...and there you again are failing to address my point. And assuming you know who it or isn't a scientist. Sorry to interrupt your religious service with logic and reason. I'll let you get back to praying to the gods of "anthropogenic climate change."
So what happened to hypothesis, experimentation, and comparing hypothesis to empirical results? Just because that doesn't work with your "models" doesn't mean you can ignore it -- it's crucial to science. You are not talking science, you are talking consensus and FUD.
"What the hell I'm talking about" is that you're making unwarranted assumptions that X will lead to Y and you're excluding all possibility of other factors that may mitigate this assumed causal relationship. I understand this confuses and angers you, since if you're honest about it it prevents you from continuing to pretend you know (or even can know) exactly what will happen to climate in the future given a starting point and some number of the factors that may have an impact. The fact is neither you nor anyone else has any evidence other than conjecture to support your supposed chain of events yet you bandy it about as solid, irrefutable fact. That's not science.
I guess while we're appealing to authority: I've read all of the major papers, attended dozens of talks (and even given a few,) and read everything in the IPCC report and its bibliography. The simple fact remains: none of it supports your claims. So unless you can cite page numbers (that actually support every link in your made up causal chain, not just ONE!) then you should sit down and learn some more before piping up. Fool.
It's Dansgaard-Oeschger and all we know about them is that we think they happened about 25 times during the last glacial period because of what we see in the Greenland ice cores. We do not, however, have any evidence that leads to more fresh water, or that more fresh water disrupts circulation (without any other factor disrupting the disruption,) or that the result will be any kind of a problem. You just made all that up, or are parroting someone else who just made it all up. Just because it sounds plausible to you doesn't make it true.
If that was supposed to be a joke then you're not very good at humor. Nor are you good at comprehending my reply. Nor can you substantiate your asinine claim that "the far left and far right agendas want everyone to think the same as them." Unless you just mean that both try to convince others that their opinions/valules are correct. Would you prefer infinite relativism with nothing ever being considered better/worse by anyone?
No, what you have is (at best) a "consensus" based on models, which just isn't science, even if your consensus is among scientists.
Re:If you ever lived in a foreign country
on
Censorship By Glut
·
· Score: 1
I've lived in Japan, Canada, England, France, Italy, Brazil, and Ireland and I definitely do not get that feel at all. Oh no, anecdote cancellation ahoy!
While I agree hate speech laws are a stupid idea and a dangerous slippery slope...I'm less and less convinced that it wouldn't be worth it to forever silence people [with whom I don't like and/or agree]
That is dangerous and, to be blunt, stupid and short-sighted thinking.
The leftists these days what unified groupthink. The right wingers want everyone to be an individual so long as they are all identical individuals.
What? That's also stupid. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate that ridiculous assertion (not to mention your first sentence is nonsensical.)
The rest of your post is equally ridiculous and without base or merit. I consider myself a liberal so please shut up and stop making the rest of us look bad.
If I were feeling generous and especially naive I'd buy that story. But unfortunately I know it's utterbullshit. I don't really mind people making or eating foie gras, but don't pretend like force-feeding to the point of occasional stomach-bursting and definite liver disease is fun for any animal.
This is not flamebait. I don't even have a mac (unless an iphone counts) but this moderation is stupid. And the idea applies to PCs also, so lighten up, Francis The Moderator.
You can do 30 fps at 1280x1024 with 8-bit or 10-bit color (480Mbps > 1280x1024x30x10) but of course lower resolutions are required for 32-bit color at 30/60/90fps.
Why would "5 fps" have made more sense in your original post? Was it supposed to be a joke?
When has the principle of eminent domain even been used to take IP rights (in the US?) I think that's limited to real property, specifically real estate.
It hasn't been much more recent for you either, has it? 30fps (even at decent resolutions, like 1280x1024) is common. 60 fps is available, and you can even get 90 fps
Sorry to spoil the joke, but it's time to come up with a new one, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
...and there you again are failing to address my point. And assuming you know who it or isn't a scientist. Sorry to interrupt your religious service with logic and reason. I'll let you get back to praying to the gods of "anthropogenic climate change."
So what happened to hypothesis, experimentation, and comparing hypothesis to empirical results? Just because that doesn't work with your "models" doesn't mean you can ignore it -- it's crucial to science. You are not talking science, you are talking consensus and FUD.
"What the hell I'm talking about" is that you're making unwarranted assumptions that X will lead to Y and you're excluding all possibility of other factors that may mitigate this assumed causal relationship. I understand this confuses and angers you, since if you're honest about it it prevents you from continuing to pretend you know (or even can know) exactly what will happen to climate in the future given a starting point and some number of the factors that may have an impact. The fact is neither you nor anyone else has any evidence other than conjecture to support your supposed chain of events yet you bandy it about as solid, irrefutable fact. That's not science.
I guess while we're appealing to authority: I've read all of the major papers, attended dozens of talks (and even given a few,) and read everything in the IPCC report and its bibliography. The simple fact remains: none of it supports your claims. So unless you can cite page numbers (that actually support every link in your made up causal chain, not just ONE!) then you should sit down and learn some more before piping up. Fool.
It's Dansgaard-Oeschger and all we know about them is that we think they happened about 25 times during the last glacial period because of what we see in the Greenland ice cores. We do not, however, have any evidence that leads to more fresh water, or that more fresh water disrupts circulation (without any other factor disrupting the disruption,) or that the result will be any kind of a problem. You just made all that up, or are parroting someone else who just made it all up. Just because it sounds plausible to you doesn't make it true.
Alas poor science, we hardly knew ye.
If that was supposed to be a joke then you're not very good at humor. Nor are you good at comprehending my reply. Nor can you substantiate your asinine claim that "the far left and far right agendas want everyone to think the same as them." Unless you just mean that both try to convince others that their opinions/valules are correct. Would you prefer infinite relativism with nothing ever being considered better/worse by anyone?
Warming will cause an ice age. Because of "crucial heat exchanging currents." Got it.
Some of you have bought so heavily into this crap that you can't even tell how ridiculous you sound.
No, what you have is (at best) a "consensus" based on models, which just isn't science, even if your consensus is among scientists.
I've lived in Japan, Canada, England, France, Italy, Brazil, and Ireland and I definitely do not get that feel at all. Oh no, anecdote cancellation ahoy!
That is dangerous and, to be blunt, stupid and short-sighted thinking.
What? That's also stupid. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate that ridiculous assertion (not to mention your first sentence is nonsensical.)
The rest of your post is equally ridiculous and without base or merit. I consider myself a liberal so please shut up and stop making the rest of us look bad.
If I were feeling generous and especially naive I'd buy that story. But unfortunately I know it's utter bullshit. I don't really mind people making or eating foie gras, but don't pretend like force-feeding to the point of occasional stomach-bursting and definite liver disease is fun for any animal.
Riiight. Nice save attempt, but no one believes it. Sorry!
If she reads this and then kills herself you're going to jail, bucko.
You're misinformed. The SDK is free to download and use. It's only $100 to publish a game on the app store.
Two words: airplane mode.
Turns off all the radios and possible sources of interference and still lets you play games.
Yep. And that means a dual-core version will leave you limbless.
This is not flamebait. I don't even have a mac (unless an iphone counts) but this moderation is stupid. And the idea applies to PCs also, so lighten up, Francis The Moderator.
You can do 30 fps at 1280x1024 with 8-bit or 10-bit color (480Mbps > 1280x1024x30x10) but of course lower resolutions are required for 32-bit color at 30/60/90fps.
Why would "5 fps" have made more sense in your original post? Was it supposed to be a joke?
When has the principle of eminent domain even been used to take IP rights (in the US?) I think that's limited to real property, specifically real estate.
No.
It hasn't been much more recent for you either, has it? 30fps (even at decent resolutions, like 1280x1024) is common. 60 fps is available, and you can even get 90 fps
Sorry to spoil the joke, but it's time to come up with a new one, don't you think?
You just made all that up out of whole cloth. Sounds convincing if you read it fast, too. Nice.
I say "No one ever won by sending money to a Nigerian." You say "Exept, of course, the Nigerian." You make no sense.
So? That doesn't make casinos as scam-like as this Nigerian thing.
I said "No one ever won by sending money to a Nigerian." Your post makes no sense. The Nigerian did not send money to a Nigerian.
That may be so, but that doesn't make casinos as much of a scam as Nigerian scams.