4 ms·

I see that the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are out in force today, trying sensationalist headlines in an affort to get people to pay for the subscription.

I see that the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are out in force today, trying sensationalist headlines in an affort to get people to pay for the subscription. Doesn't this violate this website's code of conduct or some such? Bless the ruined internet where a common plebeian can make nonsensical, unprovable claims like "In the United States, motor vehicles are now the leading killer of children and the top producers of greenhouse gases." Not only is this sensationalist claim impossible to scientifically prove (and prove repeatably, which is the foremost requirement of the scientific method), but a single container supertanker generates as much pollution with just one trip as all the cars in the U. S. in an entire year, but hey!, "details-schmetails"... And once again, no technology is discussed.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Given your rant, a source would have been appropriate.
- Annatar 8y ago
  Don't get worked up over it, it's just an observation of the state of affairs, I don't have a tin foil hat. I think the U. S. should have better public transportation infrastructure and more pedestrian sidewalks and, oh! drivers which actually comply with the law and stop for pedestrians at pedestrian crossings, but that's completely beside the point to this nonsensical "study". That's just, like, my opinion man.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    I just hoped for a citation on your surprising tanker claim.
    - Annatar 8y ago
      Too lazy to search it for you (and I read it roughly seven years ago); use a search engine yourself. Really, the sense of entitlement in this place... And if that with the tanker surprised you, maybe you should spend more time researching and less time reading sensationalist studies which hope to hook people into a subscription (:-) Just a suggestion (;-)
matt4077 8y ago
Here's some Google technology: https://goo.gl/images/jUnTNJ https://goo.gl/images/jUnTNJ Traffic Accidents are the leading cause of death from injury among young people. (Click on the other charts to find the one showing injury being #1 among all deaths in those age groups). > and prove repeatably, which is the foremost requirement of the scientific method No, nothing needs to be proven repeatedly. Once something is proven, you're done. Wikipedia: "A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition." Plebeian indeed...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Annatar 8y ago
  This is not proof Sir, it's just a table. For something to be scientifically proven, the methodology has to be disclosed and it has to be repeatable, consistently. No amount of re-inventing the scientific method from first principles will help you, no matter how much this web site is "Hacker" "News" (:-) Plebeian indeed!

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Given your rant, a source would have been appropriate.

Annatar 8y ago
Don't get worked up over it, it's just an observation of the state of affairs, I don't have a tin foil hat. I think the U. S. should have better public transportation infrastructure and more pedestrian sidewalks and, oh! drivers which actually comply with the law and stop for pedestrians at pedestrian crossings, but that's completely beside the point to this nonsensical "study". That's just, like, my opinion man.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  I just hoped for a citation on your surprising tanker claim.
  - Annatar 8y ago
    Too lazy to search it for you (and I read it roughly seven years ago); use a search engine yourself. Really, the sense of entitlement in this place... And if that with the tanker surprised you, maybe you should spend more time researching and less time reading sensationalist studies which hope to hook people into a subscription (:-) Just a suggestion (;-)

matt4077 8y ago

Here's some Google technology: https://goo.gl/images/jUnTNJ https://goo.gl/images/jUnTNJ Traffic Accidents are the leading cause of death from injury among young people. (Click on the other charts to find the one showing injury being #1 among all deaths in those age groups). > and prove repeatably, which is the foremost requirement of the scientific method No, nothing needs to be proven repeatedly. Once something is proven, you're done. Wikipedia: "A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition." Plebeian indeed...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Annatar 8y ago
This is not proof Sir, it's just a table. For something to be scientifically proven, the methodology has to be disclosed and it has to be repeatable, consistently. No amount of re-inventing the scientific method from first principles will help you, no matter how much this web site is "Hacker" "News" (:-) Plebeian indeed!