The problem is those jammers block airwaves in other spaces, as depending on how they're configured, can create a shadow or simply leak all over the place. If you want no phones in your bar, put up a "no phones" sign, and ask phone users to leave. Simple, legal, and nowhere near as stupid.
English speakers changed the definition by misusing the word. English is a descriptive language, not prescriptive - there is no English Academy which sits down and works out which words to add or remove, and which to update. English is what we speak. If many people suddenly start using the word "umbrella" for "tomato", eventually the dictionary will state that "umbrella" can mean "tomato". This is one of the strengths of English - it can (and as you pointed out - does) change frequently, sometimes in strange and weird ways. That's what's given us a language with millions of words and a flexibility which lends itself rather well to creative and more mundane works.
All of that has absolutely nothing to do with a large employer strong-arming their employees into voting a particular way... You do realize that, right? You leaping off into some tirade against a particular party doesn't exactly demonstrate a cool, calm, rational mind at play...
Judging by the illogical nature of the website in your sig I doubt anyone should take anything you say without a rather large pinch of salt... I know you probably think of having that site as spreading the word of the lord, but it just makes you look a bit loopy to those of us who think god is made up, which makes everything you write in the vicinity of that link sound far less credible...
That's kind of the point people are trying to make when they talk about buggy whip manufacturers - the manufacturers complained when horses dwindled, yet society as a whole benefited, and the buggy whip manufacturers didn't all die out in the gutters lamenting their lost industry...
It's not really victim blaming. We all know we have really awesome freedom of speech in the west. We know this. Every day we spend on this Earth is a testament to that. We love it. It's really important to us. Now, what is the sane approach when a group of people vehemently don't want this? Is it to sit down and talk about it, or is it to push their buttons repeatedly, knowing that it will not cause those with problems with free speech to go "aah - I get it now! Awesome!", but merely cause those already upset to be more upset...
Is it victim blaming when you blame the child for poking the tiger with a stick? Serious question.
So you polled every single Muslim? What? You didn't? Then you are confusing your opinion with facts, something which will never help you win an argument, and definitely not help you live a meaningful, well-adjusted life. If you'd be bothered to read, you'd see that plenty of Muslims & small and large Islamic groups from the world over have condemned these attacks, ranging from governments to individual mosques, from mullahs to everyday people. You not being bothered to find this out does not make it untrue.
Look around at the tranquility you live in. Compare that to where many Muslims live. Comparing religion practiced in peaceful, well-off countries to one being practiced in countries being squeezed by war and politics (both internal and external), and you will quickly see that you are comparing apples with oranges. Look what happened in Northern Ireland - lots of pressure put on the Catholic population (reduced representation, arbitrary detention, discrimination in the job & housing market, less social support, etc.) was enough to force Christians to blow each other to shreds & gun each other down. Imagine if on top of that there were air strikes from Britain (or France, for example), and massive external pressures placed on their already weak representation and self-built ad hoc infrastructure by external governments (or corrupt internal governments), and you might see their desperation increase and their tactics become even more bloody. I'm not excusing terrorism - I think all violence is a failure, even if it's logically necessary - I just think if we gloss over the situation and claim it's simply because of "Religion X is not as advanced/caring/peaceful/happy/nice as Religion Y", we'll never get anywhere. Of course that means admitting where societies are failing people, which is not easy and sometimes not pleasant, but it has been demonstrated as being the only successful way to work towards peace.
The only thing which does not add up is your reading comprehension:) The OP stated there are two recorders, which record both the flight data & the cockpit voice. So no, both can be correct.
You appear to be arguing "folk science" against actual science. You claiming that CO2 is "soaked up" doesn't make it so, and indeed shows just how little of this you actually understand. You are part of the problem.
You are confusing a physical phenomenon and politicians attempting to limit its effect. That doesn't bode well for the rest of your post.
If you want to cry about models it just shows you aren't particularly up-to-date in your understanding of the field.
You have been contradicted many times before, so doing it again won't make a slight bit of difference - you've made up your mind, and didn't bother using rational thought in the process. Congratulations.
Yes, unless you can offer evidence to the contrary, and publish your method and findings in a reputable journal. That's how science works. Cherry-picking some numbers or misunderstanding findings do not constitute research, no matter how easy it is.
Global cooling: A fringe belief in the 1970s, and never the prevalent theory (but oft reported as such in media which seeks to lampoon actual scientific discovery) Global warming: The increased heat in the Earth's system (in the atmosphere, seas, etc.) Climate change: Changes to the climate, which might result from cooling or warming Climate disruption: The specific changes to the world's climate which cause disruption to the existing industries and societies
You playfully confusing these terms only shows your ignorance, and does not cast dispersion on the people who use them, or on the phenomena they describe.
They're not comparable, as one side is accepting the scientific method, and the other side is ignoring it. You calling those who believe the results of the scientific method (which gave you the computer you're looking at now) a church only shows your bias, and doesn't reflect poorly on them.
English is a descriptive language, not prescriptive, so if a word or suffix is used in a particular fashion by enough people, that becomes the meaning. You should probably get over that, as otherwise you'll have a very annoyed life. Language evolves, as do the meanings of the words we use.
The science is on the side of AGW. That's it. Challenge all you want, but when you start ignoring study after study and claim they're all wrong or in some sort of conspiracy, you are not engaging in science or skepticism but block-headed cynicism.
Precisely - question the science and listen to the answers given. That's where this 'denialism' ceases to be skepticism and becomes cynicism - if one asks a question in order to learn, then that is skepticism. To ask the question and then ignore the demonstrated answer, or claim it's nonsense (without evidence), is not skepticism, even if it uses the same words and starts off looking identical.
Slashdot Mirror
If you thumb your nose at evidence which has passed scientific rigor by everyone keen to debunk it, yes, you are in denial. That's the difference.
The problem is those jammers block airwaves in other spaces, as depending on how they're configured, can create a shadow or simply leak all over the place. If you want no phones in your bar, put up a "no phones" sign, and ask phone users to leave. Simple, legal, and nowhere near as stupid.
If your bank account can be drained by using only intercepted keyboard data, you are with the wrong bank.
HSR isn't what you seem to think it is. In many countries it's used by poor and rich alike, and makes a great deal of sense.
You should read more about communism, then you won't make such silly assertions about drills not being allowed under it.
Don't forget the waggle dance performed by bees to tell the hive where to forage...
English speakers changed the definition by misusing the word. English is a descriptive language, not prescriptive - there is no English Academy which sits down and works out which words to add or remove, and which to update. English is what we speak. If many people suddenly start using the word "umbrella" for "tomato", eventually the dictionary will state that "umbrella" can mean "tomato". This is one of the strengths of English - it can (and as you pointed out - does) change frequently, sometimes in strange and weird ways. That's what's given us a language with millions of words and a flexibility which lends itself rather well to creative and more mundane works.
All of that has absolutely nothing to do with a large employer strong-arming their employees into voting a particular way... You do realize that, right? You leaping off into some tirade against a particular party doesn't exactly demonstrate a cool, calm, rational mind at play...
Judging by the illogical nature of the website in your sig I doubt anyone should take anything you say without a rather large pinch of salt... I know you probably think of having that site as spreading the word of the lord, but it just makes you look a bit loopy to those of us who think god is made up, which makes everything you write in the vicinity of that link sound far less credible...
That's kind of the point people are trying to make when they talk about buggy whip manufacturers - the manufacturers complained when horses dwindled, yet society as a whole benefited, and the buggy whip manufacturers didn't all die out in the gutters lamenting their lost industry...
Gas == Petrol != Diesel. You and your buddies down on the farm don't change that :)
It sounds like you are confusing "HTTP/2 sounds scary" with "I don't know how to use Wireshark". Understandable, really.
It's not really victim blaming. We all know we have really awesome freedom of speech in the west. We know this. Every day we spend on this Earth is a testament to that. We love it. It's really important to us. Now, what is the sane approach when a group of people vehemently don't want this? Is it to sit down and talk about it, or is it to push their buttons repeatedly, knowing that it will not cause those with problems with free speech to go "aah - I get it now! Awesome!", but merely cause those already upset to be more upset...
Is it victim blaming when you blame the child for poking the tiger with a stick? Serious question.
So you polled every single Muslim? What? You didn't? Then you are confusing your opinion with facts, something which will never help you win an argument, and definitely not help you live a meaningful, well-adjusted life. If you'd be bothered to read, you'd see that plenty of Muslims & small and large Islamic groups from the world over have condemned these attacks, ranging from governments to individual mosques, from mullahs to everyday people. You not being bothered to find this out does not make it untrue.
Look around at the tranquility you live in. Compare that to where many Muslims live. Comparing religion practiced in peaceful, well-off countries to one being practiced in countries being squeezed by war and politics (both internal and external), and you will quickly see that you are comparing apples with oranges. Look what happened in Northern Ireland - lots of pressure put on the Catholic population (reduced representation, arbitrary detention, discrimination in the job & housing market, less social support, etc.) was enough to force Christians to blow each other to shreds & gun each other down. Imagine if on top of that there were air strikes from Britain (or France, for example), and massive external pressures placed on their already weak representation and self-built ad hoc infrastructure by external governments (or corrupt internal governments), and you might see their desperation increase and their tactics become even more bloody. I'm not excusing terrorism - I think all violence is a failure, even if it's logically necessary - I just think if we gloss over the situation and claim it's simply because of "Religion X is not as advanced/caring/peaceful/happy/nice as Religion Y", we'll never get anywhere. Of course that means admitting where societies are failing people, which is not easy and sometimes not pleasant, but it has been demonstrated as being the only successful way to work towards peace.
The only thing which does not add up is your reading comprehension :) The OP stated there are two recorders, which record both the flight data & the cockpit voice. So no, both can be correct.
You appear to be arguing "folk science" against actual science. You claiming that CO2 is "soaked up" doesn't make it so, and indeed shows just how little of this you actually understand. You are part of the problem.
You are confusing a physical phenomenon and politicians attempting to limit its effect. That doesn't bode well for the rest of your post.
If you want to cry about models it just shows you aren't particularly up-to-date in your understanding of the field.
You have been contradicted many times before, so doing it again won't make a slight bit of difference - you've made up your mind, and didn't bother using rational thought in the process. Congratulations.
Neither of those were birds. I don't know if you know this, but birds are not made from metal in factories...
Yes, unless you can offer evidence to the contrary, and publish your method and findings in a reputable journal. That's how science works. Cherry-picking some numbers or misunderstanding findings do not constitute research, no matter how easy it is.
Global cooling: A fringe belief in the 1970s, and never the prevalent theory (but oft reported as such in media which seeks to lampoon actual scientific discovery)
Global warming: The increased heat in the Earth's system (in the atmosphere, seas, etc.)
Climate change: Changes to the climate, which might result from cooling or warming
Climate disruption: The specific changes to the world's climate which cause disruption to the existing industries and societies
You playfully confusing these terms only shows your ignorance, and does not cast dispersion on the people who use them, or on the phenomena they describe.
They're not comparable, as one side is accepting the scientific method, and the other side is ignoring it. You calling those who believe the results of the scientific method (which gave you the computer you're looking at now) a church only shows your bias, and doesn't reflect poorly on them.
English is a descriptive language, not prescriptive, so if a word or suffix is used in a particular fashion by enough people, that becomes the meaning. You should probably get over that, as otherwise you'll have a very annoyed life. Language evolves, as do the meanings of the words we use.
Further reading
The science is on the side of AGW. That's it. Challenge all you want, but when you start ignoring study after study and claim they're all wrong or in some sort of conspiracy, you are not engaging in science or skepticism but block-headed cynicism.
Precisely - question the science and listen to the answers given. That's where this 'denialism' ceases to be skepticism and becomes cynicism - if one asks a question in order to learn, then that is skepticism. To ask the question and then ignore the demonstrated answer, or claim it's nonsense (without evidence), is not skepticism, even if it uses the same words and starts off looking identical.