If you calm down for a second, you'd realise that's not what he said. Leaping to conclusions isn't helping you look at all sane. You seem mightily defensive...
Are you really asking this? We all know from tireless discussions on Slashdot that the social support in Europe is far greater than in the US, from medical access & costs, to housing support, subsidised transport, and so on. Or do you suddenly think that the moment someone loses their house, the systems which fucked them over suddenly become their best friend? You should stop being so offended when people point out the obvious shortcomings of the US. It sucks to be poor in the US, and it's even worse to be homeless. Being poor in Europe is far more manageable, and being homeless even more so. But whatever - you seem to have already made up your mind.
Private transport reaches its limit before public transport. Public transport lines are constantly being built out in many places, and have been for hundreds of years.
You are comparing your situation to bad public transport. I understand as an American that might be all you know, but there are systems out there which are simply fantastic. I understand you like driving, but that doesn't really mean the rest of humanity should be held back because you accidentally appreciate a manual task delegated to humanity because it couldn't be automated.
Public transport can be awesome. It's a shame you've not experienced it.
I live in a city served by excellent public transport. We hang out in our garden and can't hear a thing, so you might want to brush up on your argument;)
For my current job I just have to walk for about 10 minutes to the office. My new job requires me to commute, but only 20 minutes on a tram which picks me up about 20m from my front door, and drops me off 100m from work at the other end. The vast majority of the people I know don't have cars, and simply don't need them. If they need a van or a car, they can use Stadtmobil to rent one for a few hours/days.
Speak for yourself! In Europe there are lots of long-distance trains, and they are spacious, quick, easy to use, and have full restaurant cars. Some have sleeper services, and most trains have compartments for 6 or so people, in conjunction with cross-table & standard seating.
Increases in CO2 will cause lower yields for our staple crops, meaning more will have to be planted to maintain the supply. The fact you didn't mention that means you either didn't know it, or don't care about painting an accurate picture, just one which makes you feel better. We will lose a lot more than coral. I love how you put "mitigation and migration" in there as if they would take an afternoon's work to sort out. You really are not too interested in being accurate, are you?
The evidence seems to suggest you are not only wrong, but incredibly wrong. Like, ridiculously stupidly wrong. Majestically wrong, even. If what you say is true, where are the peer-reviewed papers which demonstrate it? Where are the Nobel prizes won for showing this? This is the holy grail of the denialist camp, and yet not one of them has managed to demonstrate it. I mean, that would shit on so much of the evidence it would be the biggest boon for denialists, yet it simply doesn't exist. I guess that it would require CO2 to take on certain properties only when politically convenient for denialists is quite a problem...
Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between sea ice and land ice. You've already demonstrated your knowledge of this field is severely lacking, yet you still feel capable of discerning fact from fiction. You seem to have a much greater opinion of yourself than the evidence suggests is wise, which would explain an awful lot.
If you believe something without supporting evidence you are right to be ignored. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but to demand stopped clocks be treated as accurate timepieces is beyond insanity.
You misrepresenting the case of others, and conflating the arguments of disparate groups as you do so, won't lead you to better understand their positions, and definitely won't help people at who you spout such nonsense. You appear to have constructed your own enemy.
Well, white guys do generally hold most of the power in the western world, so if there are to be improvements in society, they are the most capable of effecting them. Expecting the under-represented minorities to affect change is ensuring progress is as slow as it can be. Being tired of something doesn't diminish its accuracy, and even if you are white you are not every other white guy out there.
A hate crime does not have to be terrorism. Terrorism is a motive - to induce fear in people in order to coerce them politically. A hate crime is targeting someone with specific qualities of their person (race, sexuality, etc.) because of those qualities. A hate crime can be terrorism, but it doesn't have to be. Just trying to kill as many people of a certain group isn't terrorism, but to do it in order to "send a message" certainly is.
Hate crimes are more about assessing the perpetrator's danger to society. It's completely different to attack someone for something they've personally done to you, compared to attacking someone for what they are. Someone who has no qualms in attacking other people simply for characteristics is clearly more of a danger to society than someone with a specific beef against a specific person. There is logic behind identifying hate crimes.
Them not wanting to risk alienating 50% of their prospective market just to satisfy a vocal minority of the other 50% seems like common sense, not going "full SJW". "If you want to see tits, go look at porn" seems a rather mature stance to take.
Judging people without all the evidence. Classy guy. You have no idea what was going through his head. You really have no idea, and yet decide to call him a coward for committing suicide. It can be argued that suicide is a lot braver than languishing in jail too cowardly to end it on your own terms. But whatever - you seem quite happy condemning people by your opinions.
No, the point is you probably chose the wrong SSDs. You either got budget SSDs, or got consumer grade SSDs which don't like their workload. For there to be a general problem with SSDs you'd first have to explain why so many people are having nothing but success with them, and frequently in hard-working situations.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Not everywhere. If public transport is implemented correctly, the opposite is frequently the case.
2) It's free at the point of use. Your roads are subsidised, but you failed to mention that.
3) And? You like a menial task. That has barely anything to do with this discussion.
If you calm down for a second, you'd realise that's not what he said. Leaping to conclusions isn't helping you look at all sane. You seem mightily defensive...
Are you really asking this? We all know from tireless discussions on Slashdot that the social support in Europe is far greater than in the US, from medical access & costs, to housing support, subsidised transport, and so on. Or do you suddenly think that the moment someone loses their house, the systems which fucked them over suddenly become their best friend? You should stop being so offended when people point out the obvious shortcomings of the US. It sucks to be poor in the US, and it's even worse to be homeless. Being poor in Europe is far more manageable, and being homeless even more so. But whatever - you seem to have already made up your mind.
Private transport reaches its limit before public transport. Public transport lines are constantly being built out in many places, and have been for hundreds of years.
You are comparing your situation to bad public transport. I understand as an American that might be all you know, but there are systems out there which are simply fantastic. I understand you like driving, but that doesn't really mean the rest of humanity should be held back because you accidentally appreciate a manual task delegated to humanity because it couldn't be automated.
Public transport can be awesome. It's a shame you've not experienced it.
I live in a city served by excellent public transport. We hang out in our garden and can't hear a thing, so you might want to brush up on your argument ;)
For my current job I just have to walk for about 10 minutes to the office. My new job requires me to commute, but only 20 minutes on a tram which picks me up about 20m from my front door, and drops me off 100m from work at the other end. The vast majority of the people I know don't have cars, and simply don't need them. If they need a van or a car, they can use Stadtmobil to rent one for a few hours/days.
That it's completely untestable? I think that might have something to do with it :)
Speak for yourself! In Europe there are lots of long-distance trains, and they are spacious, quick, easy to use, and have full restaurant cars. Some have sleeper services, and most trains have compartments for 6 or so people, in conjunction with cross-table & standard seating.
Increases in CO2 will cause lower yields for our staple crops, meaning more will have to be planted to maintain the supply. The fact you didn't mention that means you either didn't know it, or don't care about painting an accurate picture, just one which makes you feel better. We will lose a lot more than coral. I love how you put "mitigation and migration" in there as if they would take an afternoon's work to sort out. You really are not too interested in being accurate, are you?
The evidence seems to suggest you are not only wrong, but incredibly wrong. Like, ridiculously stupidly wrong. Majestically wrong, even. If what you say is true, where are the peer-reviewed papers which demonstrate it? Where are the Nobel prizes won for showing this? This is the holy grail of the denialist camp, and yet not one of them has managed to demonstrate it. I mean, that would shit on so much of the evidence it would be the biggest boon for denialists, yet it simply doesn't exist. I guess that it would require CO2 to take on certain properties only when politically convenient for denialists is quite a problem...
Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between sea ice and land ice. You've already demonstrated your knowledge of this field is severely lacking, yet you still feel capable of discerning fact from fiction. You seem to have a much greater opinion of yourself than the evidence suggests is wise, which would explain an awful lot.
But there has been warming in that period. Ask yourself why it's 18.5 years and not 18 or 19...
If you believe something without supporting evidence you are right to be ignored. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but to demand stopped clocks be treated as accurate timepieces is beyond insanity.
You misrepresenting the case of others, and conflating the arguments of disparate groups as you do so, won't lead you to better understand their positions, and definitely won't help people at who you spout such nonsense. You appear to have constructed your own enemy.
Every time you make a claim which study after study has shown to be nonsense demonstrates one or more of the following things:
1. You need some education in this field
2. You don't mind lying in order to make a point
3. You really don't understand what's going on
Pick at least one.
One can redress a balance without favouring one constituent over the other. Hell, that's the very definition.
That's what it might mean to you, but to assume that's what it means to everyone is just, well, pathetic.
I think that speaks more of your motivations than it does of anyone else. You seem to be projecting.
Well, white guys do generally hold most of the power in the western world, so if there are to be improvements in society, they are the most capable of effecting them. Expecting the under-represented minorities to affect change is ensuring progress is as slow as it can be. Being tired of something doesn't diminish its accuracy, and even if you are white you are not every other white guy out there.
A hate crime does not have to be terrorism. Terrorism is a motive - to induce fear in people in order to coerce them politically. A hate crime is targeting someone with specific qualities of their person (race, sexuality, etc.) because of those qualities. A hate crime can be terrorism, but it doesn't have to be. Just trying to kill as many people of a certain group isn't terrorism, but to do it in order to "send a message" certainly is.
Hate crimes are more about assessing the perpetrator's danger to society. It's completely different to attack someone for something they've personally done to you, compared to attacking someone for what they are. Someone who has no qualms in attacking other people simply for characteristics is clearly more of a danger to society than someone with a specific beef against a specific person. There is logic behind identifying hate crimes.
Them not wanting to risk alienating 50% of their prospective market just to satisfy a vocal minority of the other 50% seems like common sense, not going "full SJW". "If you want to see tits, go look at porn" seems a rather mature stance to take.
Judging people without all the evidence. Classy guy. You have no idea what was going through his head. You really have no idea, and yet decide to call him a coward for committing suicide. It can be argued that suicide is a lot braver than languishing in jail too cowardly to end it on your own terms. But whatever - you seem quite happy condemning people by your opinions.
No, the point is you probably chose the wrong SSDs. You either got budget SSDs, or got consumer grade SSDs which don't like their workload. For there to be a general problem with SSDs you'd first have to explain why so many people are having nothing but success with them, and frequently in hard-working situations.