Slashdot Mirror

"The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise). Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all."

The UN is about establishing One World Government

You are a fool and will pay the price. Glenn Beck is just as much a traitor as those that covered up his birth history.

And of course when we find out that the cover-up of his birth certificate and the passport he used to travel the world was done because they were probably fake documents created for him when he worked for the CIA, I'm sure he'll join the elitists to cover that up, too.

Fool

"corporate" in the sense of group not in the sense of corporation

Three guesses what the "C" in "BBC" stands for.

I consider corporate interest of a news media organization to be a subcategory of reporting bias.

WTF?

And I am not mistaken in this consideration.

Wow. Feeling self-confident today, aren't we?

I don't even see the point of making statements like the above. It doesn't matter what they are "required" to do. Being funded by a particular tax introduces a bias in their outlook that can't be removed with a "requirement".

You seem to have a propositional fallacy.

As an aside, I've googled "BBC bias" and have come up (though trivial effort) with several examples of BBC bias, including favoring "political correctness" and "liberal culture", a tendency to assign racists to the right hand side of the political spectrum, and slanting the coverage of some religious groups.

Way to go. You link to an article by News Corp, the largest, most biased media organisation in the world which jumps at every chance to take a stab at the BBC.
Your other links are to a blog that is fixated on the BBCs coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, despite being the only major western news organisation with an extensive network in Palestine.

But if you think about it, everyone employed at the BBC is paid in large part from a tax. Why wouldn't they be so biased?

People will have a personal opinion, but that needn't influence their work. That's more or lesswhat being objective means.

The BBC is indeed biased as you'd expect of a human organization.

Your assumption of inherent bias is dangerous and simply untrue. When senior figures attack their organisation they do indeed give them adequate coverage, as illustrated by the articles linked earlier on in the thread.

You seem to be mistaking reporting bias with corporate interest.

No. I consider corporate interest ("corporate" in the sense of group not in the sense of corporation) of a news media organization to be a subcategory of reporting bias. And I am not mistaken in this consideration.

BBC programs are required to be objective and unbiased, and it seems they live up to that requirement more than most broadcasters.

I don't even see the point of making statements like the above. It doesn't matter what they are "required" to do. Being funded by a particular tax introduces a bias in their outlook that can't be removed with a "requirement". For some reason, I routinely read on Slashdot, smug yet naive boasting about the unbiased nature of the BBC and I just grew tired of it.

As an aside, I've googled "BBC bias" and have come up (though trivial effort) with several examples of BBC bias, including favoring "political correctness" and "liberal culture", a tendency to assign racists to the right hand side of the political spectrum, and slanting the coverage of some religious groups.

This mirrors the stereotypical whining of "liberal bias" often seen in the States. But if you think about it, everyone employed at the BBC is paid in large part from a tax. Why wouldn't they be so biased? Oh yea, that "requirement".

Many of the above cited sources are heavily biased (eg, as you'd expect of a blog that specializes in finding bias, real or otherwise, in the BBC), but they do illustrate the point. The BBC is indeed biased as you'd expect of a human organization. Honestly, the BBC has relatively low bias for a news organization and a government organization, but it is foolish to use the term, "unbiased" and I really wish slashdotters would stop annoying me with that term.

The parent made a bunch of strong claims, without any data reference or argument to back them up. He contradicts the findings of EPOCA, BIOACID and the Royal Society in the UK, the NERC and various other organisations directly tasked with evaluating the situation. Moreover he claims these organisations essentially lie in order to get research money, without as much as a shred of evidence to back up his claims, and this is moderated insightful?

Sure, the appeal to authority is one route you can take; indeed people like you always do that when you want to close down any debate. I don't know if you're aware of Professor Wegman's criticism of the Peer Review process in Climate Science? If not, I think you should read it. Or perhaps you'd prefer an expert opinion on the predictive capabilities of Computer Models? I don't know about you, but I raised an eyebrow when I found out Briffa's "hockey stick" turned out to have been generated from a whole 12 tree cores, or that the recent UN report stating that 300,000 people have died already due to "Climate Change" was a complete load of bollocks? Perhaps the American Chemical Society recently in uproar over it's Chairman's uncritical endorsement of "Global Warming" doesn't make you think twice? Or what about the EPA in the US suppressing a report from one of its own scientists? Does that make you feel uneasy at all?

So, follow the money. Who's going to benefit from Cap and Trade? Who's already benefiting from Carbon Offsetting? Hmmmmmmm.

Call me a heretic, if you like. I'm in good company.

You sound like my kind of patriot.

I swear, NOTHING has radicalized my views, like reading about the ideals of the radicals that started the American Revolution and founded this country. Nothing has so quickly shown the current system to be one of utter hypocrites.

Frankly the only place I disagree is in that this would even be useful. I think my state, and the few that surround it, should all consider secession. Then we can go and sign our own treaties.

As was pointed out at the time, even on the republican side, the northeast voted 2 to 1 for McCain over Bush in primaries for the 2000 election. Thats the exact opposite from the rest of the country. I think its pretty clear that neither party really represents the interests of the North East.

An article from the 2000 election on this issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=6856

-Steve

Eolas is not the bad guy here, they're just doing what is legally possible.

Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

By your logic, it is a good thing to taser teenagers with broken backs because they won't stand up when you tell them to.
After all, the good guys did it, and nothing illegal or wrong was deemed to have happened.

By the same logic, you think only the good guys own slaves? After all, that was (and in some countries, *IS*) legal.

You sick sick fuck you, thinking its good to violently attack and torture children that you buy and sell!!

If you ever got off your high horse and talked to some cops you might have many share the same attitudes you do.

You are right on that one.

So so many times I've wished I could tazer a 16 year old child with a broken back for not getting on his feet when I demand it

Please stop agreeing with people like that, and trying to excuse 'the non bad ones' who didn't lift a finger to punish the 'bad' ones. They are all brothers or something after all.

Dude, what are you talking about? Who is "we"? Last I knew, Sony was a Japanese company. Is "we" referring to Japan?

I remembered this story from 2003 about the U.S. more or less outsourcing missile guidance systems to China. Given that we are letting the Chinese buy and relocate our manufacturing capacity there, and given the amount of computer products we ship there to be "recycled"; I have a hard time believing there are any significant trade restrictions with China. Perhaps you can supply some references? How does Lenovo manage to manufacture Thinkpads and PCs without a steady supply of Intel CPUs?

The story I recall regarding Playstation "supercomputers" involved them being imported into Iraq pre-invasion.

Agreed. It's funny how the Democrats call what conservative citizens are doing as "Astroturfing" yet 2 democrat groups (One is run by Obama) are spending a great deal of cash to influence public opinion. Hypocrisy is an amazing thing....

You should know better than to speak of REALITY in the face of liberals.
Its a big fat hairy ZERO for you.

I bet you were even thinking about mentioning the EVIL MOBS..errr..teabagge..eerr..republicans..conservatives that sabatoged a DNC office in Denver.
It was just too bad it turned out to be a trans-thingied democrat SEIU'er that was PAID...
http://www.kxma.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=426543

As for the 'birther' comment..
Gee..why would anybody question the messiah when he has such a stunning record of 'transparency'?

Certificate of live birth (short form) - alleged forgery released
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12932.htm
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
This is Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate dated Aug. 4, 1961

Dunham-Obama marriage license - not released
Dunham-Soetoro marriage license - not released
Soetoro adoption records - not released
Besuki School application - obtained
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13056.htm
Punahou School records - not released

Selective Service Registration - alleged forgery released
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/004431print.html

Occidental College records - not released
Passport (Indonesian) - not released
Passport (U.S.) - not released
Columbia University records - not released
Columbia University thesis - not released
Harvard Law School records - not released
Harvard Law Review articles - none released
Baptism certificate - none released
Medical records - not released (except for a one-page statement saying Obama is healthy)
Illinois State Senate records - not released
Illinois State Senate schedule - not released (alleged to have been lost)
Law practice client list and billing records - not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles - none released (and none perhaps ever written)
Campaign donor analysis - not released
List of all campaign workers who are lobbyists - not released
List of trips outside the United States before 2008 - not released

On January 21, 2009, his first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489, denying any release of anything about him.

Now then...back to your g'ment NEA sanctioned classroom with you.

(Dont worry..I'll be joining you in ZERO land for this post too.. :-) )

Agreed. It's funny how the Democrats call what conservative citizens are doing as "Astroturfing" yet 2 democrat groups (One is run by Obama) are spending a great deal of cash to influence public opinion. Hypocrisy is an amazing thing....

You should know better than to speak of REALITY in the face of liberals.
Its a big fat hairy ZERO for you.

I bet you were even thinking about mentioning the EVIL MOBS..errr..teabagge..eerr..republicans..conservatives that sabatoged a DNC office in Denver.
It was just too bad it turned out to be a trans-thingied democrat SEIU'er that was PAID...
http://www.kxma.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=426543

As for the 'birther' comment..
Gee..why would anybody question the messiah when he has such a stunning record of 'transparency'?

Certificate of live birth (short form) - alleged forgery released
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12932.htm
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
This is Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate dated Aug. 4, 1961

Dunham-Obama marriage license - not released
Dunham-Soetoro marriage license - not released
Soetoro adoption records - not released
Besuki School application - obtained
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13056.htm
Punahou School records - not released

Selective Service Registration - alleged forgery released
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/004431print.html

Occidental College records - not released
Passport (Indonesian) - not released
Passport (U.S.) - not released
Columbia University records - not released
Columbia University thesis - not released
Harvard Law School records - not released
Harvard Law Review articles - none released
Baptism certificate - none released
Medical records - not released (except for a one-page statement saying Obama is healthy)
Illinois State Senate records - not released
Illinois State Senate schedule - not released (alleged to have been lost)
Law practice client list and billing records - not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles - none released (and none perhaps ever written)
Campaign donor analysis - not released
List of all campaign workers who are lobbyists - not released
List of trips outside the United States before 2008 - not released

On January 21, 2009, his first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489, denying any release of anything about him.

Now then...back to your g'ment NEA sanctioned classroom with you.

(Dont worry..I'll be joining you in ZERO land for this post too.. :-) )

Google owns Youtube which is into providing specific government content and the first place to receive some of the content. Google is also directly involved with the government as a company as well as Google's founder had given extreme amounts of money and support to Obama. The pay off, well that's somewhat of a question but Obama put Google for government together, here is the US site and is expected to endorse quit a few laws that Google favors. There was even a pay off attempt.

Some people even believe that Google manipulated search results and canceled account of blogs critical of Obama. I'm not sure how accurate that is but here is something should be noted. I found in other blogs (which I can't seem to find right now) that at least with the accounts being canceled, the official Google reason is that people are filing complaints about them being spam blogs or racist speech and somehow no one at google is checking it before deleting the accounts, information, or posts.

Google owns Youtube which is into providing specific government content and the first place to receive some of the content. Google is also directly involved with the government as a company as well as Google's founder had given extreme amounts of money and support to Obama. The pay off, well that's somewhat of a question but Obama put Google for government together, here is the US site and is expected to endorse quit a few laws that Google favors. There was even a pay off attempt.

Some people even believe that Google manipulated search results and canceled account of blogs critical of Obama. I'm not sure how accurate that is but here is something should be noted. I found in other blogs (which I can't seem to find right now) that at least with the accounts being canceled, the official Google reason is that people are filing complaints about them being spam blogs or racist speech and somehow no one at google is checking it before deleting the accounts, information, or posts.

Well lets take a real world example. In March 1982, Kennesaw town passed a law making EVERY household have to own a gun. Since then (well OK definitely until 2007 as that is when the article is written) "not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender"
Go read - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Achromatic gave your the reference for my factual statements, except for all the incidents of molestation. Since that's a major one (you are DEFINITELY more likely to be molested by a teacher than shot up in a school or even struck by lightning), I'll give you a quick reference.

This is an attempt at a PARTIAL list of ONLY FEMALE teachers who molested their students as of THREE YEARS AGO. This doesn't include all incidents. It doesn't include male teachers. And it doesn't include the past three years. And look how large it is. This alone outstrips probably every school shooting in North America in the entire history of the country.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53479

Granted, the article is on WorldNetDaily which is a bunch of biased right wing shit, but you can still verify each incident that is documented with google.

To my count, that article lists SEVENTY-SEVEN female school teachers who have molested students. Of course, some molested multiple students. And we've seen MANY more reports since that article which was posted in 2006.

Glad to see factual statements still count as flamebait on Slashdot.

In your earlier post, you did not give enough information to use my "google finger". What google terms do you derive from "In science, a 2 year old can be dated 14 million years old."? You said nothing about snails. It has been known for some time that radiocarbon dating of snails is unreliable because they ingest limestone and incorporate it into their shells. Tamers (1970) citing a 1963 study observed "The use of terrestrial shells for radiocarbon dating is generally regarded as giving unreliable results". Of course, your original assertion that "a 2 year old [snail] can be dated to 14 million years" is false, I notice you amended that to "thousands of year (sic) old" in your later post, which is in the right order of magnitude.

You can use your brain if you want to. There is more to it then just snails, that why I pointed to your google finger. Coal test wrong, oceanic fossils on mountain ranges test differently as the elevation goes up and so on. There is also the problem of people on here thinking that carbon dating goes back to prove a time line of the dinosaurs which is impossible.

The link you provided mentions nothing about your original assertions. It is a collection of quotes on the methods used for fossil dating.

Your right, I can't find the link I was presenting and don't know why the page is different now. Anyways, here are a few links that shouldn't change.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_firsthuman/index.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42940
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1331570.htm

I will probably find my link to the fossils not lining up or running through several periods of time like trees extending through several thousand years of sediment or diamond necklaces found in coal mines embedded in coal supposedly dating back to millions of years before man has been around.

I know your time is very valuable (for example, it takes an immense amount of time to learn the difference between waist and waste) but would it really take that long to back up your statements? You make outlandish claims, then when asked for evidence say "you are in charge of proving my claims" and "It's a widely believed fact!".

Actually, you made a false asertion so you show where the bible says only adam and eve was here. Everyone I know who has actually read a bible knows the bible says nothing of the sort. Either pony up or shut up about it. The only way I could disprove your so called widely believe fact is to paste the entire bible here. You know that's impossible so show your evidence.

Apparently they care more about freedom than having the highest quality images available. What more is there to say?

You could elaborate, I suppose... How exactly does rejecting images, which the author allows to be used within *.wikipedia.org, but not elsewhere, advance freedom?

One would think, they want their pages to be printable and (re)publishable, but in that case, the authors wouldn't be credited (there is no author's name printed, when you print the page) — contrary to the current license... No, their idea was to arm-twist image-creators (such as myself, BTW) into relinquishing rights, on pain of having their contributions auto-deleted from the site — most likely to advance certain agenda, that's so popular among a vociferous fraction of /. users (that copyrights are evil!)...

Lastly, if, indeed, freedom was on the mind over there, don't you think, Wikipedia would not have allowed a scrubbing campaign aimed at keeping the page of our Glorious Leader free (there you go, maybe, this is the "freedom" you had in mind?) of mentions of his embarrassing associations and that pesky eligibility question? At the time of this writing, for example, neither the terrorist Ayers, nor communist Alinsky are mentioned on the page, even though pages of those individuals describe their impact on the President...

It is truly amazing what you can "find" when you have unlimited access to huge amounts of supercomputing power.

And yet, they can't find the President's real, actual, Birth Certificate...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

And before you reply with, "ZOMG worldnetdaily!", be sure to read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

My understanding of free speech laws in most liberal democracies is that most of them give large grants of power to the government of the day, so that they can squelch free speech if they feel it's necessary in the public interest. The most famous of these laws are the German laws banning holocaust denial, or laws in India about speech that "inflame inter-religion tensions". I understand why these countries take these positions, but it does bring about a chilling effect. Countries with specific traumatic histories are not the only ones, even relatively liberal Canada and Sweden have had similar cases.

I'm not sure how Portugal's constitution guarantees freedom of speech. For example, Section II Article 37 grants freedom of expression, but I'm not sure if the government can frame laws to curtail it to maintain public order, for example. (Most European countries have such laws on the books and have used them on a number of occasions).

By contrast, in the US, any law the government tries to pass can be challenged if it violates the 1st amendment -- it isn't something the government of the day can "work around". Libel laws do exist, but are notoriously weak because the law deliberately skews in favor of free speech.

I'd be pleasantly surprised to find many countries which grant similar levels of protection to speech (including speech that may be unpopular).

Citing WorldNetDaily is a crime against discourse. Citing Jerome Corsi (a 9/11 truther, Obama birth certificate conspiracist who also claims that oil is a self-replenishing resource that doesn't originate from fossilized organic matter) is doubly so. Not surprisingly, he's presenting yet another conspiracy theory, this one about the inflation rate.

Not that he doesn't raise some interesting points, but given the source, I can't accept those points until I see them seconded by someone who actually knows things about stuff.

The problem I have with the cap and trade is that it is necessarily harsh and indifferent on the people least likely to pay their existing bills. And no, getting a refund a year out is not a viable solution.

1) I don't see why it isn't a viable solution.

2) If the tax rebate were given in the form of reduced withholdings, the money would be available sooner.

You a fool if you think they were helpless bitches on capitol hill being slapped around by the republicans.

Not a fool. Just a cynical observer of what actually happened over the last decade. You're still pushing the idea that, hey, the Democrats had eighteen whole months to undo the litany of damage of the previous six years of Republican misrule, so the economic collapse is their fault. But now you're simultaneously arguing that nobody really has any power in Congress, cuz "power" is just an artificial construct.

What is real? Dude, you just blew my mind.

All the Democrats have been able to do these last eight years is slow and temper the hard rightward push driven by the Bush administration. I challenge you again to name one piece of remotely liberal/progressive legislation that was signed into law during George Bush's tenure.

The Kuwaitis love us!

Of course they do - they slant drill into Iraq, Saddam bitchslaps them, and we go roll over him after telling him we wouldn't.

That is one of the bullshit excuses Saddam used to invade Kuwait. Of course, you believe it because a guy that rapes the wives of the political opposition and sends the video to her kids has so much credibility. But I'll let it stand because I was talking about the people who live in Kuwait. This doesn't just mean the sheiks in their Rolls, but the Bangladeshi workers, the Bedouins, the jewelry store owners, the guy selling pots, pans and prayer rugs and so on. These guys didn't (supposedly) "slant drill" into Iraq. They went to work everyday trying to feed their families.

Oh, and your bullshit excuse aside, you didn't mention Germany, Japan, Italy and the rest of the places I mentioned. Or was Germany justified because they were framed for sinking the Lusitania?

You build an extremely precise little box out of highly refined metals, circuit boards and PCBs, manufactured from parts made all around the world before being shipped thousands of miles to your local Staples, and you're worried about the half ounce of INK!?!?!

You didn't read the parent, or if you did you didn't actually understand the question. INK DOES NOT EQUAL TONER.

No, ink doesn't equal toner. But the amount of
"highly refined metals, circuit boards and PCBs" in a laser is at least equal to that in an inkjet. Don't misunderstand me, I'm using a laser (xerox 8660) at home for the reasons you give, but the upfront cost was much higher.

Want to go green? Use CFLs

Of course, use CFLs. The same CFLs that contain large amounts of mercury. The same CFLs that cost an environmental cleanup crew $2000 to clean up if you break one and follow proper procedure. Mercury that one broken bulb can raise airborne mercury levels in your house to above safe levels. No thanks, I'll stick to incandescent and halogen until LED bulbs are consumer-ready.

Fluorescent lights are fairly common, they'd have similar issues? I see people chucking these in ordinary rubbish collecting points (which go straight to landfill) The point is that if the CL style is mandated, there will be a lot more.

LED bulbs, I bought a couple of them in downlight style, I'm not that impressed by them, not much output, and they flicker.

Replace your shower heads

Depends highly on where you are and who you are. If you're in a dry place or have only people with short hair, low-flow or ultra-low-flow shower heads can be a great idea. But if you live in a wet area (Minnesota here, we have to work to keep the water out of our houses) or have long hair (rinsing out shampoo takes FOREVER without enough water flow) then it's probably not worth it.

Long hair's high maintenance, IMO, not worth it.

"You can imagine European bureaucrats coming up with a handbook of acceptable thought and using that as a guide for website banning."

I don't have to IMAGINE that as they are already DOING it!

Germany: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22feb22,0,2752813.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

U.K.: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97127

France: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/20/202040.shtml

Those are just the tip of the iceberg. France started doing this back in 2000. Germany fired it up in 2008 with state created "for teh childrenz!!!11!!!" anti-porn / anti-torrent laws. The U.K. is increasingly surveillance happy and began banning "sex offenders" from social networking sites.

Now the U.S. may or may not have free-er speech than those three countries but if it cannot be conclusively demonstrated that they DO then what rationale is there for making the change? You'll also note that those are generally considered first world countries with good to excellent free speech track records. When you start examining other countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuala, etc you can see how censorship would QUICKLY become the order of the day.

You'll note that all of my examples show censorship being applied using the foundation of FEDERAL (National) law. It's not some hurk hurk jerk judge in a single state or municipality (like Kentucky) showing stupidity about how the Internet works.

Long post short: Without any sense of national patriotism, I am American, I am VERY happy that ICANN has remained here. We may not be the best at free speech but we are a *very* long way from the worst.

You are obviously an idiot. Allow me dissect:

Of course, use CFLs. The same CFLs that contain large amounts of mercury. The same CFLs that cost an environmental cleanup crew $2000 to clean up if you break one and follow proper procedure. Mercury that one broken bulb can raise airborne mercury levels in your house to above safe levels. No thanks, I'll stick to incandescent and halogen until LED bulbs are consumer-ready.

The amount of mercury released in coal-fired electricity generation far exceeds the amount of mercury in CFLs. Do some research and math before spouting talking points, please.

First, as the CFL is used, the mercury vapor becomes chemically bound to the glass, leaving only about 14% to be released, assuming breakage, at the end of the life of the bulb. The EPA http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf estimates that if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were destroyed in a landfill (each one broken), they would add about 0.16 metric tons of mercury to the environment. That's 0.16 percent of the mercury released by humans by all other sources.

Electricity generation is the main source of mercury emissions in the US; the average mercury emissions from electricity generation in the US is 0.012 mg/kWh.

The CFL above would---if broken and assuming 4 mg of mercury (worst-case from several CFL generations ago) in the original bulb---add about 0.012*368+0.14*4 = 4.98 mg mercury. The incandescent bulb would produce 0.012*800 = 9.6 mg mercury.

Here's a table for your edification:

__________"CFL (26 W)_____Incan (100W)

Hg (mg)_________4.98______9.6

Elec. (kWh)_____368______800

Cost ($)________42.48____89.15

Life (hours)____8000_____1950x4bulbs=7800

Total cost of the CFL includes the cost to the electric company for the ~50% inefficiency causing line losses that the customer will not see.

There is no scenario in which an incandescent beats a CFL for efficiency, environmental benefit, or monetary concerns. The remaining reason to use an incandescent instead of a CFL is personal preference for the light from an incandescent.

You are obviously an idiot. Allow me dissect:

You build an extremely precise little box out of highly refined metals, circuit boards and PCBs, manufactured from parts made all around the world before being shipped thousands of miles to your local Staples, and you're worried about the half ounce of INK!?!?!

You didn't read the parent, or if you did you didn't actually understand the question. INK DOES NOT EQUAL TONER. Get it through your head. One would expect someone reading Slashdot to know this, but apparently that's what I get for assuming. Toner cartridges for laser printers print thousands of sheets if not tens of thousands of sheets per refill. Quickest way to have an office budget go haywire is to have all printing done on inkjet, which is why it isn't done in the business world. Also toner cartridges, while relatively precise, are not all that complex and are generally extremely reliable, unlike their ink-filled counterparts.

Want to go green? Use CFLs

Of course, use CFLs. The same CFLs that contain large amounts of mercury. The same CFLs that cost an environmental cleanup crew $2000 to clean up if you break one and follow proper procedure. Mercury that one broken bulb can raise airborne mercury levels in your house to above safe levels. No thanks, I'll stick to incandescent and halogen until LED bulbs are consumer-ready.

Replace your shower heads

Depends highly on where you are and who you are. If you're in a dry place or have only people with short hair, low-flow or ultra-low-flow shower heads can be a great idea. But if you live in a wet area (Minnesota here, we have to work to keep the water out of our houses) or have long hair (rinsing out shampoo takes FOREVER without enough water flow) then it's probably not worth it.

The rest of your points are relatively good, though the trees on the south side of the building will only help you in the summer, so only practical in temperate no-winter areas.

RTFA, and think about your green-ness. Insulate your house more, that will help with both heating and cooling. Replace your old single-pane windows with low-e argon-filled high-R double pane windows. Install a pellet or other bio fuel furnace, though I wouldn't recommend corn since it's a food product whereas pellets and other options are industrial waste products. Or even better, install a geo-exchange system that will help both your heating and cooling. Ride a bike or drive a scooter. The point is, with anything look at the impact and difference you're making either way.

OTOH, it is still there.

Exactly. It's not like they've never censored anything else:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

Wikipedia is as politicized as anything else. They don't want to make a fuss when it doesn't suit them, and they're more than willing to make a fuss when it does.

Of course, explaining the "mentality" of Wikipedia is like explaining the "mentality" of Slashdot. There are different groups and cultures involved, and it can look a bit schizophrenic on the outside looking in.

Overall, though, the pattern is as clear there as everywhere else: say one thing, do another, and accuse your opponent of whatever it is you're doing behind closed doors.

If this were happening in Canada, I'd start publishing every link I could on every website I could, and ask (no, beg) for trial date, and with a jury.

Sorry friend, I think your boat has already sailed.

People who can use punctuation, capitalization, and spell properly. Actually, I think he was referring to those who voted the President into office.

Actually, no, most of the people voting for Obama didn't know some very basic things about him or the opposition. And what they did know, was often wrong.

In the particularly striking example, the vast majority attributed the infamous I can see Russia from my house! to Sarah Palin, when, in fact, the phrase was coined by Saturday Night Live, who were mocking her lack of foreign policy experience, while willfully ignoring Joe Biden's — whom Obama picked for the supposed foreign policy expertise — lunacies.

What's much worse, though, is that these supposedly educated and well-versed people are now trying their damnest to keep the truth from becoming known — people trying to add mentions of Obama's association with (unrepentant) terrorist Ayers to Obama's Wikipedia entry have their changes reverted within minutes and their accounts banned for days...

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat, New Mexico
"Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didn't know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year - but he would certainly like them to. Bingaman told the station he would support reimposition of the regulation - which was rescinded in 1987 - on the station."

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat, Micigan
"Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine: 'I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else - I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.' Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network."

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat, Iowa
"Well, anytime - just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.'"

Former President Bill Clinton, Democrat:
"Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn't reflect economic reality. "I think we need to have either more balance in the programs or some opportunity for people to offer counter-veiling opinions." He said he had not been in favor of getting rid of the fairness doctrine, which the FCC did back in 1987."

Let's not pretend like it's not something they'd like to see to silence at least some of conservative talk radio.

They are all crooks.

In general, yes, but...

The hypocrisy of the democrats who ripped on republicans and Bush and now ignore it when they do the EXACT same type of stuff just kills me.

I would say EXACT same type of stuff. I for one would much rather go into debt trying to help the economy and make things better at home than invading foreign nations for almost no reason.

Change we can believe in ROFL. I'll bet now not one real change will happen.

Obama IS changing the tone in Washington, just not all at once. The democrats in congress are just getting there pants tight over finally being able to DO something that they're stuffing this stimulus bill full of everything they've ever wanted. They shouldn't be doing this, but history has shown that the president doesn't have complete control over ANY party in congress, even their own (this is a good thing). Before you say there's no change, keep in mind that a few things are already different from our last administration.

Hell, they already are sneaking things in like invading your medical privacy , and laying the foundation for rationed health care and was championed by writings by Tom Daschle and others.

Sure, why not go ahead and take net neutrality...and sneak a ton of other crap under the radar, and we need it FAST.

Sounds kinda like how we got stuck with a lot of crap from the old PATRIOT act, eh? I'm surprised they haven't come up with a nifty acronym for this POS.

And what if it turns out not to be a myth?

And *what if* a solar flare hit the Earth and knocked out all communications? Quick, let's spend a trillion dollars and ruin the world economy to fix something not proven to be imminent, but do it "just in case" anyway...

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a MERRY Christmas... Despite the media hype you've obviously gobbled up as a good sheep, there is not the complete consensus on the issue that pols and the media seem to insist upon...

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

The issues are not quite so clear-cut as you make them seem. Claim after claim of the alarmists has been debunked...

The Hockey Stick Graph

1998 was the hottest year on record. Not in the USA (try 1934

October 2008 was the warmest October on record? Nope!

Are GISS's data out of line with other sources of climate / temperature data?

NASA is not the only source of long-term temperature data used to evaluate climate change. Like NASA, the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies depends on a network of ground-based weather stations using thermometers. Both are limited by their number of stations, the heat-island effects on many of the sites located in urban areas, changes in thermometer types over time and the loss of station sites over the historical periods being measured. Data gathered from these systems often has to be adjusted to remove "noise" caused by the local environment so it can be standardized for analysis.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems provide data gathered by Earth-observation satellites. Satellite temperature data has the advantage of being gathered across the entire surface of the Earth, except for regions near the two poles, but it is unavailable for the period prior to 1978.

How do these other data sources compare to NASA?

According to Hadley's data, worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998 and the Earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.

Both the UAH and RSS satellite data agree with Hadley and show temperatures declining over the past decade with only a slight increase above the 30-year average between 1978 and 2008.

Round and round we go, when the alarmists will stop, nobody knows...

Fox Mulder forever!

There is, sadly, a lot of truth to the statement that conservatives are more likely to fall for conspiracy theories. There is iron-clad proof that Obama's birth certificate is real; despite this, conservative news sites still continue to believe "Obama's birth certificate is fake" conspiracy theories.

I'm getting borred of this thread so if you see me stop responding, you know why.

What does that have to do with the use of the term "climate change" vs. "global warming"? Nobody ever titled themselves "global warming".

It means exactly as I said, they didn't call it Climate change until after global warming deniers gained traction.

Uh, no, that doesn't have anything to do with how the IPCC was created.

it got hijacked and turned into a political organization.

The IPCC was always intended to be a political organization. That's what the "Intergovernmental" is for. It's also a scientific organization. That's what the "Climate Change" is for.

Whatever, that's how it happened, it's a political organization and it's 80%of the ammo supporting Global warming despite a lot of the scientist objecting to how it portrayed their work.

That continues to be a libelous and wrong claim, and one that you repeatedly avoid supporting with facts.

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of libel. You keep using that word and I don't think you know what it means.

Which in turn, does not negate the utility of an emission cap.

Lol... I didn't say a word about an emissions cap. We both were talking about the artificial increase of energy prices hurting the economy. If you can get an emissions cap that doesn't do that, more power to you, I will agree to it. So far, you can't and inflating energy prices is what happens which ruins the economies. Look at Europe's economy, they had to bank all their wealth on the US because of their energy inflation which hurt their economy. When the US got hit, they went down in flames too.

Again, what matters is not the absolute amount of CO2 vs. the absolute amount of water vapor. What matters is the CHANGE in CO2 vs. the change in other radiative forcing agents.

Lol.. The change in the amount of Co2 and water effect the absolute amounts. The entire premise is that the absolute amounts are causing heat to build up and therefore damage to the environment that you have arbitrarily decided needs to stay the same as you know it.

More made-up numbers. 80 or 90 percent of what, measured by what?

The absolute amount compared to other gases in the atmosphere is irrelevant to how hard or easy it is to reduce the emissions rate of any particular gas.

Measured by the publicized prophecies of the al mighty science community and reported in the press.

Again, this is wrong. It's not relevant whether CO2 is a small or large fraction of the total atmosphere. What is relevant is how hard or easy it is to alter CO2 emissions relative to the fraction by which we've increased CO2 concentrations.

Actually, no. It is very relevant. Especially when you have reports like this. I noticed it didn't get much main stream media coverage.

Feel free to justify this with actual numbers.

I don't think I need to. Other entire countries are revolting on the idea and some blamed the global recession on it.

So can any model.

Well, it appears that the models are so flawed that they can show the exact same warming trends as being blamed on Co2 without even raising Co2 levels.

Didn't we discuss the sun and water vapor a w

"If conflicts between individual users of a common resource ... cannot be resolved through the "spontaneous order" of those individuals pursuing their individual interests... a governing authority is instituted to preserve those individuals' rights and to regulate access to that shared commodity."

This is precisely what the courts are for and exactly the reason we don't have a natural monopoly providing internet access as a utility. He has nullified his own argument for regulation. I guess pundits default to Freedom of Speech when their synapses cannot make a further connection.

The fiscal year for the military is October - October. Their jobs should be safe until Christmas 2009!

They can always join Obama's 'civilian national security force'

Maybe because his parents said he was.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72656

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77268

that Obama's henchmen would detain Jerome Corsi without cause, right before he was about to release some information that might be damaging to Obama. Between this, Obama telling his supporters to get in peoples' faces, his Truth Squads threatening prosecution against pretty much anyone criticizing him on the airwaves in Missouri, and homeless people being driven to polling places and being told to vote for Obama in Ohio, it's pretty clear that there's a darker side to Obama that his media chorus doesn't want to get out.

No...please go read the link.

Carter initiated it (and wasn't all that bad in its original form)...Clinton modified it when president which started the problems with it. People like Franks exaccerbated the problem, and blocked any attempts at regulation. People like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and James Johnson, all were related to taking HUGE sums of money out of Fannie and Freddie (looking at it, looks like borderline criminal actions of cooking the books like Enron). They are now Obama related (Obama took a ton of campaign dollars from Freddie/Fannie)...Raines now advises Obama on his housing policies, and Johnson was the head of Obama's vice prez selection council.

Take a look...many people on the Obama 'team' have a history of being tied to F/F, and are neck deep in responsibility for its demise.

No wonder they were driving HARD to get money thrown out there to bail out the mess cause in large part by so many bad loans backed by these institutions.

Several years ago I worked in a very large and respectable company that shall remain unnamed (but whose name rhymes with, say, "Nokia"...) and we just shipped our turnkey system with our software AND with the source code. And the company wasn't (and still isn't, AFAIK, but don't work for them since a long time) an open-source company :o) It was a screwup by the consultant guys in India.

I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often, knowing the level of QC that happens in India and China.

oh, right, I forgot that it does indeed happen. Even nowadays (de javu).

This is probably one of the last noticeable sub-atomic discoveries made somewhere else than at CERN

Actually, this might be the last sub-atomic discovery made by mankind at all, knowing that CERN is suspected to produce a black hole and suck up the earth .

Somehow I don't expect the Web2.0 darling Wikipedia will be implementing similar measures anytime soon.

Liberals can certainly defend their positions with legitimate arguments, but generally don't.

And you went to a "major university"? Do they give refunds?

I'm not basing this on the internet per se, although that is highly relevant in this day and age. My opinions are based on the 2004 Republican National Convention protests. The nuts handing out political fliers all over the city.

Well, it's a good thing that conservatives never do crazy stuff like that.

Propaganda produced by the likes of Michael Moore.

I applaud your even-handed assault on divisive political propaganda.

My own education in a major university.

I'm going to guess that you majored in something technical and didn't spend much time in classes that discuss public policy. Getting the flavor of academic political analysis based on fliers and student club activities doesn't count.

The endless parade of media personalities.

Again, a landscape entirely dominated by liberals.

Lets not forget the hordes of hipsters with their "I hate Republicans" signs, clothing, and tattoos.

I can't imagine conservatives being so crass.

We even have anti-conservative graffiti here in NYC.

Ah, yes, vandalism. A tactic completely isolated to the left.

Last but not lease - I've personally had to deal with liberals accuse me of a wide variety of bad things. I've been told I hate the poor despite the fact I'm not particularly wealthy. I've been told I hate minorities, despite the fact I'm hispanic.

For what it's worth, I believe that I've been accused of being anti-American, even though I am an American. I've also been accused of wanting "the terrorists" to win, even though I go to work every day and specifically work on projects designed to help catch them, which is more than most of the population is doing.

I've been told I hate gays, despite the fact I'm friends with a few prominent gay men.

You mean that people were--gasp!--making a rude and unfair assumption about you based on the actions of extremist elements whose political positions you happen to sometimes share? Say it ain't so! What kind of jackass would do that? Then again, does it bother you that the party you support has done such a good job of cynically exploiting anti-gay sentiment with their "protect marriage" propaganda?

I've never in my life heard a conservative in real life say anything like that to a liberal.

Well, you're presumably out of college, so I'm guessing you're old enough to have spent some time in bars. I just don't know what to say to that except to applaud your choice in bars.

I've never met a conservative teacher...

What "major" university did you say this was, again?

...nor seen conservatives take to the streets as a show of force...

No, I suppose that when conservatives do it, it's called protesting and not "taking to the streets as a show of force."

My point is just this - these kinds of t

my understanding is that all the offshore drilling is off the Gulf Coast: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, etc

There's drilling or potential drilling sites along the US Atlantic coast as well. The Sierra Club has been trying to block exploration and drilling off the Atlantic as well as off California. Meanwhile drilling's picking up off the coast of Latin America, Africa, China and Taiwan, and in Australia especially in the Timor Gap, between Australia and East Timor. The high prices of petroleum makes drilling in these places economically feasible.

Rush Limbaugh is a habitual lier.

please bring concrete examples.

That's easy enough. People write books about his lies. Amongst them:

• The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error : Over 100 Outrageously False and Foolish Statements from America's Most Powerful Radio and TV
• The Great Limbaugh Con: And Other Right-Wing Assaults on Common Sense
• Logic and Mr. Limbaugh: A Dittohead's Guide To Fallacious Reading
• And, of course, Al Frankin's Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot.

Or, read any of Rush's own books -- but you'll have to do all the fact checking yourself. But you may be able to pick out plenty without doing a lot of research, such as when he says in See, I Told You So that "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived." (There are fewer than 2 million Americans claiming native ancestry now, but there were between 5 million and 15 million Native Americans in 1492. Or, sticking to the same theme from the same book, Rush said "There are more acres of forestland in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492." In fact, there is a quarter billion fewer acres of forest. But those aren't honest mistakes. Those are lies.

Still need evidence that he is a liar? How about Rush saying that he's glad the mid-term elections are over so that he doesn't have to lie for the Republicans anymore? "There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress. Some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at. And it has been difficult coming in here trying to make the case for it when the people who supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves."

I have no doubt that if HE had Parkinson's, HE would play up the severity of his symptoms.

you have not brought any evidence to support this claim.

Really? The only claim there is that "I have no doubt ... ." That is, it is my opinion. Consider it original research, but I assure you that it is my opinion.

The guy who championed family values has been married and divorced three times.

and what exactly is wrong with divorce? family values isn't about sticking together no matter how much you totally can't stand each other. if you would have said he cheated on his wives that would be a different matter.

Well, he met his last wife via Compuserve in 1990. In 1992 she divorced her then husband. She married Rush in 1994. In 2000, she bought a house of her own. In 2004 they were divorced. He has been married a total of 16 years to three wives and spent more than seven of those years separate from his wife. Rush told the Palm Beach Post that "Marriage is about raising children. That's the purpose of the institution." He has no children. He has no interest in making a successful marriage. He has said, "If you want a successful marriage, let your husband do what he wants to do." And that makes him a complete hypocrite.

Why not try to understand reality according to what it is, rather than according to how you would like it to be?

A good question for Rush.

the best way to get rid of racism is to stop using racist term like "African American" or "white".

Uh, no, they were asked: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39255

I believe that the U.S. government denied them permission. Too bad. They are certainly needed.