No. Color is a descriptor that tags various attributes. I suppose your dr is racist and sexist for using those descriptors to customize your healthcare?
You're still trying to argue science. Stop. I agree with you. Happy? For fuck sakes. The fact you continue to deliberately misinterpret me suggests you are also politically motivated.
Your point is the REASON you're an idiot ! Even if what you say is true, it doesn't matter one bit. Whether the campus has a leftwing or a rightwing culture has exactly ZERO impact on the results of science which, after all, is based on physical evidence - not ideological biases.
apparently you also missed the point. Try again. Those 'deniers' and the people who vote for them? They DO make decisions on ideology.
Yup, all taken out of context to build a strawman. Good job. I won't debate against climate change because I do not deny it. All I said was I question campus ideological polarization and that it's probably not doing climatology any favors outside left-wing friendly circles, and you call me a 'denialist.' Did you remember to bring your pitchfork?
You're asking what marxism has to do with science? Nothing. That was my point. What's it doing causing mass idiocy on campuses? Why do scientists working for these universities tolerate it? I don't know. Ask Michael Mann. Maybe he knows.
You want me to google for you too? Here, a quick search turned up this doc. It has plenty of clips from various campuses, both students and staff. I'm sure you know how to use youtube if you want more. I'm sure it doesn't matter as you'll likely label any source that doesn't agree with your brand of politics as conspiratorial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... I love the bit at 11:06 about 'racist capitalist america' wiki's synopsis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It should be pretty straight forward to understand that if you want to be taken seriously by people who do not have your knowledge background and possibly don't share your ideological outlook, you can't afford to be associated with ideologically charged organizations of any sort...or worse, actively join in their foolishness.
Like I've said above, it's a question of appearance.. Want the average center right joe to buy into it? Flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues. Ideological belief isn't very good at tolerating critical thought, anyway.
I'm not a denier despite what others immediately assumed, but experience has taught me not to assume anything about topics that've become politically charged. Bandwagons are rife with bullshit. The vitriol around here about this topic is evidence for why.
Anyway, thanks for the links, however, it's not me you have to convince. Even if MIT is right on target (as this article seems well written), center right joe won't believe a word.
Who said I don't believe in science? Who said I was a denier? You suck at reading comprehension or lack the patience to read what I said. Did you even read the whole thread?
You want to convince deniers you're right?..or at least those who would vote for them? You have to flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues. It's a question of appearance. Climate change just sounds like more left wing propaganda to justify more policy to many of them. Would you believe anything on climate change coming out of liberty.edu? Probably not (and for good reason). Ask yourself why not.
Most of the posts in this thread are full of vitriol and name calling. This doesn't help convince anyone of anything.
..and yet the first words out the gate are 'fuck fuck' etc..
Go read the SCIENCE, not the junk put out by ignorant fools or paid shills of the fossil fuels industry.
Such as? Or you could just tell me to go right the fuck off again if it would make you feel better. It's all about the feels, right?
Btw, if you read the context of what I said before ideologues derailed it, you'd see I was talking about winning over deniers.. I don't like it when ideologues cloud the waters.
I don't deny that corporates affected by changes in energy production would throw out propaganda in support of certain half truths (if that). They're just not the only ones.
You neglected to follow the thread or are trolling. You want to reach those right wing deniers? Then it's time to filter that ideological marxist shit out of the university system.
What science? From the scientists who studied at these contaminated institutions?
This is special pleading.. Who are these 'real' scientists you speak of? I'm willing to bet they graduated from such schools, probably with high honors. This legitimacy is marred by the compromised state of the university system, most of which pushes ideology first, critical thought second. That shit has to stop.
At this point, so much silt has been stirred, it's hard to know who's telling the truth, if anyone. If scientists want more credibility, they need to start flushing out the ideological charge embedded in universities where they study. Sure, Saud and Koch are hardly objective, but neither are the blowhards at the ivy league.
They're willing to pay a bit more to the state they help create in order to grow its size and foster an attitude among the proles like us where the individual matters less than he already does.
Seems like it's all politically motivated. The only parts filled out in the wiki have to do with philosophy and politics. The rest is rust centric hipsterism with vague descriptions of design concepts. In their favor, though, they do have source available. Most of these projects don't get that far.
For most of my desktops I've returned to server hardware anyway. Whitebox builds were fun when I was poor and my time was free. But after the N'th time of dicking around with figuring out why my Motherboard and RAM won't play nice or the monster heat sink I added scrubbed off traces I'd rather just buy a machine that's supported.
Sounds more like pebkac issues than anything else. I'd agree with this for building a server farm or datacenter, but for personal machines it's overkill and ludicrously expensive unless you're willing to live with 10 year old technology from ebay.
Buy good hardware. Get good results.
This applies anywhere regardless of method of acquisition.
Otherwise, I agree with your experience of freebsd. It's a solid system that has drivers for good hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
The 'divisiveness' is constantly being redefined by sjws who have applied this moniker to him.
How about we put the statue of liberty on the currency? That gets rid of the drama. We shouldn't deify people on the currency.
Sounds like the left wing version of original sin, doesn't it?
You're applying logic to 'social justice'? There's your problem.
No. Color is a descriptor that tags various attributes. I suppose your dr is racist and sexist for using those descriptors to customize your healthcare?
That's the point. The newspeak redefinitions are meant to make it difficult to describe concepts deemed politically incorrect.
They'll do anything to shift focus away from their lack of honest governance on things that actually matter.
You're still trying to argue science. Stop. I agree with you. Happy? For fuck sakes. The fact you continue to deliberately misinterpret me suggests you are also politically motivated.
Your point is the REASON you're an idiot ! Even if what you say is true, it doesn't matter one bit. Whether the campus has a leftwing or a rightwing culture has exactly ZERO impact on the results of science which, after all, is based on physical evidence - not ideological biases.
apparently you also missed the point. Try again. Those 'deniers' and the people who vote for them? They DO make decisions on ideology.
Stop jumping to conclusions.
Yup, all taken out of context to build a strawman. Good job. I won't debate against climate change because I do not deny it. All I said was I question campus ideological polarization and that it's probably not doing climatology any favors outside left-wing friendly circles, and you call me a 'denialist.' Did you remember to bring your pitchfork?
You're asking what marxism has to do with science? Nothing. That was my point. What's it doing causing mass idiocy on campuses? Why do scientists working for these universities tolerate it? I don't know. Ask Michael Mann. Maybe he knows.
You want me to google for you too? Here, a quick search turned up this doc. It has plenty of clips from various campuses, both students and staff. I'm sure you know how to use youtube if you want more. I'm sure it doesn't matter as you'll likely label any source that doesn't agree with your brand of politics as conspiratorial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I love the bit at 11:06 about 'racist capitalist america'
wiki's synopsis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It should be pretty straight forward to understand that if you want to be taken seriously by people who do not have your knowledge background and possibly don't share your ideological outlook, you can't afford to be associated with ideologically charged organizations of any sort...or worse, actively join in their foolishness.
Like I've said above, it's a question of appearance.. Want the average center right joe to buy into it? Flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues. Ideological belief isn't very good at tolerating critical thought, anyway.
I'm not a denier despite what others immediately assumed, but experience has taught me not to assume anything about topics that've become politically charged. Bandwagons are rife with bullshit. The vitriol around here about this topic is evidence for why.
Anyway, thanks for the links, however, it's not me you have to convince. Even if MIT is right on target (as this article seems well written), center right joe won't believe a word.
Who said I don't believe in science? Who said I was a denier? You suck at reading comprehension or lack the patience to read what I said. Did you even read the whole thread?
You want to convince deniers you're right? ..or at least those who would vote for them? You have to flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues. It's a question of appearance. Climate change just sounds like more left wing propaganda to justify more policy to many of them. Would you believe anything on climate change coming out of liberty.edu? Probably not (and for good reason). Ask yourself why not.
Most of the posts in this thread are full of vitriol and name calling. This doesn't help convince anyone of anything.
..and yet the first words out the gate are 'fuck fuck' etc..
Go read the SCIENCE, not the junk put out by ignorant fools or paid shills of the fossil fuels industry.
Such as? Or you could just tell me to go right the fuck off again if it would make you feel better. It's all about the feels, right?
Btw, if you read the context of what I said before ideologues derailed it, you'd see I was talking about winning over deniers.. I don't like it when ideologues cloud the waters.
I don't deny that corporates affected by changes in energy production would throw out propaganda in support of certain half truths (if that). They're just not the only ones.
No, it's really not hard to know who's telling the truth.
Those right wing deniers would say the same damn thing.
If you're having a hard time figuring out who's telling the truth, then maybe the problem is not the science, but your discernment capabilities.
they would also use ad hominem like this.
Unfortunately, it's a war of appearance not of substance. Want to win over the deniers? Eject that political crap from the university.
Seriously, go reread the thread... Walls of text don't help when you're not even aware of context.
You neglected to follow the thread or are trolling. You want to reach those right wing deniers? Then it's time to filter that ideological marxist shit out of the university system.
What science? From the scientists who studied at these contaminated institutions?
This is special pleading.. Who are these 'real' scientists you speak of? I'm willing to bet they graduated from such schools, probably with high honors. This legitimacy is marred by the compromised state of the university system, most of which pushes ideology first, critical thought second. That shit has to stop.
At this point, so much silt has been stirred, it's hard to know who's telling the truth, if anyone. If scientists want more credibility, they need to start flushing out the ideological charge embedded in universities where they study. Sure, Saud and Koch are hardly objective, but neither are the blowhards at the ivy league.
You do realize that 'float' you speak of is actually sitting on the back of every US taxpayer?
They're willing to pay a bit more to the state they help create in order to grow its size and foster an attitude among the proles like us where the individual matters less than he already does.
Stop telling people what to run on their computers.
While your post sounds like a kneejerk attempt at defending selfdriving cars which would likely feature such requirements.
The gp is a reasonable assertion. It's already bad enough that cars get features retroactively patched out with updates over the cellnet.
Meanwhile, HillaryOS embraces, extends, extinguishes.
Seems like it's all politically motivated. The only parts filled out in the wiki have to do with philosophy and politics. The rest is rust centric hipsterism with vague descriptions of design concepts. In their favor, though, they do have source available. Most of these projects don't get that far.
For most of my desktops I've returned to server hardware anyway. Whitebox builds were fun when I was poor and my time was free. But after the N'th time of dicking around with figuring out why my Motherboard and RAM won't play nice or the monster heat sink I added scrubbed off traces I'd rather just buy a machine that's supported.
Sounds more like pebkac issues than anything else. I'd agree with this for building a server farm or datacenter, but for personal machines it's overkill and ludicrously expensive unless you're willing to live with 10 year old technology from ebay.
Buy good hardware. Get good results.
This applies anywhere regardless of method of acquisition.
Otherwise, I agree with your experience of freebsd. It's a solid system that has drivers for good hardware.