The blog doesn't leave a lot to be desired at all. It quite accurately reflects the scientific reality of global warming.
Your comment, on the other hand, leaves a shitload to be desired, considering that all you did was to reject the facts in the blog out of hand just because the facts disagree with your political ideology.
You are indeed a denialist, because you are denying the scientific facts just because they contradict your political ideology.
The amazing part is how hypocritical denialists are. You throw around charges about other people throwing around charges, and other things. How hilarious is that?
Call us when a peer reviewed journal claims these facts are myths
Huh? You are the ones spewing denialist talking points that directly contradict the facts. The peer reviewed research is already there, and it clearly shows AGW.
You have an excellent post with some good points against the global warming consensus.
I disagree. All I saw was the same old denialist talking points, based on misconceptions and misinformation. Did you even bother to read any of the numerous responses?
Sadly this will label you an AGW denier, and most likely also a holocaust denier and member of the flat earth society in one breath... It's responses like this to every little critical question that convinced me science is not a priority in this highly politicized debate. Do not be discouraged to ask questions, even though you will most likely never get any good answers...
Give me a break. Stop playing the victim card. You are not victims. It is your own fault that you keep parroting the same old denialist lies over and over and over and over. When people respond to your talking points, you get all teary-eyed over the mean rational people who correct your lies and misconceptions. Boo hoo.
Again: You are not a victim. Stop trying to avoid answering the facts that were presented by playing the vicim card.
They always post links to sites created on 'how to deal with denialists', but there is never enough scientific detail to satisfy your quest for actual knowledge on the subject. I noticed all these 'how-to-talk-to' sites have exactly the same questions, but phrase it slightly different, but they all lack answers to the important questions.
On the contrary, they accurately answer the denialist talking points. You are just choosing to willfully reject reality because of your political convictions.
The subscription fee in addition to having to buy each game is a deal-breaker to me. They'll also be struggling with bandwidth and latency.
However, technology moves quickly, and bandwidth (and perhaps latency to a certain degree) will certainly be less and less of an issue. And the pricing could be adjusted in the future. I personally would like to see a higher subscription fee where I can play any game (more like rent than purchase, and up to X games each month or so perhaps), and then the alternative, which is a very low or non-existent subscription fee, and a fairly cheap price for each game. It needs to be noticeably cheaper than the physical thing!
Maybe the pricing model I'm suggesting is unrealistic. It certainly seems that way now, but you never know where the market might end up in the future. I would certainly be willing to only "rent" games (I can only play them for as long as I pay the flat subscription fee), as long as it was markedly cheaper than buying them at a store.
I'm not a big fan of Apple in general, but I don't know how big this problem actually is. Is it really worse than other smartphones? Apple is acknowledging that is there a problem, but is that because they got more flack for it than other phone manufacturers?
On the other hand, first acknowledging that there is a problem, and then making excuses about other smartphones if the iPhone 4 is indeed worse seems odd at best. Acceptance and denial at the same time?
And finally, what are these cases? One of the things that people find appealing about the iPhone is that it looks good. Will people suddenly find themselves with a much less good looking phone if they want a proper signal?
You are confusing popular belief with scientific consensus. For example, scientists knew that the world was not at all flat. The popular consensus was that it was flat, while the scientific consensus was that it wasn't.
Scientific consensus reflects the total sum of scientific research in an area.
Again, the data is readily available. The quote you are quote-mining is referring to denialists flooding the CRU with FOIA requests in an organized DoS attack. And yes, when someone behaves like a creationist, quote-mining and all, I will point that out.
The data was not hidden. It's just that much of the data wasn't CRU's to publish. They licensed it from somewhere else.
The problem with the people being modded down is that they are not, in fact, being skeptical. Instead, they are mindlessly parroting denialist propaganda and talking points, just because their political ideology compels them to.
Also, people who expose these denialists are constantly being modded down as well. So don't pull that victim crap on me.
Wow, you denialists sure like a good conspiracy. How about this one? Several times, I have gotten 15 downmods in a row. So apparently the denialist crowd is silencing those who refute denialist nonsnense with facts.
So, as I asked the other guy, are you saying that if someone posted child porn on Apple's forum, they should not censor it?
the problem is that, just as we see every day here on slashdot, once the power is in place, what actually gets censored is what the censor disagrees with
Considering that there are several active threads in the forum on this specific issue, it seems that you are wrong.
And yes, I'm an Apple customer - Macs, iPods, iPads, software. I have absolutely no personal respect for Steve Jobs remaining. He's an utter loony, condemned by his own repeated bizarre practices.
That's interesting because I don't really like Apple as a company. I avoid their products like the plague. And yet I fully understand why they would want to clean up their forum when lazy bums are flooding it with new threads on something there are already several existing open threads on.
It looks like there are open threads on the issue already. I'm guessing that what happened, was that people are too lazy to search for the stuff that's already there, so instead of the discussion being kept in one place, it started spreading all over the forum. That bogs down the forum and buries threads about other things.
I can't really fault Apple for cleaning up the mess after people who can't be bothered to at least do a quick search, especially when it's a high-profile case like this (which makes it easy to find the existing threads since they are typically among the most active).
As long as they don't hide all threads about it, I actually don't see the problem. I would have wanted to keep my own forum clean as well. Dozens of threads on the exact same topic will tend to bury other threads, and I just don't think that's acceptable. Show some decency towards people who want to discuss other things in the forum!
I agree that public trust took a hit. We see the same thing with creationists spreading lies about evolution. The public is easily fooled by dishonest propaganda.
What are you talking about? There are multiple implementations of various parts of HTML5. Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, IE9 all implement parts of it. Often the same parts. HTML5 is a result of browser makers getting together.
So you are saying that Google is introducing something that has been missing from the market for 25 years? Why is it bad to copy something just because it's old? Also, Apple keeps copying and copying. Are you whining about that too?
Google wants everything to be free. They want as many eyeballs as possible for their ads. Free equals more eyeballs. Google would probably give away free phones if they thought the resulting eyeballs would lead to higher revenue to cover the cost of the hardware.
So you advocate for scientists to be the gatekeepers of all knowledge and only share with those who are "in the club"?
No, scientists do the research, and interpret the results. They should not have to waste their time debating with fucktards who are not only ignorant, but also dishonest.
Let me guess, they get to choose the criteria of membership too.
No, anyone can become a scientist.
Science is based on debate whether you like it or not.
Science is based on debate between people with a clue. It is not based on ignorant and dishonest fucktards shouting at scientists.
But having a democracy means that you don't just steamroll over minorities. Democracy is designed to give a louder voice to people who would not be heard under a different type of system.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment, on the other hand, leaves a shitload to be desired, considering that all you did was to reject the facts in the blog out of hand just because the facts disagree with your political ideology.
Oh no, he once again refuted your false claims! Quick, change the subject before anyone notices!
The amazing part is how hypocritical denialists are. You throw around charges about other people throwing around charges, and other things. How hilarious is that?
Huh? You are the ones spewing denialist talking points that directly contradict the facts. The peer reviewed research is already there, and it clearly shows AGW.
I disagree. All I saw was the same old denialist talking points, based on misconceptions and misinformation. Did you even bother to read any of the numerous responses?
Give me a break. Stop playing the victim card. You are not victims. It is your own fault that you keep parroting the same old denialist lies over and over and over and over. When people respond to your talking points, you get all teary-eyed over the mean rational people who correct your lies and misconceptions. Boo hoo.
Again: You are not a victim. Stop trying to avoid answering the facts that were presented by playing the vicim card.
On the contrary, they accurately answer the denialist talking points. You are just choosing to willfully reject reality because of your political convictions.
However, technology moves quickly, and bandwidth (and perhaps latency to a certain degree) will certainly be less and less of an issue. And the pricing could be adjusted in the future. I personally would like to see a higher subscription fee where I can play any game (more like rent than purchase, and up to X games each month or so perhaps), and then the alternative, which is a very low or non-existent subscription fee, and a fairly cheap price for each game. It needs to be noticeably cheaper than the physical thing!
Maybe the pricing model I'm suggesting is unrealistic. It certainly seems that way now, but you never know where the market might end up in the future. I would certainly be willing to only "rent" games (I can only play them for as long as I pay the flat subscription fee), as long as it was markedly cheaper than buying them at a store.
You even accuse him of astroturfing after he criticizes the service...
On the other hand, first acknowledging that there is a problem, and then making excuses about other smartphones if the iPhone 4 is indeed worse seems odd at best. Acceptance and denial at the same time?
And finally, what are these cases? One of the things that people find appealing about the iPhone is that it looks good. Will people suddenly find themselves with a much less good looking phone if they want a proper signal?
Scientific consensus reflects the total sum of scientific research in an area.
Nice strawman, though.
Finally, it's quite pathetic to call someone an "alarmist" just because they expose your denialist lies.
As I said, parroting denialist talking points.
The data was not hidden. It's just that much of the data wasn't CRU's to publish. They licensed it from somewhere else.
Also, people who expose these denialists are constantly being modded down as well. So don't pull that victim crap on me.
Wow, you denialists sure like a good conspiracy. How about this one? Several times, I have gotten 15 downmods in a row. So apparently the denialist crowd is silencing those who refute denialist nonsnense with facts.
Why? They aren't censoring all threads on the issue, just the ones that are being posted separately from the existing discussions.
So, as I asked the other guy, are you saying that if someone posted child porn on Apple's forum, they should not censor it?
Considering that there are several active threads in the forum on this specific issue, it seems that you are wrong.
That's interesting because I don't really like Apple as a company. I avoid their products like the plague. And yet I fully understand why they would want to clean up their forum when lazy bums are flooding it with new threads on something there are already several existing open threads on.
Censorship is not inherently a bad thing. If someone posted child pornography in the forum, would you not want them to censor it?
I can't really fault Apple for cleaning up the mess after people who can't be bothered to at least do a quick search, especially when it's a high-profile case like this (which makes it easy to find the existing threads since they are typically among the most active).
As long as they don't hide all threads about it, I actually don't see the problem. I would have wanted to keep my own forum clean as well. Dozens of threads on the exact same topic will tend to bury other threads, and I just don't think that's acceptable. Show some decency towards people who want to discuss other things in the forum!
I agree that public trust took a hit. We see the same thing with creationists spreading lies about evolution. The public is easily fooled by dishonest propaganda.
What are you talking about? There are multiple implementations of various parts of HTML5. Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, IE9 all implement parts of it. Often the same parts. HTML5 is a result of browser makers getting together.
Except it wasn't, of course.
So you are saying that Google is introducing something that has been missing from the market for 25 years? Why is it bad to copy something just because it's old? Also, Apple keeps copying and copying. Are you whining about that too?
Free isn't going away if Google gets its way.
No, scientists do the research, and interpret the results. They should not have to waste their time debating with fucktards who are not only ignorant, but also dishonest.
No, anyone can become a scientist.
Science is based on debate between people with a clue. It is not based on ignorant and dishonest fucktards shouting at scientists.
But having a democracy means that you don't just steamroll over minorities. Democracy is designed to give a louder voice to people who would not be heard under a different type of system.