Seeing as most clever people are not members of Mensa, seeking the group out as a way to find intelligent people doesn't make much sense, as there are easier ways to find intelligent people interested in, say, physics or crosswords - physics or crossword groups. Your analogy with a motorcycle club is a bit silly, as your point about Mensa seems to be saying if any intelligent person wants to discuss motorcycles with intelligent people, they should join Mensa instead of motorcycle clubs...
So yeah, it is snobbery, as a synonym of snobbery is "elitism", which Mensa is by its very definition.
Which isn't a problem for the vast, vast majority of people, as if you can afford to pay it, you do, and if you can't, the state does. Most people don't waste a bunch of energy, so effectively the prices are cheaper as people simply use far less than in the US.
Are you kidding? You're not looking very hard. Lots of people are calling for decreasing or stabilising the human population by improving living conditions in poor parts of the world. The more likely their children are to survive to adulthood, the fewer children they have. If anyone should not take someone seriously, it should be everyone not taking you seriously because you clearly haven't put much effort into researching that which you rail against.
Your personal anecdotes are entirely, 100% meaningless. I'm sure you ascribe great weight to them, but in the context of this discussion, they are useless noise.
And the US has far more land, and lots of that is in places drenched by sun. You can't keep using the old "we're so biiiig!" argument to dismiss short-comings of the US. It's counter-productive, as it assures the US will continue to fall behind. Your use of "our" and "we" is rather telling.
You clearly don't have much knowledge of climate science, hence your awkward, kind of childish attempt to ridicule it by purposefully confusing different (but similarly-sounding) terms. I can help. Earth's climate changes. We know this because there have been ice ages and periods of great heat. That is called "climate change". Sometimes the climate cools (global cooling) and sometimes it gets warmer (global warming). Climate disruption refers to the problems changes in the climate can cause for mankind (and usually means in an economic sense), such as increased droughts, more severe storms, etc. So, to sum up, they are three related, but different, terms.
On to the topic at hand: Lots of people want to use green technologies as they know they will not be at the whim of some external factor (such as the source of certain kinds of fuel, or regulation against a messy technology which affects everyone). They also know that the more that is invested in these technologies, the cheaper they will become, and the benefit of using them will increase. That is why lots of governments are bankrolling lots of research and deployment of these technologies.
But go ahead and claim global warming doesn't exist, or that it isn't predominantly caused by human industry, and then compare green technologies to fad diets. It lets those who have a bit more knowledge of these issues than you tell you really don't care to learn, and so ignore what you have to say on the matter, as you have substituted "learning" for "opinion", which leads to the idiocy contained in your post.
So you expect the distracted driver to just go "oh, I must be being jammed", and put their phone down and concentrate on driving... I think there's a good chance the distracted driver would try to figure out why their phone suddenly lost all communication and have even less concentration on driving, and be even more of a hazard.
Simply messing with other drivers is going too far.
That works for some plants, but not all, including the ones humanity has a strong need for to survive. Trying to model the world's climate by comparing it to a vaguely-described room is, well, ridiculous.
The climate changes ("climate change"), in this instance by getting warmer ("global warming"), which causes increased droughts and worse storms ("climate disruption"). What's so hard to understand?
It's still June. The ice *area* might be increasing, but ice *volume* is steadily decreasing. The Antarctic glaciers are being partially melted by geothermal heat, but the majority of the melting is still from the climate.
At least get your facts straight before trying to single-handedly debunk an entire field of science. That way you won't look quite so stupid.
Wealth disparity affects everyone whereas gay marriage does not. Pretending that rich folks getting richer and everyone else getting less wealthy doesn't massively negatively affect society is ignoring the volumes of research on the matter.
You could just - and this is going to sound really strange - study this before showing everyone you can't be bothered and trying to single-handedly take down an entire field of science simply because you find the outcomes of it problematic to your way of life...
They don't need special consideration - honest people honestly talking about the world's climate understand that they have always affected the global temperature, it's only when muppets chime in with their usual "X years of no warming!" nonsense that people need to be specifically reminded about the oceans' role in all this.
So the science isn't correct because people are profiting from it? I don't see how that makes any sense. AGW is an issue, it's just that the world of US politics has decided to ignore the science and try to undermine the volumes of research so it can keep making money for those who oppose AGW (the fossil fuel companies, which clearly make more money than any renewable energy company).
AGW is not based solely on this observation, and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Yes, climate change has and always will happen, but short of an asteroid strike it's never happened this fast before. Humanity needs the world the way it currently is, otherwise it will face massive issues on top of the normal issues faced every day across the world.
It's not very surprising you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're", yet feel capable of examining and appraising this situation. Hubris at work, ladies and gentlemen.
This is research. It's highly practical, but it's still research. They have a goal in mind and an experiment to try to achieve it. Whatever happens lots will be learned. And regardless, the knee-jerk reaction from people like you is highly illuminating of the problems in IT.
They're clearly not put upon when most people in IT are men. Or are you comparing a persecuted minority to a majority which holds all the cards? Oh, you are. Again - this is the very attitude which is making people not want anything to do with working in IT. It's pathetic.
Limited observation doused with confirmation bias. Again - you're not doing yourself any favours here. Stop trying to excuse your childish attempts to make the world make sense to you - it's really backfiring, and is giving everyone a wonderful glimpse into the bizarre, inaccurate, pathetic world of a "black and white" thinker.
No, it's more like "why is ~50% of the country not pursuing IT?" Seeing as IT is fantastically important to today's economy, and half of the population just isn't interested in taking part in it, it seems like an issue that should be researched. This is one way to do that. You can act all put upon and oppressed, but as you're not, you just sound like one of the people who causes people to think IT is full of socially-awkward neckbeards who think they're special.
"Whatever" could be the news stories and knowledge that there are a higher-than-average amount of socially-stunted male muppets in IT who frequently don't know how to act professionally when in the same room as some females.
Loud paint saves lives, not loud pipes. Get a grip. Stop trying to find excuses to be an annoying muppet on the road. Do you think drivers are driving around not listening to their stereo, with their windows down, just listening out for loud muppet bikes, so they can get out of their way? Of course not. They're using their eyes to look for hazards. Even if they can hear your bike, they might not know where it's coming from, as sound isn't a great way to locate something in a noisy environment (compared to something like, I don't know, light).
So again: Stop trying to find excuses to be a muppet. The only people who think loud bikes are cool are loud bike owners and 8-year-old boys. Everyone else knows you are compensating. Watch South Park s13e12. Please.
And to you "freedom" means being able to do whatever you want, whether it's adversely affecting everyone else or not. Brilliant. That thinking is the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"Occidental Ascent?" Really?
Seeing as most clever people are not members of Mensa, seeking the group out as a way to find intelligent people doesn't make much sense, as there are easier ways to find intelligent people interested in, say, physics or crosswords - physics or crossword groups. Your analogy with a motorcycle club is a bit silly, as your point about Mensa seems to be saying if any intelligent person wants to discuss motorcycles with intelligent people, they should join Mensa instead of motorcycle clubs...
So yeah, it is snobbery, as a synonym of snobbery is "elitism", which Mensa is by its very definition.
Let me guess - are you a Mensa member?
Which isn't a problem for the vast, vast majority of people, as if you can afford to pay it, you do, and if you can't, the state does. Most people don't waste a bunch of energy, so effectively the prices are cheaper as people simply use far less than in the US.
Are you kidding? You're not looking very hard. Lots of people are calling for decreasing or stabilising the human population by improving living conditions in poor parts of the world. The more likely their children are to survive to adulthood, the fewer children they have. If anyone should not take someone seriously, it should be everyone not taking you seriously because you clearly haven't put much effort into researching that which you rail against.
Your personal anecdotes are entirely, 100% meaningless. I'm sure you ascribe great weight to them, but in the context of this discussion, they are useless noise.
And the US has far more land, and lots of that is in places drenched by sun. You can't keep using the old "we're so biiiig!" argument to dismiss short-comings of the US. It's counter-productive, as it assures the US will continue to fall behind. Your use of "our" and "we" is rather telling.
You clearly don't have much knowledge of climate science, hence your awkward, kind of childish attempt to ridicule it by purposefully confusing different (but similarly-sounding) terms. I can help. Earth's climate changes. We know this because there have been ice ages and periods of great heat. That is called "climate change". Sometimes the climate cools (global cooling) and sometimes it gets warmer (global warming). Climate disruption refers to the problems changes in the climate can cause for mankind (and usually means in an economic sense), such as increased droughts, more severe storms, etc. So, to sum up, they are three related, but different, terms.
On to the topic at hand: Lots of people want to use green technologies as they know they will not be at the whim of some external factor (such as the source of certain kinds of fuel, or regulation against a messy technology which affects everyone). They also know that the more that is invested in these technologies, the cheaper they will become, and the benefit of using them will increase. That is why lots of governments are bankrolling lots of research and deployment of these technologies.
But go ahead and claim global warming doesn't exist, or that it isn't predominantly caused by human industry, and then compare green technologies to fad diets. It lets those who have a bit more knowledge of these issues than you tell you really don't care to learn, and so ignore what you have to say on the matter, as you have substituted "learning" for "opinion", which leads to the idiocy contained in your post.
So you expect the distracted driver to just go "oh, I must be being jammed", and put their phone down and concentrate on driving... I think there's a good chance the distracted driver would try to figure out why their phone suddenly lost all communication and have even less concentration on driving, and be even more of a hazard.
Simply messing with other drivers is going too far.
That works for some plants, but not all, including the ones humanity has a strong need for to survive. Trying to model the world's climate by comparing it to a vaguely-described room is, well, ridiculous.
The climate changes ("climate change"), in this instance by getting warmer ("global warming"), which causes increased droughts and worse storms ("climate disruption"). What's so hard to understand?
It's still June. The ice *area* might be increasing, but ice *volume* is steadily decreasing. The Antarctic glaciers are being partially melted by geothermal heat, but the majority of the melting is still from the climate.
At least get your facts straight before trying to single-handedly debunk an entire field of science. That way you won't look quite so stupid.
Wealth disparity affects everyone whereas gay marriage does not. Pretending that rich folks getting richer and everyone else getting less wealthy doesn't massively negatively affect society is ignoring the volumes of research on the matter.
You could just - and this is going to sound really strange - study this before showing everyone you can't be bothered and trying to single-handedly take down an entire field of science simply because you find the outcomes of it problematic to your way of life...
They don't need special consideration - honest people honestly talking about the world's climate understand that they have always affected the global temperature, it's only when muppets chime in with their usual "X years of no warming!" nonsense that people need to be specifically reminded about the oceans' role in all this.
So the science isn't correct because people are profiting from it? I don't see how that makes any sense. AGW is an issue, it's just that the world of US politics has decided to ignore the science and try to undermine the volumes of research so it can keep making money for those who oppose AGW (the fossil fuel companies, which clearly make more money than any renewable energy company).
AGW is not based solely on this observation, and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Yes, climate change has and always will happen, but short of an asteroid strike it's never happened this fast before. Humanity needs the world the way it currently is, otherwise it will face massive issues on top of the normal issues faced every day across the world.
It's not very surprising you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're", yet feel capable of examining and appraising this situation. Hubris at work, ladies and gentlemen.
This is research. It's highly practical, but it's still research. They have a goal in mind and an experiment to try to achieve it. Whatever happens lots will be learned. And regardless, the knee-jerk reaction from people like you is highly illuminating of the problems in IT.
They're clearly not put upon when most people in IT are men. Or are you comparing a persecuted minority to a majority which holds all the cards? Oh, you are. Again - this is the very attitude which is making people not want anything to do with working in IT. It's pathetic.
Limited observation doused with confirmation bias. Again - you're not doing yourself any favours here. Stop trying to excuse your childish attempts to make the world make sense to you - it's really backfiring, and is giving everyone a wonderful glimpse into the bizarre, inaccurate, pathetic world of a "black and white" thinker.
No, it's more like "why is ~50% of the country not pursuing IT?" Seeing as IT is fantastically important to today's economy, and half of the population just isn't interested in taking part in it, it seems like an issue that should be researched. This is one way to do that. You can act all put upon and oppressed, but as you're not, you just sound like one of the people who causes people to think IT is full of socially-awkward neckbeards who think they're special.
"Whatever" could be the news stories and knowledge that there are a higher-than-average amount of socially-stunted male muppets in IT who frequently don't know how to act professionally when in the same room as some females.
Loud paint saves lives, not loud pipes. Get a grip. Stop trying to find excuses to be an annoying muppet on the road. Do you think drivers are driving around not listening to their stereo, with their windows down, just listening out for loud muppet bikes, so they can get out of their way? Of course not. They're using their eyes to look for hazards. Even if they can hear your bike, they might not know where it's coming from, as sound isn't a great way to locate something in a noisy environment (compared to something like, I don't know, light).
So again: Stop trying to find excuses to be a muppet. The only people who think loud bikes are cool are loud bike owners and 8-year-old boys. Everyone else knows you are compensating. Watch South Park s13e12. Please.
And to you "freedom" means being able to do whatever you want, whether it's adversely affecting everyone else or not. Brilliant. That thinking is the problem.
Keep waiving that flag. Your post is a great demonstration of said arrogance.