You are painting a painfully simple version of the field of climate science, missing out on practically all the actual science and just summarising the findings in a hideously-childish fashion, one presumes for some sort of critique which never really manifested...
Wow. You really got screwed over by your school system. This isn't pseudoscience, this is the real deal. And just because you seem to not understand the words the scientific community uses to describe the validity of a hypothesis and the evidence supporting it doesn't make it any less real.
If you think this is anything like the Gestapo, you should go read a book. Senseless hyperbole like yours is just as dangerous as the apathy you decry.
You go play Russian Roulette with your own life, don't expect others to do the same. If people want automated cars that are inherently safer than the alternative, let them have them.
When automated cars form convoys, they are in communication with each other. That means if something causes the first car to brake, the rest of the cars know instantly that the lead car has braked, and that they should brake. Insert "you go left I go right" logic (if needed), and these cars are now better than you at doing it. There is nothing human drivers can do that these cars can't, as their sensor packages are far better than ours, and they can communicate with other cars allowing driving formations humans simply can not handle. The logic they've put into these cars is simply staggering, and that's what's taken so long to develop.
People trust in science because it's self-correcting, and regardless of what you seem to assume, the peer-review process is bloody strict. It's not blind faith, but simply using logic.
Who's making unsubstantiated claims now? You. You've failed to demonstrate any of the specious claims you've made, and then get all pissy when people point that out. You're clearly rather ignorant of some really basic scientific principles. Your schooling must have really, really sucked.
[citation really fucking needed]. Seriously. Go back to school, this is torturous. No wonder you believe in such bullshit if you can't even fathom really basic chemistry.
So burning something doesn't release ash in smoke, the ash that is left is chemically identical to the thing that was burned, and coal power stations don't release any ash. All three of those claims are complete bullshit, and you made all three. That's my point. You don't even seem to realise you're making stuff up.
You do make stuff up. Whether you do it on purpose or not is a debate I'm not interested in having. Your ridiculous claim about coal ash is a great example of that - you seemed absolutely certain your logic was perfect, when it couldn't have been farther from the truth. Well, I'll just let the moderators do their job and hopefully show you just how specious arguments and claims are.
If you just stuck to facts and stopped making stuff up, you probably wouldn't get called out for making stuff up. Your arguments are dripping with various logical biases making them removed from reality either in substance or scale, rendering your entire point irreparably specious. Hence the modification you inevitably get. Don't be so arrogant to assume it's because you're laying down knowledge the pro-Nuke crowd simply can't bear to face - it's far more likely you're just confused and out of your depth. Occam's razor and all that...
Uh-oh. Hubris alert! Jmc23 knows how to fix science! Stand back!
Let me just get this straight - you don't trust science, but you trust your own dodgy senses, simply because you don't trust science. You, sir, are a moron. It is unfortunate that you were called out as a religious type, but then your delusions about science are shared by many fundamentalists, so the confusion isn't hard to understand. There are no such things as scientific beliefs, only explanations for phenomena which are backed up by evidence. (Hint: evidence is the exact opposite of what's supporting your "my sensory perception is perfect" hypothesis.) You are not being a sceptic, but a cynic. Science is practical scepticism, and hubris is practical cynicism. Guess which camp you are in.
I don't think it's possible to embarrass oneself by calling out a flagrant charlatan masquerading as a voice of reason and logic. You don't understand that which you attack, or even that which you defend. The sheer number of specious comments I've seen you post in this story alone is staggering, especially as you submitted the story. It's pathetic.
Don't get angry just because your posted story is inaccurate. Maybe people wouldn't complain about you making stuff up if you didn't make stuff up? Your awesomely-hilarious comments here are a great testament to that - you assume you know about this topic, but it's patently clear to anyone possessing a modicum of knowledge on the subject that you really don't have a clue - hence the nonsense you spew.
I'd go a bit further and say the arguments against nuclear power come from a heady mix of ignorance and confirmation biases. They're certainly not rooted in reality.
And again you've demonstrated you aren't operating in the same world as the rest of us. Just think about what you posted for a second. Hopefully when you realise the glaring logical hilarity of it, you'll post back and apologise to the rest of/. But I doubt that will happen. This is too funny:)
You really don't understand this stuff, do you? You use lots of cool words, but you don't seem to know how to use them correctly. You should probably go take some chemistry and physics classes so you stop embarrassing yourself quite so much.
We can not trust our silly sensory experiences to actually know about the world with any great certainty. That's why scientists use equipment in their experiments, and not just guess. You are quite possibly fooling yourself, and don't even seem to have considered such an explanation. Science: It works. We evolved to not get eaten by lions, not to differentiate between different resolutions on consumer devices at 20 feet.
Slashdot Mirror
[citation needed]
You are painting a painfully simple version of the field of climate science, missing out on practically all the actual science and just summarising the findings in a hideously-childish fashion, one presumes for some sort of critique which never really manifested...
Wow. You really got screwed over by your school system. This isn't pseudoscience, this is the real deal. And just because you seem to not understand the words the scientific community uses to describe the validity of a hypothesis and the evidence supporting it doesn't make it any less real.
I hope that comment was a joke, and that you really aren't that ignorant of this topic...
Or you could get your head out of your ass and learn something.
If you think this is anything like the Gestapo, you should go read a book. Senseless hyperbole like yours is just as dangerous as the apathy you decry.
You go play Russian Roulette with your own life, don't expect others to do the same. If people want automated cars that are inherently safer than the alternative, let them have them.
When automated cars form convoys, they are in communication with each other. That means if something causes the first car to brake, the rest of the cars know instantly that the lead car has braked, and that they should brake. Insert "you go left I go right" logic (if needed), and these cars are now better than you at doing it. There is nothing human drivers can do that these cars can't, as their sensor packages are far better than ours, and they can communicate with other cars allowing driving formations humans simply can not handle. The logic they've put into these cars is simply staggering, and that's what's taken so long to develop.
People trust in science because it's self-correcting, and regardless of what you seem to assume, the peer-review process is bloody strict. It's not blind faith, but simply using logic.
You should read about what the system is actually capable of.
Nope. Windows runs really well on low-powered hardware.
No, you are generalising, and not doing a very good job at being accurate.
Who's making unsubstantiated claims now? You. You've failed to demonstrate any of the specious claims you've made, and then get all pissy when people point that out. You're clearly rather ignorant of some really basic scientific principles. Your schooling must have really, really sucked.
[citation really fucking needed]. Seriously. Go back to school, this is torturous. No wonder you believe in such bullshit if you can't even fathom really basic chemistry.
So burning something doesn't release ash in smoke, the ash that is left is chemically identical to the thing that was burned, and coal power stations don't release any ash. All three of those claims are complete bullshit, and you made all three. That's my point. You don't even seem to realise you're making stuff up.
You do make stuff up. Whether you do it on purpose or not is a debate I'm not interested in having. Your ridiculous claim about coal ash is a great example of that - you seemed absolutely certain your logic was perfect, when it couldn't have been farther from the truth. Well, I'll just let the moderators do their job and hopefully show you just how specious arguments and claims are.
If you just stuck to facts and stopped making stuff up, you probably wouldn't get called out for making stuff up. Your arguments are dripping with various logical biases making them removed from reality either in substance or scale, rendering your entire point irreparably specious. Hence the modification you inevitably get. Don't be so arrogant to assume it's because you're laying down knowledge the pro-Nuke crowd simply can't bear to face - it's far more likely you're just confused and out of your depth. Occam's razor and all that...
Uh-oh. Hubris alert! Jmc23 knows how to fix science! Stand back!
Let me just get this straight - you don't trust science, but you trust your own dodgy senses, simply because you don't trust science. You, sir, are a moron. It is unfortunate that you were called out as a religious type, but then your delusions about science are shared by many fundamentalists, so the confusion isn't hard to understand. There are no such things as scientific beliefs, only explanations for phenomena which are backed up by evidence. (Hint: evidence is the exact opposite of what's supporting your "my sensory perception is perfect" hypothesis.) You are not being a sceptic, but a cynic. Science is practical scepticism, and hubris is practical cynicism. Guess which camp you are in.
I don't think it's possible to embarrass oneself by calling out a flagrant charlatan masquerading as a voice of reason and logic. You don't understand that which you attack, or even that which you defend. The sheer number of specious comments I've seen you post in this story alone is staggering, especially as you submitted the story. It's pathetic.
Don't get angry just because your posted story is inaccurate. Maybe people wouldn't complain about you making stuff up if you didn't make stuff up? Your awesomely-hilarious comments here are a great testament to that - you assume you know about this topic, but it's patently clear to anyone possessing a modicum of knowledge on the subject that you really don't have a clue - hence the nonsense you spew.
I'd go a bit further and say the arguments against nuclear power come from a heady mix of ignorance and confirmation biases. They're certainly not rooted in reality.
And again you've demonstrated you aren't operating in the same world as the rest of us. Just think about what you posted for a second. Hopefully when you realise the glaring logical hilarity of it, you'll post back and apologise to the rest of /. But I doubt that will happen. This is too funny :)
You really don't understand this stuff, do you? You use lots of cool words, but you don't seem to know how to use them correctly. You should probably go take some chemistry and physics classes so you stop embarrassing yourself quite so much.
Weren't you saying ad hominems were bad, just two posts up? What's up with that? They're OK if you do it, but not others? Eh?
We can not trust our silly sensory experiences to actually know about the world with any great certainty. That's why scientists use equipment in their experiments, and not just guess. You are quite possibly fooling yourself, and don't even seem to have considered such an explanation. Science: It works. We evolved to not get eaten by lions, not to differentiate between different resolutions on consumer devices at 20 feet.