still not refuting anything I've said or engaging with me in an intellectual fashion
Why do I have to be the only one that is intellectual? Your "evil oil companies" strawman you built in my name is most definitely not a sign of adequate reading comprehension let alone intellect.
This is no debate. This is me pointing out to a wayward child that he is regurgitating somebody else's shit all over the page and that it's probably a good idea to stop eating it.
Wind power has not yet proved that it can supply large quantities of power
If it's large quantities relative to what is being consumed then it was proved before Don Quixote was written. I really do not get why people lower themselves to make such utterly stupid statements that have been demonstrably wrong for centuries just because the political team they cheer for doesn't like windmills. How about we have more tech and less politically motivated bullshit in the comment section. I thought the kids here were supposed to be the geeks and not the student politics tragics that are hoping for taxpayer or donor funded life support for the rest of their lives.
Yes. Soon to be Sir Tony is does have some behaviours that remind us that when he says "unaustralian" he really means not English. Other things like his hypocritical attacks on Slipper and Hanson which were really for defecting from the party convince me that he's not fit to hold a position of responsibility.
There does not appear to be a rational basis for your comment above - either you've got things completely reversed or you are reversing it for the sake of name calling (which I suppose is fair enough since I suspect you are a worthless little luddite who wants to pretend that nobody else is good at anything so that you can feel special yourself). Either way my point about this bullshit of pretending that any layman with nothing other than a gut feeling can trump any expert stands. It may make people feel good but it's no way to run a society, and I am deeply suspicious of anyone that pushes such a ridiculous line. That's the current state of climate science denial - denial of any sort of expertise at all - and I think all of you people pushing such a line are manipulative pricks that are dragging us all down.
I strongly disagree. This issue has been politicised for far longer than Gore's reaction to politically motivated climate science denial.
personally hostile against me
Only some of the things you have written - especially when you've attempted to put words in my mouth that were never there. I consider that disgusting.
Try reading it again and then reply after you have understood, unless you got it but are deliberately pretending to be incredibly dim as some childish sort of argument technique.
New fuel tank - so different takeoff mass, different size and different flight characteristics. That creates a new element of risk hence my comment way above that you seemed to object to.
What gives you the idea that I confuse rockets and software? I haven't even mention software.
The way you are discussing design gives me that impression.
In the USSR decades back there was a creative but courageous solution to that. Some files were opened along the lines of "as ordered all files on subject X with details contained in the appendix to this file were destroyed". That's how the world has some records of mass graves from Stalin's time.
Well our leader was up before the Judge twice, once for groping a girl from behind and once for theft of a traffic sign, so he resembles a criminal exported from the UK in some ways.
The biggest problem so far is there is not yet a definition of metadata as used in the bill. The plan is to pass it and then define what data is actually going to be kept later, so it could potentially be everything in web caches and full recordings of telephone calls.
You just don't get it - major changes have consequences in multiple components and design becomes a multiple feedback process. It's not fucking source code and you should at least be able to grasp that much. The analogies were of things you would have heard of instead of being an exact match, because, guess what, an analogy is an analogy and is never meant to be taken literally. Maybe I'll try a film one this time - "The Magnificent Seven" was very heavily based on "The Seven Sumuari" but many scenes, camera angles, costumes, dialogue etc was different and it still took a lot of work. The parameters were different enough with this rocket that it also took some work. Changing the designs of complicated things with a lot of interdependencies is not trivial. Getting it yet?
It's about setting things up so the entire concept of expertise is questioned - it's where a layman can yell that you are wrong in something to do with your profession just because it makes them feel better - and then an observer is supposed to gives more credence to whoever makes the most noise instead of whoever knows what they are doing. That's what you are pushing instead of just having to prove worth to your peers or someone with a remote clue about what you do. Personally I think that's a very stupid way to go through life with zero worth in any way unless you have no ability in anything but want to feel "special".
1. It got political when the likes of Al Gore got involved which was pretty much at the start of it
That may be when you noticed but some of us were grown adults some years before this site started and have longer memories. As for point two, try reading what I've written above again and get it right before putting words in my mouth. I doubt you are dumb enough to get it so badly wrong on a second reading, especially if you take note of the word "parasites".
The thing is, no one is willing to take on a vow of poverty to stop an ambiguous threat
Ah yes, the sponsored astroturf argument that it's better to do nothing because the most extreme action is difficult. A lot of money was spent on brainwashing you to that view (and it probably would have got me too if I wasn't old enough to see it start) but you don't have to fall for the advertised line and can think about maybe there is more than just two extreme choices. While all this childish denial has been going on the grown ups have been quietly cutting energy consumption in various ways, some blindingly obvious like LED lights, others less obvious like vastly cutting the energy input required to make microprocessors, sheet steel for car bodies etc.
Yes, but population is the obvious bit everyone knows and was widely discussed over the last century. One of the results of the discussion was the "green revolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution) and another was the population control measures taken in China and India.
The discussion IS complete "without it" because a large number of human beings is a basic assumption taken into the discussion in the first place!
It got political because some people in politics were in denial of reality. Others in politics pointed that out. Then an evil bunch of pricks spent shitloads on PR opposing that because parasites feeding off the oil industry mistakenly saw discussion of climate science as a threat to their bank balance. Others loudly objected to that - and conflict sells newspapers and TV advertising time. You are seeing the equivalent of sports commentary where something exciting has to be talked about at all times in case people switch off. That's why we've got TV time given to fucking Economists commenting on cloud formation as if they know more about it than the leading Physicists in the field. It should be as obviously ridiculous as an unpublished Physicist commenting on monetary policy.
So your rant about noise is badly misplaced, has NOTHING to do with the scientists and is best directed at Rupert Murdoch, the Heartland Institute and whatever media company is delivering the material you hate.
"you can feed random noise into Mann's analysis system and have hockey sticks pop out" Oh really? I thought it would at least require porn for most men's analysis systems before the hockey stick pops out.
Do you people understand that by pushing a line that expertise is worthless you are also setting things up so that your own expertise in your own job or profession can also be seen as worthless? That's fine for lay preachers that see an educated clergy as agents of the devil keeping them from feeding the gullible kool-aid, but modern society is a complex technological beast that requires people with a clue if we don't want a huge number of fuckups that produce problems up to and including fatalities. Taking the luddite view is worse than a 400 year step backwards.
And the control system, frame, outer skin etc etc. It's like comparing a Spitfire to a P-51 Mustang (or even Spitfire to Lancaster bomber since they had the same Rolls Royce Merlin engine too). Don't make me wheel out the engineer versus programmer stuff, that's never complimentary.
Nowhere close to generous. It's not a modified rocket of another model, it's a new one with an engine that was used in another model. Car analogy: Early Porche 914, a very different vehicle to the Volkswagen with the same engine.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do I have to be the only one that is intellectual? Your "evil oil companies" strawman you built in my name is most definitely not a sign of adequate reading comprehension let alone intellect.
This is no debate. This is me pointing out to a wayward child that he is regurgitating somebody else's shit all over the page and that it's probably a good idea to stop eating it.
Are you really so out of touch with reality that you need a source to tell you that windmills are more than decoration?
If it's large quantities relative to what is being consumed then it was proved before Don Quixote was written.
I really do not get why people lower themselves to make such utterly stupid statements that have been demonstrably wrong for centuries just because the political team they cheer for doesn't like windmills.
How about we have more tech and less politically motivated bullshit in the comment section. I thought the kids here were supposed to be the geeks and not the student politics tragics that are hoping for taxpayer or donor funded life support for the rest of their lives.
They have little or no coal in Denmark so it makes perfect sense to be less dependant on imports.
Yes. Soon to be Sir Tony is does have some behaviours that remind us that when he says "unaustralian" he really means not English. Other things like his hypocritical attacks on Slipper and Hanson which were really for defecting from the party convince me that he's not fit to hold a position of responsibility.
One child policy anyone? Oh course everyone who can read knows.
There does not appear to be a rational basis for your comment above - either you've got things completely reversed or you are reversing it for the sake of name calling (which I suppose is fair enough since I suspect you are a worthless little luddite who wants to pretend that nobody else is good at anything so that you can feel special yourself).
Either way my point about this bullshit of pretending that any layman with nothing other than a gut feeling can trump any expert stands. It may make people feel good but it's no way to run a society, and I am deeply suspicious of anyone that pushes such a ridiculous line. That's the current state of climate science denial - denial of any sort of expertise at all - and I think all of you people pushing such a line are manipulative pricks that are dragging us all down.
I am not your strawman. You do not know how I feel and you have indeed misquoted me above with such things as "evil oil companies".
No. You post a lot on topics I'm interested in so of course I'm bound to reply to you every now and again.
Only some of the things you have written - especially when you've attempted to put words in my mouth that were never there. I consider that disgusting.
Try reading it again and then reply after you have understood, unless you got it but are deliberately pretending to be incredibly dim as some childish sort of argument technique.
That creates a new element of risk hence my comment way above that you seemed to object to.
The way you are discussing design gives me that impression.
In the USSR decades back there was a creative but courageous solution to that. Some files were opened along the lines of "as ordered all files on subject X with details contained in the appendix to this file were destroyed". That's how the world has some records of mass graves from Stalin's time.
Well our leader was up before the Judge twice, once for groping a girl from behind and once for theft of a traffic sign, so he resembles a criminal exported from the UK in some ways.
The biggest problem so far is there is not yet a definition of metadata as used in the bill. The plan is to pass it and then define what data is actually going to be kept later, so it could potentially be everything in web caches and full recordings of telephone calls.
You just don't get it - major changes have consequences in multiple components and design becomes a multiple feedback process. It's not fucking source code and you should at least be able to grasp that much.
The analogies were of things you would have heard of instead of being an exact match, because, guess what, an analogy is an analogy and is never meant to be taken literally. Maybe I'll try a film one this time - "The Magnificent Seven" was very heavily based on "The Seven Sumuari" but many scenes, camera angles, costumes, dialogue etc was different and it still took a lot of work. The parameters were different enough with this rocket that it also took some work.
Changing the designs of complicated things with a lot of interdependencies is not trivial. Getting it yet?
It's about setting things up so the entire concept of expertise is questioned - it's where a layman can yell that you are wrong in something to do with your profession just because it makes them feel better - and then an observer is supposed to gives more credence to whoever makes the most noise instead of whoever knows what they are doing. That's what you are pushing instead of just having to prove worth to your peers or someone with a remote clue about what you do.
Personally I think that's a very stupid way to go through life with zero worth in any way unless you have no ability in anything but want to feel "special".
That may be when you noticed but some of us were grown adults some years before this site started and have longer memories.
As for point two, try reading what I've written above again and get it right before putting words in my mouth. I doubt you are dumb enough to get it so badly wrong on a second reading, especially if you take note of the word "parasites".
The post was about alternatives to the extreme action strawman. Please do try to keep up.
Ah yes, the sponsored astroturf argument that it's better to do nothing because the most extreme action is difficult. A lot of money was spent on brainwashing you to that view (and it probably would have got me too if I wasn't old enough to see it start) but you don't have to fall for the advertised line and can think about maybe there is more than just two extreme choices.
While all this childish denial has been going on the grown ups have been quietly cutting energy consumption in various ways, some blindingly obvious like LED lights, others less obvious like vastly cutting the energy input required to make microprocessors, sheet steel for car bodies etc.
Yes, but population is the obvious bit everyone knows and was widely discussed over the last century. One of the results of the discussion was the "green revolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution) and another was the population control measures taken in China and India.
The discussion IS complete "without it" because a large number of human beings is a basic assumption taken into the discussion in the first place!
It got political because some people in politics were in denial of reality. Others in politics pointed that out. Then an evil bunch of pricks spent shitloads on PR opposing that because parasites feeding off the oil industry mistakenly saw discussion of climate science as a threat to their bank balance. Others loudly objected to that - and conflict sells newspapers and TV advertising time.
You are seeing the equivalent of sports commentary where something exciting has to be talked about at all times in case people switch off. That's why we've got TV time given to fucking Economists commenting on cloud formation as if they know more about it than the leading Physicists in the field. It should be as obviously ridiculous as an unpublished Physicist commenting on monetary policy.
So your rant about noise is badly misplaced, has NOTHING to do with the scientists and is best directed at Rupert Murdoch, the Heartland Institute and whatever media company is delivering the material you hate.
"you can feed random noise into Mann's analysis system and have hockey sticks pop out"
Oh really?
I thought it would at least require porn for most men's analysis systems before the hockey stick pops out.
Do you people understand that by pushing a line that expertise is worthless you are also setting things up so that your own expertise in your own job or profession can also be seen as worthless?
That's fine for lay preachers that see an educated clergy as agents of the devil keeping them from feeding the gullible kool-aid, but modern society is a complex technological beast that requires people with a clue if we don't want a huge number of fuckups that produce problems up to and including fatalities. Taking the luddite view is worse than a 400 year step backwards.
It's based on things like this:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionat...
And the control system, frame, outer skin etc etc.
It's like comparing a Spitfire to a P-51 Mustang (or even Spitfire to Lancaster bomber since they had the same Rolls Royce Merlin engine too).
Don't make me wheel out the engineer versus programmer stuff, that's never complimentary.
Nowhere close to generous. It's not a modified rocket of another model, it's a new one with an engine that was used in another model.
Car analogy: Early Porche 914, a very different vehicle to the Volkswagen with the same engine.