While you are correct about the religious-like fanaticism, the problem is that some people cite one of these facts and act as though it debunks every bit of science out there.
From the skeptics point of view, the citation of one of these facts tends to result in the warmers redefining it as further proof of warming... er, climate change. Look at Mann's model. Some statisticians entered random data into Mann's model and it produced hockey sticks. Rather than admit the model was flawed, Mann seems to insist that random data should produce hockey sticks. Wow! Amazing science there.
Frankly, I don't know of a scientist that is never wrong. Scientists are wrong all the time. That is the nature of science. They have a hypothesis, they test it using the scientific method, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes results are mixed. The problem skeptics have with the warmers, is that the believe they are right despite any any contradicting studies (a.k.a. Oil Shills!!). Warmers get one test or one model to show whatever reinforces their beliefs. Then they declare "consensus" and refuse to consider retesting. Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. Real science must be able to stand up to the harshest criticism. The warmer's exhibit a "circle the wagons" mentality. They refuse to share data, hiding it by claiming it is some sort of intellectual property, or through outright destruction of data. Fear of scrutiny may not prove they are wrong, but it is a pretty strong indicator.
Climate model forecasts of climate trend (particularly golbal average temps) have matched observations within their defined error margin for over 30yrs now.
They really haven't. Mann was predicting runaway global warming back in 2000 with his hockey stick graph, but it didn't happen. Temperatures peaked in 1998 with the el nino, and the following decade was cooler. It was later discovered that entering random data into Mann's model also produced hockey stick graphs.
The climate "scientists" then predicted increases in hurricanes after Katrina because of global warming. The worlds most trusted name in hurricane prediction, Dr. William Grey, told the media that was BS. They branded him a 'denier' and smeared him at every opportunity. Again, it didn't happen.
Then, following the "mostest evar!!" melting of arctic ice in 2007, climate "scientists" once again used that failed correlation==causation argument to predict more ice melt and warmer winters to come. But in 2008 , the ice melt did not exceed the record in 2007. A year later, Copenhagen was buried under a blizzard during the conference on "climate change" and this year snow has been dumping further south in the US that has been seen since the civil war. 60 people have frozen to death across Europe so far this winter because of the abominable "warming" trend.
There are plenty more of these examples. The "global warming" controversy is more the result of a belief system than science driven by results. The predictions are hit and miss at best, and the misses are always reclassified as hits by true believers. It's a self flagellating religion, where man is always to blame. Fire, brimstone, REPENT!
It's funny that they chose warming as the big scary ManBearPig, since warming has been so beneficial to man. In the past ~12000 years, warming has transformed this planet from a rock covered in uninhabitable tundra and deserts into a lush green place with tropical forests and grasslands. Just 70,000 years ago, the species of man almost became extinct due to glaciation. I'll take warm over frozen to death any day:-)
"It is also true that 500 mil years ago, Earth was a ball of ice despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 was ~4200ppm (about 12 times higher than today). Oh yeah, you guys always forget to include that 'law of physics.'"
I am certainly not an expert in the subject, but my basic understanding of snowball earth is that first the continents got into a position that led to a runaway glaciation.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I've got a graph just for you! (hint: Plate tectonics most likely caused the ice age I was referring to.)
You seem to be implying that high levels of CO2 at the same time the earth was frozen over somehow contradicts global warming when in fact it supports the idea.
That's what I love about you guys. No matter what someone says, you insist it "Supports global warming!" without the first shred of evidence.
Were you not aware of that? Or were you just hoping that we weren't? (And in any case, how is a fact or set of conditions a "law of physics"?)
I was _quoting_ the hyperventilating zealot from the Cult of Climate Change in the parent post, if you bothered to read it. (^_^)
Its a law of physics that CO2 is an infrared absorber - is someone questioning that?
Its a fact that CO2 levels are rising in our atmosphere - is someone questioning that?
It is also true that 500 mil years ago, Earth was a ball of ice despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 was ~4200ppm (about 12 times higher than today). Oh yeah, you guys always forget to include that 'law of physics.'
It's a blog posting and not a paper in a peer reviewed journal. And considering how the internet works, many folks would pick up on that blog post and cite it as fact.
It would be equivalent to a cigarette company scientist posting things on a blog about the health effects of smoking.
So it's like Wikipedia. I don't see the problem. You talk as if you are trying to protect stupid people from themselves. I'd prefer if we let people read all sources, determine the veracity of those sources themselves, and make up their own damn mind about things. You know, freedom of speech, press, religion...
Has the sun even come out of its extended hibernation yet? And what scientific basis do they have to expect large storms? Just because the down time was unusually long? The articles had a serious lack of specifics. I'm beginning to think the solar scientists are taking a page from James Hansen's playbook.
I don't know, to know all the crap the fellow in office is going to jail for ahead of time quite refreshing really. Saves a lot of drama later.
Like the "felony" charge for downloading porn? Seriously, in SC you can go to prison for five years and land on the list of registered sex offenders for downloading pictures of people in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation. If Mr. Greene is to be held to this standard, I'd like to see everyone else in SC held to it as well. To quote some famous guy, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
> Times have changed, and we have better programming languages available to us.
That's interesting. And if I'd ask you to name another compiled language with dynamic message routing/dispatch it would be what? C libs compatibility is desired.
I wonder how many lives will eventually be saved and what awards will be gotten because of this.
You're quite an optimist. My first thought was: Great... I wonder how long it will take the US military to start sticking ebola zaire into missiles.:-/
The geologic record shows the vast majority of earth history has been warmer than it is now
Quit being a pedantic jackass. I think it's clear I meant "on human record", as in, during the period which the human species has existed.
Well, there you have it; Don't present facts to a climate change cultist, or you're a pedantic jackass. Got it loud and clear!
Clearly the earth itself has been warmer in the past. Hell, the surface was molten at one point. But it certainly wasn't hospitable to human life at the time...
Nice straw man you have there. I could point out more scientific facts, but I guess that would just make me more of a pedantic jackass. I see you have no need for factual information. Clearly you just make it up as you go along (^_^)
The observed warming since the late 19th Century has only been 0.5 degrees Celsius, or less than one-third of the predicted value. Critics argued, as I did before this committee, that there would have to be a dramatic reduction in the forecast of future warming in order to reconcile the facts and the hypotheses.
By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'
Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.
My links are getting old it seems. I have a folder full of them, but a lot seems to have been eradicated by the cult of climate change. Feel free to use this stuff in your next big flame war, but I think you'll find that arguing with these idiots is pointless. Your best bet is to put together a well reasoned, informative essay... then wait for a related story and top post. You may be marked troll, but it doesn't matter. People like myself who don't agree with/.s group think tend to read at troll +6 anyway. In fact, I would have never seen your response if you had not been marked troll above... anyhow, we'll mod you up if you're hit with -1 disagree mod.
some (many) pro-agw people have been saying for a couple of years that man-made co2 has caused temps to increase but the lack of solar activity has negated the increase so we don't see an increase in measured temps.
Pity that statement is, itself, simply false. This was the warmest decade on record, period.
The geologic record shows the vast majority of earth history has been warmer than it is now. We're at what... 14, 15 degrees C for global mean temp? 22 is not unusual for this planet. I don't know what records you're talking about, but you're wrong.
Worked like a charm for me. And I do a lot of.NET development and SQL stuff.......
The problem that a lot of folks have with understanding why tablets just aren't that much a threat to netbooks is that netbooks and tablets sate two different market segments.
And the problem with people that think the iPad lives in a different space is that they do not realize how few people need to do things like.NET development that cannot be done on an iPad.
You should probably preface your arguments with a disclaimer that you are an iPhone developer. You have a very clear bias on anything iPhone OS related. BTW, saying most people don't need a useful device is pretty elitist.
A monopoly? Really? Because of Apple's actions, there's no other smartphone you can develop for? And they have such a big marketshare that they're really the only game on the block?
A monopoly, yes. Apple has a monopoly on portable music players. They are now using that monopoly to create a new monopoly in the mobile phone market. You know, it's as if they have an OS monopoly and are leveraging that monopoly to give themselves an advantage in the browser market.
That's illegal. They will be investigated, dragged into court, lose, and then be blackmailed into shelling out lots of campaign contributions, just like Microsoft...
So what TFA is saying is that offering a lot of money quickly prevents people from actually doing a good job quickly and that they take on average more time then to do a worse job. It's like TFA is saying that people enter some sort of a panic mode and cannot think straight because of the money involved.
Yeah, I saw this before/. posted it. In the video they're interview some alleged OSS people and they talk about 'being part of something' or some other bologna like that. For me, OSS is not about being part of anything. It's about getting other people who find my work useful to provide me with testing and bug fixes which I will find useful. It's also great advertising for people who might want to hire me. It's symbiotic and just as self serving as any monetary reward. I'm stunned that not one of the people in the video made that point. No one sells OSS to management with that touchy feely "part of something" crap.
Then what just-a-radio technology do you recommend for delivering vector animations with synchronized sound?
Other than Flash? SVG + SMIL could do it. Both are just XML and could be combined into a compound document format pretty easily. Finding browser support OTOH might be a bit more difficult...
I'm a bit troubled by Slashdot's blanket reaction to software patents.
In the line of work I am in (broadly: statistical analytics), almost all innovation comes in the form of creating improved methods that are implemented in software. It takes a large amount of resources to come up with these improved methods (they are generally far from obvious), and they can easily be transferred across the industry. Most companies in my industry would refuse to pay for innovation if they knew people could join, learn every recent innovation in two months, and then leave
That's bull. So you're not going to invent fire because the other cave men might 'steal' it? You'd rather eat uncooked meat and freeze to death in the cold... Yeah, right.
to the highest competitor bidder, effectively destroying any competitive advantage.
Isn't capitalism grand? Here's a clue Jefferson Davis: They aren't your slaves. If you paid 'the help' a living wage and treated them like human beings with families instead of grinding them into the ground like they are machines that should work 60 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, that wouldn't be a problem, would it?
This statement really sums up your entire argument. You actually have the balls to suggest that they belong to you because you paid someone peanuts for two months? Yes massa, whateva you says massa! Please don't beat me anymo massa! I promiss I won'ts try to run away again!
Non-compete agreements are legally useless in my state, and NDAs are tenuous and practically hard to enforce. Patents (or stealing IP) are really the primary methods companies in my industry survive.
Read: I outsourced all this stuff to India already, but they don't give a shit about American copyright law. Booo hooo!!! I has a sad!
tldr: There's nothing redeeming about software patents. Period.
I've been on modern farms and ranches, in fact I will hazard a guess I've spent more time on farms and ranches than 99.9% of/.ers.
Probably more time than I have. I didn't mean to sound like such a jack ass and I wrongly assumed that with a 4 digit id you never left the cube (^_^) I'm simply pointing out that beef in general is just filthy. I don't place any trust in current regulations regarding its production. Even if the US had the best in the world, that wouldn't necessarily mean it is good.
Beef, American beef is maybe second to some Japanese super pricey beef but we have bison here too.
Are you aware American cattle are fed shit. Literally. Manure. You see, they don't completely digest the hay they are given, so on many farms, the cows are fed their own shit. Waste not, want not!
Next, I want you to ask yourself, Where does e. coli come from? That's right! They're feeding you shit too. Fortunately for you, if the shit is cooked long enough, it won't make you sick. So eat that shit with a smile! Best shit in the world!! Think about that next time you order that burger from the dollar menu.:D
How did the shit get there you ask? You've never set foot on a modern day American farm, have you? You should see the barns with the inclined floors. They don't shovel shit, they flush the floors with wastewater. Imagine standing on the beach, having the water rush by your legs, half way up your calves, splashing all over you. Now imagine you're a cow, and the water is filled with shit. Get the picture?
That is just too funny... ROFL. "Best beef in the world." You made my day!;D
Slashdot Mirror
Have a nice day believers. (^_^)
while throwing away 8 oz. of steak every night at dinner.
If they have 8 oz of steak to throw away, that's your first mistake. Grown men shouldn't eat more than 6.5 oz of meat per day .
While you are correct about the religious-like fanaticism, the problem is that some people cite one of these facts and act as though it debunks every bit of science out there.
From the skeptics point of view, the citation of one of these facts tends to result in the warmers redefining it as further proof of warming... er, climate change. Look at Mann's model. Some statisticians entered random data into Mann's model and it produced hockey sticks. Rather than admit the model was flawed, Mann seems to insist that random data should produce hockey sticks. Wow! Amazing science there.
Frankly, I don't know of a scientist that is never wrong. Scientists are wrong all the time. That is the nature of science. They have a hypothesis, they test it using the scientific method, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes results are mixed. The problem skeptics have with the warmers, is that the believe they are right despite any any contradicting studies (a.k.a. Oil Shills!!). Warmers get one test or one model to show whatever reinforces their beliefs. Then they declare "consensus" and refuse to consider retesting. Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. Real science must be able to stand up to the harshest criticism. The warmer's exhibit a "circle the wagons" mentality. They refuse to share data, hiding it by claiming it is some sort of intellectual property, or through outright destruction of data. Fear of scrutiny may not prove they are wrong, but it is a pretty strong indicator.
Climate model forecasts of climate trend (particularly golbal average temps) have matched observations within their defined error margin for over 30yrs now.
They really haven't. Mann was predicting runaway global warming back in 2000 with his hockey stick graph, but it didn't happen. Temperatures peaked in 1998 with the el nino, and the following decade was cooler. It was later discovered that entering random data into Mann's model also produced hockey stick graphs.
The climate "scientists" then predicted increases in hurricanes after Katrina because of global warming. The worlds most trusted name in hurricane prediction, Dr. William Grey, told the media that was BS. They branded him a 'denier' and smeared him at every opportunity. Again, it didn't happen.
Then, following the "mostest evar!!" melting of arctic ice in 2007, climate "scientists" once again used that failed correlation==causation argument to predict more ice melt and warmer winters to come. But in 2008 , the ice melt did not exceed the record in 2007. A year later, Copenhagen was buried under a blizzard during the conference on "climate change" and this year snow has been dumping further south in the US that has been seen since the civil war. 60 people have frozen to death across Europe so far this winter because of the abominable "warming" trend.
There are plenty more of these examples. The "global warming" controversy is more the result of a belief system than science driven by results. The predictions are hit and miss at best, and the misses are always reclassified as hits by true believers. It's a self flagellating religion, where man is always to blame. Fire, brimstone, REPENT!
It's funny that they chose warming as the big scary ManBearPig, since warming has been so beneficial to man. In the past ~12000 years, warming has transformed this planet from a rock covered in uninhabitable tundra and deserts into a lush green place with tropical forests and grasslands. Just 70,000 years ago, the species of man almost became extinct due to glaciation. I'll take warm over frozen to death any day :-)
"It is also true that 500 mil years ago, Earth was a ball of ice despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 was ~4200ppm (about 12 times higher than today). Oh yeah, you guys always forget to include that 'law of physics.'"
I am certainly not an expert in the subject, but my basic understanding of snowball earth is that first the continents got into a position that led to a runaway glaciation.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I've got a graph just for you! (hint: Plate tectonics most likely caused the ice age I was referring to.)
You seem to be implying that high levels of CO2 at the same time the earth was frozen over somehow contradicts global warming when in fact it supports the idea.
That's what I love about you guys. No matter what someone says, you insist it "Supports global warming!" without the first shred of evidence.
Were you not aware of that? Or were you just hoping that we weren't? (And in any case, how is a fact or set of conditions a "law of physics"?)
I was _quoting_ the hyperventilating zealot from the Cult of Climate Change in the parent post, if you bothered to read it. (^_^)
Its a law of physics that CO2 is an infrared absorber - is someone questioning that?
Its a fact that CO2 levels are rising in our atmosphere - is someone questioning that?
It is also true that 500 mil years ago, Earth was a ball of ice despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 was ~4200ppm (about 12 times higher than today). Oh yeah, you guys always forget to include that 'law of physics.'
What am I missing here?
It's a blog posting and not a paper in a peer reviewed journal. And considering how the internet works, many folks would pick up on that blog post and cite it as fact.
It would be equivalent to a cigarette company scientist posting things on a blog about the health effects of smoking.
So it's like Wikipedia. I don't see the problem. You talk as if you are trying to protect stupid people from themselves. I'd prefer if we let people read all sources, determine the veracity of those sources themselves, and make up their own damn mind about things. You know, freedom of speech, press, religion...
Has the sun even come out of its extended hibernation yet? And what scientific basis do they have to expect large storms? Just because the down time was unusually long? The articles had a serious lack of specifics. I'm beginning to think the solar scientists are taking a page from James Hansen's playbook.
I don't know, to know all the crap the fellow in office is going to jail for ahead of time quite refreshing really. Saves a lot of drama later.
Like the "felony" charge for downloading porn? Seriously, in SC you can go to prison for five years and land on the list of registered sex offenders for downloading pictures of people in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation. If Mr. Greene is to be held to this standard, I'd like to see everyone else in SC held to it as well. To quote some famous guy, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Hypocrits
You don't get to make that determination yourself
Why the hell not? What, can only "experts" determine that? Funny how the experts are always government paid.
Ahhh, sheepdot. You realize, if this were a thread on global warming, you'd be -1 Troll instead of +5 Insightful right now (^_^)
> Times have changed, and we have better programming languages available to us.
That's interesting. And if I'd ask you to name another compiled language with dynamic message routing/dispatch it would be what? C libs compatibility is desired.
Java. com.webobjects.foundation.NSSelector :-)
I wonder how many lives will eventually be saved and what awards will be gotten because of this.
You're quite an optimist. My first thought was: Great... I wonder how long it will take the US military to start sticking ebola zaire into missiles. :-/
Don't present irrelevant facts..
Plate tectonics, ocean currents, and solar output are the drivers of our planet's climate. I would hardly call the information irrelevant.
The geologic record shows the vast majority of earth history has been warmer than it is now
Quit being a pedantic jackass. I think it's clear I meant "on human record", as in, during the period which the human species has existed.
Well, there you have it; Don't present facts to a climate change cultist, or you're a pedantic jackass. Got it loud and clear!
Clearly the earth itself has been warmer in the past. Hell, the surface was molten at one point. But it certainly wasn't hospitable to human life at the time...
Nice straw man you have there. I could point out more scientific facts, but I guess that would just make me more of a pedantic jackass. I see you have no need for factual information. Clearly you just make it up as you go along (^_^)
My links are getting old it seems. I have a folder full of them, but a lot seems to have been eradicated by the cult of climate change. Feel free to use this stuff in your next big flame war, but I think you'll find that arguing with these idiots is pointless. Your best bet is to put together a well reasoned, informative essay... then wait for a related story and top post. You may be marked troll, but it doesn't matter. People like myself who don't agree with /.s group think tend to read at troll +6 anyway. In fact, I would have never seen your response if you had not been marked troll above... anyhow, we'll mod you up if you're hit with -1 disagree mod.
some (many) pro-agw people have been saying for a couple of years that man-made co2 has caused temps to increase but the lack of solar activity has negated the increase so we don't see an increase in measured temps.
Pity that statement is, itself, simply false. This was the warmest decade on record, period.
The geologic record shows the vast majority of earth history has been warmer than it is now. We're at what... 14, 15 degrees C for global mean temp? 22 is not unusual for this planet. I don't know what records you're talking about, but you're wrong.
Worked like a charm for me. And I do a lot of .NET development and SQL stuff... ....
The problem that a lot of folks have with understanding why tablets just aren't that much a threat to netbooks is that netbooks and tablets sate two different market segments.
And the problem with people that think the iPad lives in a different space is that they do not realize how few people need to do things like .NET development that cannot be done on an iPad.
You should probably preface your arguments with a disclaimer that you are an iPhone developer. You have a very clear bias on anything iPhone OS related. BTW, saying most people don't need a useful device is pretty elitist.
A monopoly? Really? Because of Apple's actions, there's no other smartphone you can develop for? And they have such a big marketshare that they're really the only game on the block?
A monopoly, yes. Apple has a monopoly on portable music players. They are now using that monopoly to create a new monopoly in the mobile phone market. You know, it's as if they have an OS monopoly and are leveraging that monopoly to give themselves an advantage in the browser market.
That's illegal. They will be investigated, dragged into court, lose, and then be blackmailed into shelling out lots of campaign contributions, just like Microsoft...
If you own an iPod/iPad/iPhone, you are required to interact with Apple to do any of those things.
And if you own a Zune/Kin/Windows 7 Phone you are required to interact with Microsoft to do any of those things.
If I own an Android, I'm free to develop anything without getting permission from anyone.
So what TFA is saying is that offering a lot of money quickly prevents people from actually doing a good job quickly and that they take on average more time then to do a worse job. It's like TFA is saying that people enter some sort of a panic mode and cannot think straight because of the money involved.
Yeah, I saw this before /. posted it. In the video they're interview some alleged OSS people and they talk about 'being part of something' or some other bologna like that. For me, OSS is not about being part of anything. It's about getting other people who find my work useful to provide me with testing and bug fixes which I will find useful. It's also great advertising for people who might want to hire me. It's symbiotic and just as self serving as any monetary reward. I'm stunned that not one of the people in the video made that point. No one sells OSS to management with that touchy feely "part of something" crap.
Then what just-a-radio technology do you recommend for delivering vector animations with synchronized sound?
Other than Flash? SVG + SMIL could do it. Both are just XML and could be combined into a compound document format pretty easily. Finding browser support OTOH might be a bit more difficult...
Because if they focused on rice, it wouldn't give a good argument for vegetarians. :-)
Or tree huggers trying to "Save our precious wetlands!"
I'm a bit troubled by Slashdot's blanket reaction to software patents.
In the line of work I am in (broadly: statistical analytics), almost all innovation comes in the form of creating improved methods that are implemented in software. It takes a large amount of resources to come up with these improved methods (they are generally far from obvious), and they can easily be transferred across the industry. Most companies in my industry would refuse to pay for innovation if they knew people could join, learn every recent innovation in two months, and then leave
That's bull. So you're not going to invent fire because the other cave men might 'steal' it? You'd rather eat uncooked meat and freeze to death in the cold... Yeah, right.
to the highest competitor bidder, effectively destroying any competitive advantage.
Isn't capitalism grand? Here's a clue Jefferson Davis: They aren't your slaves. If you paid 'the help' a living wage and treated them like human beings with families instead of grinding them into the ground like they are machines that should work 60 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, that wouldn't be a problem, would it?
This statement really sums up your entire argument. You actually have the balls to suggest that they belong to you because you paid someone peanuts for two months? Yes massa, whateva you says massa! Please don't beat me anymo massa! I promiss I won'ts try to run away again!
Non-compete agreements are legally useless in my state, and NDAs are tenuous and practically hard to enforce. Patents (or stealing IP) are really the primary methods companies in my industry survive.
Read: I outsourced all this stuff to India already, but they don't give a shit about American copyright law. Booo hooo!!! I has a sad!
tldr: There's nothing redeeming about software patents. Period.
Japanese have better beef, which I said.
I've been on modern farms and ranches, in fact I will hazard a guess I've spent more time on farms and ranches than 99.9% of /.ers.
Probably more time than I have. I didn't mean to sound like such a jack ass and I wrongly assumed that with a 4 digit id you never left the cube (^_^) I'm simply pointing out that beef in general is just filthy. I don't place any trust in current regulations regarding its production. Even if the US had the best in the world, that wouldn't necessarily mean it is good.
Beef, American beef is maybe second to some Japanese super pricey beef but we have bison here too.
Are you aware American cattle are fed shit. Literally. Manure. You see, they don't completely digest the hay they are given, so on many farms, the cows are fed their own shit. Waste not, want not!
Next, I want you to ask yourself, Where does e. coli come from? That's right! They're feeding you shit too. Fortunately for you, if the shit is cooked long enough, it won't make you sick. So eat that shit with a smile! Best shit in the world!! Think about that next time you order that burger from the dollar menu. :D
How did the shit get there you ask? You've never set foot on a modern day American farm, have you? You should see the barns with the inclined floors. They don't shovel shit, they flush the floors with wastewater. Imagine standing on the beach, having the water rush by your legs, half way up your calves, splashing all over you. Now imagine you're a cow, and the water is filled with shit. Get the picture?
That is just too funny... ROFL. "Best beef in the world." You made my day! ;D