CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2 in the atmosphere whether it gets there quickly or slowly (unless you're talking the millions of years it takes to be transformed back into fossil fuels, which we are not).
ignorant much ? why do you want it back as fossil fuels? have you heard of photosynthesis? it takes far less time than "millions of years" for plants to remove CO2 from atmosphere. so unless we burn the fossil fuels all at once, or at a very rapid rate, and remove most of the plants as well, earth is not going to be "scorched"
you are not going to make a rational case for a sustainable climate, and for less fossil fuel use, successfully, by peddling alarmist ignorant nonsense like this.
how about an example of his "sophisticated political views"? or is that an euphemism for whatever views writer of this puff piece holds?
any real "sophisticated political view" would be nuanced and will not have a binary view of society and groups in it. but without binary views and resulting simplistic us versus them mentality, there wont be any "targets" to "attack" using illegal methods.
so what's new here other than facebook bought a company? what exactly is the new technology here that makes sound "realistically three-dimensional"? i don't see anything new or innovative. just another implementation. it is just facebook hype to sell more ads.
... Monuments of unageing intellect.... Once out of nature I shall never take My bodily form from any natural thing, But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make Of hammered gold and gold enamelling To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;...
if anything (eg a network ) require centralized control (to manage , to disseminate , to anything), it is vulnerable to attack .
"Thwart DDos attacks by dispersing cyber assets (physically and/or logically) to complicate adversarial targeting, disguise the characteristics and behaviors of those assets to confuse or deceive the adversary..."
yes good, but that also means losing central control. in will 'complicate' attacks, but will also complicate managing and disseminating etc.
obviously my comment, based on verifiable facts and reason, touched a nerve of somebody enough for him/her to go researching about me, distort my views, and on that write a lengthy AC ad hominem attack on me. my comment on specific subject is not countered with rational arguments and relevant facts, but an attack on me personally, on off topic subjects.
yay! i must be doing something right to get so much wasted effort from someone very confused and irrational.
anyway, anyone objecting to my views on other subjects (my views are quite open and linked through my profile here or through web search, i am no AC,) if there are any objections, can openly refute them wherever i (not others) have stated them. i don't censor.
wikipedia should contain well rounded view of the subject. instead there is bias and censorship, as i pointed out in my comment above with a verfiable example. whatever views i hold on other subjects (which are utterly distorted in this attack) are irrelevant to that.
" 4,700 articles which have rigorously reviewed before being awarded a gold star icon certifying them as "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer." this includes english article on 'british empire', a poster child for bias among entrenched editors at wikimedia
attempts to include the factual cited details about british empire's mass murders and genocides, ethnic cleansings(well in to 1970s), regime sanctioned slavery and bonded labor, preventable famines that killed millions(in to 1940s), large scale land and resource grabs, destruction and looting of cultural treasures, regular revolts and protests against regime ( both violent and non violent) in almost every colony, and their brutal suppressions, are censored(except for a unavoidable line or two). people who attempt to include any of that are regularly banned from wikipedia .
ironically some, not all, of the censored material in this article is accepted and available in wikipedia's specialized articles on the subjects like slavery, famines, war crimes, etc. however even parts of sentences with links to specialized articles are censored. contrast this treatment to inclusion of such details in main wikipedia articles about equally horrible actions by similarly brutish regimes like on ussr, communist china, nazi germany, etc. .
even discussion page for british empire article is censored to prevent discussion of sources.
careful examination of history pages, of both the article and discussion page, in date sequence changes will confirm this.
"... domains of YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, VK, Live, Yandex, OK.ru, Twitch, Amazon, and Mail.ru, the biggest sites running Flash content today" really? some of them, yes. but biggest sites using flash are big porn sites.
"Parsey McParseface (Google has a sense of humor)" more like dour corp peons at google tries hard, very hard, to appear humorous. even tay had better humor
i am using word 'usury' in the most common senses currently in use, as defined by top definitions in most dictionaries, which are variations of "charging unreasonable/excessive/illegal rate of interest for loans". and as it was used in religious texts (and translations), and laws influenced by them, which include definition of charging of any interest on loans.
so called "payday loans" may indeed be harmful. however there is a method to ban harmful things; democratically enacted legislation. (indeed some states and countries have baned them).
but should we trust and rely on big corps like google to nanny us and make us safe according to their own vague moral code?
would google next decide interest over certain percentage as harmful? perhaps google would decide all interest taking as usury, and ( like some fundamental religious nuts/muslim countries now, and many Christian ones in past) ban all interest loan ads?
where is the limit ?
of course google wont ban other loan ads, and many other 'harmful' ads, because that would be harmful to its bottom line.
may be google's limit on 'do no evil' absurdity is how much of its revenue will be effected by such decisions.
and there is nothing wrong with that . companies are supposed to pay attention to their bottom line.
but don't be a hypocrite and launch pr stunts like this, taking a public holier than thou attitude, because you ban some "evil" that conveniently do little harm to your profits, while ignoring other "evils" that may harm your profits.
in this case test is actually checking the site. and that evident fails to confirm the theory. there is no city, just a fallow cornfield abandoned 10-15 years ago.
nor is there any other correlation between other mayan cities and visible stars, then or now, that is just modern pseudo science mystic nonsense. a modern high resolution image of sky with lots of stars may fit a map of known mayan cities (or any random map of cities or parking lots/malls/anything) with stars but since there are lots of stars that is to be expected, and most stars in that image wont have corresponding cities and never will.
this is what so called modern "science' has become to sell tv shows and books.
and mass society at large takes it for real science and are ever ready to believe stories that fit fairy story patterns( this story fits right in; young boy, ancient legends and mysteries, confounded authority etc etc).
media is happy to oblige . (how many media outlets that ran this story today, will run a story that pointed out that "city" was a cornfield tomorrow? very few. and fewer people will choose to read it if it ran).
"science" now has become a popular mass belief with believers thinking it is the undeniable unchallengeable TRUTH (a concept that is alien to philosophy of science), with computer models and artists images taken for real instead of experiments and real world data, and consensus and voting has become proof of theories while scientific method is ignored
bookmakers create and change odds based on the bets being placed, so that they themselves will not take any loses. that is odds are themselves the predictions of all who have paced bets. iow it is a form of collective intelligence.
whole concept of predictive markets is based on harnessing the collective intelligence/information of those who are willing to take risk on a event outcome,to predict probability of various out comes of events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
how is this so called "swarm intelligence" different?
and how much did the sea level rise? to say whole islands and coastlines that were permanently above(not land that go below due to tides and seasonal weather for instance) are now below sea through rise of sea level(instead of soil erosion, effect of currents, artificial land/jetty creation, volcanic activity, etc ) means sea level must have risen considerable number of centimeters.
if sea level rose uniformly (and it must), coastline should be lost on all parts of the world to similar significant extent, and this needs be observed more broadly.
- i live on the sea shore in tropics, for very long time, i for one don't see any change whatever . but it is not scientific to generalize from my experience, nor should we generalize from isolated observations, about a phenomenon, which if true, should be observed more generally.
who would buy proprietary technology and drm 'protected' content, and voluntarily be at the mercy of decisions and mistakes of owners? born idiots! they deserve the suffering they get !
i said "just as correlation do not prove causation, absence of correlation does not rule out causation". so why do you irrationally jump to false conclusion, in your absurd example about tea drinking, that i said absence of correlation proves causation?
there can be causation without correlation, due to other factors, known and unknown. that is true with data like this in general, and in this particular case since we do not definitely know all the other causes of cancer some of which may have gone down. as i wrote "how did they adjust for other factors?", given that in this case most of the other factors are far from definite or quantifiable.
btw as i said "burden of proof is with people who claim causation; proof that cellphones cause cancer, of which there is none", in case anyone thinks my pointing out the logical fallacy means this study proves nothing, is equal to my supporting theory that cellphones cause cancer.
just as correlation do not prove causation, absence of correlation does not rule out causation. so this study proves nothing.
(however we must recognize that burden of proof is with people who claim causation; proof that cellphones cause cancer, of which there is none).
so heading here at present, "Cellphones Do Not Cause Brain Cancer, Says 29-Year Study ", is wrong. heading in linked article "no increase in brain cancer across 29 years of mobile use in Australia" is more correct.
it is inaccuracies like that which open the atmosphere to false claims; for instance, using same sort of fallacy people may claim, that increase in autism in recent years, it is due to cellphones.
one expects/. to be better and more pedantic at these sort of technicalities, we certainly do not expect editors to degrade from the sources, as in this case.
few other questions, how did they adjust for other factors? was that unspecified "very slight increase in brain cancer rates among males" due to any subgroup among males ( iow was that increase more than the vague "very slight", with any more specific group)?
assertions without substance, like yours, does not make them true, instead they make them propaganda. what does that make you?
if "Bank Rossiya==Putin"(its Rossiya Bank btw) as you claim(without proof) that is a separate revelation on its own right, regardless of so called panama papers, and exposing such equivalence with proof should have been the subject of legitimate media coverage on its own. that did not happen.
again the question that has to be asked, why did guardian make putin the poster child of panama papers when his name does not appear anywhere and his connections with entities or individuals that had legal accounts(with amounts of money trivial in comparison to their public wealth, taxes,charities, etc), are superficial and unsubstantial. and certainly guardian, for all its absurd coverage, failed make any solid criminal association but stopped at innuendo (ie propaganda).
"My viewpoint is entirely my own" but since we don't know him/her/it that statement does not mean anything at all.
given the unknown sources, only way to judge the papers and their intention is to see what they revealed and how they were covered . 1/ with few exceptions, they were mostly against enemies of the western establishment . 2/ coverage of the papers by media like guardian was extremely skewed . for instance guardian started with putin's name and pic in all the stories on 1st day of release, even though his name does not appear anywhere at all in the papers. only connection with putin is through an acquittance(who suddenly became "best friend" in western media), but even that person had given away in charity far more than his tax bill and the money he had in these accounts (russian taxes are relatively low anyway). where does that fit in " scale of the injustices"?
even if wikileaks was doubtful about these papers, that is justified ; there is something odd about still unknown sources of these so called panama papers, which are mostly about enemies of the current western establishment . coverage of the papers by media like guardian was extremely skewed . for instance guardian started with putin's name and pic in all the stories on 1st day of release, even though his name does not appear anywhere at all in the papers. only connection with putin is through an acquittance(who suddenly became "best friend" in western media), but even that person had given away in charity far more than his tax bill and the money he had in these accounts (russian taxes are relatively low anyway). odd!
only people removed from reality, and live in a hype filled fantasy world, would think formulaic pseudo emotions , turgid prose, 1 dimensional characters, etc, would help "produce more human, conversational text".
given that it is nothing but an ad seller, google probably wants such a superficial formulaic robot like predictable world and people to fall for advertisements. in other words google seems to be training its ai to deal with a fantasy world that google dreams about to milk money.
but if this is what it learns, google's so called ai, will only be able to live in artificial "safe spaces". when outside that , faced with reality, like the m$ bot, it will malfunction .
btw even the most stupid of us, humans,( except college students in current usa ) can separate fantasy from reality. in fact we want fantasy for our entertainment , just because we deal with complex non formulaic unpredictable reality all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2 in the atmosphere whether it gets there quickly or slowly (unless you're talking the millions of years it takes to be transformed back into fossil fuels, which we are not).
ignorant much ?
why do you want it back as fossil fuels?
have you heard of photosynthesis? it takes far less time than "millions of years" for plants to remove CO2 from atmosphere.
so unless we burn the fossil fuels all at once, or at a very rapid rate, and remove most of the plants as well, earth is not going to be "scorched"
you are not going to make a rational case for a sustainable climate, and for less fossil fuel use, successfully, by peddling alarmist ignorant nonsense like this.
how about an example of his "sophisticated political views"?
or is that an euphemism for whatever views writer of this puff piece holds?
any real "sophisticated political view" would be nuanced and will not have a binary view of society and groups in it.
but without binary views and resulting simplistic us versus them mentality, there wont be any "targets" to "attack" using illegal methods.
so what's new here other than facebook bought a company?
what exactly is the new technology here that makes sound "realistically three-dimensional"? i don't see anything new or innovative. just another implementation.
it is just facebook hype to sell more ads.
... ... ...
Monuments of unageing intellect.
Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
from Sailing to Byzantium by William Butler Yeats
if anything (eg a network ) require centralized control (to manage , to disseminate , to anything), it is vulnerable to attack .
"Thwart DDos attacks by dispersing cyber assets (physically and/or logically) to complicate adversarial targeting, disguise the characteristics and behaviors of those assets to confuse or deceive the adversary ..."
yes good, but that also means losing central control. in will 'complicate' attacks, but will also complicate managing and disseminating etc.
this is 101.
obviously my comment, based on verifiable facts and reason, touched a nerve of somebody enough for him/her to go researching about me, distort my views, and on that write a lengthy AC ad hominem attack on me.
my comment on specific subject is not countered with rational arguments and relevant facts, but an attack on me personally, on off topic subjects.
yay! i must be doing something right to get so much wasted effort from someone very confused and irrational.
anyway, anyone objecting to my views on other subjects (my views are quite open and linked through my profile here or through web search, i am no AC,) if there are any objections, can openly refute them wherever i (not others) have stated them. i don't censor.
wikipedia should contain well rounded view of the subject. instead there is bias and censorship, as i pointed out in my comment above with a verfiable example. whatever views i hold on other subjects (which are utterly distorted in this attack) are irrelevant to that.
" 4,700 articles which have rigorously reviewed before being awarded a gold star icon certifying them as "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer."
this includes english article on 'british empire', a poster child for bias among entrenched editors at wikimedia
attempts to include the factual cited details about british empire's mass murders and genocides, ethnic cleansings(well in to 1970s), regime sanctioned slavery and bonded labor, preventable famines that killed millions(in to 1940s), large scale land and resource grabs, destruction and looting of cultural treasures, regular revolts and protests against regime ( both violent and non violent) in almost every colony, and their brutal suppressions, are censored(except for a unavoidable line or two). people who attempt to include any of that are regularly banned from wikipedia .
ironically some, not all, of the censored material in this article is accepted and available in wikipedia's specialized articles on the subjects like slavery, famines, war crimes, etc. however even parts of sentences with links to specialized articles are censored. contrast this treatment to inclusion of such details in main wikipedia articles about equally horrible actions by similarly brutish regimes like on ussr, communist china, nazi germany, etc. .
even discussion page for british empire article is censored to prevent discussion of sources.
careful examination of history pages, of both the article and discussion page, in date sequence changes will confirm this.
"... domains of YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, VK, Live, Yandex, OK.ru, Twitch, Amazon, and Mail.ru, the biggest sites running Flash content today"
really?
some of them, yes. but biggest sites using flash are big porn sites.
that is precisely why it is not funny. google peons are just parroting something funny to try to be funny.
"Parsey McParseface (Google has a sense of humor)"
more like dour corp peons at google tries hard, very hard, to appear humorous.
even tay had better humor
thanks for etymology.
i am using word 'usury' in the most common senses currently in use, as defined by top definitions in most dictionaries, which are variations of "charging unreasonable/excessive/illegal rate of interest for loans". and as it was used in religious texts (and translations), and laws influenced by them, which include definition of charging of any interest on loans.
so called "payday loans" may indeed be harmful. however there is a method to ban harmful things; democratically enacted legislation. (indeed some states and countries have baned them).
but should we trust and rely on big corps like google to nanny us and make us safe according to their own vague moral code?
would google next decide interest over certain percentage as harmful? perhaps google would decide all interest taking as usury, and ( like some fundamental religious nuts/muslim countries now, and many Christian ones in past) ban all interest loan ads?
where is the limit ?
of course google wont ban other loan ads, and many other 'harmful' ads, because that would be harmful to its bottom line.
may be google's limit on 'do no evil' absurdity is how much of its revenue will be effected by such decisions.
and there is nothing wrong with that . companies are supposed to pay attention to their bottom line.
but don't be a hypocrite and launch pr stunts like this, taking a public holier than thou attitude, because you ban some "evil" that conveniently do little harm to your profits, while ignoring other "evils" that may harm your profits.
you think liberty was alive in a country that had clintons, bushes, obama, etc running it for decades?
no wonder you live in movie delusions.
in this case test is actually checking the site. and that evident fails to confirm the theory. there is no city, just a fallow cornfield abandoned 10-15 years ago.
nor is there any other correlation between other mayan cities and visible stars, then or now, that is just modern pseudo science mystic nonsense.
a modern high resolution image of sky with lots of stars may fit a map of known mayan cities (or any random map of cities or parking lots/malls/anything) with stars but since there are lots of stars that is to be expected, and most stars in that image wont have corresponding cities and never will.
this is what so called modern "science' has become to sell tv shows and books.
and mass society at large takes it for real science and are ever ready to believe stories that fit fairy story patterns( this story fits right in; young boy, ancient legends and mysteries, confounded authority etc etc).
media is happy to oblige . (how many media outlets that ran this story today, will run a story that pointed out that "city" was a cornfield tomorrow? very few. and fewer people will choose to read it if it ran).
"science" now has become a popular mass belief with believers thinking it is the undeniable unchallengeable TRUTH (a concept that is alien to philosophy of science), with computer models and artists images taken for real instead of experiments and real world data, and consensus and voting has become proof of theories while scientific method is ignored
bookmakers create and change odds based on the bets being placed, so that they themselves will not take any loses. that is odds are themselves the predictions of all who have paced bets. iow it is a form of collective intelligence.
whole concept of predictive markets is based on harnessing the collective intelligence/information of those who are willing to take risk on a event outcome ,to predict probability of various out comes of events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
how is this so called "swarm intelligence" different?
and how much did the sea level rise?
to say whole islands and coastlines that were permanently above(not land that go below due to tides and seasonal weather for instance) are now below sea through rise of sea level(instead of soil erosion, effect of currents, artificial land/jetty creation, volcanic activity, etc ) means sea level must have risen considerable number of centimeters.
if sea level rose uniformly (and it must), coastline should be lost on all parts of the world to similar significant extent, and this needs be observed more broadly.
-
i live on the sea shore in tropics, for very long time, i for one don't see any change whatever . but it is not scientific to generalize from my experience, nor should we generalize from isolated observations, about a phenomenon, which if true, should be observed more generally.
who would buy proprietary technology and drm 'protected' content, and voluntarily be at the mercy of decisions and mistakes of owners?
born idiots!
they deserve the suffering they get !
always glad get a reply that admit bankruptcy in rational responses to my arguments, by focusing on my lack of capitalization.
i said "just as correlation do not prove causation, absence of correlation does not rule out causation".
so why do you irrationally jump to false conclusion, in your absurd example about tea drinking, that i said absence of correlation proves causation?
born idiocy? if so troll your parents, not me.
there can be causation without correlation, due to other factors, known and unknown.
that is true with data like this in general, and in this particular case since we do not definitely know all the other causes of cancer some of which may have gone down.
as i wrote "how did they adjust for other factors?", given that in this case most of the other factors are far from definite or quantifiable.
btw as i said "burden of proof is with people who claim causation; proof that cellphones cause cancer, of which there is none", in case anyone thinks my pointing out the logical fallacy means this study proves nothing, is equal to my supporting theory that cellphones cause cancer.
just as correlation do not prove causation, absence of correlation does not rule out causation. so this study proves nothing.
(however we must recognize that burden of proof is with people who claim causation; proof that cellphones cause cancer, of which there is none).
so heading here at present, "Cellphones Do Not Cause Brain Cancer, Says 29-Year Study ", is wrong. heading in linked article "no increase in brain cancer across 29 years of mobile use in Australia" is more correct.
it is inaccuracies like that which open the atmosphere to false claims; for instance, using same sort of fallacy people may claim, that increase in autism in recent years, it is due to cellphones.
one expects /. to be better and more pedantic at these sort of technicalities, we certainly do not expect editors to degrade from the sources, as in this case.
few other questions,
how did they adjust for other factors?
was that unspecified "very slight increase in brain cancer rates among males" due to any subgroup among males ( iow was that increase more than the vague "very slight", with any more specific group)?
assertions without substance, like yours, does not make them true, instead they make them propaganda. what does that make you?
if "Bank Rossiya==Putin"(its Rossiya Bank btw) as you claim(without proof) that is a separate revelation on its own right, regardless of so called panama papers, and exposing such equivalence with proof should have been the subject of legitimate media coverage on its own. that did not happen.
again the question that has to be asked, why did guardian make putin the poster child of panama papers when his name does not appear anywhere and his connections with entities or individuals that had legal accounts(with amounts of money trivial in comparison to their public wealth, taxes,charities, etc), are superficial and unsubstantial.
and certainly guardian, for all its absurd coverage, failed make any solid criminal association but stopped at innuendo (ie propaganda).
why?
"My viewpoint is entirely my own"
but since we don't know him/her/it that statement does not mean anything at all.
given the unknown sources, only way to judge the papers and their intention is to see what they revealed and how they were covered .
1/ with few exceptions, they were mostly against enemies of the western establishment .
2/ coverage of the papers by media like guardian was extremely skewed . for instance guardian started with putin's name and pic in all the stories on 1st day of release, even though his name does not appear anywhere at all in the papers. only connection with putin is through an acquittance(who suddenly became "best friend" in western media), but even that person had given away in charity far more than his tax bill and the money he had in these accounts (russian taxes are relatively low anyway).
where does that fit in " scale of the injustices"?
even if wikileaks was doubtful about these papers, that is justified ; there is something odd about still unknown sources of these so called panama papers, which are mostly about enemies of the current western establishment .
coverage of the papers by media like guardian was extremely skewed . for instance guardian started with putin's name and pic in all the stories on 1st day of release, even though his name does not appear anywhere at all in the papers. only connection with putin is through an acquittance(who suddenly became "best friend" in western media), but even that person had given away in charity far more than his tax bill and the money he had in these accounts (russian taxes are relatively low anyway).
odd!
only people removed from reality, and live in a hype filled fantasy world, would think formulaic pseudo emotions , turgid prose, 1 dimensional characters, etc, would help "produce more human, conversational text".
given that it is nothing but an ad seller, google probably wants such a superficial formulaic robot like predictable world and people to fall for advertisements.
in other words google seems to be training its ai to deal with a fantasy world that google dreams about to milk money.
but if this is what it learns, google's so called ai, will only be able to live in artificial "safe spaces". when outside that , faced with reality, like the m$ bot, it will malfunction .
btw even the most stupid of us, humans,( except college students in current usa ) can separate fantasy from reality. in fact we want fantasy for our entertainment , just because we deal with complex non formulaic unpredictable reality all the time.