But it wasn't a spelling error was it? You knew that the it was the incorrect plural version if you've spent any time here on slashdot, because there used to be regular flame wars about "viruses vs. virii".
"made by people who have nothing useful to post and feel like they need to make up for it by pointing out problems with other people's posts. Sad really."
So, is it ALSO sad when someone DEFENDS their bad spelling? Is that sad squared then?
And yet over a sufficient number of trials, "essentially impossible" becomes "certain."
If the chances are one in a hundred trillion trillion trillion, and you have 9 hundred trillion trillion trillion trials, it can be expected to happen nine times.
Essentially impossible is just a way for people to discount the improbable, because realistically, it's either impossible or not. There isn't any middle ground.
I was talking about the recent discovery that the models used to predict global warming didn't account for the earth releasing so much CO2, because we DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING.
By the way, that discovery occurred after the page you linked to was published.
So either do your fucking research, or stop involving yourself in a conversation that's way over your head.
Ok, how are you drawing conclusions, and even worse, being such a snide prick, when in your own post it says the 70% of scientists SURVEYED (and most of them weren't experts in the area, and so not qualified to comment, read a little about the things you cite in the future) PREDICT that our impact COULD cause an extinction event.
You're clearly not a scientist, because no self-respecting scientist would latch onto something like that as hard as you did.
"rise in sea level will start to inundate the homes of millions in every country."
With all due respect, I don't care all that much. Of course I'll get modded troll, but those people won't bother to read past that first sentence.
The truth is, global catastrophes can be GOOD for humanity. They often drive innovation, either from fear of a recurrence, or the inability to return to the previous situation.
If you're trying to save everyone while also trying to stop global warming, you are going to have to give something somewhere. There's no way to know that the consequences won't be worse than the cure.
My honest opinion is to be as conscientious as you can, within reason (and that is highly subjective) but to prepare for the certainty that humanity will endure some type of culling. From global warming or a global pandemic, or who knows what else. I really don't see a world filled to the brim with starving, infected people as something to strive for.
anything about this subject. Or when to keep your mouth closed because you're ignorant. Or that if you post something completely factually incorrect that you appear to be a fool.
Any of those are beeter than yours, take your pick.
"a Rutgers University microbiologist, about certain federal bio-terrorism labs: 'You have more security at a McDonald's than at some of these facilities.'"
Why would this dismay you? More importantly, why would it surprise you?
I doubt very seriously that the very low level, very unimportant labs devote much time to security.
Bio-terrorism lab isn't synonymous with "lab full of the most dangerous bugs on earth." Some of them just aren't that important.
Sounds like someone looking for something to get fired up about.
Slashdot Mirror
"What can a lay man do to make these politicians see the light?"
I have heard that shooting at the White House gets their attention. Maybe you could try that.
PS
Mr. FBI agents, I'm not suggesting it, so don't come kick my door down.
But it wasn't a spelling error was it? You knew that the it was the incorrect plural version if you've spent any time here on slashdot, because there used to be regular flame wars about "viruses vs. virii".
"made by people who have nothing useful to post and feel like they need to make up for it by pointing out problems with other people's posts. Sad really."
So, is it ALSO sad when someone DEFENDS their bad spelling? Is that sad squared then?
"And as was shown by Deep Impact, comets are really mostly porous ice"
All right, you tried this once, and I let it go. I had to call you on it the second time however.
The Depp Impact mission suggested just the opposite of what you say, that there was very little ice in that particular comet.
I don't know how you drew your conclusions, but they are incorrect.
And yet over a sufficient number of trials, "essentially impossible" becomes "certain."
If the chances are one in a hundred trillion trillion trillion, and you have 9 hundred trillion trillion trillion trials, it can be expected to happen nine times.
Essentially impossible is just a way for people to discount the improbable, because realistically, it's either impossible or not. There isn't any middle ground.
Meh. J-O-K-E. God what an uptight SOB...
"It is entirely possible that for some people it is of a sufficiently cool magnitude as to be self-evident as to why you'd go"
I agree, but we were talking about Burning Man, so I don't really see how that applies.
It went something like this
Acquaintance: "Hey I went to Burning Man last week!"
Me: "Why?"
Acquaintance: (stunned by my question) "It's BURNING MAN!"
It's so clear now.
I don't know, I'm drunk and it's pretty funny.
Because I can think of a lot of people I'd like to launch into space.
You should return your lungs then, because they also have CO2 as a byproduct. God, what a dumb thing to complain about
No, actually...
Probably because he doesn't believe her.
I have to say I don't either, and I think she's banking on the RIAA not being able to prove she did it rather than actually being innocent.
So, I'm going to be a bit of a prick and ask, where was the logical argumant there?
You're a moron aren't you?
I was talking about the recent discovery that the models used to predict global warming didn't account for the earth releasing so much CO2, because we DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING.
By the way, that discovery occurred after the page you linked to was published.
So either do your fucking research, or stop involving yourself in a conversation that's way over your head.
Wait, wait, wait, you post a link to a BLOG to discredit him?
Uh huh, you sure convinced me.
Ok, how are you drawing conclusions, and even worse, being such a snide prick, when in your own post it says the 70% of scientists SURVEYED (and most of them weren't experts in the area, and so not qualified to comment, read a little about the things you cite in the future) PREDICT that our impact COULD cause an extinction event.
You're clearly not a scientist, because no self-respecting scientist would latch onto something like that as hard as you did.
"OPINION: we better damn well do something about it"
You made a small spelling error. I fixed it for you.
"If there is something that we can do to slow it down or reverse it, then we should. Period."
Why? Isn't is JUST POSSIBLE that we could do more harm than good by trying?
Of course not! Humans only do EVIL!!!!!!! to mother earth.
I'd prefer a bit more understanding of the complexities of the climate before we go off half-cocked. Period.
"rise in sea level will start to inundate the homes of millions in every country."
With all due respect, I don't care all that much. Of course I'll get modded troll, but those people won't bother to read past that first sentence.
The truth is, global catastrophes can be GOOD for humanity. They often drive innovation, either from fear of a recurrence, or the inability to return to the previous situation.
If you're trying to save everyone while also trying to stop global warming, you are going to have to give something somewhere. There's no way to know that the consequences won't be worse than the cure.
My honest opinion is to be as conscientious as you can, within reason (and that is highly subjective) but to prepare for the certainty that humanity will endure some type of culling. From global warming or a global pandemic, or who knows what else. I really don't see a world filled to the brim with starving, infected people as something to strive for.
Now flame away.
But then they'll charge us 150 bucks to upgrade to the matrix 10.1 "meerkat"
"Err, I don't know..."
anything about this subject. Or
when to keep your mouth closed because you're ignorant. Or
that if you post something completely factually incorrect that you appear to be a fool.
Any of those are beeter than yours, take your pick.
That failed to account for how much CO2 is being released by the earth?
Or is it based on one of those other flawed model that failed to take something else into account, only we aren't sophisticated to detect it yet?
Seriously, wake me when you have some useful information.
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAH
Read the post after yours, then apologize for shooting your mouth off.
Oh, wait this is slashbot, you'll get modded +100 superhero.
Bon Jovi
'nuff said
"a Rutgers University microbiologist, about certain federal bio-terrorism labs: 'You have more security at a McDonald's than at some of these facilities.'"
Why would this dismay you? More importantly, why would it surprise you?
I doubt very seriously that the very low level, very unimportant labs devote much time to security.
Bio-terrorism lab isn't synonymous with "lab full of the most dangerous bugs on earth." Some of them just aren't that important.
Sounds like someone looking for something to get fired up about.