And I'd like to say I also understand and respect your core position. There is a duty to improve one's own opinions when possible. I fully understand rejecting willful ignorance.
What ever makes you think they've been exposed to right and good positions through facts and logical argument? Seriously? I posit the following: every human being on the planet believes at least one absurd thing they have never been reasonably challenged on.
Sure, to the extent to which you must judge others, judge them based on what you know of them. But I say you shouldn't add additional judgement without action or call to action. People do not need to be punished for thinking bad things.
Nope, you can tolerate something and still actively speak against it. Attempting to convince people they are wrong about something is harmless. It breaks into intolerance when you suggest or take action(be it legislative, violent, or manipulative) against a group.
"I oppose you because of your skin color" is a statement that is to be rejected as unethical and foolish. Just because someone subscribes to at least one unethical and foolish position does not justify categorizing them and hating them. The position can be attacked without attacking the person.
I "tolerate intolerance" in as much as I respect the right of people to hold the position, I don't tolerate it in as much as I will point out the incorrectness of the position, actively fight against acting on the position, and make an honest attempt to convince the holder of their error. In spite of following this course precisely, I've been accused of not tolerating intolerance by people who just don't know what tolerance means.
Let's face it, some developers lack IT skills. Most of us have the understanding and appreciation of operating systems, security, and software to manage a safe environment, but some don't.
We also have peculiar environment requirements from time to time, and great need to experiment with different software setups in the course of our work. Engineers will make problems for IT, no matter what. The natural conclusion is to standardize as much as you can, grant admin access where you can't, and be prepared to put out some fires.
But that's the concern. I have a thing I can barely see the outline of, and it might just well be a rake. Do you really insist I call a rake a spade(ethnic stereotype)?
Yes, but that's a discernibly secondary factor. The problem is there's a whole debate centered on a fictitious concern, which fundamentally serves no purpose but to have people argue. I think the pro-science side is losing the public debate(and they are) because they all feel a compelling need to argue against any falsehood, which makes them vulnerable to trivial side-tracking.
Yes, all scientifically valid, but you're still arguing against a pointless myth. Melting water doesn't cause ocean-rise in significant quantities, thermal expansion does.
This is not bait. At no point did I say ocean levels rise due to melting ice. The fact that you don't know that's not the cause is your own failing. I was merely correcting a falsehood. There are 2-3 more outright falsehoods in your post, but I'm on the phone, and you're an intransigent moron.
I'm aware of this, I even highlighted that in my own post, without the hard numbers. The GGP was also dissembling on the front of where sea level rise is purported to come from, but I was addressing the direct misinformation in the post, rather than the more nuanced explanations for why sea levels are actually projected to rise: thermal expansion and secondarily near-polar ice shelves. The point was that the post contained an outright fabrication.
How about pick 3, is that worse than 5 more years of droughts like this one? Allowing global warming to continue unabated has economic costs. You know, those things everyone starts raging about when we mention cap and trade, or anything of the like.
Yep, nothing about the words "record" breaking made it over and over in that headline. Nope, other people are the ones using anecdotal evidence rather than hard data. Address the points actually made, for once.
Whoops, you just misinformed everyone. Saltwater is more bouyant than freshwater, and due to the nature of how ice appears in the ocean(the evaporate, snow, accumulate cycle) the icebergs and ice shelves that are melting are made of freshwater. The impact is that they actually do raise the sea level more as water than the displacement caused by ice. Now, it is true that it's far less than 1:1 for visible melted ice:sea level rise, but to say there is none is misinformation.
Build your own solution there are more than enough options with known and reasonable impacts on global GDP and quality of life. The real problem has been purely political for at least a decade.
Slashdot Mirror
It was implied. Don't be willfully dense.
That's pretty much true. Not sure what your point is though.
Unfettered access to information? How unacceptable to my locked-in dogmas.
But nuclear power? That's a technology my stupid caveman government can support.
And I'd like to say I also understand and respect your core position. There is a duty to improve one's own opinions when possible. I fully understand rejecting willful ignorance.
What ever makes you think they've been exposed to right and good positions through facts and logical argument? Seriously? I posit the following: every human being on the planet believes at least one absurd thing they have never been reasonably challenged on.
Sure, to the extent to which you must judge others, judge them based on what you know of them. But I say you shouldn't add additional judgement without action or call to action. People do not need to be punished for thinking bad things.
Nope, you can tolerate something and still actively speak against it. Attempting to convince people they are wrong about something is harmless. It breaks into intolerance when you suggest or take action(be it legislative, violent, or manipulative) against a group.
From my perspective, you got it wrong.
"I oppose you because of your skin color" is a statement that is to be rejected as unethical and foolish. Just because someone subscribes to at least one unethical and foolish position does not justify categorizing them and hating them. The position can be attacked without attacking the person.
I "tolerate intolerance" in as much as I respect the right of people to hold the position, I don't tolerate it in as much as I will point out the incorrectness of the position, actively fight against acting on the position, and make an honest attempt to convince the holder of their error. In spite of following this course precisely, I've been accused of not tolerating intolerance by people who just don't know what tolerance means.
Let's face it, some developers lack IT skills. Most of us have the understanding and appreciation of operating systems, security, and software to manage a safe environment, but some don't.
We also have peculiar environment requirements from time to time, and great need to experiment with different software setups in the course of our work. Engineers will make problems for IT, no matter what. The natural conclusion is to standardize as much as you can, grant admin access where you can't, and be prepared to put out some fires.
But that's the concern. I have a thing I can barely see the outline of, and it might just well be a rake. Do you really insist I call a rake a spade(ethnic stereotype)?
Yes, but that's a discernibly secondary factor. The problem is there's a whole debate centered on a fictitious concern, which fundamentally serves no purpose but to have people argue. I think the pro-science side is losing the public debate(and they are) because they all feel a compelling need to argue against any falsehood, which makes them vulnerable to trivial side-tracking.
God, aren't scare quotes enough for you people? Do I have to actively denigrate people I'm not certain of the motivations of?
Er, Windows PCs don't come much cheaper than that. Is the complaint here "I need to buy a computer in order to develop software"?
I think we have a "reputation manager" here. I'm not certain cause only 3 post history, but it sure seems like.
Yes, all scientifically valid, but you're still arguing against a pointless myth. Melting water doesn't cause ocean-rise in significant quantities, thermal expansion does.
This is not bait. At no point did I say ocean levels rise due to melting ice. The fact that you don't know that's not the cause is your own failing. I was merely correcting a falsehood. There are 2-3 more outright falsehoods in your post, but I'm on the phone, and you're an intransigent moron.
Without going into detail, you need to review your freshman chemistry. The part about solutions.
Isn't this anti-competitive behavior?
I'm aware of this, I even highlighted that in my own post, without the hard numbers. The GGP was also dissembling on the front of where sea level rise is purported to come from, but I was addressing the direct misinformation in the post, rather than the more nuanced explanations for why sea levels are actually projected to rise: thermal expansion and secondarily near-polar ice shelves. The point was that the post contained an outright fabrication.
How about pick 3, is that worse than 5 more years of droughts like this one? Allowing global warming to continue unabated has economic costs. You know, those things everyone starts raging about when we mention cap and trade, or anything of the like.
I've never seen this before, two "Informative" posts in a row, both of which are misinformative. That's bizarre.
GP was taking that into account, but was wrong for other reasons.
Yep, nothing about the words "record" breaking made it over and over in that headline. Nope, other people are the ones using anecdotal evidence rather than hard data. Address the points actually made, for once.
Whoops, you just misinformed everyone. Saltwater is more bouyant than freshwater, and due to the nature of how ice appears in the ocean(the evaporate, snow, accumulate cycle) the icebergs and ice shelves that are melting are made of freshwater. The impact is that they actually do raise the sea level more as water than the displacement caused by ice. Now, it is true that it's far less than 1:1 for visible melted ice:sea level rise, but to say there is none is misinformation.
Build your own solution there are more than enough options with known and reasonable impacts on global GDP and quality of life. The real problem has been purely political for at least a decade.
A site with a list of wedges
We got some VERY big bombs out of that deal.