Since you like sciencey stuff like statistics, Karl Popper, the father of the modern scientific method, had this logical argument he called the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , which basically says that we should be intolerant of intolerance.
Congratulations, you're getting the idea! Islam is the most intolerant, supremacist, and violent mainstream religion on the planet. It's been utter foolishness, and downright evil, to open the flood gates and allow this ideology into Western societies.
But I suppose the terrorist attacks, the rise of anti-Semitism, the massive sexual assaults, the hate preachers, anti-homosexual sentiment, the crime, the first-cousin marriages, the female genital mutilation, the forced veils, the welfare spending -- no, these you must "tolerate" in the name "diversity". Allah forbid somebody calls you an "Islamophobe", or a "xenophobe". Aloha snackbar, friend!
I neither said nor implied that I expected that much rise in sea levels by the end of his century.
I'm not saying you did. I'm just adding some more perspective to the conversation. You went back 250 million years ago. I went back 10,000 years. I think it's fascinating that such a dramatic change happened in the relatively recent past, with very little discussion about it.
That having been said, I think it's worth noting that every official estimation (i.e. - by the IPCC) of the rate of icecap melting thus far has proven to be wildly over-optimistic within no more than a few years.
I could turn that around and say that their models for expected warming have been wildly overheated within no more than a few years.
The goalposts keep moving, in part because the IPCC's reports are subject to political pressure from oil-producing nations
If anything, the IPCC has shown itself to be biased in favor of alarm.
and in part because apparently climate scientists have yet to realize that icecaps, like glaciers, are complex systems (what used to be called "chaotic systems").
Yes, that's true of the entirety of Earth's climate. Most of the predicted warming is supposed to come through clouds, but even that is unsure. Clouds have the potential to either trap heat in or reflect heat out, depending on where they form.
Once the base conditions for complex systems change even slightly, they tend to become unstable pretty rapidly, and begin oscillating with logarithmically-increasing intensity.
Like a 400 foot sea-level rise in 10,000 years? In reality, regardless of CO2, we've been terraforming the planet in unpredictable ways, whether it's aerosols, land use, nuclear bombs in the ionosphere, etc. I don't mean to be too glib about the dangers of CO2, but it has to be put in proper perspective. I think the best thing to do, if we really are concerned about sea level rise, is to start marine cloud brightening.
Once all the coastal cities of the world disappear under 200-300 feet of ocean rise 200-300 feet of ocean rise
Sea levels rose about 400 feet in the past 10,000 years. It's predicted to rise about 3 feet by 2100. Adjust your expectations of man-made climate change versus natural accordingly.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, taking all of the factors that you mentioned into play, a 2012 Nissan Leaf emits 226 grams of CO2 per mile in my zip code. Average emissions are 381 grams of CO2 per mile in my zip code.
Does that take into account that the Nissan Leaf is a small car, where most people drive bigger cars?
The BBC is Britain's purple-haired, migrant-loving feminist studies major. But you wouldn't have a problem if I linked to them, right? Of course the BBC would never write such an article, no matter how true it was. But you don't need to believe the Daily Mail. Just open your eyes and look at the statistics.
I assume you are one of those American gun nuts who says things like "pillows can suffocate people, so if you ban guns, you should also ban pillows".
I assume you're one of those useful idiots that have lost the plot. Guns were supposed to be the problem with US cities. Then London overtook New York City in homicides per capita.
It's almost as if the problem wasn't the guns, but the people -- like when East London became dominated by migrant ghettos. But here you are rattling on about "gun nuts".
If you RTFA, you find it's just one judge who said that in his retirement speech.
Judges are supposed to be learned and wise men. That he's even saying this is a sign of the times.
Uh no. Coal does not produce miniscle amounts over the many 1000 years coal has been burned.
Then quantify it. We've only seriously been burning coal for centuries, and the vast majority would have been within the last century. You really are a clown.
And concentrated nuclear waste that is truely all used up is ideal for burying again. In fact, if we would use all that 'nuke waste' up, it could fit inside of WIPP, let alone yucca mtn.
Given your past propaganda, I don't take anything you say on nuclear at face value. I'm sure there's an intelligent discussion to be had regarding the true risks and pro/con benefits to nuclear, but it's not with you.
It's the difference between low amounts of radiation spread "all over", minuscule compared to the background radiation, versus the concentrated radiation (that is, nuclear waste) that you get with nuclear: https://www.scientificamerican...
Dealing with this nuclear waste is why it's "dirty". Please stop the bullshit arguments. Slinging propaganda around is no way to arrive at good solutions.
LOL. Nuclear waste is all over. Plenty of it in the ground. BUT disregarding that, we can burn up nuclear waste, cut the quantity down to about 1/5-1/10 of the current amount, as well as make it a great deal safer.
"LOL" You can make the same exact argument for coal.
while not really caring much about the clock speeds
Speak for yourself. I'm still waiting for my 10GHz CPU. Decades of exponential clock speed improvements were a glorious thing.
I'm typing this comment on a machine from 2008, and the only thing it really needs is more RAM. Of course I don't use it for gaming, as that would be a graphics card issue.
It used to be desktop computers were considered outdated after 3 years.
mischaracterisation by the use of the word sanctuary
It's a term in wide public use, chosen by the politicians that enacted their policies.
a specific meaning of prevention of the discharge of a sentence or other legal action
The intent is to prevent illegal immigrants from being deported.
If there's anything I hate, it's that sort of intellectual dishonesty.
Then you must hate yourself, with your strawmanning, spewing ignorance, and avoiding reality.
What if he had a 'white' sounding name. Would this be significant?
Go ahead, then. Find a similar story where a 'white' sounding name driver was not even cited for driving reckless enough on a residential road where they flipped their car and sent 3 police officers to the hospital, all while being unlicensed. If you had any intellectual honesty, you would admit the very idea would have been absurd to you before we got into this argument. But you don't.
Not at all
*snort* Like when you thought it was just the cities, and not the state? Oh, you're going to pretend you were relying on a specific definition of "sanctuary"?
Rather than jumping to conclusions. Just because they may not be reported to you doesn't make his status change. His status may be reported later. At this point we don't know.
Again, ignoring reality. I've already covered this, and you haven't responding to any of my points. More intellectual dishonesty. You must really, really hate yourself:
"In the real world, we have to update our beliefs based on the evidence on hand, not the oracle evidence we would desire. If you didn't have blinders on, you'd acknowledge the pro-illegal immigrant sentiment in California, especially by the politicians and the media, and that the cops can't even inquire about immigration status. In other words, the fact you're looking for is never going to materialize.
The best way to find out if he was illegal was to get him processed into the system with an arrest, or at the minimum a citation. Do you think the average person in the average state would not even be cited while flipping their car, smashing into a police car, and sending three police officers into the hospital, all without a license? It boggles the mind."
the highly unusual circumstances of a flipped car, 3 police officers sent to the hospital, all without a license, and not even a citation
You reduced this to: "So everyone with a Hispanic name must be an illegal immigrant!"
In addition, you've shown yourself to be woefully (or willfully) ignorant on the facts surrounding illegal immigration in California. Rather than address the issues, you retreat to waiting for facts that will never arrive and defending your strawman. Do you have any intellectual honesty?
You are the one that suggested the name was an indicator that the person was likely to be an illegal immigrant. I am merely pointing out that you are over generalising.
You are the one over-generalizing by ignoring all the context from my posts, and thinking it's the name only that underlies my beliefs. That's why it's a strawman.
I won't respond to the rest of the post at present
Yes, why would you, when the supplied context and erroneous claims on your part undermines your position?
but rather let us wait to see whether the person turns out to be an illegal or not
In the real world, we have to update our beliefs based on the evidence on hand, not the oracle evidence we would desire. If you didn't have blinders on, you'd acknowledge the pro-illegal immigrant sentiment in California, especially by the politicians and the media, and that the cops can't even inquire about immigration status. In other words, the fact you're looking for is never going to materialize.
The best way to find out if he was illegal was to get him processed into the system with an arrest, or at the minimum a citation. Do you think the average person in the average state would not even be cited while flipping their car, smashing into a police car, and sending three police officers into the hospital, all without a license? It boggles the mind.
I see it wasn't a Tesla in this case, but a 2018 Sentra.
Yes, I was confused by your "expensive car" reference. But of all the problems with your posts, I let that slide. However, since we know stereotypes and generalizations exist for a reason, I too would be very surprised if an illegal immigrant was driving around in a Tesla without a license.
Thanks for the references. So from that, we can safely assume GitHub has somewhere between $100 million and $200 million in annual revenue, and that they went on a spending spree that caused them to be unprofitable, at least in 2016. Hardly the, "GitHub didn't have a sustainable business model", case.
Slashdot Mirror
There's still demand for STEM workers, much more so than somebody getting a degree fit for Starbucks.
Since you like sciencey stuff like statistics, Karl Popper, the father of the modern scientific method, had this logical argument he called the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , which basically says that we should be intolerant of intolerance.
Congratulations, you're getting the idea! Islam is the most intolerant, supremacist, and violent mainstream religion on the planet. It's been utter foolishness, and downright evil, to open the flood gates and allow this ideology into Western societies.
But I suppose the terrorist attacks, the rise of anti-Semitism, the massive sexual assaults, the hate preachers, anti-homosexual sentiment, the crime, the first-cousin marriages, the female genital mutilation, the forced veils, the welfare spending -- no, these you must "tolerate" in the name "diversity". Allah forbid somebody calls you an "Islamophobe", or a "xenophobe". Aloha snackbar, friend!
STEM grads are as screwed as much as people who took Underwater Basket Weaving or whatever other stereotype
Bullshit.
baby boomers are largely responsible for most if not all of this countries problems
It's always easier to blame somebody else.
If she's your ex, she's living on half your paycheck, right?
I neither said nor implied that I expected that much rise in sea levels by the end of his century.
I'm not saying you did. I'm just adding some more perspective to the conversation. You went back 250 million years ago. I went back 10,000 years. I think it's fascinating that such a dramatic change happened in the relatively recent past, with very little discussion about it.
That having been said, I think it's worth noting that every official estimation (i.e. - by the IPCC) of the rate of icecap melting thus far has proven to be wildly over-optimistic within no more than a few years.
I could turn that around and say that their models for expected warming have been wildly overheated within no more than a few years.
The goalposts keep moving, in part because the IPCC's reports are subject to political pressure from oil-producing nations
If anything, the IPCC has shown itself to be biased in favor of alarm.
and in part because apparently climate scientists have yet to realize that icecaps, like glaciers, are complex systems (what used to be called "chaotic systems").
Yes, that's true of the entirety of Earth's climate. Most of the predicted warming is supposed to come through clouds, but even that is unsure. Clouds have the potential to either trap heat in or reflect heat out, depending on where they form.
Once the base conditions for complex systems change even slightly, they tend to become unstable pretty rapidly, and begin oscillating with logarithmically-increasing intensity.
Like a 400 foot sea-level rise in 10,000 years? In reality, regardless of CO2, we've been terraforming the planet in unpredictable ways, whether it's aerosols, land use, nuclear bombs in the ionosphere, etc. I don't mean to be too glib about the dangers of CO2, but it has to be put in proper perspective. I think the best thing to do, if we really are concerned about sea level rise, is to start marine cloud brightening.
Once all the coastal cities of the world disappear under 200-300 feet of ocean rise 200-300 feet of ocean rise
Sea levels rose about 400 feet in the past 10,000 years. It's predicted to rise about 3 feet by 2100. Adjust your expectations of man-made climate change versus natural accordingly.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, taking all of the factors that you mentioned into play, a 2012 Nissan Leaf emits 226 grams of CO2 per mile in my zip code. Average emissions are 381 grams of CO2 per mile in my zip code.
Does that take into account that the Nissan Leaf is a small car, where most people drive bigger cars?
The BBC is Britain's purple-haired, migrant-loving feminist studies major. But you wouldn't have a problem if I linked to them, right? Of course the BBC would never write such an article, no matter how true it was. But you don't need to believe the Daily Mail. Just open your eyes and look at the statistics.
I assume you are one of those American gun nuts who says things like "pillows can suffocate people, so if you ban guns, you should also ban pillows".
I assume you're one of those useful idiots that have lost the plot. Guns were supposed to be the problem with US cities. Then London overtook New York City in homicides per capita.
It's almost as if the problem wasn't the guns, but the people -- like when East London became dominated by migrant ghettos. But here you are rattling on about "gun nuts".
If you RTFA, you find it's just one judge who said that in his retirement speech.
Judges are supposed to be learned and wise men. That he's even saying this is a sign of the times.
Uh no. Coal does not produce miniscle amounts over the many 1000 years coal has been burned.
Then quantify it. We've only seriously been burning coal for centuries, and the vast majority would have been within the last century. You really are a clown.
And concentrated nuclear waste that is truely all used up is ideal for burying again. In fact, if we would use all that 'nuke waste' up, it could fit inside of WIPP, let alone yucca mtn.
Given your past propaganda, I don't take anything you say on nuclear at face value. I'm sure there's an intelligent discussion to be had regarding the true risks and pro/con benefits to nuclear, but it's not with you.
It's the difference between low amounts of radiation spread "all over", minuscule compared to the background radiation, versus the concentrated radiation (that is, nuclear waste) that you get with nuclear: https://www.scientificamerican...
Dealing with this nuclear waste is why it's "dirty". Please stop the bullshit arguments. Slinging propaganda around is no way to arrive at good solutions.
LOL.
Nuclear waste is all over. Plenty of it in the ground. BUT disregarding that, we can burn up nuclear waste, cut the quantity down to about 1/5-1/10 of the current amount, as well as make it a great deal safer.
"LOL"
You can make the same exact argument for coal.
Nuclear waste is still nuclear waste. So don't pretend that nuclear is "clean" energy.
Funny how somebody in favor of nuclear describes natural gas and coal as "dirty". Guess you never heard of nuclear waste?
"Score 5, Interesting"?
Shows just how dumb the Sashdot moderators have become.
They all need decent baseload powers such as hydro, Geothermal, and nuke.
You forget natural gas and coal.
We will roast ourselves, and acidify the ocean.
Good. Make Earth Great Again!
https://www.climatecentral.org...
while not really caring much about the clock speeds
Speak for yourself. I'm still waiting for my 10GHz CPU. Decades of exponential clock speed improvements were a glorious thing.
I'm typing this comment on a machine from 2008, and the only thing it really needs is more RAM. Of course I don't use it for gaming, as that would be a graphics card issue.
It used to be desktop computers were considered outdated after 3 years.
mischaracterisation by the use of the word sanctuary
It's a term in wide public use, chosen by the politicians that enacted their policies.
a specific meaning of prevention of the discharge of a sentence or other legal action
The intent is to prevent illegal immigrants from being deported.
If there's anything I hate, it's that sort of intellectual dishonesty.
Then you must hate yourself, with your strawmanning, spewing ignorance, and avoiding reality.
What if he had a 'white' sounding name. Would this be significant?
Go ahead, then. Find a similar story where a 'white' sounding name driver was not even cited for driving reckless enough on a residential road where they flipped their car and sent 3 police officers to the hospital, all while being unlicensed. If you had any intellectual honesty, you would admit the very idea would have been absurd to you before we got into this argument. But you don't.
Not at all
*snort* Like when you thought it was just the cities, and not the state? Oh, you're going to pretend you were relying on a specific definition of "sanctuary"?
Rather than jumping to conclusions. Just because they may not be reported to you doesn't make his status change. His status may be reported later. At this point we don't know.
Again, ignoring reality. I've already covered this, and you haven't responding to any of my points. More intellectual dishonesty. You must really, really hate yourself:
"In the real world, we have to update our beliefs based on the evidence on hand, not the oracle evidence we would desire. If you didn't have blinders on, you'd acknowledge the pro-illegal immigrant sentiment in California, especially by the politicians and the media, and that the cops can't even inquire about immigration status. In other words, the fact you're looking for is never going to materialize.
The best way to find out if he was illegal was to get him processed into the system with an arrest, or at the minimum a citation. Do you think the average person in the average state would not even be cited while flipping their car, smashing into a police car, and sending three police officers into the hospital, all without a license? It boggles the mind."
You said:
I said his name within the context of:
You reduced this to: "So everyone with a Hispanic name must be an illegal immigrant!"
In addition, you've shown yourself to be woefully (or willfully) ignorant on the facts surrounding illegal immigration in California. Rather than address the issues, you retreat to waiting for facts that will never arrive and defending your strawman. Do you have any intellectual honesty?
You are the one that suggested the name was an indicator that the person was likely to be an illegal immigrant. I am merely pointing out that you are over generalising.
You are the one over-generalizing by ignoring all the context from my posts, and thinking it's the name only that underlies my beliefs. That's why it's a strawman.
I won't respond to the rest of the post at present
Yes, why would you, when the supplied context and erroneous claims on your part undermines your position?
but rather let us wait to see whether the person turns out to be an illegal or not
In the real world, we have to update our beliefs based on the evidence on hand, not the oracle evidence we would desire. If you didn't have blinders on, you'd acknowledge the pro-illegal immigrant sentiment in California, especially by the politicians and the media, and that the cops can't even inquire about immigration status. In other words, the fact you're looking for is never going to materialize.
The best way to find out if he was illegal was to get him processed into the system with an arrest, or at the minimum a citation. Do you think the average person in the average state would not even be cited while flipping their car, smashing into a police car, and sending three police officers into the hospital, all without a license? It boggles the mind.
I see it wasn't a Tesla in this case, but a 2018 Sentra.
Yes, I was confused by your "expensive car" reference. But of all the problems with your posts, I let that slide. However, since we know stereotypes and generalizations exist for a reason, I too would be very surprised if an illegal immigrant was driving around in a Tesla without a license.
Thanks for the references. So from that, we can safely assume GitHub has somewhere between $100 million and $200 million in annual revenue, and that they went on a spending spree that caused them to be unprofitable, at least in 2016. Hardly the, "GitHub didn't have a sustainable business model", case.
This comment should be rated, "5: Obvious, but somebody had to say it."