You're half-way there... We are indeed social animals, and we are inherently tuned to respond to talking. The problem with hearing a phone call is you only hear one half, so the natural rhythm of talking is disrupted to the point of being jarring, as there are long periods of silence in the middle of a conversation, and to make matters worse, said conversation is often louder than normal, due to the inherent shortcomings of microphones, speakers/headphones and voice transmission.
Instead of "conversation", think of "piece of music", and then figure out why it might be jarring to be exposed to only half of it, in sporadic sections.
Give it a rest. It's like claiming Einstein was just sandals. There is a bit more to it than just what it's running on, and it's that bit which makes it what it is.
Trees decompose, returning their CO2 into the atmosphere, so it's useless for permanent sequestration. The coal we use was created before bacteria evolved the ability to decompose trees, so it's not quite as simple as you seem to think...
You do realise that is only a thing in countries without socialised medicine, right? If you're going to complain, at least get it right, and try to not make yourself look foolish in the process. Better luck next time.
As the post below yours pointed out, the safety of the workers is not the only reason the speed limit is reduced.
If drivers such as yourself realised you don't know everything about the road condition, and realised that the way to defeat unfair or improper speed restrictions is in court and not on the road, roads would be safer. Just because you think the speed limit is incorrect doesn't make it so, and doesn't make it OK to speed.
So no, most drivers are not conscientious if they barrel through a construction zone 20mph over the limit, by very definition.
If you say so. Some people mis-using accurate language to further an agenda doesn't instantly mean all uses of accurate language are suddenly bad. Your lack of citations didn't really help your point.
Context is indeed king, but it's still debatable as to what characteristic "regular" was referring to. The poster could have simply chosen to use the correct, more-accurate word from the beginning and there wouldn't even be a need for this discussion.
Accuracy is free, not using it is an indicator of either laziness, ignorance, or malice. None of those are particularly worthy qualities to defend.
Then you are arguing for ISPs to charge for the amount of caching they employ for your connection. If not, you need to figure out a better argument, as that doesn't apply to bandwidth.
You have a point, but by your logic it would be deemed unsuitable to ridicule alchemists when a new element is discovered in a particle accelerator. The vast, vast majority of Cryptozoologists don't engage in science - they engage in wild speculation and pseudoscience. Plus I wouldn't call the southern Arctic or dense jungle "right under our noses":)
The accurate way would be "able-bodied". "Regular" is so vague it's devoid of all meaning. PC isn't about not offending, but about being accurate, so when someone says something, people know what they're talking about. You can get all offended that your ambiguous, nonsensical way of referring to things is incorrect, but don't blame the person correcting you, but your upbringing and laziness when it comes to knowing how to correctly converse with other people. Language is a protocol - you are free to ignore the protocol, but don't get confused when you cease to be able to communicate effectively with others, or when others point out your misuse.
Google Analytics lets the websites you use know which parts are working, which are not, which are visited and which are rarely used. It lets them know what browsers their users are using, letting them tailor their site to their users needs. It essentially lets the websites people use do what they're trying to do more effectively and efficiently. Ads pay for the websites. If no-one used Google Analytics or viewed ads, they would have fewer sites to use, and the sites they could use wouldn't be improved based on their users' habits. They would have confusing navigation, and the users' flow between pages of interest would be convoluted, making the sites harder to use.
If you want to go back to the internet of the late 90s, fine - but to be ignorant of the benefits is just being lazy.
Did you get hurt that people are saying US courts aren't good? Why did you feel to mention the 90% statistic (which you failed to cite) - it offers nothing to the discussion, and doesn't change the verdict. It just shows that you get really sad and upset when people say bad things about the US. You do realise that if everyone simply took solace that a broken thing is still better than something else, it will never get fixed?
This isn't even a question in more civilised countries. The very notion of health insurance, as practiced in the US, is disgusting. The US pays so much more for comparable a health service as other countries, and yet people still go bankrupt because they had the audacity to be born. Genius.
The future threats are not going to be gradual. The very fact you claim that as gospel truth shows you really don't have a good grasp of the science. If you fear people calling attention to a problem more than the problem itself, you are not operating in the realms of reason.
Earth has been very much warmer than it is now, but there were no humans around. If it gets hotter and keeps hotter, there also will be no, or at the very best far fewer, humans around. That's the problem.
"Sounds like". Wonderful science! Yes, human CO2 output is not a massive number, but the Earth has rather-well-balanced sinks to counter the natural CO2, so adding 5% (if that is the amount) is enough to tip the balance. If you have a scale balanced perfectly with two 1-tonne weights on either side, even a gram can cause it to swing. That's the whole point and I can't believe I had to explain it to you. Hint: If you think you can debunk an entire field of science by pulling some numbers out of your ass and using your intuition and opinion to judge their weight, you are doing it incredibly wrong. Whoever educated you should feel deeply ashamed, as they did a terrible, terrible job.
Every single shred of evidence points to them not being correct. If one of them was correct, and did not base their conclusion on opinion, they could win the Nobel prize in a heartbeat, and have endless funding for whatever science they want to work on for the rest of their lives. It's rather telling that they haven't.
And those changes in climate happened much slower than the current climate change. It's strange you accept those findings, but turn your nose up in disgust at the current explanation for climate change which was discovered using the exact same methodology. It's almost as if you use science when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't. That can't possibly be, though, as that would make you a terrible human being.
The vast majority of research points to it being less hospitable, and there is a lot of good evidence that with rising temperatures come more heating feedbacks which will accelerate the process. This is not some esoteric fact. You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't hear you la la la la" if you want, but future generations will look back on lazy attitudes such as yours with disgust, and quite rightly so. You are eschewing science because of intellectual laziness or straight-up deceit. Your stance is that of the anti-vaxxer, the young-Earth creationist, or the Mayan end-of-the-world lot. It's pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
You're half-way there... We are indeed social animals, and we are inherently tuned to respond to talking. The problem with hearing a phone call is you only hear one half, so the natural rhythm of talking is disrupted to the point of being jarring, as there are long periods of silence in the middle of a conversation, and to make matters worse, said conversation is often louder than normal, due to the inherent shortcomings of microphones, speakers/headphones and voice transmission.
Instead of "conversation", think of "piece of music", and then figure out why it might be jarring to be exposed to only half of it, in sporadic sections.
Give it a rest. It's like claiming Einstein was just sandals. There is a bit more to it than just what it's running on, and it's that bit which makes it what it is.
You seriously think they haven't thought of that? Why do you think yourself so intelligent and scientists so stupid? Is it mere arrogance?
Trees decompose, returning their CO2 into the atmosphere, so it's useless for permanent sequestration. The coal we use was created before bacteria evolved the ability to decompose trees, so it's not quite as simple as you seem to think...
You do realise that is only a thing in countries without socialised medicine, right? If you're going to complain, at least get it right, and try to not make yourself look foolish in the process. Better luck next time.
6 to 8 minutes at a red light? Where I live if it's over 30 seconds people would riot.
As the post below yours pointed out, the safety of the workers is not the only reason the speed limit is reduced.
If drivers such as yourself realised you don't know everything about the road condition, and realised that the way to defeat unfair or improper speed restrictions is in court and not on the road, roads would be safer. Just because you think the speed limit is incorrect doesn't make it so, and doesn't make it OK to speed.
So no, most drivers are not conscientious if they barrel through a construction zone 20mph over the limit, by very definition.
If you say so. Some people mis-using accurate language to further an agenda doesn't instantly mean all uses of accurate language are suddenly bad. Your lack of citations didn't really help your point.
Context is indeed king, but it's still debatable as to what characteristic "regular" was referring to. The poster could have simply chosen to use the correct, more-accurate word from the beginning and there wouldn't even be a need for this discussion.
Accuracy is free, not using it is an indicator of either laziness, ignorance, or malice. None of those are particularly worthy qualities to defend.
Then you are arguing for ISPs to charge for the amount of caching they employ for your connection. If not, you need to figure out a better argument, as that doesn't apply to bandwidth.
"Dicking the pragmas" - genius :) Thanks for that.
You have a point, but by your logic it would be deemed unsuitable to ridicule alchemists when a new element is discovered in a particle accelerator. The vast, vast majority of Cryptozoologists don't engage in science - they engage in wild speculation and pseudoscience. Plus I wouldn't call the southern Arctic or dense jungle "right under our noses" :)
The accurate way would be "able-bodied". "Regular" is so vague it's devoid of all meaning. PC isn't about not offending, but about being accurate, so when someone says something, people know what they're talking about. You can get all offended that your ambiguous, nonsensical way of referring to things is incorrect, but don't blame the person correcting you, but your upbringing and laziness when it comes to knowing how to correctly converse with other people. Language is a protocol - you are free to ignore the protocol, but don't get confused when you cease to be able to communicate effectively with others, or when others point out your misuse.
Google Analytics lets the websites you use know which parts are working, which are not, which are visited and which are rarely used. It lets them know what browsers their users are using, letting them tailor their site to their users needs. It essentially lets the websites people use do what they're trying to do more effectively and efficiently. Ads pay for the websites. If no-one used Google Analytics or viewed ads, they would have fewer sites to use, and the sites they could use wouldn't be improved based on their users' habits. They would have confusing navigation, and the users' flow between pages of interest would be convoluted, making the sites harder to use.
If you want to go back to the internet of the late 90s, fine - but to be ignorant of the benefits is just being lazy.
Slippery slope fallacy is slippery!
Did you get hurt that people are saying US courts aren't good? Why did you feel to mention the 90% statistic (which you failed to cite) - it offers nothing to the discussion, and doesn't change the verdict. It just shows that you get really sad and upset when people say bad things about the US. You do realise that if everyone simply took solace that a broken thing is still better than something else, it will never get fixed?
This isn't even a question in more civilised countries. The very notion of health insurance, as practiced in the US, is disgusting. The US pays so much more for comparable a health service as other countries, and yet people still go bankrupt because they had the audacity to be born. Genius.
You're honestly comparing health care to an xbox? I wonder why people don't take you seriously...
The future threats are not going to be gradual. The very fact you claim that as gospel truth shows you really don't have a good grasp of the science. If you fear people calling attention to a problem more than the problem itself, you are not operating in the realms of reason.
Earth has been very much warmer than it is now, but there were no humans around. If it gets hotter and keeps hotter, there also will be no, or at the very best far fewer, humans around. That's the problem.
"Sounds like". Wonderful science! Yes, human CO2 output is not a massive number, but the Earth has rather-well-balanced sinks to counter the natural CO2, so adding 5% (if that is the amount) is enough to tip the balance. If you have a scale balanced perfectly with two 1-tonne weights on either side, even a gram can cause it to swing. That's the whole point and I can't believe I had to explain it to you. Hint: If you think you can debunk an entire field of science by pulling some numbers out of your ass and using your intuition and opinion to judge their weight, you are doing it incredibly wrong. Whoever educated you should feel deeply ashamed, as they did a terrible, terrible job.
Every single shred of evidence points to them not being correct. If one of them was correct, and did not base their conclusion on opinion, they could win the Nobel prize in a heartbeat, and have endless funding for whatever science they want to work on for the rest of their lives. It's rather telling that they haven't.
By your logic a soldier in a trench knows more about the progress of an entire war than the generals... Really?
And those changes in climate happened much slower than the current climate change. It's strange you accept those findings, but turn your nose up in disgust at the current explanation for climate change which was discovered using the exact same methodology. It's almost as if you use science when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't. That can't possibly be, though, as that would make you a terrible human being.
The vast majority of research points to it being less hospitable, and there is a lot of good evidence that with rising temperatures come more heating feedbacks which will accelerate the process. This is not some esoteric fact. You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't hear you la la la la" if you want, but future generations will look back on lazy attitudes such as yours with disgust, and quite rightly so. You are eschewing science because of intellectual laziness or straight-up deceit. Your stance is that of the anti-vaxxer, the young-Earth creationist, or the Mayan end-of-the-world lot. It's pathetic.