I finally realized that no mater how much I cared about the world, no matter how angry I got about politics, no matter how much I raged for the environment, there was absolutely nothing to be gained by being plugged in 16 hours a day. Now I check the news maybe once a day, and live the best life I can, only paying attention to those in my immediate sphere of influence.
Living without the constant anxiety has improved my life immensely, and now I don't add to the stress of those around me by feeding into their own stress cycles.
Yeah but as long as the long dimension of the hunk of plastic and latex is longer than 5'2, that's normal and fine. Anything shorter is just sick and will make people want to diddle kids.
There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain. It is hard to not just spout expletives when responding to your comment since it shows such an immense lack of knowledge and the belief your ignorance should be considered in public policy.
How can it simultaneously be non-binding and also the EOTWAWKI?
Energy is expensive really, it only looks cheap to the end user because much of the cost is either hidden in tax funded subsidy or externalized to someone else
You need to be careful with this kind of talk.
It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the rich/corporations pay a lot of taxes that keep the costs of living down for the regular people, and that directly contradicts the consensus that the rich/corporations are nothing but leeches on society.
There, now everyone reading this can't say "Where are those people who said to investigate Hillary now that a Republican is in trouble?" Right here. Now shut up and stop playing sides.
People keep saying, "They really only make a difference up close." What is up close? In my media room the 55" 1080P TV is EXACLTY 8' 6" from my eyeballs when I am in the couch. Would I see a difference upgrading to a 4k, curved TV? Yes, I know I would see the 4k. I am wondering about the curve, at the distance.
I look forward to winning that class action lawsuit and being awarded a discount on some microsoft product I never had any intention of purchasing, for my damages.
If the eggs of a human female are all produced before the female is even born, won't they already contain all the original mitochondria they will ever contain, and further altering of mitochondria elsewhere in the woman's body will do absolutely nothing to the "future generations?" I don't remember any process by which mitochondria are passed through the cell membrane.
Unless TFA already addressed that. Not like I actually read it.
In which since some believe in creationism, some don't like abortion under any circumstance, some get worked up over a coffee cup color, and some are anti-gay, but we always lump all of them together, anyway. Ok to generalize Christians, wrong to generalize Muslims. Thems the rules.
I'm not even a christian and I recognize that bit of cognitive dissonance in society.
Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.
I remember trying to talk about the Obamacare legislation, before it passed. I would say something to the effect of, "I have a concern about the concept of X, and how it will be put into practice." The typical response to me would be, "Well, you're just racist, then." And that would end the conversation.
Seems to me when their robot operator tells you your call may be recorded for "quality control purposes," that is all the disclaimer that is needed to record the call yourself, no matter what the state wiretapping laws may be.
I have no faith in the federal government to run an ISP. They would be worse than Comcast, and would probably never get it running until they have spent a year's GDP.
I have slightly more faith in a state government to run one. Not as many people to pay-off around most state capitols as there are around DC.
I would have a lot of faith in a local or city government to get it done. They live right there amongst their customers, typically have to work within a budget, and have a vested interest in doing it right the first time.
Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.
All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.
That's because all scientists are skeptics.
Wacky global warming deniers are not skeptics, they are credulous fools.
Skeptics look at the evidence before making their minds up, and change their minds if new evidence comes to light.
Deniers deny. Disprove one nutty theory and the continue denying with another, often incompatible nutty theory. This sometimes goes around in circles 'till they come back to the first, already disproven, theory.
Regarding collusion in the peer review process:
One of the arguments of "deniers" is that the supposed agreement of all climate scientists is that their funding requires certain conclusions to be drawn, and thus climate scientists are, generally, in lockstep to secure continued funding of their studies. Scare people and get funding. Tell people that climate change isn't the end of the world and start putting out resumes.
Your response is, "Well, there is a peer review process and look, they are 99% in agreement."
They already know 99% of climate scientists are saying the same thing, and keep setting goal posts for the "point of no return," and watching nothing happen. Al Gore certainly didn't help, didn't he say 2009 was the point of no return? Didn't he say hurricanes will be more frequent? Does the sky continue to not fall?
Do you see why that isn't going to sway the denier? Deniers are indeed skeptics, they are just skeptical of the integrity of the people doing the science. That's what y'all have to fix. Continuing to call them ignorant and stupid isn't getting you anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a segment of American society that thinks:
1. Illegal aliens should be allowed into the country in spite of there being laws against it.
AND
2. Foreigners shouldn't have free speech in America in spite of there being no laws against it.
Seems to me the Russian goal of divide and conquer is working very well on that segment of society.
I finally realized that no mater how much I cared about the world, no matter how angry I got about politics, no matter how much I raged for the environment, there was absolutely nothing to be gained by being plugged in 16 hours a day. Now I check the news maybe once a day, and live the best life I can, only paying attention to those in my immediate sphere of influence.
Living without the constant anxiety has improved my life immensely, and now I don't add to the stress of those around me by feeding into their own stress cycles.
Yeah but as long as the long dimension of the hunk of plastic and latex is longer than 5'2, that's normal and fine. Anything shorter is just sick and will make people want to diddle kids.
Had my only child, a male child, at the age of 35. He is now 11 and is very much Dad's science geek.
Couldn't be prouder.
There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain. It is hard to not just spout expletives when responding to your comment since it shows such an immense lack of knowledge and the belief your ignorance should be considered in public policy.
How can it simultaneously be non-binding and also the EOTWAWKI?
Energy is expensive really, it only looks cheap to the end user because much of the cost is either hidden in tax funded subsidy or externalized to someone else
You need to be careful with this kind of talk.
It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the rich/corporations pay a lot of taxes that keep the costs of living down for the regular people, and that directly contradicts the consensus that the rich/corporations are nothing but leeches on society.
I say if true, convict.
I said the same thing of Hillary.
There, now everyone reading this can't say "Where are those people who said to investigate Hillary now that a Republican is in trouble?" Right here. Now shut up and stop playing sides.
People keep saying, "They really only make a difference up close." What is up close? In my media room the 55" 1080P TV is EXACLTY 8' 6" from my eyeballs when I am in the couch. Would I see a difference upgrading to a 4k, curved TV? Yes, I know I would see the 4k. I am wondering about the curve, at the distance.
I WONDERED how they did that opener for the halftime show. I was wondering if I was seeing on-the-fly computer graphics. Drones makes sense.
I'm sure that some judge, somewhere, will be willing to block the legislation.
"And furthermore, peace, love, grass."
I look forward to winning that class action lawsuit and being awarded a discount on some microsoft product I never had any intention of purchasing, for my damages.
Someone above already listed a bunch of books that were failed predictions when the same "citation needed" challenge was made.
If the eggs of a human female are all produced before the female is even born, won't they already contain all the original mitochondria they will ever contain, and further altering of mitochondria elsewhere in the woman's body will do absolutely nothing to the "future generations?" I don't remember any process by which mitochondria are passed through the cell membrane.
Unless TFA already addressed that. Not like I actually read it.
In which since some believe in creationism, some don't like abortion under any circumstance, some get worked up over a coffee cup color, and some are anti-gay, but we always lump all of them together, anyway. Ok to generalize Christians, wrong to generalize Muslims. Thems the rules.
I'm not even a christian and I recognize that bit of cognitive dissonance in society.
Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.
I remember trying to talk about the Obamacare legislation, before it passed. I would say something to the effect of, "I have a concern about the concept of X, and how it will be put into practice." The typical response to me would be, "Well, you're just racist, then." And that would end the conversation.
... the most transparent administration in history.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_...
Rick, speaking to his newly-created robot:
Robot: What is my purpose?
Rick: Pass the butter.
*robot passes the butter*
Robot: What is my purpose?
Rick: You pass butter.
Robot.... Oh... my god....
Either the government has to declare you to be the bad guy, or CNN does. https://www.google.com/search?...
Those damned republicans probably denied the funding they needed to also make it secure.
Seems to me when their robot operator tells you your call may be recorded for "quality control purposes," that is all the disclaimer that is needed to record the call yourself, no matter what the state wiretapping laws may be.
"I have no faith in government to be an ISP."
I have no faith in the federal government to run an ISP. They would be worse than Comcast, and would probably never get it running until they have spent a year's GDP.
I have slightly more faith in a state government to run one. Not as many people to pay-off around most state capitols as there are around DC.
I would have a lot of faith in a local or city government to get it done. They live right there amongst their customers, typically have to work within a budget, and have a vested interest in doing it right the first time.
Is this why we are not yet traveling in tubes, because they would threaten the taxi industry?
I don't have a background in education, child development, or psychology, yet I read to my son every night.
Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.
All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.
That's because all scientists are skeptics.
Wacky global warming deniers are not skeptics, they are credulous fools.
Skeptics look at the evidence before making their minds up, and change their minds if new evidence comes to light.
Deniers deny. Disprove one nutty theory and the continue denying with another, often incompatible nutty theory. This sometimes goes around in circles 'till they come back to the first, already disproven, theory.
Regarding collusion in the peer review process:
One of the arguments of "deniers" is that the supposed agreement of all climate scientists is that their funding requires certain conclusions to be drawn, and thus climate scientists are, generally, in lockstep to secure continued funding of their studies. Scare people and get funding. Tell people that climate change isn't the end of the world and start putting out resumes.
Your response is, "Well, there is a peer review process and look, they are 99% in agreement."
They already know 99% of climate scientists are saying the same thing, and keep setting goal posts for the "point of no return," and watching nothing happen. Al Gore certainly didn't help, didn't he say 2009 was the point of no return? Didn't he say hurricanes will be more frequent? Does the sky continue to not fall?
Do you see why that isn't going to sway the denier? Deniers are indeed skeptics, they are just skeptical of the integrity of the people doing the science. That's what y'all have to fix. Continuing to call them ignorant and stupid isn't getting you anywhere.