Explain to me how you and I both stating that their models are wrong and not appropriate for prediction makes me wrong and you right. The use of past behavior to predict future behavior is by it's very definition extrapolation, and also the only way we can try to predict the future behavior of any phenomena.
I've never argued that CO2 doesn't absorb more energy than other gasses, potentially increasing the global temp. What I have said is that there is an entire movement based around using obviously flawed, and inaccurate (or incomplete if you prefer) models to dictate policy. There is a huge push to decrease CO2 on a global scale. This is only justifiable if it can be shown reliably, that increases in CO2 are actually causing global warming, and not tied to it in some other way. If CO2 increases are only marginally related to global temp, because of other mitigating factors decreasing the effect of CO2, or the existence of other factors (ie solar output at all wavelengths, vulcanism, etc.), or global temp was increasing all along and we've only recently begun to see the larger trend, then minimizing CO2 emissions is a waste of time and effort.
like yourself will be unable to observe significant changes in their local climate
I don't base my opinions on my local climate, but on the predictions I've been hearing since elementary school telling me that by 2000 most of florida's coast would be under water. That lack of predictive accuracy made me a skeptic.
In our case it is caused by increases in CO2.
I am not convinced of this because the evidence is inconsistent with the predictions made by the models. I don't argue that the models we have are the best available at the point. However, that doesn't make them ready for prime time (ie making global policy decisions, shooting our energy infrastructure in the foot, etc.)
A very reasonable stance. My questions to you are:
1. If the researchers are wrong as to the cause, is it not possible that they are wrong as to the mechanism as well?
2. If CO2 from human activity isn't to blame, what are the odds that CO2 is even the culprit?
3. If CO2 isn't the culprit, what is and why are we wasting our time controlling, caping, and trading CO2 emissions?
This is what I find so irritating about the lack of debate. The environment is unimaginably complicated. What are the odds that controlling the emission of a single gas will control global temperature?
Just because CO2 can increase the temperature inside of a very simplified model under fixed conditions, does not PROVE that the link between CO2 and global temperature is causational. As I said before, All models are wrong but some models are useful. There exists a lot of work to be done between proving that a theorized mechanism is possible and that the mechanism is valid enough to be called a fact.
The burden of proof is on the researchers creating the model and IMO they've only done a small portion of the work necessary and decided to claim victory without finishing.
I can't speak for leereyno, but my skepticism means I'm not sure that there is anything we can do to effect climate change.
If climate change is real, but it isn't driven by human activity, then human activity probably can't be used to counter it. If CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming, then reducing CO2 emissions will not stop it. Don't you see how important a distinction that is?
It would mean that we are wasting time, money, and resources chasing a red herring, instead of figuring out what we need to do adapt to the environmental conditions that are coming. I don't know that my skepticism is well placed, but the shrill screaming of those on the other side when I ask questions, makes me think I might be right. It also makes me continue to ask questions since the screaming is almost never a helpful answer.
All kinds of stuff gets dumped in the environment that we could do without.
Questioning the validity of the models used to support the "Humans are the primary cause of global warmig", or even the "global warming is happening" movements, doesn't in any way mean that someone is in favor of environmental pollution. Separate the two in you mind and you'll be able to follow the discussion a lot better
I can't think of a single person I know that is against cleaning up the environment and preventing further pollution! However, that doesn't mean everyone supports the gutting of our economy in favor of less efficient and more expensive methods of energy production.
I like to consider myself an environmentalist. All of the research I've done in my 6 years of grad school have had, at least the potential for reducing the environmental impact of animal production.
However, that doesn't mean I ascribe to the kind of Group Think that removes my ability to call "BULLSHIT" when I see poorly validated models trotted out and presented as though they were the be all/end all of climate predictiom. The truly annoying thing is that these models are being revised every year because they are wrong just as often as they are right.
I keep seeing the year 2000 trotted out as some artificial dividing line. Please don't tell me that all of the global warming data is based on a data set with only 9 data points!
does this model you've seen consider more wavelenths than the visible?
I found a web site of unverifiable credibility, that claimed most papers that purportedly show the sun to not be a major player in global temp changes only focused on the solar output of visible light (which is relatively, and amazingly consistent), and ignored both the shorter and longer wavelenghts of light.
it indicates that the connection between CO2 and Global average temperature may be correlational and not causational. Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.
I don't pretend to know the Truth about global warming, but I am damn sure that most of the people claiming they do, are talking out of their collective asses.
We have not been directly recording global temperatures for long enough to draw any conclusions about global cycles that extend into the centuries and millennia. Hence the use of indirect measurements such as polar ice cores and other approaches. The problem is that indicrect measures are not as accurrate as direct measures, and are all dependent upon the validity of the models they are based on.
All models are wrong, but some are useful. That's the first think I learned in my statistics courses when we discussed modeling. All the evidence I've seen shows that the models that have been developed to explain our direct measurements of the environment have very poor predictive value when trying to predict wheather paterns we've already seen, and yet the acolytes of the Holy Church of Human Caused Global Warming (now climate change because global temperatures haven't changed in the last couple of years) seem to simply ignore this.
Is global climate change a concern? YES! Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Not in my opinion! Is it the fault of humanity? Quite frankly, we can't know becuase the models are so bad!
The school is definitely responsible for what the students are allowed to view and use while at school, especially during normal school hours. Conveniently enough, you control the internet access when the students are on school property so some simple web filtering (including all the proxy servers you can find) should do the trick for the majority of the time that the school has any responsibility (liability).
Because the school owns the computers, there is a fair argument for the school exerting some control over the childrens browsing habits at home. However, without an internet connection, most likely provided by the childrens parents, there is nothing for you to really control. If my child were to receive a "free" computer from school the same rules would apply to the use of that machine as I have for the ones at home.
1. No use of the computer in any room other than the main living areas. 2. Use of a computer is a privledge and I can take it away whenever I want. 3. I will be allowed access to browsing records and any folder on the machine whenever I choose. I will routinely check on things, but unless given a reason I won't get too invasive. 4. Any attempts at hiding folders, ecrypted drives, etc will result in very harsh punishment. Bare minimum, I take away the use of the computer, assign extra chores, remove other privleges, etc.
I may sound like an authoritarian @$$Hole, but it's my house and my rules. Obviously as the children get older and proove that they know how to make intelligent decisions, I'll lighten up on the restrictions and increase the seriousness of the infraction needed to bring down harsh punishment. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the school periodically checks to make sure that the child isn't installing malware, and is trying to keep the computer use at school on task it's my responsibility to control what my child does at home. Even if it is with school resources.
Any attempt to use a model to describe a complex situation is wrong, and only as accurate as the assumptions made by the researchers. The authors of this research made a fair amount of assumptions that are obvious judgement calls that invalidate the model if any one of them are shown to be innacurate. This paper looks to me to be an attempt to justify ones own opinions by the use of modeling.
Currently four hundred thousand plus homes are without electricity in massachusetts, slightly more in eastern NY and even more in NH. All of these states have exposed, hanging powerlines. That's the reason they are without power, becuase an ice storm caused a bunch of tree's and powerlines to fall down disconnectig a huge swath of the country.
I don't know where you are from, but where I'm from (Western MA) power lines are suspended from telephone poles or high tension lines and very succeptible to ice storms. It's too expensive to try and bury the power lines in western MA becuase of the mountains and the soil type. It's much cheaper to run the lines over the mountains, than through them or even just under the surface.
It sounds to me like your old employer used a different method. That makes them two different, patentable approaches to the same problem. Perfectly acceptable to any patent office. You don't patent what you did, but how you did it. Look at the hundreds of patents for mouse traps.
It is apparent that you have never actually bothered to use one of the touchpad's in question. The whole pad is one physical button. It can be configured to act as a single button like the one present on all Mac portables, or to behave like the mighty mouse where the Left and Right sides are treated like separate buttons.
It's also obvious that if you've ever used an apple portable, you've never bothered to look at the preference pane for configuring the pointer (trackpad or mouse). Their is a checkbox present that says "Ignore accidental trackpad input" that works flawlessly. There is also a checkbox that says "Ignore trackpad when mouse is present"
Please, if you've never actually used a piece of equipment, don't give your ignorant opinion on it. It'd be like me giving you my opinion of Halo 3. Never played the game so have no worth while input on the topic.
I'm in the Animal Sciences. It's part of the school of Agriculture. I've got as much biology under my belt as most bio major's (undergrad at least).
I agree that location plays a large role. The ANSC department at UMass didn't appear to be as religious, or at least less vocal/open about religious beliefs.
Another part is probably where the majority of those in the field hail from originally. while the student body is less and less likely to be from a farm, the faculty are still primarily those that grew up exposed to agriculture (on a farm or surrounded by them).
Like most extreme interpretations of anything, (religion, eugenics, etc.) there exist a vocal majority that confuse the intelligent but inattentive that exist within their community. I'm a research scientist in the US at Purdue University, and MOST of the faculty and graduate students in my department are devoutly religious. Talk about activities done with their church groups and invitations to visit their church are fairly common, especially if you are a new student or recent hire.
As a transplant from a more urban area of the US (Massachusetts), my personal theory is that the Atheistic scientists in the more urban centers tend to provoke the religous with their talk of science disproving God somehow (The lack of evidence while convincing, is never proof in and of itself). This leads to a tendancy toward radicalization (or fundamentalism) among those who feel as though they are being attacked. Then the willfully ignorant become more promenant for predicting this persecution all along, and then we get things like the creationist museum that recently opened.
Maybe the religious shot first, probably depends on who you ask, But I hold those that intentionally bait the religious with indifensible scientific stances to be as responsible for the present situation as the most vocal of the religous fundamentalists that are unwilling to accept any science that disagrees with stories originally told before the advent of heliocentricity. Religion and science are two different fields with two different goals. Science asks "HOW" and religion asks "WHY". Anyone attempting to use one to inappropriately draw conclusions within the others bailiwick are just full of shit.
I'm in a similar boat with comcast. They keep charging me a rental fee for a modem that I PURCHASED 3 years ago. Every time I call they say that the office capable of checking the MAC ID against a list of their own to verify that it's mine and not theirs is closed and that they'll get back to me by the end of the next business day. Well it's been about a month now, another bill has arrived with the rental fee, and I'm still having zero luck getting ahold of anyone to address the issue.
My only recourse now is to be the biggest A-Hole I can to get the attention of Higher-Up's, or cancel my service and switch to DSL for an extra $30/month.
I've had similar problems with my credit card company trying to double my APR despite my reducing my overall balance, & never missing a payment with them or anyone else. Acted like a total jerk on the phone at it was taken care of with 15min. of my becoming a jerk.
Being an a$$ may not be good karma, but it is more effective than being nice and taking it up the tail pipe.
I agree that someday Macs will have to deal with real, self-propagating, platform targeted viruses. However, the incessant "Comming Soon!" chant coming from the security groups (read antivirus peddlers) is just noise at this point.
I'll install a virus scanner once I'm reasonably sure that a self propagating virus that affects mac's is in the wild. Until then I have better things to do with my CPU cycles. I have faith in my own browsing habits that I'm not going to get naild by one of the handful of trojans that target Macs (I only know of 3).
I'm also going to feel free to brag about not needing to run a virus scanner, or deal with any viruses as long as they continue to be "Comming Soon!" I don't care what the reasons are (BSD, Market Share, etc.) my bragging will still be acurate and a valid reason to at least consider the mac platform.
While this statement is commonly repeated here and elseware on the web, it indicates a huge hole in most peoples understanding of what a human really is. We aren't sheep. However, sheep, humans, cattle, pigs, etc are social mamals. We set up complex social heirarchy's which give greater, or lesser weight to the actions of individuals within the greater population.
The evolutionary biologist might explain this as a way of encouraging those with better mixes of genes, greater access to resources and potentially, greater opportunities for reproduction. I'm sure it's not a premeditated as it sounds, but that doesn't make the end result any less real. Those who play the game better, succeed more often (on average), and that success often involves the cooperation (conciously given or not) of others in facilitating that success.
That we still do this doesn't degrade our humanity. However, our awareness of this helps us to potentially filter out what is preprogamed biology and what is of genuine merit.
I wonder how many/. readers think of themselves as being a member of the "Merit" group instead of a member of the "Social" group because they (mistakenly?) believe that they aren't effected by hit counters since they don't consciously pay attention to them.
Taking it one step further, I wonder how many of the group above use that as personal validation that their opinions are "Correct" and everyone elses are "Wrong".
I gave my advisor as an example, but the majority of the Professors at my University are religious to varying degree's. My near atheism places me firmly in the minority. Probably a result of geography (I live in the bible belt), but that doesn't make anything you said less bigoted.
P.S. You obviously don't understand the definition of the law of averages very well if you seriously believe that it somehow justifies pre-judging people based on religion (or gender, race, height, weight, etc.).
P.P.S. How does your bigotry square with the ideals put forward in your sig, unless you are not a member of the New "new left" you are describing.
Everyone seemed to think so when Bush was proposing an increase in support for things like Peace Corps and AmeriCorps during his first administration. He brought it up during the state of the union address in 01 or 02 and he got beat up in the news for it.
Sucks when the shoes on the other foot doesn't it. Now that the Dems have a guy in the white house you'll see the usual characters coming out of the woodwork to do Obama over like they do every president. I don't believe Obama will fare as poorly as Bush has, but it'll happen none-the-less.
I'm just shy of an atheist, but some of the most impressive science I've seen was performed by the devoutly religious. My PhD advisor goes to church every sunday and his family doesn't exchange gifts on Xmas because he believes that it takes the focus off of christ's birth. He's also one of the most prolific publishers of genuinely novel research in my field. Being religious doesn't necessarily make one a "fundi creationist neo-con".
You have a problem with FatherofONe's post, then keep your attack focused on the subject at hand. I'm not defending his post, just pointing out how ignroant and bigoted your response is.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me how you and I both stating that their models are wrong and not appropriate for prediction makes me wrong and you right. The use of past behavior to predict future behavior is by it's very definition extrapolation, and also the only way we can try to predict the future behavior of any phenomena.
I've never argued that CO2 doesn't absorb more energy than other gasses, potentially increasing the global temp. What I have said is that there is an entire movement based around using obviously flawed, and inaccurate (or incomplete if you prefer) models to dictate policy. There is a huge push to decrease CO2 on a global scale. This is only justifiable if it can be shown reliably, that increases in CO2 are actually causing global warming, and not tied to it in some other way. If CO2 increases are only marginally related to global temp, because of other mitigating factors decreasing the effect of CO2, or the existence of other factors (ie solar output at all wavelengths, vulcanism, etc.), or global temp was increasing all along and we've only recently begun to see the larger trend, then minimizing CO2 emissions is a waste of time and effort.
like yourself will be unable to observe significant changes in their local climate
I don't base my opinions on my local climate, but on the predictions I've been hearing since elementary school telling me that by 2000 most of florida's coast would be under water. That lack of predictive accuracy made me a skeptic.
In our case it is caused by increases in CO2.
I am not convinced of this because the evidence is inconsistent with the predictions made by the models. I don't argue that the models we have are the best available at the point. However, that doesn't make them ready for prime time (ie making global policy decisions, shooting our energy infrastructure in the foot, etc.)
A very reasonable stance. My questions to you are:
1. If the researchers are wrong as to the cause, is it not possible that they are wrong as to the mechanism as well?
2. If CO2 from human activity isn't to blame, what are the odds that CO2 is even the culprit?
3. If CO2 isn't the culprit, what is and why are we wasting our time controlling, caping, and trading CO2 emissions?
This is what I find so irritating about the lack of debate. The environment is unimaginably complicated. What are the odds that controlling the emission of a single gas will control global temperature?
Just because CO2 can increase the temperature inside of a very simplified model under fixed conditions, does not PROVE that the link between CO2 and global temperature is causational. As I said before, All models are wrong but some models are useful. There exists a lot of work to be done between proving that a theorized mechanism is possible and that the mechanism is valid enough to be called a fact.
The burden of proof is on the researchers creating the model and IMO they've only done a small portion of the work necessary and decided to claim victory without finishing.
I can't speak for leereyno, but my skepticism means I'm not sure that there is anything we can do to effect climate change.
If climate change is real, but it isn't driven by human activity, then human activity probably can't be used to counter it. If CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming, then reducing CO2 emissions will not stop it. Don't you see how important a distinction that is?
It would mean that we are wasting time, money, and resources chasing a red herring, instead of figuring out what we need to do adapt to the environmental conditions that are coming. I don't know that my skepticism is well placed, but the shrill screaming of those on the other side when I ask questions, makes me think I might be right. It also makes me continue to ask questions since the screaming is almost never a helpful answer.
All kinds of stuff gets dumped in the environment that we could do without.
Questioning the validity of the models used to support the "Humans are the primary cause of global warmig", or even the "global warming is happening" movements, doesn't in any way mean that someone is in favor of environmental pollution. Separate the two in you mind and you'll be able to follow the discussion a lot better
I can't think of a single person I know that is against cleaning up the environment and preventing further pollution! However, that doesn't mean everyone supports the gutting of our economy in favor of less efficient and more expensive methods of energy production.
I like to consider myself an environmentalist. All of the research I've done in my 6 years of grad school have had, at least the potential for reducing the environmental impact of animal production.
However, that doesn't mean I ascribe to the kind of Group Think that removes my ability to call "BULLSHIT" when I see poorly validated models trotted out and presented as though they were the be all/end all of climate predictiom. The truly annoying thing is that these models are being revised every year because they are wrong just as often as they are right.
I keep seeing the year 2000 trotted out as some artificial dividing line. Please don't tell me that all of the global warming data is based on a data set with only 9 data points!
does this model you've seen consider more wavelenths than the visible?
I found a web site of unverifiable credibility, that claimed most papers that purportedly show the sun to not be a major player in global temp changes only focused on the solar output of visible light (which is relatively, and amazingly consistent), and ignored both the shorter and longer wavelenghts of light.
it indicates that the connection between CO2 and Global average temperature may be correlational and not causational. Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.
I don't pretend to know the Truth about global warming, but I am damn sure that most of the people claiming they do, are talking out of their collective asses.
We have not been directly recording global temperatures for long enough to draw any conclusions about global cycles that extend into the centuries and millennia. Hence the use of indirect measurements such as polar ice cores and other approaches. The problem is that indicrect measures are not as accurrate as direct measures, and are all dependent upon the validity of the models they are based on.
All models are wrong, but some are useful. That's the first think I learned in my statistics courses when we discussed modeling. All the evidence I've seen shows that the models that have been developed to explain our direct measurements of the environment have very poor predictive value when trying to predict wheather paterns we've already seen, and yet the acolytes of the Holy Church of Human Caused Global Warming (now climate change because global temperatures haven't changed in the last couple of years) seem to simply ignore this.
Is global climate change a concern? YES!
Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Not in my opinion!
Is it the fault of humanity? Quite frankly, we can't know becuase the models are so bad!
The school is definitely responsible for what the students are allowed to view and use while at school, especially during normal school hours. Conveniently enough, you control the internet access when the students are on school property so some simple web filtering (including all the proxy servers you can find) should do the trick for the majority of the time that the school has any responsibility (liability).
Because the school owns the computers, there is a fair argument for the school exerting some control over the childrens browsing habits at home. However, without an internet connection, most likely provided by the childrens parents, there is nothing for you to really control. If my child were to receive a "free" computer from school the same rules would apply to the use of that machine as I have for the ones at home.
1. No use of the computer in any room other than the main living areas.
2. Use of a computer is a privledge and I can take it away whenever I want.
3. I will be allowed access to browsing records and any folder on the machine whenever I choose. I will routinely check on things, but unless given a reason I won't get too invasive.
4. Any attempts at hiding folders, ecrypted drives, etc will result in very harsh punishment. Bare minimum, I take away the use of the computer, assign extra chores, remove other privleges, etc.
I may sound like an authoritarian @$$Hole, but it's my house and my rules. Obviously as the children get older and proove that they know how to make intelligent decisions, I'll lighten up on the restrictions and increase the seriousness of the infraction needed to bring down harsh punishment. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the school periodically checks to make sure that the child isn't installing malware, and is trying to keep the computer use at school on task it's my responsibility to control what my child does at home. Even if it is with school resources.
Any attempt to use a model to describe a complex situation is wrong, and only as accurate as the assumptions made by the researchers. The authors of this research made a fair amount of assumptions that are obvious judgement calls that invalidate the model if any one of them are shown to be innacurate. This paper looks to me to be an attempt to justify ones own opinions by the use of modeling.
Currently four hundred thousand plus homes are without electricity in massachusetts, slightly more in eastern NY and even more in NH. All of these states have exposed, hanging powerlines. That's the reason they are without power, becuase an ice storm caused a bunch of tree's and powerlines to fall down disconnectig a huge swath of the country.
I don't know where you are from, but where I'm from (Western MA) power lines are suspended from telephone poles or high tension lines and very succeptible to ice storms. It's too expensive to try and bury the power lines in western MA becuase of the mountains and the soil type. It's much cheaper to run the lines over the mountains, than through them or even just under the surface.
It sounds to me like your old employer used a different method. That makes them two different, patentable approaches to the same problem. Perfectly acceptable to any patent office. You don't patent what you did, but how you did it. Look at the hundreds of patents for mouse traps.
It is apparent that you have never actually bothered to use one of the touchpad's in question. The whole pad is one physical button. It can be configured to act as a single button like the one present on all Mac portables, or to behave like the mighty mouse where the Left and Right sides are treated like separate buttons.
It's also obvious that if you've ever used an apple portable, you've never bothered to look at the preference pane for configuring the pointer (trackpad or mouse). Their is a checkbox present that says "Ignore accidental trackpad input" that works flawlessly. There is also a checkbox that says "Ignore trackpad when mouse is present"
Please, if you've never actually used a piece of equipment, don't give your ignorant opinion on it. It'd be like me giving you my opinion of Halo 3. Never played the game so have no worth while input on the topic.
I'm in the Animal Sciences. It's part of the school of Agriculture. I've got as much biology under my belt as most bio major's (undergrad at least).
I agree that location plays a large role. The ANSC department at UMass didn't appear to be as religious, or at least less vocal/open about religious beliefs.
Another part is probably where the majority of those in the field hail from originally. while the student body is less and less likely to be from a farm, the faculty are still primarily those that grew up exposed to agriculture (on a farm or surrounded by them).
Like most extreme interpretations of anything, (religion, eugenics, etc.) there exist a vocal majority that confuse the intelligent but inattentive that exist within their community. I'm a research scientist in the US at Purdue University, and MOST of the faculty and graduate students in my department are devoutly religious. Talk about activities done with their church groups and invitations to visit their church are fairly common, especially if you are a new student or recent hire.
As a transplant from a more urban area of the US (Massachusetts), my personal theory is that the Atheistic scientists in the more urban centers tend to provoke the religous with their talk of science disproving God somehow (The lack of evidence while convincing, is never proof in and of itself). This leads to a tendancy toward radicalization (or fundamentalism) among those who feel as though they are being attacked. Then the willfully ignorant become more promenant for predicting this persecution all along, and then we get things like the creationist museum that recently opened.
Maybe the religious shot first, probably depends on who you ask, But I hold those that intentionally bait the religious with indifensible scientific stances to be as responsible for the present situation as the most vocal of the religous fundamentalists that are unwilling to accept any science that disagrees with stories originally told before the advent of heliocentricity. Religion and science are two different fields with two different goals. Science asks "HOW" and religion asks "WHY". Anyone attempting to use one to inappropriately draw conclusions within the others bailiwick are just full of shit.
I'm in a similar boat with comcast. They keep charging me a rental fee for a modem that I PURCHASED 3 years ago. Every time I call they say that the office capable of checking the MAC ID against a list of their own to verify that it's mine and not theirs is closed and that they'll get back to me by the end of the next business day. Well it's been about a month now, another bill has arrived with the rental fee, and I'm still having zero luck getting ahold of anyone to address the issue.
My only recourse now is to be the biggest A-Hole I can to get the attention of Higher-Up's, or cancel my service and switch to DSL for an extra $30/month.
I've had similar problems with my credit card company trying to double my APR despite my reducing my overall balance, & never missing a payment with them or anyone else. Acted like a total jerk on the phone at it was taken care of with 15min. of my becoming a jerk.
Being an a$$ may not be good karma, but it is more effective than being nice and taking it up the tail pipe.
I agree that someday Macs will have to deal with real, self-propagating, platform targeted viruses. However, the incessant "Comming Soon!" chant coming from the security groups (read antivirus peddlers) is just noise at this point.
I'll install a virus scanner once I'm reasonably sure that a self propagating virus that affects mac's is in the wild. Until then I have better things to do with my CPU cycles. I have faith in my own browsing habits that I'm not going to get naild by one of the handful of trojans that target Macs (I only know of 3).
I'm also going to feel free to brag about not needing to run a virus scanner, or deal with any viruses as long as they continue to be "Comming Soon!" I don't care what the reasons are (BSD, Market Share, etc.) my bragging will still be acurate and a valid reason to at least consider the mac platform.
People tend to be sheep.
While this statement is commonly repeated here and elseware on the web, it indicates a huge hole in most peoples understanding of what a human really is. We aren't sheep. However, sheep, humans, cattle, pigs, etc are social mamals. We set up complex social heirarchy's which give greater, or lesser weight to the actions of individuals within the greater population.
The evolutionary biologist might explain this as a way of encouraging those with better mixes of genes, greater access to resources and potentially, greater opportunities for reproduction. I'm sure it's not a premeditated as it sounds, but that doesn't make the end result any less real. Those who play the game better, succeed more often (on average), and that success often involves the cooperation (conciously given or not) of others in facilitating that success.
That we still do this doesn't degrade our humanity. However, our awareness of this helps us to potentially filter out what is preprogamed biology and what is of genuine merit.
I wonder how many /. readers think of themselves as being a member of the "Merit" group instead of a member of the "Social" group because they (mistakenly?) believe that they aren't effected by hit counters since they don't consciously pay attention to them.
Taking it one step further, I wonder how many of the group above use that as personal validation that their opinions are "Correct" and everyone elses are "Wrong".
Have you noticed any increases in yields or decreases in input costs from this more expensive seed, or is this for the basic, no frills seeds?
I gave my advisor as an example, but the majority of the Professors at my University are religious to varying degree's. My near atheism places me firmly in the minority. Probably a result of geography (I live in the bible belt), but that doesn't make anything you said less bigoted.
P.S. You obviously don't understand the definition of the law of averages very well if you seriously believe that it somehow justifies pre-judging people based on religion (or gender, race, height, weight, etc.).
P.P.S. How does your bigotry square with the ideals put forward in your sig, unless you are not a member of the New "new left" you are describing.
Oh yeah, because now community service is evil?
Everyone seemed to think so when Bush was proposing an increase in support for things like Peace Corps and AmeriCorps during his first administration. He brought it up during the state of the union address in 01 or 02 and he got beat up in the news for it.
Sucks when the shoes on the other foot doesn't it. Now that the Dems have a guy in the white house you'll see the usual characters coming out of the woodwork to do Obama over like they do every president. I don't believe Obama will fare as poorly as Bush has, but it'll happen none-the-less.
I'm just shy of an atheist, but some of the most impressive science I've seen was performed by the devoutly religious. My PhD advisor goes to church every sunday and his family doesn't exchange gifts on Xmas because he believes that it takes the focus off of christ's birth. He's also one of the most prolific publishers of genuinely novel research in my field. Being religious doesn't necessarily make one a "fundi creationist neo-con".
You have a problem with FatherofONe's post, then keep your attack focused on the subject at hand. I'm not defending his post, just pointing out how ignroant and bigoted your response is.