A product founded on animal abuse, performed for the pursuit of human pleasure
2238 posts • joined 14 Apr 2011
A product founded on animal abuse, performed for the pursuit of human pleasure
that comment just made me sea horse
"The species is blamed for a decline in water quality"
While we are on the subject of blame I would also like to see dolphins punished for the BP deep water horizon oil leak a few years back, as well as the lesser spotted woodpecker for it's role in precipitating WWII.
what if I just don't give a fuck if the chinese take over my computer? like seriously that's some first world problem shit
so first example of exploitation of animal abuse in space
Driverless cars are a scam. They will not become a thing. They will remain perceptually in development, with constant news articles promising they are just round the corner.
At least the fusion researchers only have to figure out a few physics problems.
The driverless car manufacturers need to invent hard AI.
yeah good luck with that. not falling for it.
Get back to me when the AI in the 100% controlled environment of GTA drives cars remotely credibly.
This is what happens when you allow communists to infiltrate your party.
"What is the real advantage in using your IDE to do source control?"
True, but in the same way, what is the real disadvantage in using your IDE to do source control?
about time parliament authorized a drone strike against ronald mcdonald, I always thought that dipshit had something to hide, otherwise why dress up like a clown?
Microsoft?? more like M$cro$oft
upvote if you think this comment is edgy
They are as sentient as a 6 month old human child. Put it that way. The burden of proof is surely on you to prove they aren't beings of capable awareness to warrant rights.
Doesn't matter how "lovingly" you kill them and tear them apart. they are sentient beings and don't consent to being executed
Main problem is that sentient beings are being killed for human entertainment. That's really what bacon is - an entertainment product.
Now unless one happens to disbelieve evolution, humans are not inherently special compared to individuals of other species. We are not the only sentient beings on the planet, even though our culture ingrains in us the concept that non-humans are non-persons, their lives having no value other than to what we assign them. to dispose of for our purposes. The concept of a non-human individual valuing their own life and that being meaningful is alien to our culture.
Imagine a breed of human who are kept in cages from birth and their hair harvested to make coats. They are killed at age 2 and their meat sold to the pet food industry. But is ok because they are killed "humanely" with a quick shot to the head. Some of them are even "free range". The dog food cans have their smiling faces on, because farms are happy places and the farmer loves the children he farms.
Animal abuse, ain't it swell
It has always been blindingly obvious that our government would need to maintain large banks of chemical matter away from the prying eyes of the public if it were to be intent on spraying us daily from the skies with titanium, borium, floride and bismuth. Perhaps what we are observing are not alien megastructures at all, but a system of orbiting chemical weapons dumps covered in the greasy fingerprints of government lackeys.
My theory of chemical sky trails, as documented in my as yet unfinished 87 page peer reviewed scientific blog post, posits that our government must be storing vast quantities of chemical matter at an undisclosed, secret location.
Well gentlemen, this is my Eureka moment.
yeah if you wanted to own things in space you had to really do it before international laws against owning space things came into force. haley managed to get a comet this way, but unfortunately she didn't think to establish a mining company to reap the benefits.
In some ways I think the catholic church has a good argument for ownership of the entire universe given it was all made originally by god.
Humans are the driver of the recent unprecedented co2 increase in the atmosphere. It IS planetary engineering.
Some people can't admit the danger because they are more concerned about money and conspiracy theories.
"As a side note "denier" is a bullshit smear tactic and I don't care for it."
how about anti-science backwards conspiracy loon then?
"One messes up on planetary engineering, I think would be much worse than the effects of climate change"
when you realize our Co2 emissions ARE planetary engineering
"are causing water-born CO2 to 'effervesce' and go right up into the atmosphere"
nope, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to human emissions. Direction is therefore into the oceans not out.
"It's interesting that someone is recommending mucking around with the atmosphere to reflect 2% of solar radiation as having a positive benefit on climate change, yet most of the global warming advocates deny that solar variability has any significant impact and insist it's all down to greenhouse gases."
That's because solar output only varies by tenths of a %.
But well done assuming you knew more than you did.
"All in all I'd say that the effects of atmospheric CO2 are considerably different than whatever 1-dimensional models are being used to predict planetary"
You are clueless too. You don't speak on behalf of science. In fact rather the opposite, you've thought about it for 10 minutes and assume no-one else ever has and therefore you've proven science must all be a lie. drivel.
you are clueless moonrakin. Like a creationist or a chemtrail or anti-vaxxer, you guys see nothing but conspiracies and are immune to evidence.
"How do the climate warmers explain that? They don't, of course, and they deserve to be utterly discredited."
yeah you tell them. Just like how scientists can't explain fossils or gravity.
Finally someone who agrees with me, including the part about strong AI
Call me when they can get AI car drivers performing realistically in the controlled environment of video games before trying to convince me current AI algorithms are sufficient to pilot cars safely and practically in the real world.
One thing I don't quite understand is what Google get out of this project.
Evolution expects us to travel by foot everywhere and only to communicate with people who are in earshot. We have all gone beyond evolution. I don't eat and product from animals
It's going to be interesting to find out in our lifetimes whether consciousness just emerges from the right configuration of a large number of neurons. I imagine in 20 years time the experiment they performed here on a supercomputer could be performed on a laptop.
I suspect if it were possible to compress with genetic algorithms nature would have done it already
pluto's a dog
"there is absolutely NO PROOF of AGW"
"there is absolute NO PROOF of EVOLUTION"
"Us obligate carnivorous omnivores (I've always referred to the human diet as such, as we can live without plants, but NOT without meat)"
You are wrong and there are lifelong vegetarians and vegans out there that prove it, with blood tests and all.
"Homo sapiens didn't evolve to be herbivorous"
neither did we evolve not to murder. You are confusing evolution with moral behaviour. Just because we can eat animals doesn't mean it's right.
I can't predict how many people will be in your house tomorrow. But I can safely predict the population of the UK will be greater in 5 years time.
The first image is the average over a 40 day period. The video on the otherhand is showing single days. They are not directly comparable by eye.
"I would guess the current global concentration to be around 394ppm."
which matches the level in October 2014
"Once our oily fossil fuels run out we might even be as high as 460ppm which is still nothin"
So fossil fuels are going to run out within 30 years?
"CO2 levels have been as high as 6000ppm when life flourished on earth."
sure so lets slam the climate suddenly back the Jurassic, that won't cause problems...
it's like 9/11
"Lead author Andrew Fisher, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, emphasized that the geothermal heating reported in this study does not explain the alarming loss of ice from West Antarctica that has been documented by other researchers. The ice sheet developed and evolved with the geothermal heat flux coming up from below--it's part of the system. But this could help explain why the ice sheet is so unstable. When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly," he said."
How come that part never got mentioned?
I think life is created inside stars
how do they know it's not just a load of shit?
Is this the same Matt Ridley who was chairman of Northern Rock when it collapsed?
If so it's kind of strange for him to be the one spearheading criticisms of people who are warning of disasters.
It's relevant because it graphically displays human overpopulation of earth, which isn't just about members of our own species but the even greater numbers of livestock species we artificially breed. All of which have displaced other species in the wild and require great amounts of crop land and water to feed.
Of course we aren't supposed to examine this subject critically and ask whether it is sustainable, because Erlich was wrong in the 70s or something.
"he forgot to apply Moore Law to food production"
I know you are not claiming it literally, but there was no equivalent for Moore's law for food production. As far as I can tell, at the time there was no guarantee that crop yields could be massively increased more than they already had been.
"2) nuclear winter. I appear to have missed the bit where we had a nuclear war "
Exactly. It seems they are arguing Erlich should not have raised warnings about nuclear winter because he should have assumed nuclear war would not occur. As if anyone could have known that at the time.
The warnings themselves are not being judged on the knowledge available when they were made, but in hindsight using the knowledge of today. So for example they argue Erlich should not have made warnings of global starvation because he should have assumed food production would ramp up, as if he should have been psychic. None of them offer reasons for why it was obvious he was wrong at the time.
It's a fine way to dangerously shut down discussion of threats though. I notice that any warning that does not come to pass is now used as an excuse to dismiss further warnings out of hand.
The problem I see is that to explain why Ehrlich's predictions in the 70s of mass starvation were wrong every Captain Hindsight points to the green revolution. Which is to say if the green revolution hadn't occurred, Ehrlich's predictions would likely have been correct. So I ask who was able at the time to predict the green revolution was sure to happen?
It seems the counter for such dire warnings then and now remains nothing but optimistic guff, what I call the theory of "A Miracle Will Occur". It is a really more a dismissal of the problem than any reassurance of a solution, the idea that all looming problems can be ignored because God or Lady Luck will stop them becoming catastrophes.
There are a number of issues charging up due to rising human population and consumption, including peak oil, peak soil, aquifer depletion, climate change and species extinctions. Where are the *guarantees* or even half-baked guarantees based on *logic* that these issues are not imminent problems?
An example of something that has already gone wrong are various fish stock collapses due to overfishing, where very notably The Miracle Did Not Occur and instead it was a Nasty Surprise.
But of course we can safely ignore all future warnings because we got lucky once before.
I was being sarcastic not serious
I just download music and movies for free. Don't give a shit about artists. They should get proper jobs that produce real things that have real value, ie that cannot be copied for free. Just a fact of life.
So it's obvious that if the data shows continuing global warming it must be false? How convenient a filter to prevent you ever having to accept a world that was warming.
Also the idea that these researchers benefit in grants from this is wrong. These researchers would have grants to maintain the temperature records whatever the result was.
that's a very convenient conspiracy theory that creationists also appeal to in order to explain why they can't get their ideas published in leading journals.
In reality this is a sign that the ideas lack credibility, not a sign that there is something wrong with peer review.
it says you believe myths
"it sounded like they had just played a numbers game to me."
Brilliant, so you made your mind up early
"And from this write up, it looks like I was right"
Political think-tanks opposed to action on climate change are very much against any questioning that there has been a pause in global warming. So it was entirely predictable that there would be "write ups" to satisfy what you wanted to believe.
"No wonder we cannot actually get to the bottom and agree on what is really happening to our planet."
There are people who don't want you to know what is going on
Why do you assume the numbers were adjusted incorrectly? Right wing think tanks were publishing rebuttals to the paper before it was even published. Red flag: political think tanks reviewing scientific papers that they clearly have ideological objections to. Sure there's more of a reason to question the validity of that than the peer reviewed paper. I bet you that none of these criticisms will ever be submitted to peer review.
But why assume Ross's analysis is accurate?