I didn't build the strawman, GP did. There is no difference between "had to" and "forced" so stop being a twit.
Gp claimed something that is undeniably false. I called him on it, and you take issue. But since I'm correct, you can't attack me there, so you look for logical fallacies where there are none.
But just because I feel like helping you educate yourself
"have to
Also, have got to. Be obliged to, must."
"forced (fôrst, frst) pronunciation adj.
1. Imposed by force; involuntary: was condemned to a life of forced labor; a plane that made a forced landing.
2. Produced under strain; not spontaneous: forced laughter."
What's the difference? Right there isn't one, so troll somebody else, thanks.
And they're not. I don't know what article you read, but you're wrong. The only thing that's listed is the amount of monetary compensation that he was saying his damages were worth.
And that's not the point, either. GP claimed he was damaged, it's up to GP to support his spurious claim or retract it.
"The parent post was not "Interesting", it merely complained about moderation. Stop abusing your mod points; you're disgusting."
Then you say this
"If you don't like it, quite whining and start metamoderating."
Hey why don't you quit whining and start metamoderating? Why are you doing exactly what you are complaing about me doing? And why do you not see how ridiculously hypocritical you are?
I deserve flamebait for this one. I'll take my medicine, but it's worth it to point out what a cunt you are.
"I don't think I can bear to read the following hundreds of ignorant "I've heard it's all due to the sun getting hotter" crap we always get on Slashdot AGW stories."
Can you bear to read all the "We must get rid of fossil fuels/SUV's/coal RIGHT NOW!!!!" posts, because there will be just as many of those. And they're just as ignorant.
What this study, and many others, actually show is that we have a primitive understanding of what is happening in the atmosphere. Trying to fix it without understanding it is a bad idea, but seemingly a very common bad idea.
Of course, now I'll get the "You're one of those wackos that don't believe in global warming" response. Nope, I'm one of thos wackos who believe in knowing what the hell you're doing and not making assumptions based on incomplete information.
No, he CHOSE to drop out of school. He wasn't forced, stop portraying it that way.
"He still gets approached by people on the streets about it."
So what? Ignore them. Yes it is that easy.
"His parents had to hire a private tutor for him."
No, his parents CHOSE to hire a private tutor, because he CHOSE to leave school. Neither of those were anything other than thier choices. And they indicate something subtle you probably missed. They show his parents' acceptance of the idea that shifting responsibility is ok. That running when things get hard is ok.
"He ended up on anti-depression medication."
And this proves what exactly? Isn't this the place where everybody and their uncle screams about "Big Pharma" feeding people drugs to pad their wallets? How are we suddenly using this as justification for anything?
Bottom line, this kid got embarassed, and couldn't take it. How he reacted is his responsibility.
And before the flames start, I think it was probably very hard for him. I have genuine sympathy for what happened (the video) but everything that happened after was his reaction, and therefore his responsibility.
There wasn't a single thing in that post that was a troll, you just disagree. Stop abusing your mod points, you're disgusting.
He DID waste the court's time, this lawsuit WAS frivolous, and he engaged in EXACTLY the same behavior that the RIAA does, file suit, wait it out, when the other guy runs out of money or gets tired, propose a settlement because you know your case has no merit.
Yes I do mind. Not because I can't, but because you ran your mouth without having checked into it yourself. You're a typical slashtroll know it all, and regardless of where I send you (apa.org, csaa.ca, cpa.ca) you'll make an excuse and defend your point.
Everything I stated in my post is general knowledge amongst researchers. As in, THEY don't have to look up why "detrimental" isn't acceptable because they ALL know already. They wouldn't have made it out of Research Methods 101 if they didn't.
But because you asked, "detrimental" has a negative connotation (first reason it's unacceptable) AND it presupposes that there WILL BE detrimental effects.
You simply aren't qualified to discuss this if you have to ask these questions.
And you're a troll, so we're done. Go on jumping to conclusions and looking like an idiot. It just makes things that much harder for REAL scientists and researchers, who you claim to support.
(and why didn't you answer my question? You're being manipulated, and you're letting happen by wallowing in ignorance and refusing to be educated)
Listen, you're being a prick about this, so I'm going to enlighten you.
The word "Detrimental" in the title displays bias. And no, it doesn't matter if you think it does, because these boards aren't based on what people think, they're based on rigorous standars set by the scientific community.
The words "anti-evolution" are also biased, and unacceptable, based on the same standards.
These standards, and the problems I pointed out to you, are well understood in the field, and no one who has any experience in grant writing or funding would have difficulty with them. In other words, this guy should have known better, and fankly he probably did.
The grant submitter based his proposal on a (well defined, generally accepted) theory, but DID NOT adequately justify why he did so. That isn't the same as "evolution isn't proven" it is actually "you didn't do a good enough job in this application of explaining why you assumed evolution was valid for this study".
He didn't get rejected because he didn't provide proof of evolution, he got rejected because he wrote a biased, unacceptable grant proposal. Then he got up in front of an audience and read it.
You got fooled by a publicity whore.
And the worst part of all is that you aren't listening when people explain it to you.
Why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated so easily?
And why you insist on acting as though you are correct is a bit childish.
Those people who agree with the idea of punctuated equilibrium are not Darwinists. In fact, they often come to different conclusions, but just as often agree.
In other words, yes there are Darwinists. You are wrong.
SPEECH. It's spelled SPEECH, so please, if you plan to cite it in your argument, and try to make the case that it's important to you, then PLEASE SPELL IT CORRECTLY.
I realize this is pedantry, but do you realize how ridiculous that looks?
"Then you must answer the question how there can be an event when there is no time."
No, I don't. Time did not exist until the big bang occurred. The big bang and the beginning of time happened simultaneously. There is no "before" the big bang.
"I think it's funny how very common it is for scientifically-minded and non-religious people to arrogate in precisely the same manner when it comes to religious issues."
How can it be precisely the same when, in the case of science, there is evidence, and in the case of religion, only superstition and ignorance?
You see, that's the problem. People like yourself seem to think that there is some equivalence between the conclusions reached by religion, and those reached by science.
Go to school, but go to a state school (and frankly $150,000 might be possible, but it's nowhere near the average, and way inflated) and max out student loans.
Then invest the extra (I know you'll want to spend it on beer, but you must be dedicated) and use the difference in interest to pay off everything.
The average interest rate for student loans is around 3% (please don't be a prick and dig up what you THINK the interest rate is, it's an estimate) and you can easily find mutual funds that return 8-9% consistently and are quite safe (not completely, but safe enough). You keep the difference, and eventually through the miracle of compounding interest, the market pays for school for you.
Sorry dada, but if you were as bright as you act, you'd have figured that one out on your own.
And did I mention about half of the interest on your loans is subsidized? Mmmm free money...
No, I just think that if you give guarantees, you should have more than your own opinion to back them up.
That was, however, a very effective rant to avoid the obvious fact that you were pulling things from your ass. I'll take that as evidence that you know you were making shit up. The reast of us certainly know it.
"I'll save all the linking and the name calling and just walk away angry... how's that?"
I've got a far better idea. How about you save us the bullshit and unsupported rhetoric? Mmmkay?
I'm sorry, but your post is filled with rhetoric and hyperbole, and devod of facts. How do you support this statement?
"Also the driver is more "mortal" meaning more care needs to be taken because they are not riding by above 75% of the traffic. I guarantee that a large number of accidents in SUV's would not happen otherwise."
You'll understand if your guarantee doesn't mean much to me. How about some eviddence that isn't born from your obvious bias?
SUV's are tools. In the grand global warming game, they make a nice scapegoat, but as the previous poster said, they are essentially a fart in the wind. Stop acting like they're the chariots of the anti-christ.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't build the strawman, GP did. There is no difference between "had to" and "forced" so stop being a twit.
Gp claimed something that is undeniably false. I called him on it, and you take issue. But since I'm correct, you can't attack me there, so you look for logical fallacies where there are none.
But just because I feel like helping you educate yourself
"have to
Also, have got to. Be obliged to, must."
"forced (fôrst, frst) pronunciation
adj.
1. Imposed by force; involuntary: was condemned to a life of forced labor; a plane that made a forced landing.
2. Produced under strain; not spontaneous: forced laughter."
What's the difference? Right there isn't one, so troll somebody else, thanks.
And they're not. I don't know what article you read, but you're wrong. The only thing that's listed is the amount of monetary compensation that he was saying his damages were worth.
And that's not the point, either. GP claimed he was damaged, it's up to GP to support his spurious claim or retract it.
I do metamoderate, thanks for the advice though.
But isn't it funny you say this
"The parent post was not "Interesting", it merely complained about moderation. Stop abusing your mod points; you're disgusting."
Then you say this
"If you don't like it, quite whining and start metamoderating."
Hey why don't you quit whining and start metamoderating? Why are you doing exactly what you are complaing about me doing? And why do you not see how ridiculously hypocritical you are?
I deserve flamebait for this one. I'll take my medicine, but it's worth it to point out what a cunt you are.
"I don't think I can bear to read the following hundreds of ignorant "I've heard it's all due to the sun getting hotter" crap we always get on Slashdot AGW stories."
Can you bear to read all the "We must get rid of fossil fuels/SUV's/coal RIGHT NOW!!!!" posts, because there will be just as many of those. And they're just as ignorant.
What this study, and many others, actually show is that we have a primitive understanding of what is happening in the atmosphere. Trying to fix it without understanding it is a bad idea, but seemingly a very common bad idea.
Of course, now I'll get the "You're one of those wackos that don't believe in global warming" response. Nope, I'm one of thos wackos who believe in knowing what the hell you're doing and not making assumptions based on incomplete information.
You know, a scientist.
"When you feel alienated from school and everyone laughs at you, you DON'T CHOOSE to drop out. You HAVE TO."
Why?
I'll be waiting patiently for your answer as to why someone would be forced to leave school because they are embarassed.
And keep in mind, every answer you give won't change that he is reacting to other people.
"Of course, you haven't been ridiculized in public or bullied so what the heck do you know."
Exactly the opposite, actually.
Funny how you responded though, attack me because I'm not compassionate enough for you. Is that how you demonstrate how compassionate you are?
"He had to drop out of school due to harassment."
No, he CHOSE to drop out of school. He wasn't forced, stop portraying it that way.
"He still gets approached by people on the streets about it."
So what? Ignore them. Yes it is that easy.
"His parents had to hire a private tutor for him."
No, his parents CHOSE to hire a private tutor, because he CHOSE to leave school. Neither of those were anything other than thier choices. And they indicate something subtle you probably missed. They show his parents' acceptance of the idea that shifting responsibility is ok. That running when things get hard is ok.
"He ended up on anti-depression medication."
And this proves what exactly? Isn't this the place where everybody and their uncle screams about "Big Pharma" feeding people drugs to pad their wallets? How are we suddenly using this as justification for anything?
Bottom line, this kid got embarassed, and couldn't take it. How he reacted is his responsibility.
And before the flames start, I think it was probably very hard for him. I have genuine sympathy for what happened (the video) but everything that happened after was his reaction, and therefore his responsibility.
Well? How was he damaged?
There wasn't a single thing in that post that was a troll, you just disagree. Stop abusing your mod points, you're disgusting.
He DID waste the court's time, this lawsuit WAS frivolous, and he engaged in EXACTLY the same behavior that the RIAA does, file suit, wait it out, when the other guy runs out of money or gets tired, propose a settlement because you know your case has no merit.
"How was he to know that the reaction to how he and his parents handled his situation would be overall frowned upon."
Is there some instance where you think people will be sympathetic to someone filing a ridiculous, frivoulous lawsuit for... *GASP*... embarassment?
This kid wasted the court's time, wasted resources, and made an even bigger ass of himself as a result.
Yes I do mind. Not because I can't, but because you ran your mouth without having checked into it yourself. You're a typical slashtroll know it all, and regardless of where I send you (apa.org, csaa.ca, cpa.ca) you'll make an excuse and defend your point.
Everything I stated in my post is general knowledge amongst researchers. As in, THEY don't have to look up why "detrimental" isn't acceptable because they ALL know already. They wouldn't have made it out of Research Methods 101 if they didn't.
But because you asked, "detrimental" has a negative connotation (first reason it's unacceptable) AND it presupposes that there WILL BE detrimental effects.
You simply aren't qualified to discuss this if you have to ask these questions.
And you're a troll, so we're done. Go on jumping to conclusions and looking like an idiot. It just makes things that much harder for REAL scientists and researchers, who you claim to support.
(and why didn't you answer my question? You're being manipulated, and you're letting happen by wallowing in ignorance and refusing to be educated)
Listen, you're being a prick about this, so I'm going to enlighten you.
The word "Detrimental" in the title displays bias. And no, it doesn't matter if you think it does, because these boards aren't based on what people think, they're based on rigorous standars set by the scientific community.
The words "anti-evolution" are also biased, and unacceptable, based on the same standards.
These standards, and the problems I pointed out to you, are well understood in the field, and no one who has any experience in grant writing or funding would have difficulty with them. In other words, this guy should have known better, and fankly he probably did.
The grant submitter based his proposal on a (well defined, generally accepted) theory, but DID NOT adequately justify why he did so. That isn't the same as "evolution isn't proven" it is actually "you didn't do a good enough job in this application of explaining why you assumed evolution was valid for this study".
He didn't get rejected because he didn't provide proof of evolution, he got rejected because he wrote a biased, unacceptable grant proposal. Then he got up in front of an audience and read it.
You got fooled by a publicity whore.
And the worst part of all is that you aren't listening when people explain it to you.
Why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated so easily?
And why you insist on acting as though you are correct is a bit childish.
Those people who agree with the idea of punctuated equilibrium are not Darwinists. In fact, they often come to different conclusions, but just as often agree.
In other words, yes there are Darwinists. You are wrong.
"It is safer to cut the emissions than not to"
How do you know this? You've jumped from correlation to identifying the cause and finding the solution.
Now, do you understand why this is a VERY BAD thing? If you do not, you probably shouldn't comment on the subject further.
"the current administration is not guilty of the actual crime but they are covering up or skewing the truth"
I take serious issue with this statement, but it does happen to be consistent with the rest of your posts.
The administration is censoring RESULTS. Results are not "the truth" they are simply results.
Does that make the action any less objectionable? Not really, but that's not my point.
You cannot decide arbitrarily that because you agree with the results that they are the truth. That's not science.
"There is that feedom of speach"
SPEECH. It's spelled SPEECH, so please, if you plan to cite it in your argument, and try to make the case that it's important to you, then PLEASE SPELL IT CORRECTLY.
I realize this is pedantry, but do you realize how ridiculous that looks?
"Then you must answer the question how there can be an event when there is no time."
No, I don't. Time did not exist until the big bang occurred. The big bang and the beginning of time happened simultaneously. There is no "before" the big bang.
If Republicans do nothing, but make it appear as if they've done something, they're Democrats (but still evil)
"you are in danger of putting a whole lot of philosophers out of a job..."
There's a joke there, but I don't have it. Anyone?
"I think it's funny how very common it is for scientifically-minded and non-religious people to arrogate in precisely the same manner when it comes to religious issues."
How can it be precisely the same when, in the case of science, there is evidence, and in the case of religion, only superstition and ignorance?
You see, that's the problem. People like yourself seem to think that there is some equivalence between the conclusions reached by religion, and those reached by science.
That is the worst kind of arrogance.
"I think the original poster would be happy if you could answer him why the big bang occurred when there was no time"
It didn't. Time didn't begin until the big bang occurred. That appears to be the part that you're having trouble with.
Go to school, but go to a state school (and frankly $150,000 might be possible, but it's nowhere near the average, and way inflated) and max out student loans.
Then invest the extra (I know you'll want to spend it on beer, but you must be dedicated) and use the difference in interest to pay off everything.
The average interest rate for student loans is around 3% (please don't be a prick and dig up what you THINK the interest rate is, it's an estimate) and you can easily find mutual funds that return 8-9% consistently and are quite safe (not completely, but safe enough). You keep the difference, and eventually through the miracle of compounding interest, the market pays for school for you.
Sorry dada, but if you were as bright as you act, you'd have figured that one out on your own.
And did I mention about half of the interest on your loans is subsidized? Mmmm free money...
The article is talking about using the internet as a tool to wage war, not waging a war against the internet.
You swallowed, hook, line etc. Please try to be more diligent when selecting what to rant about.
No, I just think that if you give guarantees, you should have more than your own opinion to back them up.
That was, however, a very effective rant to avoid the obvious fact that you were pulling things from your ass. I'll take that as evidence that you know you were making shit up. The reast of us certainly know it.
"I'll save all the linking and the name calling and just walk away angry... how's that?"
I've got a far better idea. How about you save us the bullshit and unsupported rhetoric? Mmmkay?
I'm sorry, but your post is filled with rhetoric and hyperbole, and devod of facts. How do you support this statement?
"Also the driver is more "mortal" meaning more care needs to be taken because they are not riding by above 75% of the traffic. I guarantee that a large number of accidents in SUV's would not happen otherwise."
You'll understand if your guarantee doesn't mean much to me. How about some eviddence that isn't born from your obvious bias?
SUV's are tools. In the grand global warming game, they make a nice scapegoat, but as the previous poster said, they are essentially a fart in the wind. Stop acting like they're the chariots of the anti-christ.
I'm not into smug assholes, so I'll avoid reading anything by you.
And you didn't answer the question. What does your hyperbolic, inflammatory comment add to the discussion? (Hint: the answer is nothing)
I realize you think this proves soomething, hence your attitude. But the only thing is proves is that you're not qualified to contribute summaries.