Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's those unions. Those ones whose membership has been steadily and measurably been decreasing for 30 years(almost exactly at the same rate as wage stagnation occurs, as a complete coincidence).
How small does Snowball's organization have to get before you stop believing he's behind everything?
Dictating that I do not have the right is not that far from dictating that I must
Dictating that I can't sell my children into slavery isn't that different into dictating that I must. I'm saying your freedom to do something stupid and create a de facto standard for everyone else having to do something is stupid is bad. You don't deserve that freedom, and it doesn't help you.
Because it can be easily exploited, yields no measurable benefit to the economy, defies some of our basic principles, and can cause undue strain on the unemployment insurance system.
That enough reasons? No?
It causes people to suffer tomorrow because they're desperate for a job today, it overloads the court system with unnecessary lawsuits when violated, it replaces actual earned loyalty with a contract, and needlessly complicated contract negotiations for everyone.
BP got in big trouble for an internal memo that discussed the idea of reclaiming the oil. It was a "how dare they think of protecting their assets after doing this" outrage.
I don't have a strong opinion about that memo or the outrage(even though I'm quite concerned with environmental matters on principle). Just that that happened.
I don't care. You're about as interested in honest debate as he is. I don't care what your imagined threshold of evidence is, because you don't state it and then you proceed demand I meet it, as if you're taking a stand against a totally arbitrary accusation.
I challenge you to post one, just one even remotely honest thing from his damned website. Mr. I'll-defend-the-worst-scumfuckers-for-no-reason.
Here's what a non-shill might have: Any sort of real standing credentials(he has some low-grade expired credentials for appearing on air as weatherman), scientific papers published in an appropriate and notable journal, nuance in position based on available data, and a big one not take money from a partisan organization with a history attempting to confuse the public regarding science for profit
It's not hard to do that. Really, any of those would be something that's easily achievable, all of them could be reasonably expected.
"have yo try" "rational argument and evidence is what it takes" "back your claims"
Ultimate bullshit. I posted 2 distinct links supporting a reasonable fact, one from the damned horses' mouth, and your brain basically just went "whoop whoop, contrary information deny existence."
Face it, you're in bias-love with a shill. What's it like? Being so dense as to demand backing, then have the sheer gall to throw out a word salad containing those phrases above? Be a less terrible human being, please.
Ok, I get it, you're so emotionally invested in your own stupidity not being based on outright fabricators who get money to fabricate things to deceive you.
And there is literally no threshold of evidence that is sufficient to convince you of a relatively benign point because you're so terrified of cognitive dissonance, that one blatant shill being a shill is too much for you.
Watt is so much of a shithead that I'm willing to bypass my "message not person" rule due to extremeness and consistency of his particular problems. He is a serial liar, and I have given his bullshit enough benefits of the doubt over the years, only to find so much of what can only be called intentional duplicitousness in every case, I cannot waste any more time with things he says.
Also regarding your denial of a relatively simple fact:
Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.
Why would prices spike as a result of more supply? The behavior of bitcoin markets always seems to be opposite of the imagined super free market principles it claims to be founded on.
Note here the actual claim here was that wind power hit energy payback well inside of a year. Conflating completely different things is a typically clueless and lazy activity I see in the climate change debate on all sides. Can't you step up your game? Or is the future of Earth just not that important to you?
Remember the thing I was explaining. "Similar claims". I wasn't addressing that particular claim, because it's far more important to communicate that Watts is a shithead who will engage in any lie he imagines he can get away with. There's no benefit of the doubt left to offer him. Absolute irredeemable fuckwit territory. I know ad hominem isn't a great reason to dismiss an argument, but Watts, in particular, is an someone who, if he wasn't fueling a bunch of idiots' confirmation bias, should have been run out of any debate ages ago, and it would be a bigger waste of time to examine this particular most recent lie and digest it, than to wait for an assessment someone whose trustworthiness is above "diagnosed compulsive liar" levels.
I'm impressed, but I'm not sure about even the most theoretical engineering applications of a little more field strength. Higher heat tolerance is easy to grapple with, but this an improvement that's hard to imagine practical applications for.
Getting $100,000 speaking fees from Heartland Institute shillfests(you know where they get a bunch of shills together and have them preach to the choir, and the press) in thanks for being a #1 source of purposeful misinformation about climate on the internet is like a career inasmuch as it provides his living. It's not like a career in that it involves a lifelong development of a set of skills.
Posting non-scientific "analyses" of carefully cherrypicked data doesn't really count as refuting anything either. Saying "nuh uh" with a chart that disguises what it's presenting, in spite of how nice it looks, doesn't actually refute anything. His dishonesty with regarding to "refutation" became totally clear when he said "... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." with respect to Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, then immediately dropped that whole point the moment the study was published and fell in line with the standing consensus.
That is simply not how refutation works.
There is absolutely zero similarity between climate change and the engineering specs of wind farms. Period. The only "similarity" they share is an opposition by fossil fuel companies. I don't claim to have digested Watts analysis of this particular thing, but I know a boy who cries wolf, and I know when to ignore him.
Finally, call greenhouse driven climate change a "claim" if you want, but it's not true.
Well, yeah, if you want to be pedantic. But I'm pretty sure the intended meaning was "immigrant into the already extant nation called "the United States of America."
The exact kind of immigration people rail against forms the majority of most Americans' ancestry. There's nothing special or unique about a longer bloodline history. It's a silly thing to obsess over.
Okay, and after review of the actual publication(not the editorial you linked) there is some highly suspect data point selection, picking just before a minor recession, a major recession, and right now as primary data points for employment information can lead to some skewed numbers.
I won't say I don't accept what's published there. The analysis isn't bad aside from that major point. But it does give me some concern that it wasn't compiled with an intellectually honest intent.
You say "no", but even if we accept the study by a hyper-partisan group with a specific objective of removing immigrants as valid, what you posted doesn't actually contradict what I said.
Now, we can argue to hell and back what constitutes "taking jobs", but the fact that they're trying as hard as possible to be Americans is an important one.
Alright, we're getting somewhere on testing your alternative hypothesis here.
Question the first: What is "ideal for human occupation" mean? Is there some kind of specific effects weather has on a human being that can help classify it as ideal/not. Please note that we CANNOT use suicide for firearm ownership for this test, since the null hypothesis asserts their relevance as an independent variable.
Question the second: What makes something "far" outside those bounds?
Bear in mind, now, that any test we do is going to incorporate at least one transitional variable, as we go from the notion of ideal, to the factors that create it to suicide rates. This will lower the statistical significance of our test, but since you're saying it accounts for a 100% difference, that should shine through.
Slashdot Mirror
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's those unions. Those ones whose membership has been steadily and measurably been decreasing for 30 years(almost exactly at the same rate as wage stagnation occurs, as a complete coincidence).
How small does Snowball's organization have to get before you stop believing he's behind everything?
Don't worry, you can trust the computer.
Dictating that I do not have the right is not that far from dictating that I must
Dictating that I can't sell my children into slavery isn't that different into dictating that I must. I'm saying your freedom to do something stupid and create a de facto standard for everyone else having to do something is stupid is bad. You don't deserve that freedom, and it doesn't help you.
No public figure exception? Our bad.
Because it can be easily exploited, yields no measurable benefit to the economy, defies some of our basic principles, and can cause undue strain on the unemployment insurance system.
That enough reasons? No?
It causes people to suffer tomorrow because they're desperate for a job today, it overloads the court system with unnecessary lawsuits when violated, it replaces actual earned loyalty with a contract, and needlessly complicated contract negotiations for everyone.
+1 funny/actually true
Non-compete is just one of the many ways in which the US completely an utterly lacks the free market we love to blab about.
Fraud is a serious crime.
BP got in big trouble for an internal memo that discussed the idea of reclaiming the oil. It was a "how dare they think of protecting their assets after doing this" outrage.
I don't have a strong opinion about that memo or the outrage(even though I'm quite concerned with environmental matters on principle). Just that that happened.
God damn are you disingenuous.
I don't care. You're about as interested in honest debate as he is. I don't care what your imagined threshold of evidence is, because you don't state it and then you proceed demand I meet it, as if you're taking a stand against a totally arbitrary accusation.
I challenge you to post one, just one even remotely honest thing from his damned website. Mr. I'll-defend-the-worst-scumfuckers-for-no-reason.
Here's what a non-shill might have:
Any sort of real standing credentials(he has some low-grade expired credentials for appearing on air as weatherman), scientific papers published in an appropriate and notable journal, nuance in position based on available data, and a big one not take money from a partisan organization with a history attempting to confuse the public regarding science for profit
It's not hard to do that. Really, any of those would be something that's easily achievable, all of them could be reasonably expected.
"have yo try"
"rational argument and evidence is what it takes"
"back your claims"
Ultimate bullshit. I posted 2 distinct links supporting a reasonable fact, one from the damned horses' mouth, and your brain basically just went "whoop whoop, contrary information deny existence."
Face it, you're in bias-love with a shill. What's it like? Being so dense as to demand backing, then have the sheer gall to throw out a word salad containing those phrases above? Be a less terrible human being, please.
Ok, I get it, you're so emotionally invested in your own stupidity not being based on outright fabricators who get money to fabricate things to deceive you.
And there is literally no threshold of evidence that is sufficient to convince you of a relatively benign point because you're so terrified of cognitive dissonance, that one blatant shill being a shill is too much for you.
Not my problem, but it is a problem.
Let me make it clearer for you:
Watt is so much of a shithead that I'm willing to bypass my "message not person" rule due to extremeness and consistency of his particular problems. He is a serial liar, and I have given his bullshit enough benefits of the doubt over the years, only to find so much of what can only be called intentional duplicitousness in every case, I cannot waste any more time with things he says.
Also regarding your denial of a relatively simple fact:
Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.
Wikipedia's source instead, since you have the most absurd case of denialism of this point too.
Another question:
Why would prices spike as a result of more supply? The behavior of bitcoin markets always seems to be opposite of the imagined super free market principles it claims to be founded on.
No mistake here, Watts is absolutely a paid shill. He is a serial liar, and lying about that is no surprise.
right there in the source watch summary
Note here the actual claim here was that wind power hit energy payback well inside of a year. Conflating completely different things is a typically clueless and lazy activity I see in the climate change debate on all sides. Can't you step up your game? Or is the future of Earth just not that important to you?
Remember the thing I was explaining. "Similar claims". I wasn't addressing that particular claim, because it's far more important to communicate that Watts is a shithead who will engage in any lie he imagines he can get away with. There's no benefit of the doubt left to offer him. Absolute irredeemable fuckwit territory. I know ad hominem isn't a great reason to dismiss an argument, but Watts, in particular, is an someone who, if he wasn't fueling a bunch of idiots' confirmation bias, should have been run out of any debate ages ago, and it would be a bigger waste of time to examine this particular most recent lie and digest it, than to wait for an assessment someone whose trustworthiness is above "diagnosed compulsive liar" levels.
Not as long as Facebook is getting some of peoples' personal information, and their data mines aren't fully loaded.
I don't think you need to go digging for hidden motivations to explain American antipathy towards our corporate "friends"
I'm impressed, but I'm not sure about even the most theoretical engineering applications of a little more field strength. Higher heat tolerance is easy to grapple with, but this an improvement that's hard to imagine practical applications for.
Let's be clear here:
A "career" of "refuting" "similar" "claims".
Getting $100,000 speaking fees from Heartland Institute shillfests(you know where they get a bunch of shills together and have them preach to the choir, and the press) in thanks for being a #1 source of purposeful misinformation about climate on the internet is like a career inasmuch as it provides his living. It's not like a career in that it involves a lifelong development of a set of skills.
Posting non-scientific "analyses" of carefully cherrypicked data doesn't really count as refuting anything either. Saying "nuh uh" with a chart that disguises what it's presenting, in spite of how nice it looks, doesn't actually refute anything. His dishonesty with regarding to "refutation" became totally clear when he said "... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." with respect to Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, then immediately dropped that whole point the moment the study was published and fell in line with the standing consensus.
That is simply not how refutation works.
There is absolutely zero similarity between climate change and the engineering specs of wind farms. Period. The only "similarity" they share is an opposition by fossil fuel companies. I don't claim to have digested Watts analysis of this particular thing, but I know a boy who cries wolf, and I know when to ignore him.
Finally, call greenhouse driven climate change a "claim" if you want, but it's not true.
Well, yeah, if you want to be pedantic. But I'm pretty sure the intended meaning was "immigrant into the already extant nation called "the United States of America."
The exact kind of immigration people rail against forms the majority of most Americans' ancestry. There's nothing special or unique about a longer bloodline history. It's a silly thing to obsess over.
Every single region of the world frequently exceeds those temperature bounds by substantial margins. It's called summer and/or winter.
Okay, and after review of the actual publication(not the editorial you linked) there is some highly suspect data point selection, picking just before a minor recession, a major recession, and right now as primary data points for employment information can lead to some skewed numbers.
I won't say I don't accept what's published there. The analysis isn't bad aside from that major point. But it does give me some concern that it wasn't compiled with an intellectually honest intent.
You say "no", but even if we accept the study by a hyper-partisan group with a specific objective of removing immigrants as valid, what you posted doesn't actually contradict what I said.
Now, we can argue to hell and back what constitutes "taking jobs", but the fact that they're trying as hard as possible to be Americans is an important one.
H1B is merging with the us labor force, not replacing. The overwhelming H1B workers I know have either become citizens or are eager to do so.
Alright, we're getting somewhere on testing your alternative hypothesis here.
Question the first:
What is "ideal for human occupation" mean? Is there some kind of specific effects weather has on a human being that can help classify it as ideal/not. Please note that we CANNOT use suicide for firearm ownership for this test, since the null hypothesis asserts their relevance as an independent variable.
Question the second:
What makes something "far" outside those bounds?
Bear in mind, now, that any test we do is going to incorporate at least one transitional variable, as we go from the notion of ideal, to the factors that create it to suicide rates. This will lower the statistical significance of our test, but since you're saying it accounts for a 100% difference, that should shine through.