You weren't, though, were you? You might have been doing something that sounds vaguely similar, or even uses some similar terminology (unlikely, but possible).
You are confusing "slashdotters who have replied to this thread" with "All Americans". That is not going to do you any favours, as it just takes one American supporting this tripe for your claim to be false. Try to ditch the hyperbole and exaggerations - if your argument is sound that won't hurt it one iota.
Then there's your answer. To make clubs safe from "bad guys with guns", they should all be brightly-lit rooms that serve no alcohol, that require a gun to be carried upon admission, and which have no flashing lights or music which impair the accuracy of shooting.
"More guns" == "I haven't thought this through,but 'less guns' sounds scary as I love me some guns".
"Drunk people in clubs should be armed" - brilliant. I'm sure that'll end wonderfully. The reason that place was a gun-free zone (apart from the security, who were armed, yet this happened anyway), is because drunk people have no business being armed in public. Your solution to terrorism seems to be to make non-terrorism gun deaths so high that people won't even notice the attacks.
So you will end up banning innocent Muslims, and any Muslims who wish to sneak in will just pretend to be some other religion. This is the problem with simplistic solutions based on some stilted superficial understanding - they just don't work. Their only use is drawing attention to the muppets suggesting them.
They have proven themselves to be ethical, and you have just proven that you don't understand the scientific method. Is that what you meant to do? Yay for you?
We know enough already that we don't have a century or two to sit back and watch what happens - there are tipping points we are aware of which will tip before even a century is up. This has been demonstrated time and time again. The rest of your point is meandering vagueness. You are not actually saying anything, just using words that sound kind of fitting to the subject. Be more specific. Actually claim something.
The planet can sustain this population and billions more. The problem is our reliance on fossil fuels, not on a secondary factor which exacerbates it. So yes, it is fossil fuels which are a problem.
The "hiatus" has been debunked over and over and over. That you would claim otherwise shows you either don't know what you're talking about, or that you're more than willing to lie to make a point. Neither is attractive. Pick one.
You keep referring to vague concepts without ever substantiating them. It's indistinguishable from someone arguing an unsupported opinion. You might want to work on that. Also there are many more ways for global warming to kill us all than CO2 poisoning, which you seem to completely ignore. It's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about...
So listen to the scientists. They are the experts and have done their due process, applied the scientific method, and published their results. We know this. It is a scary danger, but as it is demonstrated to exist, it is not comparable to things people just make up to get a reaction. It's almost as if you are incapable of separating the science and the politics.
Are they a drain on the system when the system expects people to need its assistance and is geared up directly to do that? Or what about when Wall Street needs bailing out again - was that not being a drain on the system?
If you have to use vague terms like "drain on the system" to summarise your argument, your argument just might be bollocks.
You seem to be the deluded one... It's amazing how someone clearly intelligent is so easily lied to. The subsidies are to encourage adoption. More adoption leads to lower prices. Lower prices and high adoption negate the need for subsidies, and so they are removed. This is nothing new or scary or misunderstood (well, apart from by you). This is how technology advances. I get it - your hobby is under threat, and that makes you scared and/or uneasy. It's OK that your hobby is a side-effect, a technical necessity because cars couldn't drive themselves from day one - just don't expect your passion for your hobby to be of any importance to the advance of technology. I'm sure people really loved riding horses around towns and cities, and they got upset when cars turned up. Your story is just the latest in a long chain of people complaining about technology that threatens to challenge their hobby's existence as they know it.
It appears you don't know what ISPs do, or even how networks work, but that didn't stop you confusing your high opinion of yourself with knowing things! Yay for you!
You sum it up as "collecting more information" but you are actually calling for "do nothing, and if the current understanding is correct (which all the data seems to point to) the problem will get worse, but we should hope that *all* the evidence gathered up to now will be disproved somehow, and we can forget this ever happened". That is literally denying the problem, and denying the science. You can try to spin it as reasoned trepidation, but it's clear it's anything but.
If the sample contains data spanning tens of thousands of years, then it is indeed tens of thousands of years of data in that sample. There are many samples made. Don't misrepresent the facts of the discussion, it's a terrible debate tactic and calls your honesty into question.
Seeing as your very first quote is cherry-picked from a paragraph which disagrees with your assertions, it's quite hard to take you seriously. You can disagree with the science if you wish, but it requires you to actually show how the science is flawed. Quoting Aldous Huxley and cherry-picking quotes from the IPCC isn't doing that. You suck at this, but I guess it's all you have.
Slashdot Mirror
You weren't, though, were you? You might have been doing something that sounds vaguely similar, or even uses some similar terminology (unlikely, but possible).
VW is partially owned (12.7%) by the German state of Lower Saxony, not the federal government of Germany itself.
You are confusing "slashdotters who have replied to this thread" with "All Americans". That is not going to do you any favours, as it just takes one American supporting this tripe for your claim to be false. Try to ditch the hyperbole and exaggerations - if your argument is sound that won't hurt it one iota.
You frequently make mistakes a few seconds of googling would solve... You might want to replace your hubris with something more useful.
Then there's your answer. To make clubs safe from "bad guys with guns", they should all be brightly-lit rooms that serve no alcohol, that require a gun to be carried upon admission, and which have no flashing lights or music which impair the accuracy of shooting.
"More guns" == "I haven't thought this through,but 'less guns' sounds scary as I love me some guns".
"Drunk people in clubs should be armed" - brilliant. I'm sure that'll end wonderfully. The reason that place was a gun-free zone (apart from the security, who were armed, yet this happened anyway), is because drunk people have no business being armed in public. Your solution to terrorism seems to be to make non-terrorism gun deaths so high that people won't even notice the attacks.
So you will end up banning innocent Muslims, and any Muslims who wish to sneak in will just pretend to be some other religion. This is the problem with simplistic solutions based on some stilted superficial understanding - they just don't work. Their only use is drawing attention to the muppets suggesting them.
They have proven themselves to be ethical, and you have just proven that you don't understand the scientific method. Is that what you meant to do? Yay for you?
We know enough already that we don't have a century or two to sit back and watch what happens - there are tipping points we are aware of which will tip before even a century is up. This has been demonstrated time and time again. The rest of your point is meandering vagueness. You are not actually saying anything, just using words that sound kind of fitting to the subject. Be more specific. Actually claim something.
Speak for yourself. Don't assume everyone is as stilted and selfish as you are.
The planet can sustain this population and billions more. The problem is our reliance on fossil fuels, not on a secondary factor which exacerbates it. So yes, it is fossil fuels which are a problem.
The "hiatus" has been debunked over and over and over. That you would claim otherwise shows you either don't know what you're talking about, or that you're more than willing to lie to make a point. Neither is attractive. Pick one.
But the sheer amount released by the 800m in question dwarfs your growth.
You keep referring to vague concepts without ever substantiating them. It's indistinguishable from someone arguing an unsupported opinion. You might want to work on that. Also there are many more ways for global warming to kill us all than CO2 poisoning, which you seem to completely ignore. It's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about...
So listen to the scientists. They are the experts and have done their due process, applied the scientific method, and published their results. We know this. It is a scary danger, but as it is demonstrated to exist, it is not comparable to things people just make up to get a reaction. It's almost as if you are incapable of separating the science and the politics.
You don't need a phone for 2FA. It might help you to understand this before complaining about it.
How do you know they are not? Are you seriously claiming that everyone who asks for assistance is being lazy?
Are they a drain on the system when the system expects people to need its assistance and is geared up directly to do that? Or what about when Wall Street needs bailing out again - was that not being a drain on the system?
If you have to use vague terms like "drain on the system" to summarise your argument, your argument just might be bollocks.
They also all were fond of trousers, so by your stilted, immature logic we should ban trousers. Yay superficial appraisals! Boo logic!
You seem to be the deluded one... It's amazing how someone clearly intelligent is so easily lied to. The subsidies are to encourage adoption. More adoption leads to lower prices. Lower prices and high adoption negate the need for subsidies, and so they are removed. This is nothing new or scary or misunderstood (well, apart from by you). This is how technology advances. I get it - your hobby is under threat, and that makes you scared and/or uneasy. It's OK that your hobby is a side-effect, a technical necessity because cars couldn't drive themselves from day one - just don't expect your passion for your hobby to be of any importance to the advance of technology. I'm sure people really loved riding horses around towns and cities, and they got upset when cars turned up. Your story is just the latest in a long chain of people complaining about technology that threatens to challenge their hobby's existence as they know it.
It appears you don't know what ISPs do, or even how networks work, but that didn't stop you confusing your high opinion of yourself with knowing things! Yay for you!
You sum it up as "collecting more information" but you are actually calling for "do nothing, and if the current understanding is correct (which all the data seems to point to) the problem will get worse, but we should hope that *all* the evidence gathered up to now will be disproved somehow, and we can forget this ever happened". That is literally denying the problem, and denying the science. You can try to spin it as reasoned trepidation, but it's clear it's anything but.
All you said is "I don't understand this!". Thanks for trying to play.
If the sample contains data spanning tens of thousands of years, then it is indeed tens of thousands of years of data in that sample. There are many samples made. Don't misrepresent the facts of the discussion, it's a terrible debate tactic and calls your honesty into question.
Seeing as your very first quote is cherry-picked from a paragraph which disagrees with your assertions, it's quite hard to take you seriously. You can disagree with the science if you wish, but it requires you to actually show how the science is flawed. Quoting Aldous Huxley and cherry-picking quotes from the IPCC isn't doing that. You suck at this, but I guess it's all you have.