Wouldn't it be nice if the Alt-right faced up to the fact that the Russians are not the friends of the West. Any alliance with Russia, as history demonstrates, is always of a short duration, so if all the Trump supporters believe that Trump has gained some sort of valuable coin, I suggest a quick review of the Franco-Russian Alliance and the Grand Alliance to see that Russia's unity with the West is always of relatively brief duration.
Mastering a synth takes a lot of skill in and of itself. Programming your own patches is a combination of both programming and a solid understanding of sounds. Just because I can produce a pipe organ or a symphony, or weird bleeps on a synth doesn't mean less skill. True, sampling may be a bit of a cheat, but I've seen some pretty wild stuff done with samples that has to take a helluva lot of skill.
Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's not. I like the challenge, though I admit when I'm down to the wire and there's a bug that I can't seem to nail down, it's not really fun anymore. But really, it's like anything in life, there are times, when you're in the "zone", when, to borrow from a movie I can't remember the name of, when butter literally flows from your fingers, wow, there's no rush quite like it. But then there are the days when every line of code feels like it's being robbed straight from your bone marrow, and those days are not fun!
The key here, as you say, is that it is a challenge, and challenges mean some heavy lifting, but they also mean great rewards when you nail the problem and the code works beautifully. All the heavy lifting and hard days are worth it then.
Considering the target dates are usually the end of this century, I'm curious why you would pick 2030...
Well never mind, you cribbed it off of Judith Curry's website, so we all know how good the pseudo-skeptics are at picking dates in such a way to look as if they have an actual point. You could have at least given your quote attribution, and saved some folks the time, but of course the object of your game is simply to have an objection. It's irrelevant if the objection makes sense or is accurate. So long as you can say "I countered that", somehow in your twisted little mind you wont some sort of debate.
The Gish Gallop transferred from evolution to climatology.
That's bullshit. I've had conversations with all sorts of people, smart people, dumb people, regular people, and while we all we on occasion go into asides, this paragraph was gibberish. There is a complete lack of coherency.
Donald Trump exhibits signs of some serious cognitive issues. This kind of rambling is often a symptom of dementia.
Dubya was a pretty stupid guy, there's no doubt about that. But there was never any evidence of any serious cognitive issues. He just wasn't all that bright, which is fine. Maybe not perfect for the leader of the Free World, but then again, Reagan was no genius either. In both cases they had enough sense to know their own limitations and surrounded themselves with sane (if possibly evil) advisers. In other words, they were examples of presidents who functioned more as figureheads for the Administration than the actual functional Executive.
In Trump's case, he appears incapable of recognizing his weaknesses, truly does believe he is a brilliant man, and about the only way to get him to do anything is to basically manipulate him into thinking it was his own idea. The US voters elected Fred Flintstone as President.
I do remember interviews with Trump from the eighties where, while he's certainly a narcissist, he could at least put together a coherent series of sentences to produce a reasonably comprehensible narrative. I really do wonder if the man is suffering some sort of cognitive decline; in other words dementia. That sort of rambling and losing his place and even the point of what he's saying is indicative of some pretty serious cognitive issues.
At least Reagan didn't begin showing signs of his decline to the last year or two of his presidency. Trump's been showing signs of some sort of cognitive and language decline before he even was nominated.
Say that again in 20 years, when the US is a decade behind the rest of the world in renewables and having to spend a helluva lot more money to get up to speed than Europe, and hell likely even India and China.
The only morons are the people who think burning coal to produce electricity has any future at all.
Exactly. We keep hearing rumors here in British Columbia that eventually BC Hydro is going to start charging different rates depending upon peak usage or non-peak. In other words, if you have an electric clothes dryer, you'll probably want to run it at 1am to avoid the higher rates.
I think nuclear will always have its place, but apart from safety issues, the fact is that nuclear power is extremely expensive. Some of that is due to regulatory regimes, but then again, if it's hard to get a reactor built with regulatory regimes in place, just imagine how hard it would be without. Without that insurance, voters would reject it utterly.
In the end, nuclear fusion is not a renewable, and still requires fissionable materials. Yes, you can use breeders and the like, but then you have to worry about nuclear weapons proliferation. In the meantime, renewables are catching up fast, and several energy storage techniques are in development. About the only thing that could upset the march to renewables is cheap and efficient fusion, but let's face it, fusion is always a few decades away, and probably will be for some time.
So, in fact, when a bunch of voters decide NAFTA is a horrible thing, and vote for a man who insists he will pull them out of it, even when every economist says "Uh, NAFTA is a net gain", that's wrong, right, and those voters should be ignored because of the self-harm they're inflicting.
The people proposing that kind of timetable are the fossil fuel advocates, who need to make a strawman of renewable energy adoption to make it sound totally ridiculous that anyone should ever want to go to renewables at all.
Exactly. The same kind of conspiracy where the tobacco industry spent decades paying for studies that attempted to minimize the effects of tobacco smoke, or to misdirect it toward some other cause. Or the conspiracy where the sugar industry spent decades trying to minimize the effects of refined sugars or misdirect it toward some other cause.
There's a lot of money tied up in the fossil fuel industry, more than tobacco and sugar, and thus all the more reason to try to undermine both research and actual renewable technologies in favor of maintaining the need for fossil fuels as a major energy source. Of course, the fossil fuel industry knows they've got only a few decades at most, and possibly less than that, but every year they can keep people using fossil fuels, even at the much-reduced profits since the oil crash, is an extra year that they can keep the money rolling in. It's just a conspiracy to make a whole lot of money, and then pass the bill for paying for the mess the industry leaves behind to the rest of society; just like Big Tobacco and Big Sugar have done.
Except for the problem of Congress actually investigating that. Now you may be right in the end, but since neither you or I are in a position to make the judgment, what you're really doing is making an unevidenced declaration. Nixon's supporters, like Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush did much the same thing as Watergate began to simmer, and in the end, despite claims by the Administration and its cheerleaders, even Republicans came to recognize that Nixon had indeed committed impeachable offenses.
So maybe it's all fabrication, though if it is, you're talking about a vast web of conspiracy involving a whole lot of actors, some of which are pretty much political opponents. But if it makes you feel better, then all the power to you. But keep in mind, the only thing right now keeping Trump in the White House is the GOP's general fear that removing him would do them political damage, and the fact that, innocent or guilty, the man seems incapable of opening his mouth without somehow sounding like he's indicting himself, eventually that will chip away at the base, just as Nixon's failings begin to erode the base. So while I'm sure you will remain a true believer, and refuse to accept anything that Congress or the three letter agencies say, and will doubtless hold the torch for Donald Trump until you expire your last breath, it's not you who is going to be making that decision, it's Republican lawmakers, based on whether or not Trump's failings, real and imagined, threaten to do political damage to the party.
I'm sure the three letter agencies have long been in the habit of keeping the President apprised of important operations, seeing as normally the President is a sensible, sane, intelligent human being capable of rational thought and reflection. I'm thinking going forward not much in the way of classified information is ever going to reach the Oval Office.
But Russia isn't really that interested in fighting ISIS. That's a side-effect of helping Assad. So no, Russia and Israel are not "on the same side", particularly if an Israel agent embedded in the Assad regime gets revealed.
You know, this has only been going on since 2011, so I'm not sure how people could still be confused about the details of the conflict.
It took over a year for the Watergate investigation to (almost) reach the House Floor. It strikes me that your demand for immediate answers is more of you intentionally moving the goal post.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be nice if the Alt-right faced up to the fact that the Russians are not the friends of the West. Any alliance with Russia, as history demonstrates, is always of a short duration, so if all the Trump supporters believe that Trump has gained some sort of valuable coin, I suggest a quick review of the Franco-Russian Alliance and the Grand Alliance to see that Russia's unity with the West is always of relatively brief duration.
Mastering a synth takes a lot of skill in and of itself. Programming your own patches is a combination of both programming and a solid understanding of sounds. Just because I can produce a pipe organ or a symphony, or weird bleeps on a synth doesn't mean less skill. True, sampling may be a bit of a cheat, but I've seen some pretty wild stuff done with samples that has to take a helluva lot of skill.
Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's not. I like the challenge, though I admit when I'm down to the wire and there's a bug that I can't seem to nail down, it's not really fun anymore. But really, it's like anything in life, there are times, when you're in the "zone", when, to borrow from a movie I can't remember the name of, when butter literally flows from your fingers, wow, there's no rush quite like it. But then there are the days when every line of code feels like it's being robbed straight from your bone marrow, and those days are not fun!
The key here, as you say, is that it is a challenge, and challenges mean some heavy lifting, but they also mean great rewards when you nail the problem and the code works beautifully. All the heavy lifting and hard days are worth it then.
I'll leave the comedic outbursts to faux skeptics like yourself.
Considering the target dates are usually the end of this century, I'm curious why you would pick 2030...
Well never mind, you cribbed it off of Judith Curry's website, so we all know how good the pseudo-skeptics are at picking dates in such a way to look as if they have an actual point. You could have at least given your quote attribution, and saved some folks the time, but of course the object of your game is simply to have an objection. It's irrelevant if the objection makes sense or is accurate. So long as you can say "I countered that", somehow in your twisted little mind you wont some sort of debate.
The Gish Gallop transferred from evolution to climatology.
Such individuals make up only a small portion of the population. It's just that social media greatly magnifies their impact.
That's bullshit. I've had conversations with all sorts of people, smart people, dumb people, regular people, and while we all we on occasion go into asides, this paragraph was gibberish. There is a complete lack of coherency.
Donald Trump exhibits signs of some serious cognitive issues. This kind of rambling is often a symptom of dementia.
Dubya was a pretty stupid guy, there's no doubt about that. But there was never any evidence of any serious cognitive issues. He just wasn't all that bright, which is fine. Maybe not perfect for the leader of the Free World, but then again, Reagan was no genius either. In both cases they had enough sense to know their own limitations and surrounded themselves with sane (if possibly evil) advisers. In other words, they were examples of presidents who functioned more as figureheads for the Administration than the actual functional Executive.
In Trump's case, he appears incapable of recognizing his weaknesses, truly does believe he is a brilliant man, and about the only way to get him to do anything is to basically manipulate him into thinking it was his own idea. The US voters elected Fred Flintstone as President.
I do remember interviews with Trump from the eighties where, while he's certainly a narcissist, he could at least put together a coherent series of sentences to produce a reasonably comprehensible narrative. I really do wonder if the man is suffering some sort of cognitive decline; in other words dementia. That sort of rambling and losing his place and even the point of what he's saying is indicative of some pretty serious cognitive issues.
At least Reagan didn't begin showing signs of his decline to the last year or two of his presidency. Trump's been showing signs of some sort of cognitive and language decline before he even was nominated.
Say that again in 20 years, when the US is a decade behind the rest of the world in renewables and having to spend a helluva lot more money to get up to speed than Europe, and hell likely even India and China.
The only morons are the people who think burning coal to produce electricity has any future at all.
Exactly. We keep hearing rumors here in British Columbia that eventually BC Hydro is going to start charging different rates depending upon peak usage or non-peak. In other words, if you have an electric clothes dryer, you'll probably want to run it at 1am to avoid the higher rates.
I think nuclear will always have its place, but apart from safety issues, the fact is that nuclear power is extremely expensive. Some of that is due to regulatory regimes, but then again, if it's hard to get a reactor built with regulatory regimes in place, just imagine how hard it would be without. Without that insurance, voters would reject it utterly.
In the end, nuclear fusion is not a renewable, and still requires fissionable materials. Yes, you can use breeders and the like, but then you have to worry about nuclear weapons proliferation. In the meantime, renewables are catching up fast, and several energy storage techniques are in development. About the only thing that could upset the march to renewables is cheap and efficient fusion, but let's face it, fusion is always a few decades away, and probably will be for some time.
So, in fact, when a bunch of voters decide NAFTA is a horrible thing, and vote for a man who insists he will pull them out of it, even when every economist says "Uh, NAFTA is a net gain", that's wrong, right, and those voters should be ignored because of the self-harm they're inflicting.
The people proposing that kind of timetable are the fossil fuel advocates, who need to make a strawman of renewable energy adoption to make it sound totally ridiculous that anyone should ever want to go to renewables at all.
Exactly. The same kind of conspiracy where the tobacco industry spent decades paying for studies that attempted to minimize the effects of tobacco smoke, or to misdirect it toward some other cause. Or the conspiracy where the sugar industry spent decades trying to minimize the effects of refined sugars or misdirect it toward some other cause.
There's a lot of money tied up in the fossil fuel industry, more than tobacco and sugar, and thus all the more reason to try to undermine both research and actual renewable technologies in favor of maintaining the need for fossil fuels as a major energy source. Of course, the fossil fuel industry knows they've got only a few decades at most, and possibly less than that, but every year they can keep people using fossil fuels, even at the much-reduced profits since the oil crash, is an extra year that they can keep the money rolling in. It's just a conspiracy to make a whole lot of money, and then pass the bill for paying for the mess the industry leaves behind to the rest of society; just like Big Tobacco and Big Sugar have done.
You don't expect a Libertarian to actually verify a claim. All that is mindless hatred of government.
And slaveowners loved owning slaves...
Clinton sucked. What does that have to do with Trump's surrounding himself with the likes of Flynn and Manafort
Except for the problem of Congress actually investigating that. Now you may be right in the end, but since neither you or I are in a position to make the judgment, what you're really doing is making an unevidenced declaration. Nixon's supporters, like Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush did much the same thing as Watergate began to simmer, and in the end, despite claims by the Administration and its cheerleaders, even Republicans came to recognize that Nixon had indeed committed impeachable offenses.
So maybe it's all fabrication, though if it is, you're talking about a vast web of conspiracy involving a whole lot of actors, some of which are pretty much political opponents. But if it makes you feel better, then all the power to you. But keep in mind, the only thing right now keeping Trump in the White House is the GOP's general fear that removing him would do them political damage, and the fact that, innocent or guilty, the man seems incapable of opening his mouth without somehow sounding like he's indicting himself, eventually that will chip away at the base, just as Nixon's failings begin to erode the base. So while I'm sure you will remain a true believer, and refuse to accept anything that Congress or the three letter agencies say, and will doubtless hold the torch for Donald Trump until you expire your last breath, it's not you who is going to be making that decision, it's Republican lawmakers, based on whether or not Trump's failings, real and imagined, threaten to do political damage to the party.
Translation: I ignore facts I don't like in favor and try to pretend anecdotal claims are equal or better.
The US just bombed a Syrian airbase couple of weeks ago, so no, Russia and the US are not on the same side.
In Trumpermica, extortion IS innovation.
I'm sure the three letter agencies have long been in the habit of keeping the President apprised of important operations, seeing as normally the President is a sensible, sane, intelligent human being capable of rational thought and reflection. I'm thinking going forward not much in the way of classified information is ever going to reach the Oval Office.
But Russia isn't really that interested in fighting ISIS. That's a side-effect of helping Assad. So no, Russia and Israel are not "on the same side", particularly if an Israel agent embedded in the Assad regime gets revealed.
You know, this has only been going on since 2011, so I'm not sure how people could still be confused about the details of the conflict.
It took over a year for the Watergate investigation to (almost) reach the House Floor. It strikes me that your demand for immediate answers is more of you intentionally moving the goal post.