there are women out there who choose to not have a child and still want to fuck
I can think of one group of women like that. Whores. Prostitutes. What other ones can you think of?
A) Everyone else.
And a question for you: what is wrong with you that you think women enjoying sex fall into the category of "Whores"? And you even needed to repeat the point: "Prostitutes".
They're a far better class of person than you are, sir.
Also I don't want to have to fucking charge my headphones every few hours. Or press a sequence of buttons to re-pair them when I switch to a new device. Or waste phone battery powering a Bluetooth radio.
The first two complaints I sympathize with, but question -- is it actually more power consuming to power a few milliwatts of BT radio vs sending an amplified signal down a set of headphone wires?
I'm guessing it might be more efficient to send the BT signal to the headset but really don't know.
Of course, if BT radio is on all the time, even when not in a phone call, it's going to change the equation but I'm mostly curious about usage during phone calls.
Recently, DDoS attacks have spiked up well past 100 Gbps several times. A common move used by adversaries is the DNS reflection attack, a category of Distributed, Reflected Denial of Service (DRDos) attack. To understand how to defend against it, it helps to understand how it works.
100 Gbps is staggeringly large and nearly impossible to defend against. "Well past 100 Gbps" is mind boggling. Didn't RTFA to see the scale of this DDoS, but the scale of them today is significant to say the least.
There would just be something like cyanogenmod that hits less than a year later. in fact, CM would probably issue a statement that they wont include the back doors.
CM is based on AOSP, and is wholly open source. If your device supports it, then you can use real crypto, while everyone else in the US gets to enjoy fake crypto.
In the binary blobs is where it'll be found.
Which you address:
The issue of course, is that you would need to encrypt so much, (because GSM and other hardware assisted crypto would be backdoored, so you have to put real crypto on top) that your battery goes flat very fast.
>
Too bad there isn't much left of the European telecomm manufacturors (Nokia, Erikson(sp?), and Blackberry for that matter (widening the net)).
IMHO, the solution to that is for eurozone countries to mandate denying US variant GSM devices from working in their countries as an issue of national security. The corporate backlash would be intense.
I agree with everything you've said, but on the last point, expect the US to respond with
"Nice Airbus, shame if something happened to exports to USA.
Care for some Freedumb Fries?"
Then the Europeans fold like a house of cards (sadly).
We can only guess that the Facebook app on his phone (which I steadfastly refuse to install on mine) scraped my phone number from his contacts list and then Facebook somehow matched it up with my name.
That's exactly my understanding of how it works.
In which case, they also scraped your email address(es), home address, and who knows - SMS / email conversations? Call history?
If this friend posted any photos at a time that FB's algorithms can place the two of you together (i.e. GPS says "current location = "rock_climbing_guy's" house +/- 100m, then they have photos of you (and the inside of your house, etc.).
The possibilities are endless and the only consolation is that FB has so much of this data that it's possibly difficult for them to gather what they have on you specifically. However, FB has some really talented people, so they can probably analyze what they have quite well and nearly instantaneously - should their attention turn your way.
This I disagree with. An intelligent ocean-based life form is going to have to find a way to work with steel to get to space, and that can't be done below the surface in any way I've ever been able to imagine.
Perhaps that just means you lack imagination or aren't really trying.
Okaaaay - do enlighten us then.
What about underwater lava flows.
Right, they'll just start molding that lava with their fins / flippers / tentacles? If they use available rocks to work the lava, how do they then forge metals with a controllable source of heat?
If there is an intelligent underwater species they are going to start investigating their world.
Maybe, maybe not. Haven't seen any dolphins come up on to the beach to investigate the parts of the world they aren't familiar with - and they breath air.
Unless that's what mass beachings are all about, but then it's not very intelligent of them to go ashore en mass as a form of exploration.
Or the invention of pumps and containers. I guess it would be impossible for an air living people to invent something like a vacuum chamber? I mean, that would never happen since they can't live without air. And they would not be able to experiments in this vacuum chamber would they?
Do you find being a snarky prick makes your life easier in some way?
Do tell - how to create a vacuum chamber with materials available to ocean-dwelling (sub-surface) creatures?
An underwater people could invent the same thing and perhaps try experiments with putting air in the chamber. Then you discover that metal can melt in high heat, etc.
Since I'm the one lacking imagination, help me out here - how?
Seems fire was crucial to bootstrap civilization and I'm finding it tough to imagine how to do it under an ocean, whether of water, methane, or something else, and you've only offered some hand-waving speculation without anything concrete enough to make it seem any more plausible.
The podcast hosts are quite charming and always enjoyable - and they have really good sound quality, editing, & production.
The developer, working alone, has apparently done a very impressive job.
The Linux Luddites' slogan is, "Trying all the new open source software and deciding we like the old stuff better." Yet they (at least Joe) were quite impressed with Maru OS.
This project might have some legs to gain traction in the enthusiast community.
Seems you think you know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.
News flash, Cupcake!
Nearly all "climate scientists" are self-selected pro-AGW propagandists.
If a scientist doesn't accept AGW fully then they aren't considered qualified to become "climate scientists".
And a biologist that doesn't accept evolution isn't considered qualified to become a "biologist". So what? If they want to dispute evolution or AGW, they're gonna have to do some research and publish some peer-reviewed data.
And if they can't get funding from Exxon, et al. for it, then they obviously haven't got what it takes to do basic research.
There's a Nobel Prize for anyone able to overturn the current knowledge in climate sciences.
And there are other fields that reinforce AGW, from paleo biology, geology,...
So of course most "climate scientists" agree that AGW is all that is hyped. If they didn't they would not be considered a "climate scientist" but a "science denier" and would also never receive any government grants even if they did make it past the university systems' self-selection filter.
You're projecting your own failings onto an entire field of science. Again.
Also, Exxon can afford to issue far larger grants for research, should they want to. But, since they haven't, that would indicate that even they're not so head-up-ass as to disbelieve climate scientists and instead use(d?) propaganda to further their agenda.
It's a kind of "no true Scotsman" fallacious logic that easily deceives the low-info, emotionally-driven types that have never been taught critical-thinking skills...the same types that are or become SJW special snowflakes. It also functions to maintain a pool of "authorities" to which the pro-AGW wingnuts can use for their "appeal to authority" demagoguery.
Emboldended part relevant to the psychological projection you're dishing out.
Also, "SJW"? Didn't I mention earlier, "never go full retard".
It ain't liberalism that set up the TSA, the surveillance state...
You're partly right, it is Progressives who co-opted the "liberal" moniker after they were thoroughly discredited in the early part of the 20th century. Another news flash, Progressives are in both major political parties, the (D)s having been fully co-opted and the (R)s nearly so.
That is why no matter which party is in power, very little changes and why both parties agree on 90+% of policies.
Holy fuck, talk about "No True Scotsman Fallacy" -- do you even read what you write?
...nor are they the ones policing the bathrooms...
Wait...so issuing directives and passing laws to eliminate bathrooms divided by sex and instead divided by whatever "gender" one feels like at the moment is not "policing bathrooms", but a State passing a law to simply restore the status quo, is? Do you even dictionary, bro?
As far as I'm aware, bathrooms have mostly functionally worked for a rather long time now. It's your side that's decided we suddenly need laws. Laws which are reactionary and actually make the issue worse: says on birth certificate "female" but has looked like a man for a decade, complete with beard -- must use female bathrooms. Stupid people making stupid laws making things worse.
policing the...uteruses of the nation.
So being opposed to a mass eugenics program that kills millions of unborn babies who are overwhelmingly African-American by number and percentage (precisely as Sanger and the KKK wanted) and then sells the murdered babies' parts like an auto salvage yard is "policing uteruses (sic)"? Wow. Just. Wow.
Utter bullshit, emotionally driven "that easily deceives the " and you fell for it. In fact, your fau
This is just a propaganda piece pushing AGW hysteria.
"OMG! AGW (the alien form of it, anyways) killed all intelligent life in the universe and deniers want us all dead like all life in the universe! They want us all dead!"
I guess what the Church of Anthropomorphic Global Warming cannot reasonably prove with actual science they attempt to propagandize with science fiction straight out of '60s sci-fi TV series plots.
Seems you think you know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.
I notice a distinct lack of data rebutting them in your post, just a bunch of hysterics.
It would be laughable if it weren't simultaneously both dangerous to free and open societies and a sad example of the mass idiocy of a large portion of humanity.
That's exactly what a reasonable person would think... when they read your post.
If the global climate changes mankind will do what mankind does best. Adapt and flourish as it has always done.
Tell that to the majority of species that have ever lived on earth and are now extinct. Also, talk about massive assumptions being made on the basis of gut feeling and wishful thinking. I guess if you're so quick to do that, it explains why you think climate scientists are equally guilty of shoddy reasoning.
But that doesn't accomplish the real goals of global wealth and political power redistribution, so anyone who dares point out such facts are painted as modern day heretics
No, they're painted as idiots and deniers - the science is separate from the proposed solutions and since you don't like the proposed solutions, you decide it's easiest to deny the science.
And they dare call people who question any of it "anti-science deniers" when it is they who are actually anti-science,
Psychological projection.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Never go full retard, son.
It ain't liberalism that set up the TSA, the surveillance state, nor are they the ones policing the bathrooms and uteruses of the nation.
Except that it ignores subsurface oceans, which seem to be quite stable over long timeperiods and quite likely to be very abundant in the universe.
Agreed - and since it seems life on earth began in the oceans, it's a very likely proposition.
Sure, a species evolved to an undersea environment faces challenges in getting to their surface and beyond... but if we can get out of this deep gravity well after such a (geologically) short period of time after our species' evolution, sentient species in subsurface oceans with hundreds of millions or billion years on their "hands" would surely deal with the technical difficulties.
This I disagree with. An intelligent ocean-based life form is going to have to find a way to work with steel to get to space, and that can't be done below the surface in any way I've ever been able to imagine.
Without the ability to smelt iron / steel, etc. they just aren't going to be able to migrate on to land, never mind into the atmosphere, never mind space.
I'd be interested in any ideas you have on how they might actually achieve that - I've been unable to ever come up with a single one.
Trump is a LIBERAL popularist who wears the clothes of a PARODY republican, because he is media savvy enough to understand that by playing the political game this way, he gains needed national support.
So, that's why he's running for the REPUBLICAN party, and has the support of the REPUBLICAN voters and elected officials? And is detested by approximately 100% of liberals?
You're saying REPUBLICANS fell for this parody of them? That would be stupid of them, wouldn't it?
As for gaining national support, he has the highest disapproval rating of anyone in modern history, so that ain't working out.
But sure, it all makes sense (if one suffers from traumatic brain injury or is just a raving partisan idiot).
Percy Spencer is generally credited with inventing the modern microwave oven after World War II from radar technology developed during the war. Named the "Radarange", it was first sold in 1946.
An example of that was the German Reich Postzentralamt (post office) video telephone network serving Berlin and several German cities via coaxial cables between 1936 and 1940.[2][3]
The photovoltaic effect was first observed by Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel in 1839.[12][13]
Bittorrent?
Really? I mean, it's cool, but...
GPS / Satnav. Nothing even remotely like it in the 1600s.
OK, here's one for ya: speech=>text=>espanol=>habla. That was quite literally a *joke* in a radio show in 1978. Now it's free to download on your phone.
Blockchain technology. Nothing like it even 10 years ago.
If you want to look at air travel, try comparing the number of passengers travelling 30-40 years ago ( Turns out that information is online too: http://data.worldbank.org/indi... )
I think I've shown that most of your examples hardly are new tech that has emerged in the current generation (approximately 25 years in length), and while they've changed the world, it didn't come fast and they are mostly solving the so-called "easy" problems. A simulated universe with sentient elements within it? Stuff of fantasy.
Things plateau and don't always improve at a linear, never mind exponential, rate.
Sure Moore's Law has served us well for a generation and a bit, but on his "evolutionary scale" it'll likely be seen as a blip.
All bubbles are obvious after they burst, but when inside one, it can be hard to recognise them.
I have lots of respect for Musk, but this just seems ridiculous.
We had transoceanic ships half a millenium ago, and it improved quite a bit from those days, but today's tech would be basically recognizable to someone from the 1600s, even if unbelievably large in scale. Metal ships & propellers seem to be the biggest advances (disregarding nuclear fuel sources vs ICEs) and those aren't considered new by any means.
We've had air travel for over a century, yet in the past 30-40 years there hasn't been that much improvement; in fact just try to get a supersonic passenger flight now - can't do it.
We've had men in space for half a century, had men on the moon almost half a century ago - can't do it now - USA can't even put a man in space on certified technology.
Mr Musk must be aware of these limitations, surely.
In light of those examples, I call his arguments on us living in a simulation very weak.
We know that the NT kernel developed by Dave Cutler has a POSIX emulation layer.
Take the NT kernel, and use it to replace Linux, leaving the Android userland as intact as possible.
(Re)implement all of the extensions for Dalvik that are provided by Google services.
An interesting post, but as we've found with Oracle vs Google, APIs are copyrighted and (re-)implementing Android could cause a lot of legal pain.
I don't like it, but that's the world we live in right now. And Microsoft made submissions in favour of Oracle in the case referenced above, so any pain they get would be well deserved.
I'm not even clear why a polygraph is even in the mix here. Frankly, I think the things should be outright outlawed, and it should lead to prison sentences for any officer of the court to try to use one. It's pseudo-scientific quackery whose only purpose is to bully the uninformed.
Leave the e-meters to the $cientologists.
I had a discussion with an ex cop who ran polygraphs for the police (VPD) and asked him what good they were for since they couldn't be used in court.
My opinion of them is / was roughly in line with yours.
He made some really good points though.
For one thing, there are two "persons of interest" but they're having a hard time knowing which to focus on (works better for larger pools of suspects). After polygraphs, one stands out has having lied. Sure this isn't 100% accurate, and isn't evidence in court (thankfully), however it can help police determine where to focus their investigation.
Not foolproof, but better than nothing nine times out of ten, plus or minus 3%, etc. with the usual disclaimers.
Another point was that he sometimes was able to built a rapport with the person being polygraphed and that could get the suspect talking - answering questions outside of what was asked under polygraph, where simple questioning hadn't worked.
Finally, most suspects weren't very sophisticated and thought the machines infallible, so if he told them they "failed" the polygraph, and "Come on, you failed badly, we both know you did it - why don't you just tell me what happened?" sometimes worked and got confessions from, amongst others, a serial rapist. The confession came with verifiable claims that did lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and conviction(s).
So I wouldn't want to outlaw the things, and I'm still very uncomfortable with them being used by employers (because they don't have to meet a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" using evidence collected elsewhere, making them ripe for abuse).
Oh....and, a peer-reviewed study published in Quaternary Science Reviews (2013) found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm. Sorry (Tripati 2009).
That may be, so how did humans 12,750 years ago feed 7+ billion people from acidifying oceans and changing agricultural patterns?
And how many cities of 1 million or more people did they have situated on ocean shores?
Maybe if we can figure out how they did it then, we could use their techniques for dealing with it now and in the future.
Me: human emissions of CO2 are a drop in the bucket compared to what nature does....
You: WRONG AGAIN!
You: Citation -- "our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year"
I see your point. I am clearly wrong.
Glad you finally figured out that adding 3-4% per year from formerly-sequestered storage is problematic - that's impressive that you managed to understand the concept.
Apology accepted.
The plants are still mocking you, but they're glad you kept accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels for the last 20 million years. It's certainly compelling and infallible evidence.
It is compelling, though not "infallible". You see, there's this thing called "science" - you seem to not have heard about it.
They do this thing called "research" where they try to find out facts about things. Supposedly it works better at modelling reality than pulling ideas out of one's ass.
You really ought to check it out, they do some pretty impressive stuff in a wide variety of fields.
Plants can't keep up to the gigatons of emissions of sequestered co2 emitted by humans yearly.
Good to know. Apparently we all died of CO2 poisoning.
Obviously your brain did.
Thanks for enlightening me. Oh, nevermind....human emissions of CO2 (yes, including cars/manufacturing) is a drop in the bucket compared to what nature does regularly. Common sense facts and thousands of years of evidence to the contrary invalidate your baseless argument.
You're wrong, again, common sense as you apply it is neither common, nor sensible, and the evidence that you failed to provide is also wrong:
Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Read that to your self, out loud and slowly. Check the links at the source if you want - all the way to the original scientific research publications and accompanying data.
Partisan politics in any branch of government does nothing to change a scientific fact. Legislating (from the bench no less), that 2+2 equals five is not a supporting argument.
Good thing their decision was based on facts and the only fact you have is... nothing.
But thank you for re-validating my point. By your logic anything and everything is a pollutant -- because it is POSSIBLE to do bad things with it if you try REALLY hard.
A hammer is a tool. It can also be a murder weapon. Why are you finding this concept so difficult?
Well, 100% nitrogen has been looked at as a method of capital punishment in certain barbaric countries, so yes, one could say that too much is a "pollutant".
Yep. You can also drown in distilled water. It is, therefore a pollutant.
If it's in the lungs in sufficient quantities then yes, it could be called a pollutant although that would be stretching the definition, it wouldn't be hugely wrong.
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that
"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."
Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare. Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."
So, US Supreme Court found it so.
By your logic Oxygen, Nitrogen, and every other gas necessary for life is a pollutant because too much of it can be harmful.
Well, 100% nitrogen has been looked at as a method of capital punishment in certain barbaric countries, so yes, one could say that too much is a "pollutant".
And co2 is used to kill critters in labs when experiments are finished, or in poultry farms when bird flu breaks out.
So I reiterate -- if you think CO2 is a pollutant, do your part. Stop emitting it. Otherwise, let the plants do their job. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Plants can't keep up to the gigatons of emissions of sequestered co2 emitted by humans yearly. Only a moron would think they could. Oh wait...
Slashdot Mirror
there are women out there who choose to not have a child and still want to fuck
I can think of one group of women like that. Whores. Prostitutes. What other ones can you think of?
A) Everyone else.
And a question for you: what is wrong with you that you think women enjoying sex fall into the category of "Whores"? And you even needed to repeat the point: "Prostitutes".
They're a far better class of person than you are, sir.
Published at London Review of Books, it's a very interesting read (not finished it myself yet).
I'm not personally involved in Bitcoin in any way what-so-ever, but I stayed up way, way too late last night reading the LRB article.
O'Hagan also has one about Julian Assange, who I also have not one bit of interest it, that I couldn't stop reading.
Also I don't want to have to fucking charge my headphones every few hours. Or press a sequence of buttons to re-pair them when I switch to a new device. Or waste phone battery powering a Bluetooth radio.
The first two complaints I sympathize with, but question -- is it actually more power consuming to power a few milliwatts of BT radio vs sending an amplified signal down a set of headphone wires?
I'm guessing it might be more efficient to send the BT signal to the headset but really don't know.
Of course, if BT radio is on all the time, even when not in a phone call, it's going to change the equation but I'm mostly curious about usage during phone calls.
...figure out the ping command. Sending packets? Only a mastermind.
There's a lot more to modern DDoS attacks via amplification / reflection than a bunch of ping packets (from 2013):
100 Gbps is staggeringly large and nearly impossible to defend against. "Well past 100 Gbps" is mind boggling. Didn't RTFA to see the scale of this DDoS, but the scale of them today is significant to say the least.
There would just be something like cyanogenmod that hits less than a year later. in fact, CM would probably issue a statement that they wont include the back doors.
CM is based on AOSP, and is wholly open source. If your device supports it, then you can use real crypto, while everyone else in the US gets to enjoy fake crypto.
In the binary blobs is where it'll be found.
Which you address:
The issue of course, is that you would need to encrypt so much, (because GSM and other hardware assisted crypto would be backdoored, so you have to put real crypto on top) that your battery goes flat very fast.
>
Too bad there isn't much left of the European telecomm manufacturors (Nokia, Erikson(sp?), and Blackberry for that matter (widening the net)).
IMHO, the solution to that is for eurozone countries to mandate denying US variant GSM devices from working in their countries as an issue of national security. The corporate backlash would be intense.
I agree with everything you've said, but on the last point, expect the US to respond with
Then the Europeans fold like a house of cards (sadly).
We can only guess that the Facebook app on his phone (which I steadfastly refuse to install on mine) scraped my phone number from his contacts list and then Facebook somehow matched it up with my name.
That's exactly my understanding of how it works.
In which case, they also scraped your email address(es), home address, and who knows - SMS / email conversations? Call history?
If this friend posted any photos at a time that FB's algorithms can place the two of you together (i.e. GPS says "current location = "rock_climbing_guy's" house +/- 100m, then they have photos of you (and the inside of your house, etc.).
The possibilities are endless and the only consolation is that FB has so much of this data that it's possibly difficult for them to gather what they have on you specifically. However, FB has some really talented people, so they can probably analyze what they have quite well and nearly instantaneously - should their attention turn your way.
This I disagree with. An intelligent ocean-based life form is going to have to find a way to work with steel to get to space, and that can't be done below the surface in any way I've ever been able to imagine.
Perhaps that just means you lack imagination or aren't really trying.
Okaaaay - do enlighten us then.
What about underwater lava flows.
Right, they'll just start molding that lava with their fins / flippers / tentacles? If they use available rocks to work the lava, how do they then forge metals with a controllable source of heat?
If there is an intelligent underwater species they are going to start investigating their world.
Maybe, maybe not. Haven't seen any dolphins come up on to the beach to investigate the parts of the world they aren't familiar with - and they breath air.
Unless that's what mass beachings are all about, but then it's not very intelligent of them to go ashore en mass as a form of exploration.
Or the invention of pumps and containers. I guess it would be impossible for an air living people to invent something like a vacuum chamber? I mean, that would never happen since they can't live without air. And they would not be able to experiments in this vacuum chamber would they?
Do you find being a snarky prick makes your life easier in some way?
Do tell - how to create a vacuum chamber with materials available to ocean-dwelling (sub-surface) creatures?
An underwater people could invent the same thing and perhaps try experiments with putting air in the chamber. Then you discover that metal can melt in high heat, etc.
Since I'm the one lacking imagination, help me out here - how?
Seems fire was crucial to bootstrap civilization and I'm finding it tough to imagine how to do it under an ocean, whether of water, methane, or something else, and you've only offered some hand-waving speculation without anything concrete enough to make it seem any more plausible.
Linux Luddites had an interview with the developer (note the singular, not plural "developer") in Episode 76.
Well worth listening to.
The podcast hosts are quite charming and always enjoyable - and they have really good sound quality, editing, & production.
The developer, working alone, has apparently done a very impressive job.
The Linux Luddites' slogan is, "Trying all the new open source software and deciding we like the old stuff better." Yet they (at least Joe) were quite impressed with Maru OS.
This project might have some legs to gain traction in the enthusiast community.
I wish the project a lot of luck.
Seems you think you know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.
News flash, Cupcake!
Nearly all "climate scientists" are self-selected pro-AGW propagandists.
If a scientist doesn't accept AGW fully then they aren't considered qualified to become "climate scientists".
And a biologist that doesn't accept evolution isn't considered qualified to become a "biologist". So what? If they want to dispute evolution or AGW, they're gonna have to do some research and publish some peer-reviewed data.
And if they can't get funding from Exxon, et al. for it, then they obviously haven't got what it takes to do basic research.
There's a Nobel Prize for anyone able to overturn the current knowledge in climate sciences.
And there are other fields that reinforce AGW, from paleo biology, geology, ...
So of course most "climate scientists" agree that AGW is all that is hyped. If they didn't they would not be considered a "climate scientist" but a "science denier" and would also never receive any government grants even if they did make it past the university systems' self-selection filter.
You're projecting your own failings onto an entire field of science. Again.
Also, Exxon can afford to issue far larger grants for research, should they want to. But, since they haven't, that would indicate that even they're not so head-up-ass as to disbelieve climate scientists and instead use(d?) propaganda to further their agenda.
It's a kind of "no true Scotsman" fallacious logic that easily deceives the low-info, emotionally-driven types that have never been taught critical-thinking skills...the same types that are or become SJW special snowflakes. It also functions to maintain a pool of "authorities" to which the pro-AGW wingnuts can use for their "appeal to authority" demagoguery.
Emboldended part relevant to the psychological projection you're dishing out.
Also, "SJW"? Didn't I mention earlier, "never go full retard".
It ain't liberalism that set up the TSA, the surveillance state...
You're partly right, it is Progressives who co-opted the "liberal" moniker after they were thoroughly discredited in the early part of the 20th century. Another news flash, Progressives are in both major political parties, the (D)s having been fully co-opted and the (R)s nearly so.
That is why no matter which party is in power, very little changes and why both parties agree on 90+% of policies.
Holy fuck, talk about "No True Scotsman Fallacy" -- do you even read what you write?
...nor are they the ones policing the bathrooms...
Wait...so issuing directives and passing laws to eliminate bathrooms divided by sex and instead divided by whatever "gender" one feels like at the moment is not "policing bathrooms", but a State passing a law to simply restore the status quo, is? Do you even dictionary, bro?
As far as I'm aware, bathrooms have mostly functionally worked for a rather long time now. It's your side that's decided we suddenly need laws. Laws which are reactionary and actually make the issue worse: says on birth certificate "female" but has looked like a man for a decade, complete with beard -- must use female bathrooms. Stupid people making stupid laws making things worse.
policing the...uteruses of the nation.
So being opposed to a mass eugenics program that kills millions of unborn babies who are overwhelmingly African-American by number and percentage (precisely as Sanger and the KKK wanted) and then sells the murdered babies' parts like an auto salvage yard is "policing uteruses (sic)"? Wow. Just. Wow.
Utter bullshit, emotionally driven "that easily deceives the " and you fell for it. In fact, your fau
Global Warming (TM) killed the aliens!
Exactly.
This is just a propaganda piece pushing AGW hysteria.
"OMG! AGW (the alien form of it, anyways) killed all intelligent life in the universe and deniers want us all dead like all life in the universe! They want us all dead!"
I guess what the Church of Anthropomorphic Global Warming cannot reasonably prove with actual science they attempt to propagandize with science fiction straight out of '60s sci-fi TV series plots.
Seems you think you know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.
I notice a distinct lack of data rebutting them in your post, just a bunch of hysterics.
It would be laughable if it weren't simultaneously both dangerous to free and open societies and a sad example of the mass idiocy of a large portion of humanity.
That's exactly what a reasonable person would think... when they read your post.
If the global climate changes mankind will do what mankind does best. Adapt and flourish as it has always done.
Tell that to the majority of species that have ever lived on earth and are now extinct. Also, talk about massive assumptions being made on the basis of gut feeling and wishful thinking. I guess if you're so quick to do that, it explains why you think climate scientists are equally guilty of shoddy reasoning.
But that doesn't accomplish the real goals of global wealth and political power redistribution, so anyone who dares point out such facts are painted as modern day heretics
No, they're painted as idiots and deniers - the science is separate from the proposed solutions and since you don't like the proposed solutions, you decide it's easiest to deny the science.
And they dare call people who question any of it "anti-science deniers" when it is they who are actually anti-science,
Psychological projection.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Never go full retard, son.
It ain't liberalism that set up the TSA, the surveillance state, nor are they the ones policing the bathrooms and uteruses of the nation.
Except that it ignores subsurface oceans, which seem to be quite stable over long timeperiods and quite likely to be very abundant in the universe.
Agreed - and since it seems life on earth began in the oceans, it's a very likely proposition.
Sure, a species evolved to an undersea environment faces challenges in getting to their surface and beyond... but if we can get out of this deep gravity well after such a (geologically) short period of time after our species' evolution, sentient species in subsurface oceans with hundreds of millions or billion years on their "hands" would surely deal with the technical difficulties.
This I disagree with. An intelligent ocean-based life form is going to have to find a way to work with steel to get to space, and that can't be done below the surface in any way I've ever been able to imagine.
Without the ability to smelt iron / steel, etc. they just aren't going to be able to migrate on to land, never mind into the atmosphere, never mind space.
I'd be interested in any ideas you have on how they might actually achieve that - I've been unable to ever come up with a single one.
blah blah retarded bullshit blah
Trump is a LIBERAL popularist who wears the clothes of a PARODY republican, because he is media savvy enough to understand that by playing the political game this way, he gains needed national support.
So, that's why he's running for the REPUBLICAN party, and has the support of the REPUBLICAN voters and elected officials? And is detested by approximately 100% of liberals?
You're saying REPUBLICANS fell for this parody of them? That would be stupid of them, wouldn't it?
As for gaining national support, he has the highest disapproval rating of anyone in modern history, so that ain't working out.
But sure, it all makes sense (if one suffers from traumatic brain injury or is just a raving partisan idiot).
Very impressive, Donald.
You got first post with those tiny fingers. They're the best fingers. Well done.
Microwave ovens?
Nothing new about microwave ovens:
Laser pointers?
Lasers are older than either of us, I imagine:
Video teleconferencing?
Some form of video communications are at least a generation old:
Photovoltaics?
This is getting tiresome; photovoltaics isn't a new tech even though it's still evolving:
Bittorrent?
Really? I mean, it's cool, but...
GPS / Satnav. Nothing even remotely like it in the 1600s.
OK, here's one for ya: speech=>text=>espanol=>habla. That was quite literally a *joke* in a radio show in 1978. Now it's free to download on your phone.
Blockchain technology. Nothing like it even 10 years ago.
If you want to look at air travel, try comparing the number of passengers travelling 30-40 years ago
( Turns out that information is online too: http://data.worldbank.org/indi... )
I think I've shown that most of your examples hardly are new tech that has emerged in the current generation (approximately 25 years in length), and while they've changed the world, it didn't come fast and they are mostly solving the so-called "easy" problems. A simulated universe with sentient elements within it? Stuff of fantasy.
I find that pretty weak.
Things plateau and don't always improve at a linear, never mind exponential, rate.
Sure Moore's Law has served us well for a generation and a bit, but on his "evolutionary scale" it'll likely be seen as a blip.
All bubbles are obvious after they burst, but when inside one, it can be hard to recognise them.
I have lots of respect for Musk, but this just seems ridiculous.
We had transoceanic ships half a millenium ago, and it improved quite a bit from those days, but today's tech would be basically recognizable to someone from the 1600s, even if unbelievably large in scale. Metal ships & propellers seem to be the biggest advances (disregarding nuclear fuel sources vs ICEs) and those aren't considered new by any means.
We've had air travel for over a century, yet in the past 30-40 years there hasn't been that much improvement; in fact just try to get a supersonic passenger flight now - can't do it.
We've had men in space for half a century, had men on the moon almost half a century ago - can't do it now - USA can't even put a man in space on certified technology.
Mr Musk must be aware of these limitations, surely.
In light of those examples, I call his arguments on us living in a simulation very weak.
We know that the NT kernel developed by Dave Cutler has a POSIX emulation layer.
Take the NT kernel, and use it to replace Linux, leaving the Android userland as intact as possible.
(Re)implement all of the extensions for Dalvik that are provided by Google services.
An interesting post, but as we've found with Oracle vs Google, APIs are copyrighted and (re-)implementing Android could cause a lot of legal pain.
I don't like it, but that's the world we live in right now. And Microsoft made submissions in favour of Oracle in the case referenced above, so any pain they get would be well deserved.
I come from a strong C++/Java background and was drug into the Node/JS world kicking and screaming.
Was the kicking and screaming due to the drugs?
Or you mean you were dragged kicking and screaming?
Drug is a noun and a verb, and neither have anything to do with dragging.
/angry pedant mode over
I'm not even clear why a polygraph is even in the mix here. Frankly, I think the things should be outright outlawed, and it should lead to prison sentences for any officer of the court to try to use one. It's pseudo-scientific quackery whose only purpose is to bully the uninformed.
Leave the e-meters to the $cientologists.
I had a discussion with an ex cop who ran polygraphs for the police (VPD) and asked him what good they were for since they couldn't be used in court.
My opinion of them is / was roughly in line with yours.
He made some really good points though.
For one thing, there are two "persons of interest" but they're having a hard time knowing which to focus on (works better for larger pools of suspects). After polygraphs, one stands out has having lied. Sure this isn't 100% accurate, and isn't evidence in court (thankfully), however it can help police determine where to focus their investigation.
Not foolproof, but better than nothing nine times out of ten, plus or minus 3%, etc. with the usual disclaimers.
Another point was that he sometimes was able to built a rapport with the person being polygraphed and that could get the suspect talking - answering questions outside of what was asked under polygraph, where simple questioning hadn't worked.
Finally, most suspects weren't very sophisticated and thought the machines infallible, so if he told them they "failed" the polygraph, and "Come on, you failed badly, we both know you did it - why don't you just tell me what happened?" sometimes worked and got confessions from, amongst others, a serial rapist. The confession came with verifiable claims that did lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and conviction(s).
So I wouldn't want to outlaw the things, and I'm still very uncomfortable with them being used by employers (because they don't have to meet a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" using evidence collected elsewhere, making them ripe for abuse).
There'd be about $6.8 Billioin added to the [s]global[/s] Comcast economy in user fees, overages, equipment rentals, etc.
Oh....and, a peer-reviewed study published in Quaternary Science Reviews (2013) found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm. Sorry (Tripati 2009).
That may be, so how did humans 12,750 years ago feed 7+ billion people from acidifying oceans and changing agricultural patterns?
And how many cities of 1 million or more people did they have situated on ocean shores?
Maybe if we can figure out how they did it then, we could use their techniques for dealing with it now and in the future.
Me: human emissions of CO2 are a drop in the bucket compared to what nature does....
You: WRONG AGAIN!
You: Citation -- "our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year"
I see your point. I am clearly wrong.
Glad you finally figured out that adding 3-4% per year from formerly-sequestered storage is problematic - that's impressive that you managed to understand the concept.
Apology accepted.
The plants are still mocking you, but they're glad you kept accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels for the last 20 million years. It's certainly compelling and infallible evidence.
It is compelling, though not "infallible". You see, there's this thing called "science" - you seem to not have heard about it.
They do this thing called "research" where they try to find out facts about things. Supposedly it works better at modelling reality than pulling ideas out of one's ass.
You really ought to check it out, they do some pretty impressive stuff in a wide variety of fields.
Plants can't keep up to the gigatons of emissions of sequestered co2 emitted by humans yearly.
Good to know. Apparently we all died of CO2 poisoning.
Obviously your brain did.
Thanks for enlightening me. Oh, nevermind....human emissions of CO2 (yes, including cars/manufacturing) is a drop in the bucket compared to what nature does regularly. Common sense facts and thousands of years of evidence to the contrary invalidate your baseless argument.
You're wrong, again, common sense as you apply it is neither common, nor sensible, and the evidence that you failed to provide is also wrong:
Read that to your self, out loud and slowly. Check the links at the source if you want - all the way to the original scientific research publications and accompanying data.
Partisan politics in any branch of government does nothing to change a scientific fact. Legislating (from the bench no less), that 2+2 equals five is not a supporting argument.
Good thing their decision was based on facts and the only fact you have is ... nothing.
But thank you for re-validating my point. By your logic anything and everything is a pollutant -- because it is POSSIBLE to do bad things with it if you try REALLY hard.
A hammer is a tool. It can also be a murder weapon. Why are you finding this concept so difficult?
Well, 100% nitrogen has been looked at as a method of capital punishment in certain barbaric countries, so yes, one could say that too much is a "pollutant".
Yep. You can also drown in distilled water. It is, therefore a pollutant.
If it's in the lungs in sufficient quantities then yes, it could be called a pollutant although that would be stretching the definition, it wouldn't be hugely wrong.
It's a required component of the atmosphere for life to exist, not a pollutant.
Logic fail: you say it's a requirement (true) but therefore that it can't be a pollutant (false).
You still haven't validated your idiotic claim that CO2 is a pollutant.
Info here:
So, US Supreme Court found it so.
By your logic Oxygen, Nitrogen, and every other gas necessary for life is a pollutant because too much of it can be harmful.
Well, 100% nitrogen has been looked at as a method of capital punishment in certain barbaric countries, so yes, one could say that too much is a "pollutant".
And co2 is used to kill critters in labs when experiments are finished, or in poultry farms when bird flu breaks out.
So I reiterate -- if you think CO2 is a pollutant, do your part. Stop emitting it.
Otherwise, let the plants do their job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Plants can't keep up to the gigatons of emissions of sequestered co2 emitted by humans yearly. Only a moron would think they could. Oh wait...
CO2 is a form of pollution to be sure
Please stop breathing. The plants are offended by your stupidity.
Hey Big Dumb Fuck, how about you breath some air at 50% co2, or even 10% co2 for a while, see how that goes?
It will certainly solve some stupidity around here.