actually takes 3 minutes (or whatever) so you get lines.
Conspiracies make for interesting stories. Interesting stories are less likely to be true than boring stories.
Electronic voting machines were just a mistake some people in some places made historically. Elections are managed locally in the US, so there are 1000s of people making these decisions in different places across the country. Now that electronic voting machines are more-or-less universally understood to be a mistake, they are being gradually replaced with scanned paper ballots.
It's not very meaningful. People make mistakes. They get corrected. It takes time.
The point isn't that the scanning machines are perfect or impartial. The point is that scanned paper ballots can be re-examined and re-counted later.
Scanned paper ballots are also individually numbered, so the quantity can be matched to the number of voters who signed in. This is a safeguard to prevent someone from filling out 1000 extra ballots or throwing away 1000 of them during the recount.
I think "track" means you don't want to miss something and you don't want to find out about it tomorrow or the next day. Versus just idly reading stuff when you find something interesting. You don't need a scheme to optimize idle news browsing.
Slashdot Mirror
How much more destructive? What was the trend in storm intensity before and after climate change? How does the cause and effect relationship work exactly?
What specific, quantifiable cause and effect relationship are we acknowledging? And what clear evidence of this specific effect should we be sure not to ignore?
US Hurricanes stoped on their own from 2006 until 2017, with the lone exception of Sandy which was just barely a Category 1. Does climate change cause hurricanes? Where was it the last 10 years then?
Does climate change only cause bad weather and never good weather? How does it know which is which? Were there more hurricanes before climate change or fewer?
Please tell us how many hurricanes will happen at each level of emissions. Because you are stating a specific cause and effect linkage between emissions and hurricanes. Please quantify it and explain the cause and effect relationship.
Just a little bit. You seem to have the idea that so-called "conservative groups" must all agree on everything and always remain perfectly consistent in a very exacting set of beliefs. Nope. They're just people, like everyone else. No 2 agree on everything.
Using government to bully mom and pop Christian cake bakers for the benefit of gay marriage isn't popular with conservative groups. Bullying mom and pop cake bakers shouldn't be popular with anyone, but basic humanity and decency is secondary to politics for some true believers. Others just choose their team and don't give a shit if the other team is unfairly and cruelly fucked over.
Meanwhile, Google bullying an open discussion forum app isn't popular with free speech advocates and folks who just don't like the new censorship/no platforming power plays. There's some overlap -- people like me who don't like bullying in either case and people who don't like hypocritical double standards. Others just choose their team and don't give a shit if the other team is unfairly and cruelly fucked over.
It's an anti-trust issue because Google controls the Android App Store and Google has competing services: Google+. They have near-monopoly power and they're leveraging it, using it against a competitive app. Courts will decide if it's a genuine anti-trust issue or not.
Do some Google advertising deals for autoplay videos with sound expire on 12/31?
Yes. Too many people have too much invested in milking grievances and hunting witches for such a thing to be excused.
If people started accepting apologies and being tolerant and magnanimous and kind and understanding, we'd all live happier, more peaceful lives.
And then what would community organizers do to become rich and powerful? Who would pay professional protestors? What would diversity coordinators do at colleges? How would you get out the racial vote to elect the same old politicians to continue to fail to solve any problems?
Because saying "fucking asshole" doesn't summon the inquisition and start the witch hunt.
Google selectively enforces their terms and reinterprets them and moves the goalposts.
There are lots of apps that don't police content. If Slashdot had an app, Google could ban it for the same reason. But they wouldn't, because the rules don't exist to be obeyed, only to be abused. Gab committed the SJW version of driving while black.
Let's hear Google's religious freedom claim. That would at least be honest.
If Google was allowed to exclude apps based on religious freedom, then at least we would have religious freedoms. As it is, we have no religious freedom and companies like Google discriminate all the time because the rules only apply one way.
Will you learn from this occasion -- where you were clearly incorrect -- and be less of a snarky know-it-all?
Also, Google isn't a small town bake shop. Monopoly power matters.
Then, what will you say if Google removed Reddit from it's search results?
You think this is about ideas when it's actually about power. If Google can't use it's power to bully nonbelievers and heretics, then what's that power good for at all?
Reddit is different because Reddit follows the cult rules to some extent. No need to bully them when they're on the same team.
Didn't the Supreme Court just rule that you can refuse to do business with someone for any reason you want? In that particular case it was cake makers ...
No, that did not happen. Unless you're posting this from the future.
If they lose, they are no worse off than before. But the news coverage gives them lots of publicity to promote their business.
Google is clearly just blacklisting them because Google wants to shut them up. The cult leaders at Google are committed to persecuting nonbelievers and heretics.
His problem is that he's brilliant.
We went from everything completely sucks to now some things don't suck, and a few of them are really good. And that works out good for regular people -- they like their phone, they text people, glance at email, use maps, get an Uber, make it somewhere on time, and watch a video. It's nice.
But Kay still sees all the problems and imagines a better world that appeals to him. But he's not like the regular people. So a world that appeals to Kay isn't as well suited to regular people as what we have.
That's the problem that smart idealists have: the people aren't ideal, and you can't make us ideal, and the most earnest and stubborn attempts to make us ideal turn out to be very destructive. Kay seems to understand this, but he still complains when you ask him.
Food was just as abundant and tasty 35 years ago.
False. You seriously want to say that food is the one area where there's been zero progress in the last 35 years?
Hunger in America was not more common 35 years ago.
I don't know what you think "more common" means. Food costs less and high calorie, ready to eat foods are clearly more available to more people at lower cost (measured in time spent working to earn the money to buy them) than 35 years ago.
Do you really think that childhood obesity tripled because of a vast decline in helpful people?
It's a factor. There are other factors. And it's not a decline in "helpful people", it's a specific unwillingness/failure to help a kid slim down. There's help for a kid to learn math or science or history. There's help for an injured kid or any number of other kids with other problems. Just not for the fat kid.
There are lots of other factors, but a kid is ultimately just a kid. A kid's health is the parents' responsibility, period. A fat kid's parents have fallen down on the job. If more kids are fat, more parents are failing their kids. No two ways about it.
I'd say it's 2 things:
1. Abundant tasty foods.
2. Parents should be helping their kids. In the past, bad parents had hungry kids. Now almost no one ever goes hungry and when bad parents neglect their kids' health and they're too fat instead of too thin.
Does anyone actually take the time to help a kid be less fat? I was a fat kid. Exactly zero people ever genuinely tried to help me with that.
You don't understand the environmentalist religion at all.
No one asked for this feature
Wrong. Lots of people want a secure way to quickly and easily unlock their phone without typing in a code. Most phone users want this.
The others want to enter a code every time or they don't lock their phone. The phones support all 3 choices. What are you complaining about?
Yes, but scanned paper ballots are individually numbered. So it's not just x number of votes, it's x specifically, uniquely numbered ballots with votes. The quantity has to match, but so do the ballot identifier numbers.
I was disappointed they didn't put one on the back for this reason.
Someone might make a cool application for it.
Someone who wants a phone instead of a slot on a waiting list.
Ok, maybe. But maybe the electronic voting machine salesman just told them people could vote in 90 seconds so it's OK that they cost twice as much. Meanwhile voting actually takes 3 minutes (or whatever) so you get lines.
Conspiracies make for interesting stories. Interesting stories are less likely to be true than boring stories.
Electronic voting machines were just a mistake some people in some places made historically. Elections are managed locally in the US, so there are 1000s of people making these decisions in different places across the country. Now that electronic voting machines are more-or-less universally understood to be a mistake, they are being gradually replaced with scanned paper ballots.
It's not very meaningful. People make mistakes. They get corrected. It takes time.
The point isn't that the scanning machines are perfect or impartial. The point is that scanned paper ballots can be re-examined and re-counted later.
Scanned paper ballots are also individually numbered, so the quantity can be matched to the number of voters who signed in. This is a safeguard to prevent someone from filling out 1000 extra ballots or throwing away 1000 of them during the recount.
I think "track" means you don't want to miss something and you don't want to find out about it tomorrow or the next day. Versus just idly reading stuff when you find something interesting. You don't need a scheme to optimize idle news browsing.
Stories about the future are fiction.