I can't agree more! This guy has like 30 gun-nut posts in this thread, one more ignorant than the other.
As long as people like him keep their guns 'accidents' like this will keep happening. If only Grimbledon wasn't such a paranoid lonely loser he could find a woman that would educate him (like that other guys mom who just showed common sense and you had to rip on her for that). Now he's just living in his delusional world feeling better because he has a loaded gun near his dick. Just one squeeze and you lose it, and any chances for a woman or children!
If guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns...
on
Accidental Wii Suicide
·
· Score: -1, Troll
and if guns stay legal only extreme asshats like this guy own a gun and think their children are any safer.
Just because something makes you 'feel' better does not make it better. And a gun might make you feel more secure and make your dick feel 5 inches longer but the sad truth is that statistically it is more likely the other way around.
Commodore Basic taught me to love programming, have fun making little games and all important binary operations and encoding for sprites and font QBasic allowed me to take my learned lessons to the 8086 and add much much more visually appealing graphical interfaces (still mostly games, but also editors etc.) QuickBasic introduced me to libraries and compilation, i've built some great hardware monitoring interfaces with sensors and relay switches Visual Basic allowed me to explore the win32 API and libraries, i''ve built some of my greatest applications with it ranging from editors and filtering proxies to a graphical music collection interface I could control with a remote
I loved basic, it taught me so much but most of all it taught me to love programming... The days of fun little programs in basic are over and I have no intention of ever going back... but there is definitely meaning there, and I would recommend anyone to try programming with basic... as a self-taught programmer I can say you will learn a lot from basic.
If you could not point out an error unless you are yourself completely free of any error no-one would speak up for anything.
In other words: You can never really counter any argument by proclaiming the other party also does things wrong... While it might feel morally right to do so it makes no sense logically, the argument still stands and everyone is just as flawed (or even more because of it).
Then again, this is really the pot calling the kettle black... And it can become annoying and more important unproductive, so I do agree with you.
More exact it was a vote of over 100.000 people in Switzerland about the fate of their nation which was 'threatened' by a total of 4 (you read it right, four) minarets. A mayor factor why these people voted for the ban is the christian party in the country... Exactly like the ban on violent games the ban on minarets was engineered by a few conservatives who use fear to get a lot of people to vote their way. In the case of minarets they even had propaganda-posters like this: http://warincontext.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/swiss-anti-minaret-campaign1.jpg
Maybe it's tyranny, but the majority is just cattle...
I have expressed doubts about the science and the motives of a lot of the people involved... but I know some proposed solutions are good for the planet no matter what you believe. You can't say you're either with the global warming religion or with big oil... there is a huge middle road where you do what you know is good without the hysteria and you keep looking out for the real cause and solution. You compared humanity to a cancerous hippie who will die because of sheer stupidity and refusal to accept a proven solution, but such an absolutist view is not even close to a reality here...
I attack both the science and the proposed solutions because they are all too often named in one sentence like: 'we all know global warming is true based on these pretty graphs, now here is our affordable solution you have to use unless you hate the planet'. Beside questionable science the whole discussion is also way to politicised, it's being abused and distorted by politicians to pressure and influence other countries. All these things have nothing to do with really looking for a long term solution and really understanding the problem, which is what asking questions is all about.
I never advocate 'wait and see'... it's good to improve our living conditions on this rock, but we don't need to invest in useless pseudo-solutions like carbon credits to be 'carbon neutral'. Invest in nuclear (now fission, after a few decades fusion).
Your example would be correct if a charlatan doctor told me he has found a great cure to the common cold that claims to prevent spreading it to other people around me. But he's selling me a feel-good solution that won't help at all when you put it to the (scientific) test... In that case I would personally tell this doctor to stick it and keep using traditional medicine (hmm, chicken soup) which I know helps, but won't 'cure' the cold.
Excellent point, it's all bullshit. When choosing from two evils it's better to go with the one that has the nice side-effect of giving us cleaner air to breathe right...:-)
But going 100% renewable is about looking forward at the future and about the survival of our society past 'peak oil'... a fairytale of certain doom might be what's needed to get people moving, but I reserve my right to call bullshit when I see it.
The win-win situation is:
- Keep looking at global climate change as a scientific question to solve
- Keep investing in renewable energy
- Try to lower fossil fuel use and use more renewable and nuclear (you will have to eventually, and there is great political gain to invest more now)
- Research fusion technology for the more distant future
- Don't buy into any of the carbon credit scams!
My personal view on the matter is undecided, I think there is in fact some climate change... but I don't believe the world is doomed. The language I use to describe the situation is based on my observation of the dialogue (including leaked emails) betweens scientists and politicians over the past years. At this moment it is political suicide to question anything related to global warming. The whole debate becomes like a religion, you're either with them or against them... well i'm neither, but I won't just take their word for it when they make extraordinary claims like:
- Books (and paper) harm the environment, when you read books you kill the rainforest!
- The whales are still on the brink of extinction, when you crap you kill dolpins!
- Nuclear power is the most evil power ever, you're better off using coal!
- The earth is warming up fast, we're doomed!
- The earth is cooling down fast, we're doomed!
- Armageddon is near (2012, or pick a new one after that), we're doomed for sure!
So much has been predicted... and so much is wrong but will be perpetuated too long. Until enough people calls bullshit.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist nor do I claim you should doubt everything, I 'm just trying to be a critical thinker.
Like you asked a claim of 'global warming' would require measurements over many decades with steady change measured all over the globe, anything other is not 'global', and you certainly need to account for biased data because of urban heating and various other effects. After this fact has been established a cause still has to be determined, the solar cycle still has not been discounted as a possible cause, and beside that a lot of other causes can be named like most obviously 'fossil fuel'... When all theories have been considered and the counter-proof to all but one has been presented you can say 'we leave this subject to rest'. We can't really prove for anything, we can only disprove the alternatives. I will accept global warming when all possible (well just the *real* word possibilities, so we're not talking ad-infinitum) alternatives are shown together and you can reproduce the steps to disprove other theories. Just screaming 'unbeliever!' won't do it for me.
P.S. On a small sidenote I really take interest in the subject and have done some calculations on my own with some interesting results I won't go into since I don't claim to know everything and I can't pretend to know any better than mainstream science. Let's just say I have the patience to wait a few decades and look back at the past... I have the strange impression people will look back at the 'great global warming scare of the 20th century' and have a chuckle because much more of the facts will be known by then, and anyone who has been fighting with religious zeal will look like a tool (as will anyone who has bought 'carbon-credits').
Everyone has a lot to gain, so I will in fact call anything anyone claims without backing up those claims with any evidence bullshit...
Any normal scientist do will research, write a paper and in the conclusion of the paper claim 'more research needs to be done'... they are no evil money-hungry scientists because of that, it's stating a fact because every field can use more research and coincidentally they will have more work. My problem is with 'scientists' who make extraordinary claims without backing them up with sufficient data, or they have 'proof' but only the pretty graphs not the raw data. These people are fear-mongerers that hold the world hostage with these claims and try to silence opposition. When you can no longer oppose a questionable idea, questionable motives and questionable practices without being attacked you can be damn sure there is something wrong.
Google just announced their plans to do lay high-speed fiber... and now the FCC is defining a minimum bandwidth. Looks like the internet in that little country called the US will finally catch up with the rest of the world... Maybe i'll finally get some speed from US P2P users now...;-)
Incidentallty since around that time global warming really became a political issue and a lot of money was thrown at the problem. It's not that hard to imagine that some people will cherry-pick or fudge some data to get a better grant after that...
My rule with dubious science is: 'Follow the money', if anyone has a lot of financial gain with one outcome and their results just happen to be that outcome I call bullshit... Al Gore has financial gains, Al Gore is talking bullshit about global warming... there is no simpeler way of putting it.
The higher the punishments for civil disobedience the deeper underground the protest will go.
It would be the equivalent of a 'sit in' if the response would be the equivalent of getting hit with the hose. When instead the response is 'evil child-porn-network-supporting terrorist hackers' you know no-one is going to stand up to identify themselves...
This could possibly escalate to the point where freethink will get you executed, by that time the only protest by that point is deep underground and more and more likely to have lethal consequence.
I *need* my music too, and am willing to pay a reasonable amount for it. But when they take away all reasonable ways to listen to music the only option they leave to their consumers is... *aaaarrrrrrg matey TCP RST RECEIVED
My first thought also was: 'Cool, they have a Counter-Strike class and the professor got fragged and flunks the campers for cheating'.
But when I googled 'define:CS' I found the most appropriate definition: 'Caugt Stealing':)
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, don't joke about it... Those nukular WMDs are still out there doing all kinds of terrorism. :)
Yeah, when hell freezes over...
His mom had some common sense, unlike you.
Like you're the only man who never made any mistake? Who the fuck mods this idiot up???
I can't agree more! This guy has like 30 gun-nut posts in this thread, one more ignorant than the other.
As long as people like him keep their guns 'accidents' like this will keep happening. If only Grimbledon wasn't such a paranoid lonely loser he could find a woman that would educate him (like that other guys mom who just showed common sense and you had to rip on her for that). Now he's just living in his delusional world feeling better because he has a loaded gun near his dick. Just one squeeze and you lose it, and any chances for a woman or children!
and if guns stay legal only extreme asshats like this guy own a gun and think their children are any safer.
Just because something makes you 'feel' better does not make it better. And a gun might make you feel more secure and make your dick feel 5 inches longer but the sad truth is that statistically it is more likely the other way around.
Commodore Basic taught me to love programming, have fun making little games and all important binary operations and encoding for sprites and font
QBasic allowed me to take my learned lessons to the 8086 and add much much more visually appealing graphical interfaces (still mostly games, but also editors etc.)
QuickBasic introduced me to libraries and compilation, i've built some great hardware monitoring interfaces with sensors and relay switches
Visual Basic allowed me to explore the win32 API and libraries, i''ve built some of my greatest applications with it ranging from editors and filtering proxies to a graphical music collection interface I could control with a remote
I loved basic, it taught me so much but most of all it taught me to love programming... The days of fun little programs in basic are over and I have no intention of ever going back... but there is definitely meaning there, and I would recommend anyone to try programming with basic... as a self-taught programmer I can say you will learn a lot from basic.
You are assuming an even distribution of people. You can toss out the north 80% of Canada's land area and only moose 5% of their population.
Even without the aforementioned reduction in land area around 1% of all Canadians are moosed every year... quite tragic.
If you could not point out an error unless you are yourself completely free of any error no-one would speak up for anything.
In other words: You can never really counter any argument by proclaiming the other party also does things wrong... While it might feel morally right to do so it makes no sense logically, the argument still stands and everyone is just as flawed (or even more because of it).
Then again, this is really the pot calling the kettle black... And it can become annoying and more important unproductive, so I do agree with you.
More exact it was a vote of over 100.000 people in Switzerland about the fate of their nation which was 'threatened' by a total of 4 (you read it right, four) minarets. A mayor factor why these people voted for the ban is the christian party in the country... Exactly like the ban on violent games the ban on minarets was engineered by a few conservatives who use fear to get a lot of people to vote their way. In the case of minarets they even had propaganda-posters like this: http://warincontext.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/swiss-anti-minaret-campaign1.jpg
Maybe it's tyranny, but the majority is just cattle...
Try Googling "kind girls" and press "I'm feeling lucky"...
:-)
Who wouldn't love a 'suggest for Google Community Donation (tm)' button with that.
...does that mean WikiMedia will also be classified as kiddie porn in Australia now?
I have expressed doubts about the science and the motives of a lot of the people involved... but I know some proposed solutions are good for the planet no matter what you believe. You can't say you're either with the global warming religion or with big oil... there is a huge middle road where you do what you know is good without the hysteria and you keep looking out for the real cause and solution. You compared humanity to a cancerous hippie who will die because of sheer stupidity and refusal to accept a proven solution, but such an absolutist view is not even close to a reality here...
I attack both the science and the proposed solutions because they are all too often named in one sentence like: 'we all know global warming is true based on these pretty graphs, now here is our affordable solution you have to use unless you hate the planet'. Beside questionable science the whole discussion is also way to politicised, it's being abused and distorted by politicians to pressure and influence other countries. All these things have nothing to do with really looking for a long term solution and really understanding the problem, which is what asking questions is all about.
I never advocate 'wait and see'... it's good to improve our living conditions on this rock, but we don't need to invest in useless pseudo-solutions like carbon credits to be 'carbon neutral'. Invest in nuclear (now fission, after a few decades fusion).
Your example would be correct if a charlatan doctor told me he has found a great cure to the common cold that claims to prevent spreading it to other people around me. But he's selling me a feel-good solution that won't help at all when you put it to the (scientific) test... In that case I would personally tell this doctor to stick it and keep using traditional medicine (hmm, chicken soup) which I know helps, but won't 'cure' the cold.
Doesn't it also crack you up that people always keep claiming 'there is no doubt about it' right after someone expresses doubt about it. :-)
I doubt they would put in so much effort if it wasn't with the best of intentions.
Well than, just google this: Al Gore carbon. His intentions are quite obvious, and to some this is the 'inconvenient truth'.
Excellent point, it's all bullshit. When choosing from two evils it's better to go with the one that has the nice side-effect of giving us cleaner air to breathe right... :-)
But going 100% renewable is about looking forward at the future and about the survival of our society past 'peak oil'... a fairytale of certain doom might be what's needed to get people moving, but I reserve my right to call bullshit when I see it.
The win-win situation is:
- Keep looking at global climate change as a scientific question to solve
- Keep investing in renewable energy
- Try to lower fossil fuel use and use more renewable and nuclear (you will have to eventually, and there is great political gain to invest more now)
- Research fusion technology for the more distant future
- Don't buy into any of the carbon credit scams!
My personal view on the matter is undecided, I think there is in fact some climate change... but I don't believe the world is doomed. The language I use to describe the situation is based on my observation of the dialogue (including leaked emails) betweens scientists and politicians over the past years. At this moment it is political suicide to question anything related to global warming. The whole debate becomes like a religion, you're either with them or against them... well i'm neither, but I won't just take their word for it when they make extraordinary claims like:
- Books (and paper) harm the environment, when you read books you kill the rainforest!
- The whales are still on the brink of extinction, when you crap you kill dolpins!
- Nuclear power is the most evil power ever, you're better off using coal!
- The earth is warming up fast, we're doomed!
- The earth is cooling down fast, we're doomed!
- Armageddon is near (2012, or pick a new one after that), we're doomed for sure!
So much has been predicted... and so much is wrong but will be perpetuated too long. Until enough people calls bullshit. I'm not a conspiracy theorist nor do I claim you should doubt everything, I 'm just trying to be a critical thinker.
Like you asked a claim of 'global warming' would require measurements over many decades with steady change measured all over the globe, anything other is not 'global', and you certainly need to account for biased data because of urban heating and various other effects. After this fact has been established a cause still has to be determined, the solar cycle still has not been discounted as a possible cause, and beside that a lot of other causes can be named like most obviously 'fossil fuel'... When all theories have been considered and the counter-proof to all but one has been presented you can say 'we leave this subject to rest'. We can't really prove for anything, we can only disprove the alternatives. I will accept global warming when all possible (well just the *real* word possibilities, so we're not talking ad-infinitum) alternatives are shown together and you can reproduce the steps to disprove other theories. Just screaming 'unbeliever!' won't do it for me.
P.S. On a small sidenote I really take interest in the subject and have done some calculations on my own with some interesting results I won't go into since I don't claim to know everything and I can't pretend to know any better than mainstream science. Let's just say I have the patience to wait a few decades and look back at the past... I have the strange impression people will look back at the 'great global warming scare of the 20th century' and have a chuckle because much more of the facts will be known by then, and anyone who has been fighting with religious zeal will look like a tool (as will anyone who has bought 'carbon-credits').
You in fact illustrated my point that most of what you hear nowadays from various sources is bullshit. Or maybe that's just my interpretation. ;-)
Everyone has a lot to gain, so I will in fact call anything anyone claims without backing up those claims with any evidence bullshit...
Any normal scientist do will research, write a paper and in the conclusion of the paper claim 'more research needs to be done'... they are no evil money-hungry scientists because of that, it's stating a fact because every field can use more research and coincidentally they will have more work. My problem is with 'scientists' who make extraordinary claims without backing them up with sufficient data, or they have 'proof' but only the pretty graphs not the raw data. These people are fear-mongerers that hold the world hostage with these claims and try to silence opposition. When you can no longer oppose a questionable idea, questionable motives and questionable practices without being attacked you can be damn sure there is something wrong.
You questioned the graph without hesitation, as you should... I have certainly not provided any evidence and you should not believe me on my word on anything... But I have found the source of this graph for you: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html who also reference http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Google just announced their plans to do lay high-speed fiber... and now the FCC is defining a minimum bandwidth. ;-)
Looks like the internet in that little country called the US will finally catch up with the rest of the world... Maybe i'll finally get some speed from US P2P users now...
I'd say you need to go back to right around 1990 to find the correct data... as is insinuated by graphs like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/AverageTvsNumberofStations.jpg.
Incidentallty since around that time global warming really became a political issue and a lot of money was thrown at the problem. It's not that hard to imagine that some people will cherry-pick or fudge some data to get a better grant after that...
My rule with dubious science is: 'Follow the money', if anyone has a lot of financial gain with one outcome and their results just happen to be that outcome I call bullshit... Al Gore has financial gains, Al Gore is talking bullshit about global warming... there is no simpeler way of putting it.
The higher the punishments for civil disobedience the deeper underground the protest will go.
It would be the equivalent of a 'sit in' if the response would be the equivalent of getting hit with the hose. When instead the response is 'evil child-porn-network-supporting terrorist hackers' you know no-one is going to stand up to identify themselves...
This could possibly escalate to the point where freethink will get you executed, by that time the only protest by that point is deep underground and more and more likely to have lethal consequence.
I *need* my music too, and am willing to pay a reasonable amount for it. But when they take away all reasonable ways to listen to music the only option they leave to their consumers is... *aaaarrrrrrg matey TCP RST RECEIVED
My first thought also was: 'Cool, they have a Counter-Strike class and the professor got fragged and flunks the campers for cheating'. :)
But when I googled 'define:CS' I found the most appropriate definition: 'Caugt Stealing'