Yeah, but your car analogy falls apart when you take into consideration that people want their iPads/Androids on the company network, while your car analogy would require that people want to park their cars in the company parking lot. Everyone knows that doesn't happen.
Bingo! Every time I hear a PC admin complain about non-"enterprise" devices, I have to decide whether they are a hypocrite or stupid. Their entire job exists because people brought in non-"enterprise" devices.
Yes, Notes has support for iOS. Lots of companies use Notes. Before people whine about how bad it is, it works exactly the same as exchange on an iOS device. They both just sync via ActiveSync.
If he is not one of the mainframe guys, and you think that a PC is an "enterprise" device, then yes. He is new to this. The complaints we hear are the exact same complaints we heard when PCs were introduced to the business desktop.
Along with the other responses, you should consider it like upgrading from your old C64. Today, x86 is WAY better than the old 6502. If you were to upgrade to an Intel Core2, you would get vast improvements over running software on a C64. You would also get lots of people telling you that you should really be buying an i3/i5/i7 processor because they are better than the Core2 designs. They would be right, but irrelevant to that fact, pointing to the C64 and using it as an example of what computers can do isn't reasonable.
Yeah, I had to do a double take the first few times I saw that. It still seems weird that it is a legitimate paper, but sometimes we get a pleasant surprise, and the CSM is one of those.
You think you are not being a racist by using a racist stereotype in a sarcastic way. You failed. The difference between culture20 and you is that culture20 is defining people by their actions, while you define people by the color of their skin, and project that on other people.
That is good, but it doesn't address Brad's question. It is our government and its vulgar display of power that is being complained about and that Brad is pointing out the world wants when it benefits them. I am with Brad in wishing our government would get out of most of the countries and scale back our military significantly, but he is right that a good portion of the rest of the world criticizes our government from their face, while asking for handouts (cash and military services) from the other side of it.
If you really are a PhD, you would be a perfect example of why people don't trust "experts". Luckily, you have other experts to tell you that gravity works, because clearly without a formal proof, you cannot test for it's existence and because it is so complicated, your confidence in it would still be 0.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can. I don't understand the solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but the maths experts tell me that it works so I accept that it's true.
You conveniently ignore the risk reward part of this. Fermat's Last Theorem is not deciding major public policy. Unless you are severely retarded, you can do the math to empirically show that it is true. Maybe I am just smarter than you, but *I* don't just take math experts word for Fermat's Last Theorem. I have run the numbers myself, and found the theorem to be more likely true than not via my own independent calculations. So, all your analogy does is show that you are in fact playing the team sport of trolling because you like to be on the majority team crying "Denier!".
I think you'd have to be pretty paranoid to think your doctor was lying to you. And then absolutely certifiably insane to think that 98% of doctors were simultaneously making up cancer diagnoses in order to secure more ontology research funding.
I might, but given that my doctor claims I am overweight if I reach 4% body fat, and I am normal weight at -10% body fat, maybe I wouldn't be. The fact that 98% of the doctors would agree with him doesn't make him right. I understand why he makes the claim that -10% body fat would be healthy for me. That doesn't make him right even if he is called an expert. Of course, my weight to height ratio as well as my body fat to lean body mass is easily verifiable, so I have verified it. If the same circumstances applied to cancer, why would I be certifiable? Of course if my doctor told me I had cancer, I would put all of my effort into coming as much up to speed on the subject as humanly possible as quickly as possible. What is certifiable is NOT doing that. Of course, if the doctor then tried to sell me an "anti-cancer magnetic bracelet" I would not only not start signing over large checks, but I wouldn't be quite as worried about verifying his claims as quickly.
No. No, they're not. You obviously are getting your news filtered through some crazy right wing news service, not from the scientists. So you're not even arguing against what is actually being predicted. Please, educate yourself, and not through Fox news.
Of course, that is part of the program for the trolls that cry "Denier!". You don't know where I get my news. You just make that up so that you can reafferm your bias. That isn't what someone interested in science does. It is what a troll does.
Yes, you can either do the research yourself and become and expert (which you clearly haven't) or you can accept the experts' explanation.
I have looked at some of the data. What I have found is that the subject is so politicized and there is so much money in it from both sides of the debate that very few people actually have access to enough data to even make an educated guess. The proponents of AWG like yourself who cry "Denier!" have no clue on the subject, and are just going along with the mob. That doesn't make you smart. It doesn't make you right. It just makes you a troll.
This all rests on the premise that the prediction is for the end of human civilization, which isn't the case.
Yes, it frequently is. The hockey stick graph pretty much indicates that human civilization is going to come crumbling down if humans as a species even survive. Your claims that it isn't an end of civilization event shows that while you are calling people names for not believing your "experts", you don't even know what your "experts" are saying.
Even it was, there would be more attractive options than suddenly destroying all our power sources, like gradually switching to nuclear.
Which isn't going to happen before your experts predict the end of human civilization, so YOUR approach is to deny your own experts.
Presumably if the car is speeding or running red lights, either the owner of the car has tampered with it and is liable, the company intentionally built the car to break the law and is liable, or it is a bug in the system and would be handle much the same way it would be handled the stop light equipment had a flaw that caused all of the lights to turn green at the same time. This would be a notification of the bug and someone fixing it if no one was injured, and a lawsuit if someone is.
My house has plenty of places for a humanoid robot to plug itself into. We have also been know to use extension cords, so that doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch. In fact, the building codes in my area say that you cannot build a house with the electrical outlets more than 12 feet apart.
You are rationalizing. Calling someone a "denier" brings nothing to the debate. It is strictly used as an ad hominem attack. Giving the definition of denial does not change the way it is used when discussing AWG. You know as well as I do that the name "denier" is being used more often than not by people to label other people without the accuser knowing what the accused's opinion really is. It is used as an excuse to dismiss them without discussion. It is very simply an ad hominem attack used for trolling.
Your attempt to deny this easily verifiable fact would by your definition make you a "denier". I assume that your post was not intended to be ironic was it?
You can't say that there are no major cracks in the theory when you don't understand what is being said. We also are not talking about a doctor who has no political reason to lie to you. If the same doctor, had told you that you had cancer several other times, or told you that he could tell you had cancer because of reasons that you could verify were false, you would be an idiot to just take his word for it. If that particular doctor hadn't been caught lying, but a dozen other doctors told you you had cancer, you could verify that many of them were making things up, and then that doctor tells you that a consensus of doctors agree that you have cancer, you would be well advised to do some research before accepting amputation for treatment. If you tell the doctor that you are not convinced of his diagnosis, start to discuss why, and his response is to point his finger and declare "Denier!!!". Then if all of the patients in the waiting room, and the office staff join in with pointing and chanting "Denier!!!", you should run away. You are in a room full of insane people who are likely to be dangerous.
Using other people's knowledge is a risk. To rationally use them, you have to weight the risk reward of taking their word for it vs. doing the research yourself. These people are predicting the end of human civilization. If you think there is a chance that they are correct, it would be insane for you to do anything else with your life other than verify if they are correct. And if you determine that they are in fact correct, then you would be a sociopath to do anything less that join with bands of like minded people to destroy every carbon producing facility you can get anywhere near.
You won't do that though. Why? Because you don't really believe it. You just think it is fun to troll forums with ad hominem attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Woosh!!!
Yeah, but your car analogy falls apart when you take into consideration that people want their iPads/Androids on the company network, while your car analogy would require that people want to park their cars in the company parking lot. Everyone knows that doesn't happen.
That shouldn't be surprising since the last evolution in IT was driven by Consumer Products.
Bingo! Every time I hear a PC admin complain about non-"enterprise" devices, I have to decide whether they are a hypocrite or stupid. Their entire job exists because people brought in non-"enterprise" devices.
Yes, Notes has support for iOS. Lots of companies use Notes. Before people whine about how bad it is, it works exactly the same as exchange on an iOS device. They both just sync via ActiveSync.
If he is not one of the mainframe guys, and you think that a PC is an "enterprise" device, then yes. He is new to this. The complaints we hear are the exact same complaints we heard when PCs were introduced to the business desktop.
Along with the other responses, you should consider it like upgrading from your old C64. Today, x86 is WAY better than the old 6502. If you were to upgrade to an Intel Core2, you would get vast improvements over running software on a C64. You would also get lots of people telling you that you should really be buying an i3/i5/i7 processor because they are better than the Core2 designs. They would be right, but irrelevant to that fact, pointing to the C64 and using it as an example of what computers can do isn't reasonable.
Well, the nuclear plants could just dilute it to coal levels and spray it into the air.
As long as you are willing to accept that it is just as likely that *I* am your one true god as any other existing, or not existing.
Nor do most Christians. People that believe the earth is 6000 years old is a small sect of Christianity.
Your confusing nerds with Goths. Don't worry Jocks do that all the time.
Yeah, I had to do a double take the first few times I saw that. It still seems weird that it is a legitimate paper, but sometimes we get a pleasant surprise, and the CSM is one of those.
You think you are not being a racist by using a racist stereotype in a sarcastic way. You failed. The difference between culture20 and you is that culture20 is defining people by their actions, while you define people by the color of their skin, and project that on other people.
That is good, but it doesn't address Brad's question. It is our government and its vulgar display of power that is being complained about and that Brad is pointing out the world wants when it benefits them. I am with Brad in wishing our government would get out of most of the countries and scale back our military significantly, but he is right that a good portion of the rest of the world criticizes our government from their face, while asking for handouts (cash and military services) from the other side of it.
If you really are a PhD, you would be a perfect example of why people don't trust "experts". Luckily, you have other experts to tell you that gravity works, because clearly without a formal proof, you cannot test for it's existence and because it is so complicated, your confidence in it would still be 0.
Wow, I see 5 HTCs just in my own home, and there are only three of us. HTC's are everywhere.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can. I don't understand the solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but the maths experts tell me that it works so I accept that it's true.
You conveniently ignore the risk reward part of this. Fermat's Last Theorem is not deciding major public policy. Unless you are severely retarded, you can do the math to empirically show that it is true. Maybe I am just smarter than you, but *I* don't just take math experts word for Fermat's Last Theorem. I have run the numbers myself, and found the theorem to be more likely true than not via my own independent calculations. So, all your analogy does is show that you are in fact playing the team sport of trolling because you like to be on the majority team crying "Denier!".
I think you'd have to be pretty paranoid to think your doctor was lying to you. And then absolutely certifiably insane to think that 98% of doctors were simultaneously making up cancer diagnoses in order to secure more ontology research funding.
I might, but given that my doctor claims I am overweight if I reach 4% body fat, and I am normal weight at -10% body fat, maybe I wouldn't be. The fact that 98% of the doctors would agree with him doesn't make him right. I understand why he makes the claim that -10% body fat would be healthy for me. That doesn't make him right even if he is called an expert. Of course, my weight to height ratio as well as my body fat to lean body mass is easily verifiable, so I have verified it. If the same circumstances applied to cancer, why would I be certifiable? Of course if my doctor told me I had cancer, I would put all of my effort into coming as much up to speed on the subject as humanly possible as quickly as possible. What is certifiable is NOT doing that. Of course, if the doctor then tried to sell me an "anti-cancer magnetic bracelet" I would not only not start signing over large checks, but I wouldn't be quite as worried about verifying his claims as quickly.
No. No, they're not. You obviously are getting your news filtered through some crazy right wing news service, not from the scientists. So you're not even arguing against what is actually being predicted. Please, educate yourself, and not through Fox news.
Of course, that is part of the program for the trolls that cry "Denier!". You don't know where I get my news. You just make that up so that you can reafferm your bias. That isn't what someone interested in science does. It is what a troll does.
Yes, you can either do the research yourself and become and expert (which you clearly haven't) or you can accept the experts' explanation.
I have looked at some of the data. What I have found is that the subject is so politicized and there is so much money in it from both sides of the debate that very few people actually have access to enough data to even make an educated guess. The proponents of AWG like yourself who cry "Denier!" have no clue on the subject, and are just going along with the mob. That doesn't make you smart. It doesn't make you right. It just makes you a troll.
This all rests on the premise that the prediction is for the end of human civilization, which isn't the case.
Yes, it frequently is. The hockey stick graph pretty much indicates that human civilization is going to come crumbling down if humans as a species even survive. Your claims that it isn't an end of civilization event shows that while you are calling people names for not believing your "experts", you don't even know what your "experts" are saying.
Even it was, there would be more attractive options than suddenly destroying all our power sources, like gradually switching to nuclear.
Which isn't going to happen before your experts predict the end of human civilization, so YOUR approach is to deny your own experts.
Right, it's been fun bu
Humanoid robots can have uses outside of war.
Presumably if the car is speeding or running red lights, either the owner of the car has tampered with it and is liable, the company intentionally built the car to break the law and is liable, or it is a bug in the system and would be handle much the same way it would be handled the stop light equipment had a flaw that caused all of the lights to turn green at the same time. This would be a notification of the bug and someone fixing it if no one was injured, and a lawsuit if someone is.
No. I am the first poster to call the other posters on their Godwinning of the discussions.
My house has plenty of places for a humanoid robot to plug itself into. We have also been know to use extension cords, so that doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch. In fact, the building codes in my area say that you cannot build a house with the electrical outlets more than 12 feet apart.
Maybe not Senators, but you do sometimes see extremely wealthy CEOs of international corporations turning down treatment.
You are rationalizing. Calling someone a "denier" brings nothing to the debate. It is strictly used as an ad hominem attack. Giving the definition of denial does not change the way it is used when discussing AWG. You know as well as I do that the name "denier" is being used more often than not by people to label other people without the accuser knowing what the accused's opinion really is. It is used as an excuse to dismiss them without discussion. It is very simply an ad hominem attack used for trolling.
Your attempt to deny this easily verifiable fact would by your definition make you a "denier". I assume that your post was not intended to be ironic was it?
You can't say that there are no major cracks in the theory when you don't understand what is being said. We also are not talking about a doctor who has no political reason to lie to you. If the same doctor, had told you that you had cancer several other times, or told you that he could tell you had cancer because of reasons that you could verify were false, you would be an idiot to just take his word for it. If that particular doctor hadn't been caught lying, but a dozen other doctors told you you had cancer, you could verify that many of them were making things up, and then that doctor tells you that a consensus of doctors agree that you have cancer, you would be well advised to do some research before accepting amputation for treatment. If you tell the doctor that you are not convinced of his diagnosis, start to discuss why, and his response is to point his finger and declare "Denier!!!". Then if all of the patients in the waiting room, and the office staff join in with pointing and chanting "Denier!!!", you should run away. You are in a room full of insane people who are likely to be dangerous.
Using other people's knowledge is a risk. To rationally use them, you have to weight the risk reward of taking their word for it vs. doing the research yourself. These people are predicting the end of human civilization. If you think there is a chance that they are correct, it would be insane for you to do anything else with your life other than verify if they are correct. And if you determine that they are in fact correct, then you would be a sociopath to do anything less that join with bands of like minded people to destroy every carbon producing facility you can get anywhere near.
You won't do that though. Why? Because you don't really believe it. You just think it is fun to troll forums with ad hominem attacks.
So, an ad hominem attack against those who disagree with you. Check