Perhaps it was written at the beginning of the program, indicating that it is a quick temporary solution, to be replaced by something better in the future. That would explain why there are no comments in the first place.
Thank you, you finally helped me to understand that comic. So it's true after all. You code while intoxicated, and debug sober, when you are smart enough to easily debug your own code. That way you save debugging time, and you get more productive.
Ok, I am not really fan of atheism as a religion argument, but we could ask the same. Outline the religious morality for freedom of speech or assembly for example. Or for the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. See? There are moral issues that no religion takes stance on. Why then not have a religion that has no moral stance on any issue?
This doesn't explain why engineers would want to be terrorists, only why terrorists would recruit engineers. You can have all the skills, yet may not want to do it. Read the actual study, it's really that engineers are more prone to do it.
Yes, I played it briefly, and was going to say that. It was very realistic - you are crawling half an hour through enemy area, then poof one shot you are dead; mission failed. But it was not much fun, really.
So how many percent of support the second best theory available has? Saying "it's not proven" is not the same as saying "it's not the most likely explanation".
When you talk about snow in Houston, are you talking about temperature or precipitation? I am no expert, but I know that AGW predictions include increased precipitation.
Ok, so you are saying that some stupid covert reason and directives is better than an open discussion between the parties? Geez, that can really create an atmosphere of trust that makes people so productive.
When these models can take data from the 1980's and predict today's climate, then we'll talk. Hell, we can't even predict next week's weather with any degree of certainty. It's time to stop pretending that we can predict a global climate catastrophe decades away.
You have just outed yourself by this sentence. Weather and climate are two different things, and they occur on different timescales. To make an analogy, how is it possible for casinos to make profit, if nobody can predict where the ball in roulette will end up?
Yes. While in the undemocratic system, the power to take the rest of population into the dark ages is held by a minority. So which one of these are you going to pick?
That's funny. I am from former communist country, and after the fail of iron curtain, they said exactly the opposite in reverse. We had exactly what you propose - centrally planned economy, where panels of experts decided what is best for other people. Yet, it failed, because it turned out those "experts" were more interested in their own prosperity.
I think the future is somewhere in the middle. Experts should be there to tell you what will happen if you decide this or that way; but the decision which way to take should be democratic. I liked the idea of citizen committees (by some proponents of direct democracy) - you randomly select a sample of citizens (something like a panel or jury) and let them interview various experts on the matter for a few days, and then issue a recommendation. There would be several of these running independently. Then, these recommendations would be available for voters to decide (by direct democracy). The advantage is that you would have no reason to mistrust the conclusions of these committees, since the participants were drawn randomly and thus represent a fair cross-section of interests.
Both private and public sector comprises of men in power. It doesn't matter how you call the institution that exerts power, the exploitation itself is of relevance there.
Two things: 1. Sun is getting warmer (on geological scale). So there may have been more CO2 in the atmosphere with the same temperature in the past. 2. It actually was a lot warmer in the past. But the point here is the rate of change and rate at which organisms can adapt to it.
I don't understand this position, because I don't think it's really tenable; it seems to me even less believable than if you rejected the GW entirely.
You see, if you start believing climatology as a science (so, say, some results are valid), then you don't really have much reason to disbelief other results. And antropomorphic global warming is connected by a lot of little pieces of evidence to global warming. For example, we can measure ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, and from this we can determine, which part of CO2 comes from fossil fuels. These little pieces of evidence are consistent with each other; if you choose to not to believe one, you need to account for the other evidence that covers same theory, otherwise you would have to reject everything, including the fact that it is warming at all, which you chose to believe. Another interesting example of such connected evidence was in Copenhagen Diagnosis report, that more sunlight would cause higher peak temperatures in summer, unlike higher insulation - CO2 layer over the planet, which would cause higher low temperatures in winter; guess what is more in-line with observations. So if you were to claim that sun does it, you would have to explain also this.
I have yet to see a theory of non-antropomorhic global warming, which would be consistent with global warming observation. And since you don't have any better theory, it's logical just to accept that man does it.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it was written at the beginning of the program, indicating that it is a quick temporary solution, to be replaced by something better in the future. That would explain why there are no comments in the first place.
Thank you, you finally helped me to understand that comic. So it's true after all. You code while intoxicated, and debug sober, when you are smart enough to easily debug your own code. That way you save debugging time, and you get more productive.
Ok, I am not really fan of atheism as a religion argument, but we could ask the same. Outline the religious morality for freedom of speech or assembly for example. Or for the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. See? There are moral issues that no religion takes stance on. Why then not have a religion that has no moral stance on any issue?
Then again, maybe the current crop of journalists can't write their way out of wet paper bag, even if you give them a chainsaw.
Wouldn't giving them a chainsaw be counterproductive?
...look forward to our meme-ending overlords.
It's also what men do with women.
This doesn't explain why engineers would want to be terrorists, only why terrorists would recruit engineers. You can have all the skills, yet may not want to do it. Read the actual study, it's really that engineers are more prone to do it.
The study controlled for that (as well as many other things). I am just reading it, it's really interesting.
It's not really a fraud. If you are a fraudster, you do it for personal profit. This more like a variation of civil disobedience.
Yes, I played it briefly, and was going to say that. It was very realistic - you are crawling half an hour through enemy area, then poof one shot you are dead; mission failed. But it was not much fun, really.
I work in IT. We don't bathe too often.
We in fact acted on global cooling. We reduced pollution.
So how many percent of support the second best theory available has? Saying "it's not proven" is not the same as saying "it's not the most likely explanation".
When you talk about snow in Houston, are you talking about temperature or precipitation? I am no expert, but I know that AGW predictions include increased precipitation.
Ok, so you are saying that some stupid covert reason and directives is better than an open discussion between the parties? Geez, that can really create an atmosphere of trust that makes people so productive.
When these models can take data from the 1980's and predict today's climate, then we'll talk. Hell, we can't even predict next week's weather with any degree of certainty. It's time to stop pretending that we can predict a global climate catastrophe decades away.
You have just outed yourself by this sentence. Weather and climate are two different things, and they occur on different timescales. To make an analogy, how is it possible for casinos to make profit, if nobody can predict where the ball in roulette will end up?
Yes. While in the undemocratic system, the power to take the rest of population into the dark ages is held by a minority. So which one of these are you going to pick?
That's funny. I am from former communist country, and after the fail of iron curtain, they said exactly the opposite in reverse. We had exactly what you propose - centrally planned economy, where panels of experts decided what is best for other people. Yet, it failed, because it turned out those "experts" were more interested in their own prosperity.
I think the future is somewhere in the middle. Experts should be there to tell you what will happen if you decide this or that way; but the decision which way to take should be democratic. I liked the idea of citizen committees (by some proponents of direct democracy) - you randomly select a sample of citizens (something like a panel or jury) and let them interview various experts on the matter for a few days, and then issue a recommendation. There would be several of these running independently. Then, these recommendations would be available for voters to decide (by direct democracy). The advantage is that you would have no reason to mistrust the conclusions of these committees, since the participants were drawn randomly and thus represent a fair cross-section of interests.
As for HIV...have you tried sex with a condom? It doesn't feel that good. Bareback is immensely better.
And have you tried sex without circumcision? ;-)
I think Gordon Moore once said,
"If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough."
I think the original article was talking about English Wikipedia, but Eric quotes statistics from all Wikipedias combined.
Whoosh!
Both private and public sector comprises of men in power. It doesn't matter how you call the institution that exerts power, the exploitation itself is of relevance there.
Two things:
1. Sun is getting warmer (on geological scale). So there may have been more CO2 in the atmosphere with the same temperature in the past.
2. It actually was a lot warmer in the past. But the point here is the rate of change and rate at which organisms can adapt to it.
I think he meant something along the lines of "nuclear winter".
I don't understand this position, because I don't think it's really tenable; it seems to me even less believable than if you rejected the GW entirely.
You see, if you start believing climatology as a science (so, say, some results are valid), then you don't really have much reason to disbelief other results. And antropomorphic global warming is connected by a lot of little pieces of evidence to global warming. For example, we can measure ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, and from this we can determine, which part of CO2 comes from fossil fuels. These little pieces of evidence are consistent with each other; if you choose to not to believe one, you need to account for the other evidence that covers same theory, otherwise you would have to reject everything, including the fact that it is warming at all, which you chose to believe. Another interesting example of such connected evidence was in Copenhagen Diagnosis report, that more sunlight would cause higher peak temperatures in summer, unlike higher insulation - CO2 layer over the planet, which would cause higher low temperatures in winter; guess what is more in-line with observations. So if you were to claim that sun does it, you would have to explain also this.
I have yet to see a theory of non-antropomorhic global warming, which would be consistent with global warming observation. And since you don't have any better theory, it's logical just to accept that man does it.