This fellow, ThinSkin, is a schill for ExtremeTech.com. Check his user info. In February, ThinSkin has submitted four articles that were accepted for Slashdot publication and all of them were links to ExtremeTech.com content.
Or, these are the only two websites he ever reads.
Still, I have to admire his ability to get submissions accepted. In my six years here, I've never done so, even though my submissions usually cover topics of substance.
Hmmm, I'm clearly going about this all wrong!
I'll set up a script that automatically checks for new articles on ExtremeTech, and then submits them to/.!
You should hate yourself then because you hate lawyers, and they're doing exactly for you what other greedy lawyers are doing elsewhere. They're doing whatever it takes to win a case.
Did your statement actually make sense to you, or is it unintelligible to everyone?
This is a dream come true for me. I hate lawyers, and I hate corporation who pull shit over the public, but I love lawyers who sue corporations who pull shit over the public.
I signed up for a Blockbuster account, just so I could rent some videos to test out my new HD television. I recently moved to this area, and Blockbuster was the only video store around.
I signed up because of their "no late fees". After I filled out my application, I was handed a small piece of paper with likewise small text, stating that the videos had to be purchased at market price if beyond a 6 days late. Then I looked up and saw the price of $4.29 per rental. I was fumed.
So I voted with my dollars and never rented a video there. I now drive back to Philadelphia to rent from TLA, which has supperior selection, prices, and deals.
None that has been presented thus far. I think it's fairly arrogant for humans to push an issue because it seems like the right thing to do.
In all modern issues of significant complexity, you'll hear scientists say "well this is how we think it works, but we can't account for x or y for some reason." Amazingly enough, I have yet to hear that admission from proponents of global warming. All I hear from them is, "Yup, global warming is true, and we have all the answers and computer models to prove it, and nope our computer models can't be wrong, and who cares if the history of solar output can't be measured, because it's just the sun for gosh sakes!", etc. I inherently distrust that type of thinking. It reminds me of creationists arguing that evolution is impossible because of x or y.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for proving that global warming is impacted by human actions. But I'll be the last person to jump on a bandwagon just because everyone else is nodding their head.
Just for the heck of it, I tried your google search, but I can't seem to come up with many sites that can even keep the terminology straight or provide basic references.
The second google link should provide you with 22 references.
There are still people who think the Earth is flat and only 4000 years old.
While that may be true, I'm concerned solely with scientists.
1. Scientists never come to "unanimous concensus" on anything, that's not how science works. That's how Dogma works.
Oh. Hmmm. Scientists don't agree that DNA is the mechanism for genetic distribution during reproduction? Scientists don't agree that carbon is a required building block for human life in its present condition? And here I thought we were able to agree on some things.
That said, it's almost impossible to find a respected member of the community who denys Global Warming anymore
You're right. When I type "global warming disputes" into Google, all I get is a list of crackpots. Yeah, right.
We've actually got a LOT of data. Ice cores from the artic for instance provide a good indication of the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. There was a great article in Scientific American charting the progress of greenhouse gasses over the past 8,000 years via this method.
Yes, that's nice. But do you also have an accurate correlation between the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and global temperature trends during that same 8,000 years?
long term trends tend to be very predictable although hard to observe (especially if they are subtle).
REALLY. Hmmm. How can you tell if something is predictable if it's hard to observe? Oh, btw, how often do Ice Ages come about, and what causes them? When will the next Ice Age come about? Because I've heard some very conflicting estimates about these very predictable trends.
One gets the feeling that the ones who are left in the "not enough evidence" camp at this point have some other agenda and will never have enough evidence, even if it's 80C in Toranto.
So I take it that you can prove that it's never been 80C in Toranto before?
Yes, Global Warming COULD be a myth perpetuated by mountains of bad testing procedures or flawed premesis, but the chances of that happening are extremely slim at this point.
Upon what do you base your assumption that the chances are slim? See, people who believe in global warming tend to be extremely confident in their presumptions. If the issue was really so black and white, I think there was be unanimous concensus on global warming, despite the fact that you think only crackpots disagree with global warming.
And that way *fairly* penalizes the poor? An income tax takes (or at least should take) into account relative poorness. Consumption taxes do not and as such hit the poor much harder than income tax.
A few things to consider.
By not taxing income, an employee can invest the money that would otherwise be taken immediately as taxes. This increases his principal and results in him earning more money from savings and investments.
Things such as rent, food, and clothes are not taxed in certain states. By not taxing income, an employee would have more of a chance to purchase the fundamental necessities of living.
The whole scheme would allow employees to save money when necessary (for example, during a harsh economy), and be taxed only when they are financially fit enough to buy consumer goods.
Before stating how you believe that Global Warming is a myth perpertrated by scientists after funding money, demonstrate your knowledge of the area by describing, briefly, the three of the following five things:
i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
iii) How a western boundary current is formed
iv) What Meddies are.
v) What a pycnocline is.
If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion.
Sure, as soon as you describe for me, briefly, three of the following six things:
i). Why scientists have not reached unanimous concensus about global warming, if it is such an apparently obvious phenomenon
ii). How scientists can conclude anything about a phenomenon so complex, with such a short span of recorded data
iii). How scientists can conclude anything about a phenomenon so complex, with missing data regarding major aspects of the model (solar output over the past 4 billion years)
iv). How computer models, which attempt to estimate a trend that has occurred over 4 billion years, can be validated by comparing its predictions against a 10-year forecast window
v). How scientists can universally expect everyone to jump on the global warming bandwagon, when so many inaccurate predictions about the climate have been made over the past century
vi). How anyone can take seriously a treaty which will reduce the impact upon global warming by 0.1 degrees over the course of 95 years
If you can't, you don't know anything about the validation of scientific theories, or anything about how political motiviation affects perception and subscription to popular beliefs, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's data.
Because by cleaning up our own act we can then sell the "right to pollute" to those countries, forcing them to either pay for their deeds or clean up as well.
They would only buy such rights from us if they were concerned about violating the treaty, which they have not signed.
Income and payroll taxes are much more easily tracked, are not regressive, and end up being much more effective
Watch out, you're going to start a flame war. Some economists and politicians think that income tax unfairly penalizes the poor; and that rather than taxing employees, employees should be taxed when they become consumers.
I would have thought the taxes would need to be collected by the seller.
Sales tax needs to be collected by the seller only if the seller has a physical presence in the state from which the buyer makes the purchase.
If the buyer makes a purchase in person, the seller must collect sales tax for the state in which the store is located.
If the buyer makes a purchase online, over the phone, or by mail order, the seller must collect sales tax for the state to which the item will be delivered; only if the seller also has a presence in that state. A presence is an office or location.
Regardless, if a buyer makes a purchase outside of their home state without being taxed, it is the responsibility of the buyer to declare that purchase on their tax forms. That, of course, is a croc of bull.
Nope, NOONE is outside the scope of criminal law. Sure, there are certain exceptions, such as those that allow police to store otherwise-illegal contraband, but for the most part, laws apply to ALL.
Hehe that's funny. Just remember that laws were created by people, not God.
I really love it when new technology meets outdated laws and terminology.
Next time, I hope the wife installs a spy camera that's pointed at the keyboard. This way, she can capture a transcript of his fingers pressing keys, which is a physical activity and is not electronic.
Granted, she'll only get his side of the story, but often, that's enough.
So we can conclude that so-called "Homeland Security" -- which routinely intercepts electronic communication without a warrant -- is a criminal organization.
No - it is an organization outside the scope of criminal laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but there are ways of preventing copied digital bits from being played.
Or, these are the only two websites he ever reads.
Still, I have to admire his ability to get submissions accepted. In my six years here, I've never done so, even though my submissions usually cover topics of substance.
Hmmm, I'm clearly going about this all wrong!
I'll set up a script that automatically checks for new articles on ExtremeTech, and then submits them to /.!
Since when have spyware companies followed ethical practices?
Which innovation is that?
Did your statement actually make sense to you, or is it unintelligible to everyone?
I signed up for a Blockbuster account, just so I could rent some videos to test out my new HD television. I recently moved to this area, and Blockbuster was the only video store around.
I signed up because of their "no late fees". After I filled out my application, I was handed a small piece of paper with likewise small text, stating that the videos had to be purchased at market price if beyond a 6 days late. Then I looked up and saw the price of $4.29 per rental. I was fumed.
So I voted with my dollars and never rented a video there. I now drive back to Philadelphia to rent from TLA, which has supperior selection, prices, and deals.
Nope, federal gag order.
None that has been presented thus far. I think it's fairly arrogant for humans to push an issue because it seems like the right thing to do.
In all modern issues of significant complexity, you'll hear scientists say "well this is how we think it works, but we can't account for x or y for some reason." Amazingly enough, I have yet to hear that admission from proponents of global warming. All I hear from them is, "Yup, global warming is true, and we have all the answers and computer models to prove it, and nope our computer models can't be wrong, and who cares if the history of solar output can't be measured, because it's just the sun for gosh sakes!", etc. I inherently distrust that type of thinking. It reminds me of creationists arguing that evolution is impossible because of x or y.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for proving that global warming is impacted by human actions. But I'll be the last person to jump on a bandwagon just because everyone else is nodding their head.
Just for the heck of it, I tried your google search, but I can't seem to come up with many sites that can even keep the terminology straight or provide basic references.
The second google link should provide you with 22 references.
There are still people who think the Earth is flat and only 4000 years old.
While that may be true, I'm concerned solely with scientists.
C'mon man, I found the 42nd Mersenne Prime 2 years ago with a pocket calculator. Once you know the trick, it's easy.
All of my operating systems are stored in ROM.
Oh. Hmmm. Scientists don't agree that DNA is the mechanism for genetic distribution during reproduction? Scientists don't agree that carbon is a required building block for human life in its present condition? And here I thought we were able to agree on some things.
That said, it's almost impossible to find a respected member of the community who denys Global Warming anymore
You're right. When I type "global warming disputes" into Google, all I get is a list of crackpots. Yeah, right.
We've actually got a LOT of data. Ice cores from the artic for instance provide a good indication of the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. There was a great article in Scientific American charting the progress of greenhouse gasses over the past 8,000 years via this method.
Yes, that's nice. But do you also have an accurate correlation between the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and global temperature trends during that same 8,000 years?
long term trends tend to be very predictable although hard to observe (especially if they are subtle).
REALLY. Hmmm. How can you tell if something is predictable if it's hard to observe? Oh, btw, how often do Ice Ages come about, and what causes them? When will the next Ice Age come about? Because I've heard some very conflicting estimates about these very predictable trends.
One gets the feeling that the ones who are left in the "not enough evidence" camp at this point have some other agenda and will never have enough evidence, even if it's 80C in Toranto.
So I take it that you can prove that it's never been 80C in Toranto before?
Yes, Global Warming COULD be a myth perpetuated by mountains of bad testing procedures or flawed premesis, but the chances of that happening are extremely slim at this point.
Upon what do you base your assumption that the chances are slim? See, people who believe in global warming tend to be extremely confident in their presumptions. If the issue was really so black and white, I think there was be unanimous concensus on global warming, despite the fact that you think only crackpots disagree with global warming.
I prefer to have read-only filesystems. That way, every reboot guarantees a clean system.
A few things to consider.
By not taxing income, an employee can invest the money that would otherwise be taken immediately as taxes. This increases his principal and results in him earning more money from savings and investments.
Things such as rent, food, and clothes are not taxed in certain states. By not taxing income, an employee would have more of a chance to purchase the fundamental necessities of living.
The whole scheme would allow employees to save money when necessary (for example, during a harsh economy), and be taxed only when they are financially fit enough to buy consumer goods.
i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
iii) How a western boundary current is formed
iv) What Meddies are.
v) What a pycnocline is.
If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion.
Sure, as soon as you describe for me, briefly, three of the following six things:
i). Why scientists have not reached unanimous concensus about global warming, if it is such an apparently obvious phenomenon
ii). How scientists can conclude anything about a phenomenon so complex, with such a short span of recorded data
iii). How scientists can conclude anything about a phenomenon so complex, with missing data regarding major aspects of the model (solar output over the past 4 billion years)
iv). How computer models, which attempt to estimate a trend that has occurred over 4 billion years, can be validated by comparing its predictions against a 10-year forecast window
v). How scientists can universally expect everyone to jump on the global warming bandwagon, when so many inaccurate predictions about the climate have been made over the past century
vi). How anyone can take seriously a treaty which will reduce the impact upon global warming by 0.1 degrees over the course of 95 years
If you can't, you don't know anything about the validation of scientific theories, or anything about how political motiviation affects perception and subscription to popular beliefs, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's data.
They would only buy such rights from us if they were concerned about violating the treaty, which they have not signed.
Uhm, that's Jaffa isn't it?
soon to become:
with an inevitable transition to:
Watch out, you're going to start a flame war. Some economists and politicians think that income tax unfairly penalizes the poor; and that rather than taxing employees, employees should be taxed when they become consumers.
You've never taken anything to federal court, have you?
Maybe not in your state, pal.
Sales tax needs to be collected by the seller only if the seller has a physical presence in the state from which the buyer makes the purchase.
If the buyer makes a purchase in person, the seller must collect sales tax for the state in which the store is located.
If the buyer makes a purchase online, over the phone, or by mail order, the seller must collect sales tax for the state to which the item will be delivered; only if the seller also has a presence in that state. A presence is an office or location.
Regardless, if a buyer makes a purchase outside of their home state without being taxed, it is the responsibility of the buyer to declare that purchase on their tax forms. That, of course, is a croc of bull.
This means now I can study female anatomy without running into all those obscene pictures.
Hehe that's funny. Just remember that laws were created by people, not God.
Next time, I hope the wife installs a spy camera that's pointed at the keyboard. This way, she can capture a transcript of his fingers pressing keys, which is a physical activity and is not electronic.
Granted, she'll only get his side of the story, but often, that's enough.
No - it is an organization outside the scope of criminal laws.