Well, let's find out if that's actually true. Here's a math problem: The salinity of the ocean is 3.5%, and the ocean has an average depth of 3700 meters. If enough fresh water is added to the ocean to increase its depth by 3 meters, what is the new salinity of the ocean?
(Answer: 3.5%, i.e. not significantly different from before.)
This isn't a math problem. It's an oceanography problem. Oceans are not well mixed entities. If you add a bunch of freshwater to the ocean it does not become instantly mixed. Reducing salinity in the top 3 meters of the ocean would have significant climatological impacts.
Your problem began when you turned the code over to an inexperienced CS graduate. You don't need to be a good software engineer or even a good programmer to get a degree in computer science. I wish people would stop conflating the two, especially the people in the HR department.:P
You needed a SOFTWARE ENGINEER. Worse, you needed an experienced software engineer familiar with the domain. Instead you handed it over to a fresh graduate who maybe had one or two courses on engineering. What exactly did you expect to have happen?
And what about you? Did you give them a good set of requirements? Did you have frequent reviews? Or did you just drop it in his/her lap and say "make it better"? There's a lot of missing details on exactly how you participated in the process. Again, if you weren't actively giving feedback into the process then you shouldn't be surprised when it isn't what you wanted.
The failure in this case is yours. Next time you need work done, I suggest actually getting the right person for the job and not some cheap fresh grad who happens to have "computer" in their degree description.
Fortran has had modularisation, structured code since 1990, Classes and object-orientated since 2003. Please update your prejudices.
And the scientific community is a good 20 years away from effectively utilizing such goodies the steering committee has accepted because software maintainability is often a secondary concern. Scientists aren't software engineers and very few of them I've worked with want to bother becoming one. If the code works, that's enough for them.
I would also hazard a guess that Fortran tends to be a tad easier to read than C... Especially for scientists...
The way scientists write code, it doesn't matter what language they use it will still come out an undecipherable mess. You'll have a quintuply nested loop populating an array call tlnb1 in a function called abn that takes 8 arguments named t1 to t8. The only documentation will be a single comment just before the loop that says "This should work now".
If you're going to be working with scientific code you'll need at least a Master's degree in software archaeology and software anthropology.
The science is fake? You're right. People like Fourier back in the 1820's just started the whole "Global Warming" thing because he wanted to get rich of green energy. I suppose Ahrennius developing the first global climate model in the late 1890's and quantify the possible anthropogenic effects on global temperature was to further capitalize on the big "Green Energy" cash cow.
Maybe Al Gore invented a time machine and went back in time and had a little chat with some of these famous "scientists" in the 1800's just to help line his pockets. After all, what's developing a time machine compared to creating the internet.
And while your being a complete idiot, HAARP is controlling your brain, the Black Night Satellite is real and was sent from Alpha Centauri to gather Krispy Kreme Donuts, and the Lochness Mosnter isn't really a monster, he just needed the money.
Honestly, you act like global warming is some brand spanking new theory developed out of nothing with no supporting evidence. The theory of global warming was first proposed close to 200 years ago, and scientists from as far back as the early 1900's have been warning that unchecked human activities could result in an altered climate. It existed long before Al Gore and Green Energy, or even before the photovoltaic effect was put down on paper.
You have a brain. Use it. You can verify the effects of greenhouse gases with basic high school math and physics. Fourier did it before the invention of the fucking light bulb, let alone calculators and computers.
Pretty much confirms what I already knew: I have to drive hours in order to find even a decent dark sky site. That's why my 10" SCT and 6" refractor have been gathering dust in my garage for the past 7 years.:P
Another step down the slope. I'm pretty sure, at least on Slashdot, everyone saw this coming. And it's just going to get worse. Unless you got the money to buy politicians...I mean express your free speech (I always get those confused) then nothing is going to stop our decline.
The article conflates two very different types of science. One is experimental: cigarettes cause cancer. That's a testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis. The scientific method can be used. Alternate explanations can be systematically disproven.
Then there's the science that says, "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true". Note that it does NOT say "therefore Z MUST be true", which is what the article is implying. Z is something like the story of the universe from Big Bang through inflation up to today, or the story of manmade global warming. "Science" can project itself in those directions and come up with some answers, but there is no scientific method on a narrative. There are no controlled experiments. Every alternate hypothesis cannot be evaluated. They are at best projections, models. They're not "truth" without faith.
Global warming is a scientific result from the study of climate and the physics/chemistry governing the climate system. Fourier came up with Greenhouse theory in the 1820's and the first climatological model to show anthropogenic global warming was developed by the father of of physical chemistry Svante Arrhenius in the late 1800's, long before computers came on the scene.
No scientific method? No controlled experiments? Have you ever cracked open anything other than an elementary school textbook? And you seriously wonder why scientists don't bother listening to people like you? "The last 200 years of physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry is all bullshit," is basically what you're saying, and has as much credibility as a prostitute preaching abstinence.
If the public pays for it, the public should receive it in its entirety.
Personal/Internal emails are not published research and has nothing to do with anything. The published research is available, along with data and source code.
But Mann - the scientist who warns us that global warming is real and dangerous based on a computer model - refuses to give out the computer code and data that he used to form his assertions. To me, this doesn't sound very scientific or very honest.
Exactly. But...well...I think he needs to work on hiding stuff. Because...I mean, whenever I try to hide something I don't make a website about what I'm trying to hide and post it on the internet: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann...
Yeah, it sucks that some of you were horribly treated when you were young, but get the fuck over it already.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Victims of constant bullying exhibit the same symptoms as those who have been repeatedly physically/mentally tortured over long periods of time. It stays with you for the rest of your life, even with good counseling. Those behavioral and emotional patterns get etched into your fucking brain like a steel-cutting laser. You don't just "get the fuck over it".
If you still get overwraught to the point where you fantasize about killing people at shit that happened 10 years ago on a playground, you have problems and you need to address them.
No doubt. But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is that despite all the "zero-tolerance" bullshit the environment from when they were kids and the environment today hasn't changed, which will lead to more fucked up people living in an already fucked up society increasing the chance that they will do something fucked up.
So in light of that, I have established a set of rules with my son to deal with bullying (which were the same set I used when growing up):
1. Tell the kid to stop. 2. If the kid doesn't stop, talk to the teacher. 3. If the teacher doesn't do anything or it continues, talk to the principal. 4. If the principal does nothing and the bullying continues, use deterrent force.
It's amazing how little deterrent force it takes to stop bullying.
Most of them only look at how much they're getting back, which is the majority of people. If you really wanted it to sink in, you'd need to end paycheck income tax withholding and actually have them write a check on April 15.
If you want to destroy the country that would be a good way to go about it. Most people can't even responsibly manage their finances, yet you want to give them the additional responsibility of setting aside enough money to pay Uncle Same come April 15th?
If you get 12 scientists in a room that have volunteered to produce a report on global warming, what would you expect them to produce? Something that says everything's peachy?You won't see this old boy freaking out over something dumb like this.
Of course not. You'll be dead long before the worst of the consequences of our inaction actually take hold. So why would you care anyway?
On a vaguely related note: Assume you send N ships on this voyage. Do you send N copies of the same ship, and hope the design has no fatal flaw (while acknowledging the advantages of parts redundancy) . Or do you send N different designs in the hope that diversity of design is overall more reliable?
You send N ships and let them breed of course. It may cause an occasional bumpy ride, and sure some of the younger ships will keep asking "Are we there YET?!?!". Then there will be the rebellious phase where the ships pierce their deflector dishes, get decals plastered over their aft thrusters, and deviate to the Orion Nebula because "that's what all the cool ships are doing". But in the end, you'll end up with enough mature and responsible ships to keep things going.
I feel bad for him, it is only because of his public position that this is an issue. If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.
There's a difference. A CEO leads a company. He or she is the face of the company. Whether they like it or not, if their actions and beliefs will reflect on the company. Holding unpopular views or views that are contrary to those of the company or, at the very least, contrary to the rest of board will make it likely that you'll be "encouraged to explore other opportunities".
Businesses operate in their own best interests. They are not democracies. Seeing the negative publicity and the potential repercussions to their image/reputation, the rest of the Mozilla board felt that having him as CEO would be bad for business.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom of consequences. Publicly taking an unpopular socially conservative position while holding a position of power in a business catering to a fairly socially liberal base is going to generate some consequences. It would be like a Republican Senator in Kansas growing a brain and giving a speech lauding the research and science behind evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. You wouldn't expect that senator to get re-elected and wouldn't be surprised if a recall vote came screaming out of Fox News.
Every time I think congress can't lower the bar anymore, yet another complete fucking moron in Congress finds a new way to do so. Well played Mr. Weber.
Strange how you pick out homosexuality as a sin but fail to mention all the other ridiculous "sins" spelled out in that book. You don't mention the "it's okay to rape pillage, and murder as long as you follow these guidelines" section or the "Genocide? It's good for the environment and it's ok for you!" section. You also don't mention the "Women have no rights and are supposed to be a man's bitch" section, the "Shut up bitch before I stone your ass" section, or any of the other questionable sections in the bible that, when viewed by any sane member of society, makes them ask "Wait a second, I thought the bible was supposed about some benevolent sky wizard floating in the clouds or something?".
All you're doing is selectively picking and choosing the parts of the bible that happen to agree with your views and biases and putting blinders on to everything that doesn't. If you're going to use a 2000 year old book of mythology as a basis for your beliefs, shouldn't you be using the whole thing instead of just the parts you like? Isn't a sin to do this as the bible is supposed to be the "Word of God"?
Rhetorical questions. I'm sure you have a million excuses. But basically, keep your hatred and bigotry to yourself. We have enough of that in the world WITHOUT your personal sky wizards and zombies further fanning the flames through religious edicts and 2000 year old myths.
Really? And where is your research indicating that there has been a statistically significant climate deviation from the projections? Last I checked the last 30 years have shown a very prominent warming trend.
When you can show 30 years of flat or cooling temperatures, and you can actually back that up by some reviewed science, then you'll have a something. Comparing a single year, five years, or ten years for a climatic trend is nothing but garbage. There is way too much short term variance to make any significant claims.
You mean like right now? You don't get rich by working hard. You get rich by being born rich, by fucking over other people, by being really lucky or by being REALLY fucking smart. Of all of those cases only one of them involves hard work and not many people are born smart enough to come up with a real money making idea.
Pretty much. Economic mobility in this country is primarily down. The upper 20% control pretty much everything. Income for the middle and lower classes have been stagnant and or dropping. If you aren't already well of it is extremely difficult to become well off. If your family is already in a whole you are most likely going to stay there.
The economic statistics are depressing. And of course the upper crust fight tooth and nail to make it worse. It isn't sustainable, but then again they don't really care. It will be interesting to see how much longer this can last before the whole thing collapses.
As we have seen, keeping any amount of money at an exchange's account is a recipe for disaster. They can still be used, but only if you take care to move your money out of it as soon as possible.
Exactly. Exchanges are COMPLETELY UNREGULATED. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that prevents them from just closing up shop and taking the coins with them. This is exactly the same as walking up to a stranger on the street and handing them your wallet, and should have about the same trust level.
Keep transactions small, keep only what you absolutely need on the exchange, and move everything else out as quickly as possible. It never ceases to amaze me that people don't do this. They'll say "Oh it's too inconvenient to do that!" Well losing your coins is a hell of a lot more inconvenient in my opinion.
If you play fast and lose with your coins, expect to lose them.
I guess we need to start being ultra-specific for the BitBelievers. It is a Ponzi-like scheme. Broken down to its fundamentals, ignored in that FAQ question, a Ponzi scheme is generally understood to be a money making venture that is wholly dependent on new folks coming into the scheme in order to continue to fund the upper levels. If folks stop buying into the bottom, then things dry out all the way back up the chain until it fails.
This is your fundamental premise and it's wrong. BitCoin is not a money making venture. It was never intended to be an "investment". It was intended as a medium of exchange. And that's all currency is.
Places like Mt. Gox and Vircurex are similar to the money markets of other fiat currencies. You could buy, sell, and trade amongst the currencies. THAT is a money making venture, but that is completely independent from the currencies itself. And since there are no central or regulating authorities on the currencies any such exchange should be treated with extreme caution.
Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes can be perpetrated using bitcoin, but the same can be said for any currencies. Bitcoin and related cryptocurrencies are not regulated, nor are any business associated with them. As usual, people are the problem.
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Are we such wimps that we're now going out of our way to be offended by the fantasy worlds that we're voluntarily taking part in?
People want to enjoy the games they play. They don't want a bunch of assholes telling them how much they suck and that they should kill themselves just because they don't spend 16 hours a day playing the game. That gets old really quick, and drives away a lot of gamers. I know I have better ways of enjoying my time than listening to a bunch of spoiled kids with first world problems raging at each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, let's find out if that's actually true. Here's a math problem: The salinity of the ocean is 3.5%, and the ocean has an average depth of 3700 meters. If enough fresh water is added to the ocean to increase its depth by 3 meters, what is the new salinity of the ocean?
(Answer: 3.5%, i.e. not significantly different from before.)
This isn't a math problem. It's an oceanography problem. Oceans are not well mixed entities. If you add a bunch of freshwater to the ocean it does not become instantly mixed. Reducing salinity in the top 3 meters of the ocean would have significant climatological impacts.
Nah, Wyoming saw how stupid Kansas is and are now trying to take the crown. They have a ways to go, but this is an excellent start.
Your problem began when you turned the code over to an inexperienced CS graduate. You don't need to be a good software engineer or even a good programmer to get a degree in computer science. I wish people would stop conflating the two, especially the people in the HR department. :P
You needed a SOFTWARE ENGINEER. Worse, you needed an experienced software engineer familiar with the domain. Instead you handed it over to a fresh graduate who maybe had one or two courses on engineering. What exactly did you expect to have happen?
And what about you? Did you give them a good set of requirements? Did you have frequent reviews? Or did you just drop it in his/her lap and say "make it better"? There's a lot of missing details on exactly how you participated in the process. Again, if you weren't actively giving feedback into the process then you shouldn't be surprised when it isn't what you wanted.
The failure in this case is yours. Next time you need work done, I suggest actually getting the right person for the job and not some cheap fresh grad who happens to have "computer" in their degree description.
ALL CAPS has been optional since 1990, at least.
Fortran has had modularisation, structured code since 1990, Classes and object-orientated since 2003. Please update your prejudices.
And the scientific community is a good 20 years away from effectively utilizing such goodies the steering committee has accepted because software maintainability is often a secondary concern. Scientists aren't software engineers and very few of them I've worked with want to bother becoming one. If the code works, that's enough for them.
I would also hazard a guess that Fortran tends to be a tad easier to read than C... Especially for scientists...
The way scientists write code, it doesn't matter what language they use it will still come out an undecipherable mess. You'll have a quintuply nested loop populating an array call tlnb1 in a function called abn that takes 8 arguments named t1 to t8. The only documentation will be a single comment just before the loop that says "This should work now".
If you're going to be working with scientific code you'll need at least a Master's degree in software archaeology and software anthropology.
The science is fake? You're right. People like Fourier back in the 1820's just started the whole "Global Warming" thing because he wanted to get rich of green energy. I suppose Ahrennius developing the first global climate model in the late 1890's and quantify the possible anthropogenic effects on global temperature was to further capitalize on the big "Green Energy" cash cow.
Maybe Al Gore invented a time machine and went back in time and had a little chat with some of these famous "scientists" in the 1800's just to help line his pockets. After all, what's developing a time machine compared to creating the internet.
And while your being a complete idiot, HAARP is controlling your brain, the Black Night Satellite is real and was sent from Alpha Centauri to gather Krispy Kreme Donuts, and the Lochness Mosnter isn't really a monster, he just needed the money.
Honestly, you act like global warming is some brand spanking new theory developed out of nothing with no supporting evidence. The theory of global warming was first proposed close to 200 years ago, and scientists from as far back as the early 1900's have been warning that unchecked human activities could result in an altered climate. It existed long before Al Gore and Green Energy, or even before the photovoltaic effect was put down on paper.
You have a brain. Use it. You can verify the effects of greenhouse gases with basic high school math and physics. Fourier did it before the invention of the fucking light bulb, let alone calculators and computers.
Pretty much confirms what I already knew: I have to drive hours in order to find even a decent dark sky site. That's why my 10" SCT and 6" refractor have been gathering dust in my garage for the past 7 years. :P
Another step down the slope. I'm pretty sure, at least on Slashdot, everyone saw this coming. And it's just going to get worse. Unless you got the money to buy politicians...I mean express your free speech (I always get those confused) then nothing is going to stop our decline.
The article conflates two very different types of science. One is experimental: cigarettes cause cancer. That's a testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis. The scientific method can be used. Alternate explanations can be systematically disproven.
Then there's the science that says, "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true". Note that it does NOT say "therefore Z MUST be true", which is what the article is implying. Z is something like the story of the universe from Big Bang through inflation up to today, or the story of manmade global warming. "Science" can project itself in those directions and come up with some answers, but there is no scientific method on a narrative. There are no controlled experiments. Every alternate hypothesis cannot be evaluated. They are at best projections, models. They're not "truth" without faith.
Global warming is a scientific result from the study of climate and the physics/chemistry governing the climate system. Fourier came up with Greenhouse theory in the 1820's and the first climatological model to show anthropogenic global warming was developed by the father of of physical chemistry Svante Arrhenius in the late 1800's, long before computers came on the scene.
No scientific method? No controlled experiments? Have you ever cracked open anything other than an elementary school textbook? And you seriously wonder why scientists don't bother listening to people like you? "The last 200 years of physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry is all bullshit," is basically what you're saying, and has as much credibility as a prostitute preaching abstinence.
I am lucky I grew up in the 80s I guess.
Now that's something I don't hear every day. :D
If the public pays for it, the public should receive it in its entirety.
Personal/Internal emails are not published research and has nothing to do with anything. The published research is available, along with data and source code.
But Mann - the scientist who warns us that global warming is real and dangerous based on a computer model - refuses to give out the computer code and data that he used to form his assertions. To me, this doesn't sound very scientific or very honest.
Exactly. But...well...I think he needs to work on hiding stuff. Because...I mean, whenever I try to hide something I don't make a website about what I'm trying to hide and post it on the internet: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann...
Do you know how to use a search engine?
Yeah, it sucks that some of you were horribly treated when you were young, but get the fuck over it already.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Victims of constant bullying exhibit the same symptoms as those who have been repeatedly physically/mentally tortured over long periods of time. It stays with you for the rest of your life, even with good counseling. Those behavioral and emotional patterns get etched into your fucking brain like a steel-cutting laser. You don't just "get the fuck over it".
If you still get overwraught to the point where you fantasize about killing people at shit that happened 10 years ago on a playground, you have problems and you need to address them.
No doubt. But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is that despite all the "zero-tolerance" bullshit the environment from when they were kids and the environment today hasn't changed, which will lead to more fucked up people living in an already fucked up society increasing the chance that they will do something fucked up.
So in light of that, I have established a set of rules with my son to deal with bullying (which were the same set I used when growing up):
1. Tell the kid to stop.
2. If the kid doesn't stop, talk to the teacher.
3. If the teacher doesn't do anything or it continues, talk to the principal.
4. If the principal does nothing and the bullying continues, use deterrent force.
It's amazing how little deterrent force it takes to stop bullying.
Most of them only look at how much they're getting back, which is the majority of people. If you really wanted it to sink in, you'd need to end paycheck income tax withholding and actually have them write a check on April 15.
If you want to destroy the country that would be a good way to go about it. Most people can't even responsibly manage their finances, yet you want to give them the additional responsibility of setting aside enough money to pay Uncle Same come April 15th?
If you get 12 scientists in a room that have volunteered to produce a report on global warming, what would you expect them to produce? Something that says everything's peachy?You won't see this old boy freaking out over something dumb like this.
Of course not. You'll be dead long before the worst of the consequences of our inaction actually take hold. So why would you care anyway?
On a vaguely related note: Assume you send N ships on this voyage. Do you send N copies of the same ship, and hope the design has no fatal flaw (while acknowledging the advantages of parts redundancy) . Or do you send N different designs in the hope that diversity of design is overall more reliable?
You send N ships and let them breed of course. It may cause an occasional bumpy ride, and sure some of the younger ships will keep asking "Are we there YET?!?!". Then there will be the rebellious phase where the ships pierce their deflector dishes, get decals plastered over their aft thrusters, and deviate to the Orion Nebula because "that's what all the cool ships are doing". But in the end, you'll end up with enough mature and responsible ships to keep things going.
I feel bad for him, it is only because of his public position that this is an issue. If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.
There's a difference. A CEO leads a company. He or she is the face of the company. Whether they like it or not, if their actions and beliefs will reflect on the company. Holding unpopular views or views that are contrary to those of the company or, at the very least, contrary to the rest of board will make it likely that you'll be "encouraged to explore other opportunities".
Businesses operate in their own best interests. They are not democracies. Seeing the negative publicity and the potential repercussions to their image/reputation, the rest of the Mozilla board felt that having him as CEO would be bad for business.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom of consequences. Publicly taking an unpopular socially conservative position while holding a position of power in a business catering to a fairly socially liberal base is going to generate some consequences. It would be like a Republican Senator in Kansas growing a brain and giving a speech lauding the research and science behind evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. You wouldn't expect that senator to get re-elected and wouldn't be surprised if a recall vote came screaming out of Fox News.
Every time I think congress can't lower the bar anymore, yet another complete fucking moron in Congress finds a new way to do so. Well played Mr. Weber.
Yet another day of watching Rome burn.
Strange how you pick out homosexuality as a sin but fail to mention all the other ridiculous "sins" spelled out in that book. You don't mention the "it's okay to rape pillage, and murder as long as you follow these guidelines" section or the "Genocide? It's good for the environment and it's ok for you!" section. You also don't mention the "Women have no rights and are supposed to be a man's bitch" section, the "Shut up bitch before I stone your ass" section, or any of the other questionable sections in the bible that, when viewed by any sane member of society, makes them ask "Wait a second, I thought the bible was supposed about some benevolent sky wizard floating in the clouds or something?".
All you're doing is selectively picking and choosing the parts of the bible that happen to agree with your views and biases and putting blinders on to everything that doesn't. If you're going to use a 2000 year old book of mythology as a basis for your beliefs, shouldn't you be using the whole thing instead of just the parts you like? Isn't a sin to do this as the bible is supposed to be the "Word of God"?
Rhetorical questions. I'm sure you have a million excuses. But basically, keep your hatred and bigotry to yourself. We have enough of that in the world WITHOUT your personal sky wizards and zombies further fanning the flames through religious edicts and 2000 year old myths.
To quote Captain America: "This isn't freedom. This is fear."
Really? And where is your research indicating that there has been a statistically significant climate deviation from the projections? Last I checked the last 30 years have shown a very prominent warming trend.
When you can show 30 years of flat or cooling temperatures, and you can actually back that up by some reviewed science, then you'll have a something. Comparing a single year, five years, or ten years for a climatic trend is nothing but garbage. There is way too much short term variance to make any significant claims.
You mean like right now? You don't get rich by working hard. You get rich by being born rich, by fucking over other people, by being really lucky or by being REALLY fucking smart. Of all of those cases only one of them involves hard work and not many people are born smart enough to come up with a real money making idea.
Pretty much. Economic mobility in this country is primarily down. The upper 20% control pretty much everything. Income for the middle and lower classes have been stagnant and or dropping. If you aren't already well of it is extremely difficult to become well off. If your family is already in a whole you are most likely going to stay there.
The economic statistics are depressing. And of course the upper crust fight tooth and nail to make it worse. It isn't sustainable, but then again they don't really care. It will be interesting to see how much longer this can last before the whole thing collapses.
As we have seen, keeping any amount of money at an exchange's account is a recipe for disaster. They can still be used, but only if you take care to move your money out of it as soon as possible.
Exactly. Exchanges are COMPLETELY UNREGULATED. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that prevents them from just closing up shop and taking the coins with them. This is exactly the same as walking up to a stranger on the street and handing them your wallet, and should have about the same trust level.
Keep transactions small, keep only what you absolutely need on the exchange, and move everything else out as quickly as possible. It never ceases to amaze me that people don't do this. They'll say "Oh it's too inconvenient to do that!" Well losing your coins is a hell of a lot more inconvenient in my opinion.
If you play fast and lose with your coins, expect to lose them.
I guess we need to start being ultra-specific for the BitBelievers. It is a Ponzi-like scheme. Broken down to its fundamentals, ignored in that FAQ question, a Ponzi scheme is generally understood to be a money making venture that is wholly dependent on new folks coming into the scheme in order to continue to fund the upper levels. If folks stop buying into the bottom, then things dry out all the way back up the chain until it fails.
This is your fundamental premise and it's wrong. BitCoin is not a money making venture. It was never intended to be an "investment". It was intended as a medium of exchange. And that's all currency is.
Places like Mt. Gox and Vircurex are similar to the money markets of other fiat currencies. You could buy, sell, and trade amongst the currencies. THAT is a money making venture, but that is completely independent from the currencies itself. And since there are no central or regulating authorities on the currencies any such exchange should be treated with extreme caution.
Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes can be perpetrated using bitcoin, but the same can be said for any currencies. Bitcoin and related cryptocurrencies are not regulated, nor are any business associated with them. As usual, people are the problem.
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Are we such wimps that we're now going out of our way to be offended by the fantasy worlds that we're voluntarily taking part in?
People want to enjoy the games they play. They don't want a bunch of assholes telling them how much they suck and that they should kill themselves just because they don't spend 16 hours a day playing the game. That gets old really quick, and drives away a lot of gamers. I know I have better ways of enjoying my time than listening to a bunch of spoiled kids with first world problems raging at each other.