Jobs pay what the market will bear. Should these people be paid more because they're working on something used by others who are wealthy? No. In fact, the jobs wouldn't exist without those wealthy people. Maybe the personality problem you spoke of is called envy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... The range shown is $50-600k annual household income. I'd have to agree that most of them could afford it, not that they'd want to.
I already lead you to the water, it's up to you to drink or continue to troll.
For the jackass AC below, I'm nowhere near liberal. Go look at my history of posts, even on this topic, where I was accused numerous times of being a "denier" (that term is still for assholes to use), but I've recently spent significant time reading up on the topic, and have come to the conclusion that there's no logical argument against AGW. If you think you have one, I'd love to hear it.
I'd like to suggest that you were the obtuse one here. Maybe you'd appreciate more free robo calls, junk in your snail mailbox, etc., because while many (myself included) find this to be a minor annoyance, it's is still an annoyance.
If you dont know the basics about computers, you dont deserve to own one.
That's a pretty harsh way of looking at it. You can't even get through a public education these days w/o access to a computer. There a lot of senior citizens (my aunts and uncles in their 70s and 80s are all online), who just want to send email, and surf the web. Why the fuck should they have to know what swap space is?
Interesting. I've received annual training on this, and never heard of any exemption except for national security purposes. The guide I just looked at also lists that as the only exemption.
What many in the U.S. don't realize is that what we call bribery is SOP in some countries. Not that it makes it right, or legal, but it may be the only way for a company to do business there. I've witnessed this first hand in a couple places, with local government officials who would just not process paperwork unless you "tip" them.
Well stated. Maybe if I had taken more time to clarify my point, it would have helped my case. When someone says that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest, I'm going to consider the source, and at least do a little homework before buy some. When my mother had spinal surgery a week ago to have four vertebrae fused, all the decisions were left up to me. Am I qualified?...hell no, but I was able to spend enough time researching the surgery (there were options), surgeon, hospital, etc. to help determine what was in her best interest.
When evidence is provided, even if simply referenced, it can be poked, prodded, and validated or not. But I won't fall for an appeal to authority.
There was a similar article in fivethirtyeight.com just a couple days ago with regard to vitamins, and how many of the studies indicating that everyone should be taking a daily multi-vitamin have been improperly executed. And yet, everyone assumes we all should, or that it's "common sense", or that they'll take one just to be on the safe side.
For many years, it was a "good sounding theory" that peptic ulcers were caused by stress or spicy food. It was a consensus, with little evidence, until one man proved them all wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
For years, we were all told that eggs were good for you, then we were told that they're bad, and what do you suppose the consensus is now?
So, yes there are certainly many instances where we just have to go with the odds, and what the current conventional wisdom is. But, it also needs to be tempered by a knowledge of what the current state of research is in that area.
Understood...no blood, no foul. I've spent some time reading links that others have provided, and learning. Maybe it's just me, but I've always questioned authority, at least until I've seen enough evidence to trust a specific person. I'm also curious by nature, and the reading I've done so far has raised more questions, but that's just part of the learning process. I think some topics are important enough that the scientific community needs to take the effort to build public consensus as well. Otherwise you end up with situations like we see with vaccination rates dropping, and this. And certainly, some people like Hawking and Sagan for example, have been very successful at education the masses.
Re: Might want to tighten the bolts on those saber
on
China's Island Factory
·
· Score: 2
These were previously open international waters, so any nation coming along and claiming them needs to be challenged.
Yes, yes, you're clearly able to determine others intentions and unable to supply facts in response to a simple request. Others have succeeded, while you fail miserably. Feel free to continue to toss childish insults, and I'll continue on in search of those who actually know something. Thanks for playing.
I never said it was fake. I requested information, and a few good folks supplied some excellent sources that I've just started reading.
I'm only picking on your response (I've seen many similar when this has come up before) for convenience. I don't think you do the AGW cause any service with a sarcastic reply. Instead you turn people against it.
Complex ideas can almost always be explained in simpler terms. People don't necessarily need to understand every nuance, to get it.
A request for information is hardly a form of denial. You can continue to reply with snotty childish retorts or you can help educate those who would like to know more.
Thanks again for being a zealot. By doing this, you cause more people to ignore what you believe to be the truth. You could have simply responded with an appropriate answer. Instead you chose to go the typical snob route, and say you're not worthy...just trust them. Until that attitude changes, this field is going to continue to face the issue of "deniers".
I've been in very few situations where I've found that an expert was unable to explain something on a level that I could understand. Your claim that I'm "not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence" is elitist, and a sad statement if that's all that's available. You have no idea what I'm capable of, and the climate science community should be capable of putting out the equivalent of a "for Dummies" version of the material for the general public...I'm fully ca. There's nothing wrong with anyone trying to learn more, and understand the state of what is factual, theory, or conjecture.
To anyone else here who can point to good reading material, thanks in advance.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up.
It's about rubbing elbows with people of influence. One good contact can easily be worth the cost of membership.
That said, I've never been a member of one, and am too close to retirement to give a crap.
Jobs pay what the market will bear. Should these people be paid more because they're working on something used by others who are wealthy? No. In fact, the jobs wouldn't exist without those wealthy people. Maybe the personality problem you spoke of is called envy.
Just my $02, but I'd have to disagree. I've heard the term used many times for people who basically have cash to burn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
The range shown is $50-600k annual household income. I'd have to agree that most of them could afford it, not that they'd want to.
Says the third world anonimous coward.
Oh the irony.
I already lead you to the water, it's up to you to drink or continue to troll.
For the jackass AC below, I'm nowhere near liberal. Go look at my history of posts, even on this topic, where I was accused numerous times of being a "denier" (that term is still for assholes to use), but I've recently spent significant time reading up on the topic, and have come to the conclusion that there's no logical argument against AGW. If you think you have one, I'd love to hear it.
Yes, because 1 and 1 is eleven.
The problem here is that what's important isn't areas so much as volume. Please read and learn something.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
I'd like to suggest that you were the obtuse one here. Maybe you'd appreciate more free robo calls, junk in your snail mailbox, etc., because while many (myself included) find this to be a minor annoyance, it's is still an annoyance.
If you dont know the basics about computers, you dont deserve to own one.
That's a pretty harsh way of looking at it. You can't even get through a public education these days w/o access to a computer. There a lot of senior citizens (my aunts and uncles in their 70s and 80s are all online), who just want to send email, and surf the web. Why the fuck should they have to know what swap space is?
Excellent. Thanks!
Interesting. I've received annual training on this, and never heard of any exemption except for national security purposes. The guide I just looked at also lists that as the only exemption.
Depends. The point is, it's not an apples to apples comparison. It's like claiming that Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire's home run records aren't a lie.
What many in the U.S. don't realize is that what we call bribery is SOP in some countries. Not that it makes it right, or legal, but it may be the only way for a company to do business there. I've witnessed this first hand in a couple places, with local government officials who would just not process paperwork unless you "tip" them.
Well stated. Maybe if I had taken more time to clarify my point, it would have helped my case. When someone says that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest, I'm going to consider the source, and at least do a little homework before buy some. When my mother had spinal surgery a week ago to have four vertebrae fused, all the decisions were left up to me. Am I qualified?...hell no, but I was able to spend enough time researching the surgery (there were options), surgeon, hospital, etc. to help determine what was in her best interest.
When evidence is provided, even if simply referenced, it can be poked, prodded, and validated or not. But I won't fall for an appeal to authority.
There was a similar article in fivethirtyeight.com just a couple days ago with regard to vitamins, and how many of the studies indicating that everyone should be taking a daily multi-vitamin have been improperly executed. And yet, everyone assumes we all should, or that it's "common sense", or that they'll take one just to be on the safe side.
For many years, it was a "good sounding theory" that peptic ulcers were caused by stress or spicy food. It was a consensus, with little evidence, until one man proved them all wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
For years, we were all told that eggs were good for you, then we were told that they're bad, and what do you suppose the consensus is now?
So, yes there are certainly many instances where we just have to go with the odds, and what the current conventional wisdom is. But, it also needs to be tempered by a knowledge of what the current state of research is in that area.
This is one of the many examples of why I don't care about consensus opinion. Show us evidence, or go away.
Understood...no blood, no foul. I've spent some time reading links that others have provided, and learning. Maybe it's just me, but I've always questioned authority, at least until I've seen enough evidence to trust a specific person. I'm also curious by nature, and the reading I've done so far has raised more questions, but that's just part of the learning process. I think some topics are important enough that the scientific community needs to take the effort to build public consensus as well. Otherwise you end up with situations like we see with vaccination rates dropping, and this. And certainly, some people like Hawking and Sagan for example, have been very successful at education the masses.
These were previously open international waters, so any nation coming along and claiming them needs to be challenged.
First time I've wanted to actually compliment Mickeysoft on something in years.
Yes, yes, you're clearly able to determine others intentions and unable to supply facts in response to a simple request. Others have succeeded, while you fail miserably. Feel free to continue to toss childish insults, and I'll continue on in search of those who actually know something. Thanks for playing.
I never said it was fake. I requested information, and a few good folks supplied some excellent sources that I've just started reading.
I'm only picking on your response (I've seen many similar when this has come up before) for convenience. I don't think you do the AGW cause any service with a sarcastic reply. Instead you turn people against it.
Complex ideas can almost always be explained in simpler terms. People don't necessarily need to understand every nuance, to get it.
Thank you!
A request for information is hardly a form of denial. You can continue to reply with snotty childish retorts or you can help educate those who would like to know more.
Thanks again for being a zealot. By doing this, you cause more people to ignore what you believe to be the truth. You could have simply responded with an appropriate answer. Instead you chose to go the typical snob route, and say you're not worthy...just trust them. Until that attitude changes, this field is going to continue to face the issue of "deniers".
I've been in very few situations where I've found that an expert was unable to explain something on a level that I could understand. Your claim that I'm "not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence" is elitist, and a sad statement if that's all that's available. You have no idea what I'm capable of, and the climate science community should be capable of putting out the equivalent of a "for Dummies" version of the material for the general public...I'm fully ca. There's nothing wrong with anyone trying to learn more, and understand the state of what is factual, theory, or conjecture.
To anyone else here who can point to good reading material, thanks in advance.