Slashdot Mirror

How much is a "decent wage?" I hear people all the time talk about a "living wage" on here, but nobody puts a dollar figure on it. Give me something concrete. What should the high-school drop-out ditch digger (or whatever) who has learned no marketable skills make? What kinds of things should someone making a "living" wage be able to buy? What things are over the line? For example, how new a car, what kinds of food, cell phones, cable TV, how big of house or apartment? Should this "living wage" increase because people live in a certain area, or should we pay them more because they have a bunch of kids? I want to know what a "living wage" really means.

Won't bother responding to the rest of your comment, but did want to address this. There isn't a fixed dollar amount for a living wage, because a living wage is strongly corrolated to the area in which one lives. A living wage in Cambodia is much lower than a living wage in Tokoyo.

Here's a starting point to understand what a living wage means:

http://finances.msn.com/saving-money-advice/6952105

Pointing out that the wealthiest americans are becoming a huge drain on society isn't class warfare, it's a reality. These are the people who will do what they can to cut jobs and reduce expenses. Jobs are created by demand for goods and services. Since the US has become a service oriented economy, employment is driven primarily by consumerism. Consumerism is driven by the middle and lower classes. If you want to strengthen our economy, focus on those classes. The rich will benefit from it as well.

Clickable link

Jamaica gets most of it's guns illegally...from the US. Not only are we violent, we export it to others:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31474297/ns/world_news-americas/t/us-guns-fuel-jamaicas-gang-wars/#.UMvQ36z4J8E

It's hilarious that you use Jamaica as an example to refute me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31474297/ns/world_news-americas/t/us-guns-fuel-jamaicas-gang-wars/

How many firearms are in Jamaica are unlicensed? Do you think the huge crime rate there has anything to do with the huge amount of smuggling of UNLICENSED firearms that come from the us? The hilarious thing is, most of those unlicensed smuggled guns that are seized are traced to..guess where...Florida.

"Jamaica and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives find most of the seized weapons come from three Florida counties — Orange, Dade and Broward — all with large Jamaican populations, according to Shields."

Pretty funny.

Short answer, usually in the middle of nowhere.

Longer answer, nowhere isn't what it used to be.

If anyone doubts that science and plain common sense can be ignored by our fearless leaders, consider that our congress critters are willing to call pizza a vegetable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45306416/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes/

What you're pointing out is when man cuts all the trees down things go to shit. Look at a realtime real-color animation of the globe spinning. Notice that big brown part in Africa, Asia and Europe? That's where man grew up. When you take out all the trees you get desert.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
"Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study
By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011 (note the date)
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.
The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.
"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.
"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected"."

Excuse me but what kind of Co2 scientist finds it "increadable" and "unexpected" (!) that trees eat CO2?

Keep that in mind next time somebody refers to them as climate "experts".

Maybe it had something to do with NASA and the NOAA point out the IPCC model forgot to include the fact plants eat CO2. "experts".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."

Note the date.

Course, the fact they admit they were lying didn't go unnnoticed:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."

Yea - I'm sure it has nothing to do with recent weather satellite failures.

This is well and good, but what happens when a Marine types 'FLY HARD' into the console and hits return?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7783335/ns/us_news/t/reckless-pilots-problem-us-military/

Have you ever seen how much yellow pages charges each of the companies to be listed in it? It's not craigslist.. those listing can be expensive.

Earlier this year, ATT sold part of it's Yellow Pages operation for close to a billion dollars. The division is valued at $3.9billion:
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=ec6803ce-4128-42be-bc43-eb1534853efd

Look at the chart on this page:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/the-golden-allure-of-the-yellow-pages

revenue:
att: 3.3 billion
dex: 1.5b
supermedia: 1.6b
yell group: 1.5b

share of TOTAL US ad spending: ~8%

http://money.msn.com/investing/worst-business-decisions-ever

You need to read Mannings own words.

You first. The chat logs that allegedly got Manning caught for his alleged actions have him saying he tried reporting war crimes in Iraq but was rebuffed by his superiors. As for what he was saying now - bitch please. If you were subjected to 18 months of humiliation and psychological torture via the extreme isolation of extended solitary confinement, you'd be confessing to the Sharon Tate murders faster than Dick Cheney.

Then there's the slight fact that ever single one of the "hang Bradley Manning" club are engaging in extreme situation ethics. If the sticking point if the UCMJ, then you must be demanding his immediate release for Obama's textbook unlawful command influence, which is a direct violation of the UCMJ. If the sticking point is "revelation of classified data", then WTF aren't Libby, Rove, and Armitage being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for outing Valerie Plame. If the rule of law is the issue, how can you with a straight face say that Manning needs to be prosecuted, but not officials who's corruption and criminality was revealed by Manning's alleged leaks.

It's a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition for you.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are rules above and beyond what the civilian population has to deal with

It also forbids unlawful command influence:

Unlawful command influence (UCI) is one of the major reasons the Uniform Code of Military Justice was adopted after World War II. Unlawful command influence is prohibited under UCMJ Article 37(a).

UCI is considered a âoemortal enemy of military justice.â See United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388, 393 (C.M.A. 1986). Thomas is the famous Third Armor cases. In the recent case of United States v. Harvey, 64 M.J. 13 (C.A.A.F. 2006), the court said,

This Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the military judge is the âoelast sentinelâ in the trial process to protect a court-martial from unlawful command influence. . . .

        because the inherent power and influence of command are necessary and omnipresent facets of military life, everyone involved in both unit command and in military justice must exercise constant vigilance to protect against command influence becoming unlawful.

So everyone parroting "UCMJ! UCMJ!", I have a simple question for you. Do you want Bradley Manning immediately released, given the Commander-in-Chief's textbook case of unlawful command influence, or are you a hack engaging in situational ethics?

Where are the military tribunals for those who committed torture under the Bush Regime.

Where are the military tribunals of evangelical officers and generals for proselytizing to the troops.

Where are the Espionage Act prosecutions of Libby, Rove, Armitage et all over revealing Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA officer. Who worked on non-proliferation, something a weee bit more important than than cables where the "worst" result was embarrassment to the U.S.

Where are the criminal prosecutions for mass warrantless wiretapping.

Where are the criminal prosecutions for murder-by-drone.

Where are the criminal prosecutions for the bankers that looted the economy.

And finally, where are the Concerns for military procedure when it comes to Obama's unlawful command influence?

Using the civilian or military justice system to shield your friends and yourself while threatening your political enemies with life in prison or even death is simply disgusting, as are those who excuse it.

car manufacturers acted like mobile phone children

Dodge Omni:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Omni
vs
Vw Rabbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk1

Dodge Mirada
http://www.autogush.com/images/dodge-mirada-05.jpg
vs
Ford Futura

http://storm.oldcarmanualproject.com/ford/Fairmont%20Futura%201978%200203.jpg

Nissan Armada
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?year=2009&make=Nissan&model=Armada
vs
Rambler
http://www.stationwagonfinder.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1959-rambler-ambassador1.jpg

The colonies are explicitly approved by the Israeli government. Most so-called "outposts" are promoted to full "settlement" status. There is nothing tacit about it. Their plan is to colonize and annex as much territory as possible with as few non-Jews as possible. So they can preserve their precious Jewish majority that was created by force. Jewish settlers receive assistance from the Israeli government, protection from the army, special roads that only they can drive on, and are under the Israeli legal system. The indiginous non-Jews can't drive from town to town, are under martial law, and suffer from malnutrition while their crops wither in their fields because they are unable to leave their homes to harvest them. In Gaza, Israel counts their calories and prevents the importation of food leading to stunted growth of children. Israel even prevents the export of food and goods, ensuring that the Palestinians remain under the thumb of Israel. All of this has been going on for decades prior to the establishment of Hamas.

But hey, they shoot rockets back at Israel so it's all OK, right?

Of course there will be failures. As for regulation, the credit unions needed to be better regulated: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40755408/ns/business-local_business/t/credit-unions-paying-risky-behavior-few/

Science performs it's own cruelties against those it deems to be "not worthy".

More recent examples would be Josef Mengele's little science setup. And if you don't think it was Science, keep in mind that his research on how the human body reacts to extreme cold well documented and accurate. We had to replicate the results with volunteers and much more time to avoid using his research. Then there was the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Yeah...Science all the way there. They did again in Guatemala

Now, sure, Science didn't do this. But neither did Religion. Men did this under the color of Religion and Science.

So before you go around condemning people, you'd better look at yourself first.

now the terrorists know how to blow up Boston

Naw, if they wanted to do that, they'd just follow the big blue signs helpfully labeled "Compressed Natural Gas Station".

Yes it is. It's both.

For a company like HP, which has practically nothing in investment gains, lawsuit settlements, or other non-revenue income sources, their only income is revenue.

Tiger attacks in New York didn't stop in 1998 either.

"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

The alarmists say they were being alarmist and recanted. That the rest of the world hasn't caught up is simply latency.

They file it under "family values":

Promotion of traditional marriage and opposition to sex outside of marriage
        Support for a traditional role for women in the family.
        Opposition to same-sex marriage
        Support for complementarianism[6][7][8]
        Opposition to legalized induced abortion
        Support for abstinence education
        Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation

As for specifically being against it:
2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/Conventions/RNC-2004platform.pdf

Page 25:
Any effort to address global social problems must be firmly placed within a context of respect for the fundamental social institutions of marriage and family. We reject any treaty or convention that would contradict these values. For that reason, we support protecting the rights of families in international programs and oppose funding organizations involved in abortion.

Page 81:
Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.

Page 84:
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendmentâ(TM)s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.

Win8. IE10 just has really good gpu acceleration, where as chrome is terrible. IE10's framerate and scrolling is very smooth on extremely graphically heavy pages where as chrome just seems like its chugging at 3fps.

For example:

http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/cnns-don-lemon-jonah-hill-was-a-tool-for-ignoring-me-in-hotel-lobby-1717280.story?ocid=answw11

Or huffington post, or even slashdot itself. IE10 is just smooth. Chrome is not performing well in comparison. I still like chrome because of the extensions and better adblock addons, but I have to say IE10 is pretty impressive, and I thought IE9 was ok but not good enough. Now I think IE10 is better, but needs extensions cause no one makes any for it obviously.

Why is there no mention for those of us not in the UK what the symbolism of the poppy is. Is it like burning a flag? And why has nobody made the joke "Looks like the inmates are running the Aylesham"? Come on, it's easy.

The poppy is the symbol of remembrance of soldiers who have died in war. Burning the poppy is probably equivalent of the Westboro baptists "Thank God for dead soldiers" posters in terms of disrespect, upset to service family members, etc. In my view not nice but should not be criminalised

In comparison, climate change, here, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not going to get dramatically worse, if we don't do anything about it. For example, they generally forecast the loss of about as much land over the next century from rising water levels (assuming a one meter rise) as are lost each year from desertification due mostly to bad agricultural practices.

This is a joke. This is the exact opposite of what every scientific report says.

Your post is a classic example of someone holding forth in an authoritative tone who knows exactly zero about the subject he's pontificating on.

Global Warming Threatens Our National Security IISS: âoeA Global Catastropheâ For International Security

A recent study done by the International Institute for Strategic Studies has likened the international security effects of global warming to those caused by nuclear war. [On Deadline]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/09/climate-change-.html

U.N.: As Dangerous As War United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said this year that global warming poses as much of a threat to the world as war. [BBC]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm

Center for Naval Analyses: National Security Threat In April, a report completed by the Center for Naval Analyses predicted that global warming would cause âoelarge-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water.â [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/320929_secured.html

Genocide in Sudan
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon charges, âoeAmid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.â [Washington Post]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061501857.html

War in Somalia
In April, a group of 11 former U.S. military leaders released a report charging that the war in Somalia during the 1990s stemmed in part from national resource shortages caused by global warming. [Washington Post]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401209.html

Starvation
A study by IISS found that reduced water supplies and hotter temperatures mean âoe65 countries were likely to lose over 15 percent of their agricultural output by 2100.â [Yahoo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070912/ts_nm/climate_security_dc

Large-Scale Migrations
Global warming will turn already-dry environments into deserts, causing the people who live there to migrate in massive numbers to more livable places. [MSNBC]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19479607/

More Refugees
A study by the relief group Christian Aid estimates the number of refugees around the world will top a billion by 2050, thanks in large part to global warming. [Telegraph]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/14/nclimate14.xml

Increased Border Tensions
A report called âoeNational Security and the Threat of Climate Change,â written by a group of retired generals and admirals, specifically linked global warming to increased border tensions. âoeIf, as some project, sea levels rise, human migrations may occur, likely both within and across bo

Guns, knives, fireworks, blowtorches, and chainsaws are dangerous by the very nature of what they are intended to do. Even small children immediately understand their capacity to destroy things.

Apparently not, considering this 6 year old brought a LOADED GUN to kindergarten.

He thought he could handle it. I am sure he knew it was a gun and what it was for.

I think the CPSC is over the line, here -- the product is properly labeled & marketed to adults, and it is the adult's responsibility to keep it away from children. Same as kitchen knives, loaded guns, batteries, etc.

I know every time I'm with a young children (not even my own, which I don't have yet), I'm constantly watching to make sure what goes in their mouth isn't [too] dangerous. If other adults aren't doing the same, that's negligence.

I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the argument that they are not for children. I see no reason to prevent parts suppliers from selling powerful magnets. But I believe if they are sold as toys (even as toys for adults) many parents will through carelessness or ignorance give them to their children anyway. I am concerned that my child could find them on the floor at someone else's house and swallow them before I even saw them. Even the most vigilent parents are not able to entirely prevent their children from picking things up and putting them in their mouths.

Guns, knives, fireworks, blowtorches, and chainsaws are dangerous by the very nature of what they are intended to do. Even small children immediately understand their capacity to destroy things.

Apparently not, considering this 6 year old brought a LOADED GUN to kindergarten.

I think the CPSC is over the line, here -- the product is properly labeled & marketed to adults, and it is the adult's responsibility to keep it away from children. Same as kitchen knives, loaded guns, batteries, etc.

I know every time I'm with a young children (not even my own, which I don't have yet), I'm constantly watching to make sure what goes in their mouth isn't [too] dangerous. If other adults aren't doing the same, that's negligence.

You can probably find them if you have access to various journals. Those are not priamry source but report in general press. If you don't take the time to look it up yourself, I don#t see why I should. Example :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44460161/ns/health-childrens_health/t/pants-wearing-sponge-blamed-kids-poor-attention-spans/
"The study, published online Monday by the journal Pediatrics, found watching a snippet of a SpongeBob cartoon negatively affected 4-year-oldsâ(TM) attention spans. Watching a more realistic PBS cartoon did not."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/05/games.attention/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/05/games.attention/index.html


Most study don't show a causation, they are only good enough to show a correlation. But since you asked about correlation it is good enough.

I agree; if Mr. Romney wins, he'll be a custodian president because probably the Senate will remain Democratic and the country will remain split.

In the budget stand-off 68% of Democrats wanted Democratic leaders to make compromises to avoid the fiscal cliff, only 38% of Republicans wanted Republican leaders to make compromises. The congress follows the lead of their supporters and consequently Democratic congressmen are much more likely to compromise with a Republican president than the other way around.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/11139%20April%202011%20Filled-in.pdf

PLEASE VOTE!!!!!!

Yeah. Modded to +4, Insightful. Wonderful.

No matter how stupid and uninformed you are, get out there and vote. That way, we can perpetuate the distraction of the two-party system. --Stox

I believe that Obama naively did not expect the Republicans to dedicate themselves to stopping him from getting reelected.

Yes, I'm sure that was his first and enduring thought on the matter.

Also, I don't think anyone expected the Republicans to declare war on reality.

That should be, "war on reality, as reported." That is the key, as reported. The BBC leadership admits it as a bias problem, but there can't be a problem in the United States?

As Margaret Thatcher noted, "The facts of life are conservative."
It is the reporting that is liberal.

Pew: Public Perception of Media Bias Hits Historic High

In Pew's biennial news survey, out today, the public revealed an alarming opinion that the media just can't be trusted to tell a story straight. . . . Said Pew, "The overall ratings for the performance of the news media are quite negative: Fully 66% say news stories often are inaccurate, 77 % think that news organizations tend to favor one side, and 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations. The percentage saying that news stories are often inaccurate has risen 13 points since 2007, with much of the increase coming among Democrats and independents."

Media bias worse than money in politics

Rasmussen Reports Tuesday revealed poll results that 47 percent of likely voters feel that "media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions." Fewer, 42 percent, say money is more evil.

Worse for the media, 51 percent believe that "most reporters will try to help the president," while just 9 percent will go to bat for Republican Mitt Romney. The polling is just the latest to slam media bias, with most still viewing the TV, internet and print reporters on the left's payroll.

The following has been known for some time now, from more than one study.

Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)

Msnbc.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have

Thank you for regurgitating Scott's blog. It is indeed vomit. With the subset data presented that is a valid conclusion, but only so when you look at that limited subset of data. It's not denialism to point out bad math.

But, even the alarmists have admitted to being alarmist:

"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

"deniers" is a piece of rhetoric ("informal logic") used to associate the nazi holocaust with a scientifc school of thought you don't agree with. It is in appropriate. However, calling the AGW crowd "alarmists" is appropriate for two reasons:

1) the large number of gw predictions that turned out to be false.
2) their own admission: ""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace." (emph mine - rjs)
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

If you think the opposing camp simply denies all the wonderful facts you think you have, you're wrong, there are other theories, but without the commercial impetus of a carbon market, they get zero traction, even though they explain whats happening more accurately. You didn't know this, which led you to the fallacy the argument from ignorance therefore your statement is not true.

If you want to know how this would possibly happen, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo (Century of the Self, Adam Curtis, 4 hrs. Curtis explores how Freud's theories when used by powerful people subvert democracy and convince the masses of absolutely anything)

Protip: criticize something after you've read it, not before. I really don't care how much you think you hate asparagus.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

"deniers" is a piece of rhetoric ("informal logic") used to associate the nazi holocaust with a scientifc school of thought you don't agree with. It is in appropriate. However, calling the AGW crowd "alarmists" is appropriate for two reasons:

1) the large number of gw predictions that turned out to be false.
2) their own admission: ""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace." (emph mine - rjs)
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

If you think the opposing camp simply denies all the wonderful facts you think you have, you're wrong, there are other theories, but without the commercial impetus of a carbon market, they get zero traction, even though they explain whats happening more accurately. You didn't know this, which led you to the fallacy the argument from ignorance therefore your statement is not true.

If you want to know how this would possibly happen, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo (Century of the Self, Adam Curtis, 4 hrs. Curtis explores how Freud's theories when used by powerful people subvert democracy and convince the masses of absolutely anything)

Protip: criticize something after you've read it, not before. I really don't care how much you think you hate asparagus.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

550 goddamn votes in Florida and you'd see what difference not electing Bush the Lesser would have made, kemosabe.

Would we? Here are a couple of views:

The History of the U.S. – If Al Gore Became President
If Al Gore Had Won in 2000

Here are a few of mine:

Al Qaida was attacking United States embassies and the Cole under the Clinton administration.
It seems pretty certain that 9/11 would still have happened.
If 9/11 happens, it's pretty certain a global war against Al Qaida follows, and very likely war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Invasion? Probably.

Economic crashes? Of course. The internet-centric business meltdown is virtually certain to have occurred, and the housing bubble not much less so. The internet-centric business meltdown was the result of trends started in the Clinton administration. The actual wrong-doing for Enron occurred under the Clinton administration. The housing bubble was a result of policies with broad bi-partisan support.

Iraq? That is more of a wildcard. The US policy calling for regime change in Iraq was set under the Clinton administration. It is virtually certain that there would have been conflicts with Iraq, including armed action. Would it have lead to invasion and occupation of Iraq? Somewhere along the line of less likely to no. There almost certainly would have been bombings though, probably a lot more of them to compensate for the lack of ground forces. Saddams army in 2003 was strong enough to hold Iraq against rebellion that wasn't aided externally. It seems pretty certain that either Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power. They might even have thrown off sanctions due to the "Oil for Food" program bribes and the loss of interest in the world community in containing him. Saddam with no sanctions means a Saddam rearming and continuing to support terrorism (no, not Al Qaida). He might ever do it with a vengence. Would Iraqis be better off? Very unlikely. Saddam used the food money to build palaces and buy weapons while the infrastructure crumbled, and people perished. That is from simple neglect. Saddam's government filled Iraq with large numbers of mass graves. Had Saddam's regime not been overthrown, the killing would have continued.

You may recall that Saddam had to restrain his sons, they were crueler than he was.

How Bad Was Saddam’s Son?

. . . Latif’s first lesson was to learn how to not react in disgust or become sick at Hussein regime cruelty. He was taken to a viewing room holding thousands of videos of torture sessions.

Saddam’s son had learned the same way. “Uday told me whenever he seemed weak or squeamish as a child his father would beat him with an iron bar and then force him to watch videos of prisoners being tortured.”

It worked. “Just wait until I become president,” Uday promised, “I’ll be crueler than my father ever was. You mark my words. You’ll yearn for the days of Saddam
Hussein.”

Now, read this carefully. If there is no US invasion of Iraq, there is not the same opportunity for an Al Qaida supported and led insurgency in Iraq that drew Al Qaida members from around the world to Iraq. That movement generated intelligence and provided opport

"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama :)

That wouldn't be fair to the Russians. After all, they are still spinning up the old Soviet practices, aping the Cold War, and they apparently aren't done with them yet. It certainly appears that the Russians would rather be the enemy than be ignored.

Russia restarts Cold War patrols
Report: Russia may base bombers in Cuba
More Russian bombers flying off Alaska coast
Report: Russian Nuclear Attack Sub Patrolled Waters Off Gulf for a MonthUndetected
Canada does not like Russian nuclear bombers patrolling Arctic territory
Japanese, South Korean jets trail Russian bombers over Pacific
UK jets greet Russian bombers
New Russian Anti-Missile Facility Opens in Kaliningrad
Russia claims new missile can overcome missile defenses

Actually, chimpanzees also get cancer, even if at a much lower rate. Perhaps it has to do with accumulated evolutionary mutations, an hypothesis that has been tested more than once and which finds out differences in the apoptosis mechanism between chimpanzees and humans. Why these differences show up and what are they useful for can be debated: it could be a way for not killing too many of our brains' neurons.

Except fat kids are never so brash as to declare that eating vegetables is dead. Tech executives on the other hand are always trying to tell us that privacy is obsolete, so don't worry about it.

Saddam stole the food money to build lavish palaces, and you blame the UN, West, and US. Please educate yourself, or is it oikophobia?

Saddam’s palaces triple in 10 years

Not Did you read the link? US Supreme Court uphold free speech principles in this case. as not free speech per se. he was at a private mall, the security guards didnt like his shirt and told him to leave. he refused, so police hauled him off. constitution stops at the door - it only applies to govt. also, I couldn't find the resolution of the case, whether it was dropped etc. exceptional abusive action by the Bush campaign, overturned by the courts and the guy won $80k in court. pres was a dick, but free speech wins at the end. again, did you read the article? as you overzealous principal, supreme court directly contradicts and supports free speech. I couldnt find how the case resolved itself but it seems cut and dry. may private company, constitution stops at the front door. think dont know how this turned out. protests are usually fine within boundaries. cities usually issue permits, etc. Sure, it's not surprising that a low-level gov't peon steps over the bounds, but in every case the supreme court or other courts support free speech rights.

Yes, exactly right. It is ok for people to burn the flag and chant dept to America. It's also ok for people to make crappy YouTube videos. That's what makes America exceptionally great.

Not
as
exceptional
as you
may
think

"How can you be so sure that this time it wont be the same deception and all?"

Well, I don't know how much you know about the history behind the Iraq WMD claims, or whether you're just parroting the usual tosh about this, but you are aware that both the IAEA and the UN agency setup to look for other WMDs such as chemical weapons actually stated they could find no evidence of such a programme in Iraq? In other words, these agencies were not used in the justification for going to war because they actually found in Iraq's favour. It was the US and Britain that persisted with this claim in the face of that that was used for justification for war. Hans Blix who was leading the investigation was critical of this fact at the time and even to this day.

But there's a bigger reason as to why your conspiracy theory doesn't really work, you seem to be basing it on some assumption that the US has a mechanism to control the IAEA. This simply cannot be possible, because the IAEA has been an important organisation in limiting nuclear proliferation, as this requires the organisation to be trusted by the various nuclear states it means it has to be representative of them. So how for example would the US manage to control the opinions of Chinese, and Russian inspectors? how would it even control the opinions of nations that are fairly independent in the world such as those from Brazil? Your theory doesn't make sense because there is simply no mechanism by which the US could control the world's inspectors, much less the whole organisation.

But this is precisely why the US and Britain failed to manipulate the IAEA and the UN monitoring agency for Iraq in the lead up to the 2003 war - because they simply cannot manipulate agencies whereby control is shared with their foes in the world.

As such, the fact the IAEA is making the claims it is about Iraq are much more potent - if they wouldn't even do it under US/UK pressure and intelligence agency meddling in the run up to 2003, what makes you think they could do it now where Iran has banned inspectors from nations it doesn't trust? Something that even Iraq didn't do:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11682871/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iran-bars-entry-nuclear-inspectors/#.UHwYEVF0qUk

How do you define `homosexual'? Is it what you feel or how you act on those feelings. If a man who finds that every time he falls in love it is with another man chooses to fight those feelings, even tries to shut them out of his awareness completely, and not start a relationship or have sex with other men, do you call him homosexual or not?

If it is about the act then the question whether or not homosexuality is genetic is about as useful as the question whether or not driving a car is genetic. Would this man who fights his feelings ever have done so in a society that has no problem with homosexuality? Probably not, how he acts is determined by culture or religion rather than by genetics. If you want to discuss the genetic basis of homosexuality focus on how people feel.

And that is not a choice. Assuming for the moment you're a man, do you get up in the morning and decide that today you will fancy fat women with a strong personality, because yesterday you chose to fancy skinny women who are shy? And in the subway you see one of those women you chose to fancy today and you are smitten, while the skinny shy women next to her doesn't invoke any feelings, but yesterday you would have had strong feelings for her? Do you have this kind of control over whom you fancy? For me, everyone I know, and in every story I ever heard or read about falling in love, it was not a choice. If you happen to fall in love with people of your own sex it's not a choice either.

But it may not be genetic, no gene has been found that codes for homosexuality as far as I'm aware. And I suspect homo- and heterosexuality are just extremes on a bisexual scale. There are neurobiologists (not pseudo-scientists I think) who see it as a consequence of influences during early fetal development. That would mean that a child's future sexual orientation is not genetic but nevertheless determined before birth. Fun fact: the more older brothers a man has the more likely he is to be homosexual. Sons of the same mother, that is, they don't have to be raised together for the effect to occur, and step- or adopted brothers don't increase the likelyhood. That points to a biological explanation, a prenatal factor, and a possible explanation is that the mother's immune system responds to succeeding male fetuses and influences how they develop. You can read about it here and here.

And what's Russia going to do? Threaten to turn the gas supplies off?

Umm, yes - "Russia shut off all gas supplies to Europe ... on Wednesday". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28515983/ns/world_news-europe/t/europeans-shiver-russia-cuts-gas-shipments/.

Having actually turned the gas supplies off before, any threat to turn them off again would be pretty believable.

For those who don't know, in 2005 it was announced a paleontologist had inadvertently found what appeared to be remnants of blood and or related items inside a t. Rex fossil. Three reference stories:

Story 1

Storey 2

Story 3

IF, and that's a big if, what this paleontologist has found is un-fossilized bits of t. Rex, would it be possible to see if any bits of DNA remain? As she states in the third article, she is not equipped to look for DNA and so can't do it.

Not doubting what the research has found, but if this stuff is something that is real, would it hurt to look and prove the exception to the rule?

The only information that I know about is here...

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/08sep_radioactivemoon/

Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!

So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."

They are attempting to quantify this effect with CRaTER or Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation. Basically, the CRaTER instrument is aboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (which is currently orbiting the Moon). However, I haven't seen any specific reports on their findings on their official website http://crater.sr.unh.edu/, press reports indicate that initial finding aren't good...

In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.

Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

The car is central to life in the US. The fuel munching car has no real future in this.

Not the car. The truck.

The Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle (car or truck) in the US for the past 35 years. In 2011 here are the ranks (from this source):

1. Ford F-150 (584,917 sold)
2. Chevrolet Silverado (415,130)
3. Toyota Camry (308,510)
4. Nissan Altima (268,981)
5. Ford Escape (254,293)
6. Ford Fusion (248,067)
7. Ram Pickups (244,763)
8. Toyota Corolla (240,259)
9. Honda Accord (235,625)
10. Chevrolet Cruze (231,732)

For all the people complaining about Suburbans, Escalades and Expeditions, it is trucks, not SUVs that sell in the US.

Of the top 10: 1,533,174 cars (51%); 1,244,810 trucks (41%); 254,293 SUVs (8%)

How many trucks sold in Europe?

Well you know what they say about slippery slop arguments

It's not invalid because it's a "slippery slope". Don't be stupid.

Fun fact, we've already slid down that slope! Both peanuts and perfume have been the subject of bans and, in the case of perfume, petitions and vocal protests -- complete with signs, chants, and picketers in gas masks. There's a whole anti-perfume movement!

Peanut examples:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26124593/ns/today-back_to_school/t/schools-peanut-bans-spark-backlash/
http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/schools-banning-peanuts.html

Perfume examples:
http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/perfume-ban-hampshire-state-explains-why-193100759.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-02/fragance-ban-allergies/55988704/1

Peanuts do not jump right off your clothes and affect those around you,

In a way they can. Imagine peanut oil from some greasy fingers finding it's way around the office -- that can actually kill someone.

Contrast the smell of tobacco smoke on clothes -- that won't harm anyone beyond a mild annoyance. Perfume comes off in higher concentrations and, yes, does cause harm.

So according to your logic getting drunk during lunch should be allowed on the job?

No. Where did you get that?
I'm starting to think that you're just an anti-smoking zealot, and not someone interested in a legitimate discussion. I have no time for zealots.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/03/30/epa-to-range-resources-drill-away/

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/state&id=5980352

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa20dec20,0,1603760.story?coll=la-home-center

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24276709/

http://articles.philly.com/2008-12-07/news/24992895_1_climate-change-climate-change-deputy-administrator-jason-burnett

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html

The EPA is run by the administration of the moment. Reagan had James Watt as Secretary of the Interior, for chrissakes. Right now, the EPA likes solar because Obama likes solar. Under Bush, the EPA loved nothing more than oil companies, as demonstrated by the reality based links given above.

Now go on back to your Tea Party, meme-bot, and let the grown-ups talk.

WE all know that Youtube is the most scientific of all websites. Try going to real sites that have real data.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24599768/ns/business-autos/t/smart-car-gets-highest-score-crash-tests/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)
http://www.wired.com/reviews/2011/04/smart-fortwo-cab/

Is there any info on the smart cars on the onion.com or cracked.com?