I appreciate your stance, but this whole "but X is adaptable!" answer to having to change our behaviour to help X is clearly limited. We need to know the scale of the impact before we know if they're adaptable enough to adapt to the changes we are throwing at them. I'm sure you appreciate that if the change we are talking about is simply making them walk 1 meter out of their way - they can probably adapt to that. If the change is causing them to jump off cliffs, there's not much adaptability that would work in that case.
Are you aware that we rely on other species to survive? We evolved with those other species around - removing them from our environment might indeed change the balance of wildlife to the point where things we directly rely on start being affected by our changes to other species. Yes, humans are awesome and clever and can fly and go to the moon and everything, but we still breathe the same air as other (air-breathing) animals, drink the same water, and live on the same planet.
Our role in nature should be to not mess with nature so much that we die out. The status quo got us this far - changing it too much is not a good idea. Science can tell us what constitutes "too much", and ignoring that is folly. Suicidal folly.
Not really - humanity needs a directory of things of interest. If we suddenly had names for millions of things of absolutely no interest to anyone other than the person who named them, that clearly blows the signal-to-noise ratio out of the water, rendering the entire endeavour pointless. There is no benefit to naming craters on Mars which lack interest, so the people who maintain the names of such things are quite obviously going to step in and say "no".
You honestly typed that response thinking it wouldn't make you look like an idiot? Wow. Yes, there are plenty of places in Europe which have had the same name for thousands of years, some with more corruption than others. Just because you can think of some examples of cities which have had their names changed you think that invalidates the claim? Did you drink bleach for breakfast?
Planes are not always found in a reasonable amount of time, and each second a plane is flying with a defect which could be fixed by knowing what's in the missing black boxes is a second of risk that otherwise would not exist. This really isn't difficult to grasp, and at a cost of a ~1/3rd of a tank (for a 747) to install, it seems bizarre you're so angry about them. It's not as if these devices come with axe-heads installed in the back of each seat, or need to be installed using burning bags of puppies over the course of 75,000 years. Did one of these boxes smack your mother around or something??
Are you being this obtuse on purpose? The leading method of improving passenger safety is investigation of crashes. This has been the case since the very first crash was investigated. Any device which gets information from a plane in distress has a very strong possibility of directly leading to saved lives, simply due to the very obvious fact that what we learn from one crash helps prevent others of a similar nature.
Yes, they would be, but the people on the next flight which would have crashed in the same circumstances are alive, as the problem was identified from the data received from the crashed plane. That's why every single flight crash is investigated - so the industry learns from failures and does what it can to ensure they don't happen again. Ignoring or not trying to get some information is certain to cost lives in the future.
Jump in an fMRI machine and show them. Or measure your body's chemistry when around them vs. away from them. I don't get your point. Measuring something like love isn't impossible.
Not really, as Eratosthenes accurately measured the circumference of the Earth years before the Bible was written (the new testament of which was written well under 2,500 years ago, obviously), and gravity existed then, too. So no, it's not interesting what-so-ever. What is interesting is that people think the bible is in any way relevant to this discussion, when it is so woefully wrong on scientific matters (and plenty of other matters, too). I guess that's a good indication on how faith is dangerous when discussion science.
People already have paid attention to the variables and inputs, and have stayed open to different possibilities. Time and time again that's pointed to the same science - AGW. Just because the last ice age ended thousands of years ago has little to do with what's happening at the moment. You might as well say there's doubt whether volcanoes are hot, as someone burned their mouth on a particularly hot pizza. The science is in - human industry is to blame.
So you are saying that if you split a population in half, and kept them separated for millions of years, and reintroduced them, that they would still be able to breed? Unless you can state "yes", with supporting evidence, you are lying to yourself, and everyone else you tell this silly story to. The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time - biologists don't even bother to differentiate the two, as they are the same thing. Heck, ring species show that your nonsense is nonsense, but you either don't know about them, or have sufficiently lied to yourself to make you simply contort reality around your bizarre ideas.
1. You put "greenhouse gas warming" in quotes, suggesting that the mechanism by which greenhouse gasses heat the Earth, or even their very existence, is up for debate. Neither is correct - humanity understands greenhouse gasses (how they work, where they come from)
2. The science of AGW (including your greenhouse gas warming) has not been weakening, but in fact gaining even more credibility, as study after study shows it to be the case. There has been incredibly little contrary science, even though people have been trying their best, and the contrary science which has survived peer review is essentially stuck in the error margins of the accepted theories
3. There is not "quite a bit of evidence" that researchers have done anything untoward with their science. There were some claims from various science-denialist groups and sources, but none of their claims actually stood up to scrutiny, usually being simple misunderstanding of terminology or standard (legitimate) scientific practice.
So yeah, your entire post is nonsense. That's why you got down-modded. I'm sure it's comforting to assume it's some sort of smear campaign by horrible people against some truth warrior, but the evidence points to the fact your opinion has been bought, either by your own hubris, cowardice or selfishness, or the machinations of groups who seek to derail science when it suits their short-term profit by perverting the opinions of people like yourself. But whatever gets you through the night - just stop complaining that people are calling you out on your shit. It's pathetic.
What an incredible waste of a sentence. You might have well written "Loads of people believe something, not because of any evidence, but because they were told it was true by people they trust to tell them the truth." Wonderful. A credit to your species. You do realise that if God is real, you're squandering the gift of a brain he/she/it gave you?
Well, as it is possible to know whether you like blue and yellow, by putting you in an fMRI machine and looking at your brain activity. So it seems you are ignorant, but not of which colours you like, but of scientific progress.
If you want to intercept google.com's traffic, you simply create a certificate for google.com, signed by your root CA, and make a proxy use that to communicate with the user, while using google's real cert to communicate with Google. Both Google and the user are communicating with what they think are good certificates, when really only one of them is. Your proxy can see all the traffic, unencrypted, without either party realising.
As we already know the answers to both of those questions, you might want to try harder to play the "unbiased questioner". Hint: The answer to both is "just fine".
Include all you want - the decrease in the number of moving parts means savings, even if battery replacement is included. Couple in with that regenerative braking, which reduces the physical wear on the vehicle massively. Batteries are highly-recycleable, and the infrastructure for that has existed for years. But if you're not ready for the 21st century, I'm sure you can find a horse somewhere to console as you two stick your fingers/hooves into your ears to try to block out the sound of progress. In the future, people will laugh at you. Think about it.
Or, maybe, a health service which doesn't make you get your health information from adverts! That sounds like a fantastic start. You don't think there's something incredibly wrong when you go to the same place to get information about your local Toyota dealership's offers, and health advice?
But as public transport still exists, and is even wonderfully successful in many places, doesn't that mean that maybe there is a gap between trucks and trains which could be occupied by some sort of hybrid technology? Perhaps more rail-like than truck-like.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate your stance, but this whole "but X is adaptable!" answer to having to change our behaviour to help X is clearly limited. We need to know the scale of the impact before we know if they're adaptable enough to adapt to the changes we are throwing at them. I'm sure you appreciate that if the change we are talking about is simply making them walk 1 meter out of their way - they can probably adapt to that. If the change is causing them to jump off cliffs, there's not much adaptability that would work in that case.
Are you aware that we rely on other species to survive? We evolved with those other species around - removing them from our environment might indeed change the balance of wildlife to the point where things we directly rely on start being affected by our changes to other species. Yes, humans are awesome and clever and can fly and go to the moon and everything, but we still breathe the same air as other (air-breathing) animals, drink the same water, and live on the same planet.
Our role in nature should be to not mess with nature so much that we die out. The status quo got us this far - changing it too much is not a good idea. Science can tell us what constitutes "too much", and ignoring that is folly. Suicidal folly.
"Two/three" not "two-three", fyi.
"Whoever". Don't use whom if you're not sure.
Not really - humanity needs a directory of things of interest. If we suddenly had names for millions of things of absolutely no interest to anyone other than the person who named them, that clearly blows the signal-to-noise ratio out of the water, rendering the entire endeavour pointless. There is no benefit to naming craters on Mars which lack interest, so the people who maintain the names of such things are quite obviously going to step in and say "no".
You honestly typed that response thinking it wouldn't make you look like an idiot? Wow. Yes, there are plenty of places in Europe which have had the same name for thousands of years, some with more corruption than others. Just because you can think of some examples of cities which have had their names changed you think that invalidates the claim? Did you drink bleach for breakfast?
Planes are not always found in a reasonable amount of time, and each second a plane is flying with a defect which could be fixed by knowing what's in the missing black boxes is a second of risk that otherwise would not exist. This really isn't difficult to grasp, and at a cost of a ~1/3rd of a tank (for a 747) to install, it seems bizarre you're so angry about them. It's not as if these devices come with axe-heads installed in the back of each seat, or need to be installed using burning bags of puppies over the course of 75,000 years. Did one of these boxes smack your mother around or something??
Are you being this obtuse on purpose? The leading method of improving passenger safety is investigation of crashes. This has been the case since the very first crash was investigated. Any device which gets information from a plane in distress has a very strong possibility of directly leading to saved lives, simply due to the very obvious fact that what we learn from one crash helps prevent others of a similar nature.
Yes, they would be, but the people on the next flight which would have crashed in the same circumstances are alive, as the problem was identified from the data received from the crashed plane. That's why every single flight crash is investigated - so the industry learns from failures and does what it can to ensure they don't happen again. Ignoring or not trying to get some information is certain to cost lives in the future.
When someone can't English very good.
Jump in an fMRI machine and show them. Or measure your body's chemistry when around them vs. away from them. I don't get your point. Measuring something like love isn't impossible.
Not really, as Eratosthenes accurately measured the circumference of the Earth years before the Bible was written (the new testament of which was written well under 2,500 years ago, obviously), and gravity existed then, too. So no, it's not interesting what-so-ever. What is interesting is that people think the bible is in any way relevant to this discussion, when it is so woefully wrong on scientific matters (and plenty of other matters, too). I guess that's a good indication on how faith is dangerous when discussion science.
People already have paid attention to the variables and inputs, and have stayed open to different possibilities. Time and time again that's pointed to the same science - AGW. Just because the last ice age ended thousands of years ago has little to do with what's happening at the moment. You might as well say there's doubt whether volcanoes are hot, as someone burned their mouth on a particularly hot pizza. The science is in - human industry is to blame.
So you are saying that if you split a population in half, and kept them separated for millions of years, and reintroduced them, that they would still be able to breed? Unless you can state "yes", with supporting evidence, you are lying to yourself, and everyone else you tell this silly story to. The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time - biologists don't even bother to differentiate the two, as they are the same thing. Heck, ring species show that your nonsense is nonsense, but you either don't know about them, or have sufficiently lied to yourself to make you simply contort reality around your bizarre ideas.
Which is precisely what "precision" means. Something "completely differing with reality" is lacking precision - admittedly a whole lot, but still so.
The nonsense is strong with this one. Get a grip - you are embarrassing yourself.
1. You put "greenhouse gas warming" in quotes, suggesting that the mechanism by which greenhouse gasses heat the Earth, or even their very existence, is up for debate. Neither is correct - humanity understands greenhouse gasses (how they work, where they come from)
2. The science of AGW (including your greenhouse gas warming) has not been weakening, but in fact gaining even more credibility, as study after study shows it to be the case. There has been incredibly little contrary science, even though people have been trying their best, and the contrary science which has survived peer review is essentially stuck in the error margins of the accepted theories
3. There is not "quite a bit of evidence" that researchers have done anything untoward with their science. There were some claims from various science-denialist groups and sources, but none of their claims actually stood up to scrutiny, usually being simple misunderstanding of terminology or standard (legitimate) scientific practice.
So yeah, your entire post is nonsense. That's why you got down-modded. I'm sure it's comforting to assume it's some sort of smear campaign by horrible people against some truth warrior, but the evidence points to the fact your opinion has been bought, either by your own hubris, cowardice or selfishness, or the machinations of groups who seek to derail science when it suits their short-term profit by perverting the opinions of people like yourself. But whatever gets you through the night - just stop complaining that people are calling you out on your shit. It's pathetic.
What an incredible waste of a sentence. You might have well written "Loads of people believe something, not because of any evidence, but because they were told it was true by people they trust to tell them the truth." Wonderful. A credit to your species. You do realise that if God is real, you're squandering the gift of a brain he/she/it gave you?
Are you talking about theories or hypotheses?
Well, as it is possible to know whether you like blue and yellow, by putting you in an fMRI machine and looking at your brain activity. So it seems you are ignorant, but not of which colours you like, but of scientific progress.
If you want to intercept google.com's traffic, you simply create a certificate for google.com, signed by your root CA, and make a proxy use that to communicate with the user, while using google's real cert to communicate with Google. Both Google and the user are communicating with what they think are good certificates, when really only one of them is. Your proxy can see all the traffic, unencrypted, without either party realising.
As we already know the answers to both of those questions, you might want to try harder to play the "unbiased questioner". Hint: The answer to both is "just fine".
Include all you want - the decrease in the number of moving parts means savings, even if battery replacement is included. Couple in with that regenerative braking, which reduces the physical wear on the vehicle massively. Batteries are highly-recycleable, and the infrastructure for that has existed for years. But if you're not ready for the 21st century, I'm sure you can find a horse somewhere to console as you two stick your fingers/hooves into your ears to try to block out the sound of progress. In the future, people will laugh at you. Think about it.
Or, maybe, a health service which doesn't make you get your health information from adverts! That sounds like a fantastic start. You don't think there's something incredibly wrong when you go to the same place to get information about your local Toyota dealership's offers, and health advice?
$2,500 per every truck in the fleet per year. Grow up.
But as public transport still exists, and is even wonderfully successful in many places, doesn't that mean that maybe there is a gap between trucks and trains which could be occupied by some sort of hybrid technology? Perhaps more rail-like than truck-like.