So where do you propose we should be moving everyone that is at zero risk from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and any other natural disasters i'm forgetting about right now?
I'm a former beer drinker, and I learned this tip. If that guys roomate wants to stretch his drunk out, he should drink a bottle of water between each bottle of the suds. This will help distribute the alcohol in his system.
That has the profound disadvantage of doubling the time it takes to get drunk, pass out and not have to worry about the weather outside.
Especially with above-the-ground power lines, which is really silly with so many trees around in the PNW. Visitors from Europe are frequently astonished that a developed country would do it that way...
But as a bonus you get some awesome lighting effects when the power lines come down and whip across the road like electric snakes from the portals of hell.
Prove that, despite all the extra global temperature THIS SPECIFIC hurrican would have been no less if that warming were removed.
You're mixing up weather and climate. Any specific weather event doesn't prove anything about climate change one way or another. It's the overall trends that you have to worry about.
Yeah, it's probably Alex Jones. I heard him too, and he didnt say for sure, he said that it is possible. Apparently he had scientists involved with creating weather weapons on his show, and has interviewed many people, and yes there are mechanisms to control weather. With planes, and chemicals and such apparently hurricanes can be steered around. It's not that implausible once you look at what we have done already and the technology we have. Whether Sandy's a conspiracy or not is just thrown out there for consideration. This IS the worst storm in 100 years just in time to take away Romney's momentum. Don't mod me down-- I'm just clarifing here.
You know the saying about how when you're in a hole you should stop digging? Well you just burrowed your way into the Centre of the Earth where the Nazis and Lizard overlords play.
See. That's the problem. You think your views should be free to roam the intellectual landscape, but mine are too dangerous to be let loose.
Seriously?
No, I think that if you let your ideas loose in the wild you should be prepared to discuss them rationally without falling back into the "God is too important to be ridiculed and too mysterious to be discussed by mere mortals" defence.
What you believe or don't believe is a very personal choice, and it's no one else's business as long as you aren't trying to create a human ant colony.
Bullshit, pure and simple. While there is any sort of free speech, religious beliefs and discussions get into the public domain. As an atheist I am as entitled to disagree and criticise these beliefs just as much as I am entitled to mock Hollow Earthers, Neo Nazis or George W Bush.
If you don't want your precious religious beliefs discussed, keep them to yourselves. Although obviously it would be a strange sort of religion that felt embarrassed about revealing itself to non-believers.
Yet more rubbish from the would-be defenders of religion. If you find that asking questions about your beliefs makes them seem ridiculous, maybe you need to reconsider those beliefs.
If you're a Catholic, and you agree that the idea that a priest blessing a wafer actually turns it into the body of Christ is ridiculous, you should be aware of the congitive dissonance.
Any belief that can be made to look ridiculous without misrepresenting it is an extremely superficial one.
I'm quite sympathetic to the atheistic worldview, but it seems to me that a true atheist would accept the "God Delusion" as as much a product of evolution as tribal instincts, and focus on the advantages of moving past such a delusion, as opposed to characterizing those subject to the "delusion" as ignorant hillbillies
What a load of rubbish. Atheists can indeed see the function of religion in an historical or sociological fashion, the point is that if you accept it as just that, it is hard to see why people still believe in the Abrahamic God any more than Ra or Zeus.
I love how on slashdot, if you find racism or sexism or homophobia or ableism or whatever offensive you're a whiny liberal with no sense of humour, but as soon as religion is involved it's all "hey those are sacred beliefs, you can't criticise them."
I'm stunned by the number of pro-religious people here. I suppose it's an inevitable side effect of this being a US-centric site, but it's still baffling. It's like reading some Iranian forum.
If you believe in god you should be able to discuss it with people who disagree with you. The reason we atheists get so annoyed is that religious people are only too happy to fall back into the position of "I know I'm right and I don't need to discuss my deeply profound beliefs with the likdes of you". You come over as smug and anti-intellectual, and it gets annoying.
I personally think you can believe what you like, but that your churches or whatever should be allowed absolutely no political, economic or other influence on society. What you believe in your own house in your own head is up to you.
Would your position make using coercion to inhibit religion justifiable?
I wish.
The problem is that "quality of life" includes the right to worship.
In private, maybe, much like being a paedophile or Nazi. I can't stop you believing in poisonous rubbish, but I can certainly do something about it if you try to organise a fucking torchlight parade down my street. Hint: I don't believe that absolute free speech for scum is the most basic of human rights.
I specifically made a distinction between a threat from the immoral (god) and a threat from the mortal (other human beings). If you don't believe in the religion, then logically, any coercive threats from their god are irrelevent to you!
That would be fine if no one with religious beliefs ever talked about them in public or allowed them to influence their politics. As soon as retards in Iran or the US start using holy books to justify wars or other idiocies, religion has lost its claim to be merely an innocent bystander.
I see the religio-libertaritard mods are out in force today. My government exists to represent the will of the people and at least partly protect me from the vastly powerful military-industrial complex that would like to run all our lives like a fucking non-free market (as if there was any other kind).
Your comments about religion are asinine, as it is only non-coercive and non-instrusive if it stays as a pathetic fantasy in the brains of inadequates who cannot face reality. Unfortunately, their very weakness always leads them to over-compensate by fucking on about it in public to anyone who will listen. You're incorrect, unconvincing, borderline mentally ill and deserve sympathetic treatment to rid you of your delusions.
tl:dr version: You're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak.
Slashdot Mirror
Autocorrect wouldn't have let "thru" through. My guess is either he's not a native English speaker, or he's on crack.
Maybe he's scared and can't type properly because he are getting the for measure of fright.
So where do you propose we should be moving everyone that is at zero risk from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and any other natural disasters i'm forgetting about right now?
Floods?
I'm a former beer drinker, and I learned this tip. If that guys roomate wants to stretch his drunk out, he should drink a bottle of water between each bottle of the suds. This will help distribute the alcohol in his system.
That has the profound disadvantage of doubling the time it takes to get drunk, pass out and not have to worry about the weather outside.
One day I must try putting a chlorine water purification tablet into a can of Bud Light.
After all, it can't make it any worse, and there's a reasonable chance it might make it drinkable.
But wouldn't it kill off all the natural yeast and general natural goodness that make beer both a drink and a food in one?
Posted from the UK, where, yes the real ale is served at room temperature (ish), but it does actually taste of something.
PS good luck with the storm. At least you haven't had Michael Fish saying there's nothing to worry about.
Yea, in 2005, no water for a week, but I didn't run out of water from my normal stock anyway.
Most people don't have a week's water supply in their homes.
Especially with above-the-ground power lines, which is really silly with so many trees around in the PNW. Visitors from Europe are frequently astonished that a developed country would do it that way...
But as a bonus you get some awesome lighting effects when the power lines come down and whip across the road like electric snakes from the portals of hell.
We'd have people getting electrocuted trying to melt ice on the windshield with blow dryers
YouTube link or it never happened.
" "WORK" - "FROM" - "HOME" " Or as I call it "Toss yourself into a froth as soon as the missus leaves the house".
Presumably your work doesn't do any sort of monitoring? That would make for an interesting annual review.
Prove that, despite all the extra global temperature THIS SPECIFIC hurrican would have been no less if that warming were removed.
You're mixing up weather and climate. Any specific weather event doesn't prove anything about climate change one way or another. It's the overall trends that you have to worry about.
.it is a PITA, but not like you'll be losing half the coast and millions of lives, etc.
The 2004 Boxing Day tsunami "only" cost about a quarter of a million lives, that doesn't mean it was just a minor inconvenience.
Yeah, it's probably Alex Jones. I heard him too, and he didnt say for sure, he said that it is possible. Apparently he had scientists involved with creating weather weapons on his show, and has interviewed many people, and yes there are mechanisms to control weather. With planes, and chemicals and such apparently hurricanes can be steered around. It's not that implausible once you look at what we have done already and the technology we have. Whether Sandy's a conspiracy or not is just thrown out there for consideration. This IS the worst storm in 100 years just in time to take away Romney's momentum. Don't mod me down-- I'm just clarifing here.
You know the saying about how when you're in a hole you should stop digging? Well you just burrowed your way into the Centre of the Earth where the Nazis and Lizard overlords play.
neurotypical people like yourself
Self-diagnosed Aspie alert! Self-diagnosed Aspie alert! Self-diagnosed Aspie alert!
I think your method of cut/paste the text strikes a good compromise between giving out the information and preventing unauthorized copy.
You seriously don't think that copying and pasting the whole text of a work constitutes copyright infringement?
I'm not a fan of paywalls for research papers, but you can't just magic them away.
See. That's the problem. You think your views should be free to roam the intellectual landscape, but mine are too dangerous to be let loose.
Seriously?
No, I think that if you let your ideas loose in the wild you should be prepared to discuss them rationally without falling back into the "God is too important to be ridiculed and too mysterious to be discussed by mere mortals" defence.
What you believe or don't believe is a very personal choice, and it's no one else's business as long as you aren't trying to create a human ant colony.
Bullshit, pure and simple. While there is any sort of free speech, religious beliefs and discussions get into the public domain. As an atheist I am as entitled to disagree and criticise these beliefs just as much as I am entitled to mock Hollow Earthers, Neo Nazis or George W Bush.
If you don't want your precious religious beliefs discussed, keep them to yourselves. Although obviously it would be a strange sort of religion that felt embarrassed about revealing itself to non-believers.
Yet more rubbish from the would-be defenders of religion. If you find that asking questions about your beliefs makes them seem ridiculous, maybe you need to reconsider those beliefs.
If you're a Catholic, and you agree that the idea that a priest blessing a wafer actually turns it into the body of Christ is ridiculous, you should be aware of the congitive dissonance.
Any belief that can be made to look ridiculous without misrepresenting it is an extremely superficial one.
I'm quite sympathetic to the atheistic worldview, but it seems to me that a true atheist would accept the "God Delusion" as as much a product of evolution as tribal instincts, and focus on the advantages of moving past such a delusion, as opposed to characterizing those subject to the "delusion" as ignorant hillbillies
What a load of rubbish. Atheists can indeed see the function of religion in an historical or sociological fashion, the point is that if you accept it as just that, it is hard to see why people still believe in the Abrahamic God any more than Ra or Zeus.
I love how on slashdot, if you find racism or sexism or homophobia or ableism or whatever offensive you're a whiny liberal with no sense of humour, but as soon as religion is involved it's all "hey those are sacred beliefs, you can't criticise them."
I'm stunned by the number of pro-religious people here. I suppose it's an inevitable side effect of this being a US-centric site, but it's still baffling. It's like reading some Iranian forum.
If you believe in god you should be able to discuss it with people who disagree with you. The reason we atheists get so annoyed is that religious people are only too happy to fall back into the position of "I know I'm right and I don't need to discuss my deeply profound beliefs with the likdes of you". You come over as smug and anti-intellectual, and it gets annoying.
I personally think you can believe what you like, but that your churches or whatever should be allowed absolutely no political, economic or other influence on society. What you believe in your own house in your own head is up to you.
Would your position make using coercion to inhibit religion justifiable?
I wish.
The problem is that "quality of life" includes the right to worship.
In private, maybe, much like being a paedophile or Nazi. I can't stop you believing in poisonous rubbish, but I can certainly do something about it if you try to organise a fucking torchlight parade down my street. Hint: I don't believe that absolute free speech for scum is the most basic of human rights.
I specifically made a distinction between a threat from the immoral (god) and a threat from the mortal (other human beings). If you don't believe in the religion, then logically, any coercive threats from their god are irrelevent to you!
That would be fine if no one with religious beliefs ever talked about them in public or allowed them to influence their politics. As soon as retards in Iran or the US start using holy books to justify wars or other idiocies, religion has lost its claim to be merely an innocent bystander.
I see the religio-libertaritard mods are out in force today. My government exists to represent the will of the people and at least partly protect me from the vastly powerful military-industrial complex that would like to run all our lives like a fucking non-free market (as if there was any other kind).
Your comments about religion are asinine, as it is only non-coercive and non-instrusive if it stays as a pathetic fantasy in the brains of inadequates who cannot face reality. Unfortunately, their very weakness always leads them to over-compensate by fucking on about it in public to anyone who will listen. You're incorrect, unconvincing, borderline mentally ill and deserve sympathetic treatment to rid you of your delusions.
tl:dr version: You're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak.
10 Petabytes of information is insignificant. My corporate network has that much data, and backs up several hundred Terabytes nightly.
data!=information
They should print it all off, for safekeeping.
We would then be able to get a more realistic Libraries of Congress measurement.