There is nothing wrong with being an ivory tower anything (or "foreigner"). The point is that anyone can call themselves a "scientist". Completely meaningless. Most the the people involved in this "research" weren't scientists of any sort.
"yes, at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research"
But that is the crux of the issue: why do you believe that? There is nothing in there that says these people are doing that at all. Is the the term "scientist" or "researcher" that makes you think this? It is just amusing to me how people just assume because someone calls themselves a "researcher" or "scientist" they are actually applying any logic. I am not sure why I am being marked as a "troll" either. It is a valid question: what makes someone a "scientist"?
I love how people use the word "scientists". It is a completely meaningless term which is supposed to engender feelings of respect. Are these people applying the scientific method to any of their research, or are they just a bunch of lifelong academics looking to avoid real work.
Dams are even worse. That is why when I hear the climate change zealots talking about clean energy from hydro power I get sick. Dams are NOT clean power. They do a huge amount of ecological damage. But I have realized that people really don't care about the environment - it is really just another political and financial tool to leverage against each other. Oh and that $60,000 Tesla you see driving around? It isn't doing a damn thing to help the environment.
Not necessarily stupid: just misled by developers and into homes that are relatively cheap. Some people would assume that it would be illegal to build homes on floodplains and the government would be looking out for their interests. As usual, the government didn't care. Developers bought the flood plain lands because they were cheap and put housing on it. Fortunately the government has finally started to wise up to the concept that allowing homes to be built on lands that have been flooding for hundreds of years might not be a good idea.
Exactly. This is the other fucking annoying set of stories we get regularly. These wildfires are (mostly) caused by PEOPLE. You don't need climate change to explain why having people enter and build in formerly forested areas is going to cause and increase in fires. You would think it would be common sense, but certain organizations keep pushing the narrative. It might get worse due to drier conditions (which might be caused by climate change), but that isn't the cause of the problem. It is like treating skin cancer with by treating the lesions on the skin with bandaids.
Who is denying the reality of climate change? My point is that the reason your flood plain or fucking beach house is flooding IS BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP THE WATER FROM ENTERING YOUR HOME. You drained the swamp, destroyed the wetlands. What the fuck you think is going to happen? No number of "carbon credits" is going to change it.
The poor and working class are also affected because they buy homes on flood plains because the land is cheaper. Developers aren't stupid. They aren't overpaying and they aren't around when the flooding starts. They drain the swamp and pocket the money and move on. But yeah, I guess it must be that seas are getting higher instead.
You are right. I am the first person to warn people that destroying wetlands is not a good idea. If only someone had warned us earlier and offered "wetland credits" like "carbon credits" this whole situation could have been avoided.
And that is exactly what happens - it has been happening in the US since the 1940s. And to make it even worse, people are building on flood plains, having their homes flood, and blaming it on "climate change". There is such a push to blame everything on climate change you have to wonder about the motivations.
Coastal homes are flooding because you have destroyed the buffer zones (marshlands/swamplands) that stopped the water from entering the area. What did you think would happen when you destroy the buffer zones for housing? It has nothing to do with climate change/whatever. But no one wants to address that issue, because there is no money in it.
Sorry, there are more important things than "security". The way they go about it is a threat to the entire Open Source ecosystem. And you don't need to post anonymously - we all know who you are.
No the real answer is a bunch of SJW like you and voted for people based on their gender. Pretty pathetic. Except for Ursula, the writing was pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I agree with their conclusions.So I don't know what you are talking about. Why can't you answer my question?
Why? That doesn't make any sense. Surely these people are now experts in what they just wrote about. Why call them "scientists"?
There is nothing wrong with being an ivory tower anything (or "foreigner"). The point is that anyone can call themselves a "scientist". Completely meaningless. Most the the people involved in this "research" weren't scientists of any sort.
"yes, at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research"
But that is the crux of the issue: why do you believe that? There is nothing in there that says these people are doing that at all. Is the the term "scientist" or "researcher" that makes you think this? It is just amusing to me how people just assume because someone calls themselves a "researcher" or "scientist" they are actually applying any logic. I am not sure why I am being marked as a "troll" either. It is a valid question: what makes someone a "scientist"?
I love how people use the word "scientists". It is a completely meaningless term which is supposed to engender feelings of respect. Are these people applying the scientific method to any of their research, or are they just a bunch of lifelong academics looking to avoid real work.
VR is a joke. You will never solve the motion sickness problem. AR has potential. VR is dead.
Oh you mean Miami Florida WHICH USED TO BE SURROUNDED by marshlands, and was a swamp before they drained it? That Miami? So fucking stupid.
Dams are even worse. That is why when I hear the climate change zealots talking about clean energy from hydro power I get sick. Dams are NOT clean power. They do a huge amount of ecological damage. But I have realized that people really don't care about the environment - it is really just another political and financial tool to leverage against each other. Oh and that $60,000 Tesla you see driving around? It isn't doing a damn thing to help the environment.
Not necessarily stupid: just misled by developers and into homes that are relatively cheap. Some people would assume that it would be illegal to build homes on floodplains and the government would be looking out for their interests. As usual, the government didn't care. Developers bought the flood plain lands because they were cheap and put housing on it. Fortunately the government has finally started to wise up to the concept that allowing homes to be built on lands that have been flooding for hundreds of years might not be a good idea.
Exactly. This is the other fucking annoying set of stories we get regularly. These wildfires are (mostly) caused by PEOPLE. You don't need climate change to explain why having people enter and build in formerly forested areas is going to cause and increase in fires. You would think it would be common sense, but certain organizations keep pushing the narrative. It might get worse due to drier conditions (which might be caused by climate change), but that isn't the cause of the problem. It is like treating skin cancer with by treating the lesions on the skin with bandaids.
Who is denying the reality of climate change? My point is that the reason your flood plain or fucking beach house is flooding IS BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP THE WATER FROM ENTERING YOUR HOME. You drained the swamp, destroyed the wetlands. What the fuck you think is going to happen? No number of "carbon credits" is going to change it.
The poor and working class are also affected because they buy homes on flood plains because the land is cheaper. Developers aren't stupid. They aren't overpaying and they aren't around when the flooding starts. They drain the swamp and pocket the money and move on. But yeah, I guess it must be that seas are getting higher instead.
You are right. I am the first person to warn people that destroying wetlands is not a good idea. If only someone had warned us earlier and offered "wetland credits" like "carbon credits" this whole situation could have been avoided.
And that is exactly what happens - it has been happening in the US since the 1940s. And to make it even worse, people are building on flood plains, having their homes flood, and blaming it on "climate change". There is such a push to blame everything on climate change you have to wonder about the motivations.
Coastal homes are flooding because you have destroyed the buffer zones (marshlands/swamplands) that stopped the water from entering the area. What did you think would happen when you destroy the buffer zones for housing? It has nothing to do with climate change/whatever. But no one wants to address that issue, because there is no money in it.
Yeah, because no companies got away with skirting regulations until 2010. It is a totally new thing.
Exactly. But this is what passes for academic research.
I'm just kidding. I am sure AmiMojo was interested in the topic because of the literature.
Sorry, there are more important things than "security". The way they go about it is a threat to the entire Open Source ecosystem. And you don't need to post anonymously - we all know who you are.
No the real answer is a bunch of SJW like you and voted for people based on their gender. Pretty pathetic. Except for Ursula, the writing was pathetic.
I don't think so. I think they are being oppressed. They need to be encouraged to participate.
OK. COMRADE. You figured it out, Comrade. So smart, COMRADE.
Found another one.
I guess the "Comrade" wasn't a hint? Wow, I guess I found the stupid people.
If you read the two short stories you will realize it is more like "Hugh Mistake".