Well, considering the government is spending 170 million on security, which includes a lot of technological crap - such as choppers flying around blocking mobile phone signals, it seems important to note that all you need is 3 cars, a couple of flags, and a fake sticker to bypass all that security... I know it isn't massively relevant, but it is funny.
Why pay $450? All we used to do was throw our camp supplied industrial size cans of tuna, baked beans, and spaghetti onto the camp fire.... and run! Just beware the flying lid shrapnel.. oh yeah.. and hot tuna... not great on the nose either.
Hey buddy, look at your keyboard, look at your LCD, look down at your Nike shoes, you know how you paid a lot for them, I'll tell you a secret.... the poor guy who made them made only $2 a day!!! Shhshh... don't tell anyone, exploitation of workers in poor developing countries will just be our little secret... ; P
The PR campaign is gearing up here in Aus for the launch, theres an article in todays paper trying to tell me how Sony is giving us Aussies special treatment by giving us a free Bond DVD and free download of GT:HD (both things that as far as I was aware were available to all regions)
FTA:
The launch of Sony's PlayStation 3 next month will be accompanied by a host of freebies that Sony hopes will take the sting out of the game console's $999 price tag.
The James Bond film Casino Royale will be offered free to the first 20,000 buyers who register their PS3 online. Additionally the game Gran Turismo: HD will be available to all PS3 buyers as a free download from the PlayStation Network.
No-Fly Zone Spolied the Day!!..
on
Spamming Google Maps
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Turns out that Google didnt think the plan through, with several portions of Sydney being deemed a no-fly zone on the day - in particular several parks and beaches such as Bondi Beach - where many people congregated to create large signs. One company even spent $10,000 on a sign, only to miss out!!
It is true that retailers cutting prices of the PS3 may suggest Sony has some problems in people adopting the console. However I think a better indication will be the future launches coming up. Here in Australia, the PS3 will launch (due to delay) in March 07 - this means that the Australian public can make a much more informed decision when buying the console, taking into consideration the issues reported online, and in the papers. I think the public reaction here may give a good indication of how the bad publicity the console has received post-launch is effecting sales... Watch this space...
Have to agree with the parent, Yakult has been sold here in Australia for at least the last 10 years. However by the sounds of it, your Dairy Dept. in the USA sounds pretty horrible. If every cheese you have over there is like that plastic "Ämerican Cheese" crap they put on my Subway, theres no wonder your amazed at the prospect of bacteria in your dairy!
Congratulations! youré anexample of the type of person I'm talking about.
You want me to demonstrate firstly:
" That climate change is more damaging than the cost of mitigating it."
The only way you will know for sure what effects climate change will have, is to sit back and let it happen - which you are willing to do, because you're not quite sure whether the cost of changing the way we are living will outweight the negative consequences of doing nothing. Ok what, so if climate change only leads to the death of what, 10,000 people, does that outweight 1 Billion dollars spend in R&D to mitigate change? Or what about things like the Artic, how much value do you put on that? Give us a price mate, clearly you have some ideas about what is worth saving and what isn't. Whats the most expensive item on your list? Please do tell, how much are you willing to spend to stop the artic melting, I'd like a figure, or how about how much you'd like to spend to ensure where your family lives doesnt end up under water??
Also, Demonstrate it's... sufficiently urgent to act now rather than gather info for a more sophisticated response down the road."
Right, "sufficiently urgent", are you a politician? 95 out of 100 cliamte change researchers agree that global warming is a) real, b) happening now c) requires action. James Hansen is the worlds leading researcher on global warming, has been researching for over 30 years, oh yeah and by the way he is head of NASA institute that studies climate change. Hansen has theory that we have 10 years to change what we are doing until it becomes unstoppable.
Now if the worlds leading researcher of global warming, is saying its "sufficiently urgent" to start acting now, what further info are you waiting for? You wanna wait till it cant be stopped? Explain to be what the benefit is of waiting for a more sophisticated response, when right now we know what can be done to halt the process? Please tell me what a more sophisticated response will do for us? And you cant say a) save money, or b ) not impact my lifestyle - because unfortunately, those things shouldnt be more important to you than stopping something that has the potential to destroy the current environment you live in.
Finally, I am not attacking a "belief system" - denying that global warming is real or a threat is not a "belief system", its a belief, and I am interested in discussing what would lead people who are not educated in the area of global warming (yeah that means you) to disregard what the world leading researchers in the field of global warming are recommending.
Maybe the use of analogy will reiterate the stupidity of the "lets wait and see" approach.. How about if you had cancer, the Doctors tell you that its a tumor in your brain, they know its bad, but they cant predict how quickly it will progress or what effects it will have on your ability to live. They tell you that without treatment, you may live 2 - 5 years, or maybe 10, who knows? Or they can treat you with radiation, its not pleasant, and its costly but they are confident having the treatment is the best option in prolonging the length and quality of your life. Your third option, is to wait 2 years because there may be a new treatment thats created which is less of a pain than the radiation treatment. You'll run the risk of the cancer spreading and you dieing, and also the likelihood of losing quality of life due to your brain being attacked - but on the plus, you'll save money, and you wont have the unpleasant treatment - but then, you may die waiting for the new easy option treatment to be created.
Honestly, try and tell me you would sit and wait for a magical new treatment, and risk your life, and your quality of life - when there is already a solution available. You cant. No one would. You'd be lying. But thats what your arguing to do with cliamte change, just wing it, ignore the experts, because it costs too much, you like your SUV, maybe someone will invent some new clean energy source in the next 20 years.... Its stupid. You wouldnt risk it with your own life, so why the hell are you happy to risk it with something that doesnt effect just you, but EVERYONE? Because you dont want to make the personal sacrifice - and thats lame!
Why debate?.. Is a good question. The evidence supporting climate change seems overwhelming and in cases such as this - alarming. Yet even on/., a site which is, in its simplest form, a community of people with more scientific and technical knowledge/interests than your average Joe.. there are those who still try and argue that nothing should be done, or its got nothing to do with human activity, or Al gore is teh suck so therefore global warming is BS.
I think its a psychological issue. Why in the face of overwhelming evidence do people try and deny what is occurring and, more importantly, argue against taking action "till we know for sure".
Well I think there are two types of people who argue against global warming:
1) Those that stand to lose financially if the global attitude and approach to the environment changed
2) And secondly, those that enjoy their current way of life, eg. their SUV for the baby seat. These people may be well educated, they may even post on/. They are capable of having some understanding of the science behind the evidence and the warnings - yet in spite of this they try and deny the evidence and ignore the warnings. I believe perhaps their sub-conscious suppresses the fact that really they agree with the evidence, and the warnings - but if the conscious were to accept that, it would create a massive internal conflict: Because people will always try and avoid the feeling of guilt, they don't like feeling they have contributed to this major problem - and they don't want to give up their comfortable life of the SUV and air conditioner to change it. So they suppress their understanding, and deny the evidence, to avoid the guilt, to avoid the feeling of doom, to avoid feeling obligated to sacrifice the lifestyle - and instead they become the people with those hollow arguments: "the models aren't perfect so we cant know for sure"," its all cyclical..really", "ïts too late to do anything anyway", "its just political nonsense".. etc.. etc.. etc.
The issue is, this is not a conscious process, so just telling the people who fall in category 2 that they are only arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence because their subconscious is trying to help them avoid a massive internal conflict, wont solve the problem.
"* One of the founders of Greenpeace supports nuclear power"
This isn't an amazing revelation. Nuclear power isn't the risky business it is portrayed to be when managed correctly. Nuclear power is a cleaner energy source than having several coal plants. So if your option is having one nuclear plant supplying several cities, or several coal fuled power plants which pump out massive amounts of carbon dioxide for those same cities - it would seem that supporting nuclear power is not ridiclous for someone who is pro-environment. It is this realistic approach which is needed, we can just magically conjure up enough wind farms to support all our power required, but we can use nuclear power which is cleaner than coal until power sources such as wind and solar become more efficient.
Of course I cite political agendas, CEI is a political group acting on behalf of organizations, they are funded by oil companies, so they will present a study, and data, to support that bias. You say not to shoot the messenger, I think its pretty clear that the current debate is all about the messenger. Al Gore is doing this movie because so far, the nature of the messenger has meant global warming has been ignored. People dont listen to radical environmentalists calling for an end to all cars and zero logging because mother earth weeps with pain and will die in 10 years, they are disregarded as being crazy sensationalists. Just like people realise, and disregard groups like CEI who have clear agendas and are only interested in protecting big business - they are full of crap and will "fund" studies to prove their point. In this movie and his lecture tour, Gore is filling the middle ground, he is educated, a public figure who has a voice, is passionate for the cause, and he understands that we must take into consideration the importance of business and the economy when finding a solution. In this sense, Gore is a great messenger, and i think its why the mesage is finally being heard.
To suggest the messenger is not important is naive, but its is more naive to believe the ramblings of an oil company funded study that comes from a guy who only has a degree in government policy (not science!) and works for for a pro-business anti-legistlation group.
- Ok, but, you do realise that the Competitve Enterprise Institute is a group, they call themselves a "think tank" that champions the cause of big business and desires open markets, right? They are exactly the ones that stand to lose from accepting global warming as a real threat - or rather, if we start doing something about it. If you cared to check the history of the organization, you will see that their triumphs all involve sueing to remove, or sueing to stop the introduction of regulations which harm the bottom line of big businesses: including.. tobacco, alcohol, motor companies,GM food companies, and what do you know... the oil/gas companies. What would you expect from a "group" that in their history state:
"In March 2001, CEI helps convince the Bush Administration not to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant." - Yeah, no bias what so ever.
Furthermore, they also have a long standing beef with Al Gore... from 1992...
In CEI's "Competitive Enterprise Index," an annual ranking of congressional votes on economic issues, Al Gore ranks lowest in the Senate for the second time in three years. CEI zings Gore for "increased spending, higher taxes, greater regulation, and more political interference in the marketplace." His score of seven points out of 100 puts him dangerously close to the "0-zone."
That quote is from 1992 of their history, found here:
http://www.cei.org/pages/history.cfm/
Examples of their quests to stop regualtion of businessa re numerous, are few as follows:
From 1992, stopping regulation of car size which was attempting to reduce fuel consumption, by arguing smaller cars lead to more road deaths: "independent researchers found that CAFE, by forcing car manufacturers to make vehicles smaller and lighter to comply with higher fuel economy standards, led to an increase in the number of highway deaths per year."p/>
Another, 1996, for alcohol companies:
"CEI enters the alcohol beverage business with Vino Veritas Freedom of Speech Wine, Stout Heart Beer, and Be an Old Grand-Dad Whiskey, setting the stage for its First Amendment suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms over telling the truth about moderate alcohol consumption--namely, that it can be good for you."
Yes, emphasis on CAN, one glass of red wine can be good for you, bottles of whiskey and kegs of beer - not so.
Again, from 2001,
"CEI's Ben Lieberman testifies before Congress on the increase in gasoline prices. He points out that the Clean Air Act's 1990 amendments' gasoline composition mandates--which vary throughout the country--and the Act's New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards programs--which impose stringent requirements on the building of new refineries and the expansion of older facilities--bear much of responsibility for the spike at the pumps."
Arguing that clean air policies increases petrol prices so as to promote anti clean air policy among voters and politicians... pretty obvious what stance this group will have on global warming given that what some of the solutions are.
From 2003,
"Also in September, CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. and CEI Senior Fellow Iain Murray brief Andrei Illarionov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's top economic adviser, shortly before the United Nations World Climate Change Conference in Moscow. At the conference, Putin declines to set a date by which Russia would ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Then in December, Illarionov announced that Russia would not ratify Kyoto "in its present form." Congratulations, this group convinced a nation NOT to sign Kyoto, again pretty clear what their agenda is.
Im pretty sure i dont need to go on.... their agenda is clear.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.harrykey.com/blogs/the-htc-hd2-review-demon-phone/ ... reviewer has clearly never felt the wonder that is the hollow within a beautiful woman..
Well, considering the government is spending 170 million on security, which includes a lot of technological crap - such as choppers flying around blocking mobile phone signals, it seems important to note that all you need is 3 cars, a couple of flags, and a fake sticker to bypass all that security... I know it isn't massively relevant, but it is funny.
Why pay $450? All we used to do was throw our camp supplied industrial size cans of tuna, baked beans, and spaghetti onto the camp fire.... and run! Just beware the flying lid shrapnel.. oh yeah.. and hot tuna... not great on the nose either.
Hey buddy, look at your keyboard, look at your LCD, look down at your Nike shoes, you know how you paid a lot for them, I'll tell you a secret.... the poor guy who made them made only $2 a day!!! Shhshh... don't tell anyone, exploitation of workers in poor developing countries will just be our little secret... ; P
FTA: The launch of Sony's PlayStation 3 next month will be accompanied by a host of freebies that Sony hopes will take the sting out of the game console's $999 price tag. The James Bond film Casino Royale will be offered free to the first 20,000 buyers who register their PS3 online. Additionally the game Gran Turismo: HD will be available to all PS3 buyers as a free download from the PlayStation Network.
Article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/games/sony-unveils-play station-sweetners/2007/02/22/1171733923601.html
Turns out that Google didnt think the plan through, with several portions of Sydney being deemed a no-fly zone on the day - in particular several parks and beaches such as Bondi Beach - where many people congregated to create large signs. One company even spent $10,000 on a sign, only to miss out!!
See article here:http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/google-botch-sy dney-flyover/2007/01/29/1169919256978.html/
It is true that retailers cutting prices of the PS3 may suggest Sony has some problems in people adopting the console. However I think a better indication will be the future launches coming up. Here in Australia, the PS3 will launch (due to delay) in March 07 - this means that the Australian public can make a much more informed decision when buying the console, taking into consideration the issues reported online, and in the papers. I think the public reaction here may give a good indication of how the bad publicity the console has received post-launch is effecting sales. .. Watch this space...
Have to agree with the parent, Yakult has been sold here in Australia for at least the last 10 years. However by the sounds of it, your Dairy Dept. in the USA sounds pretty horrible. If every cheese you have over there is like that plastic "Ämerican Cheese" crap they put on my Subway, theres no wonder your amazed at the prospect of bacteria in your dairy!
The only way you will know for sure what effects climate change will have, is to sit back and let it happen - which you are willing to do, because you're not quite sure whether the cost of changing the way we are living will outweight the negative consequences of doing nothing. Ok what, so if climate change only leads to the death of what, 10,000 people, does that outweight 1 Billion dollars spend in R&D to mitigate change? Or what about things like the Artic, how much value do you put on that? Give us a price mate, clearly you have some ideas about what is worth saving and what isn't. Whats the most expensive item on your list? Please do tell, how much are you willing to spend to stop the artic melting, I'd like a figure, or how about how much you'd like to spend to ensure where your family lives doesnt end up under water??
Also, Demonstrate it's... sufficiently urgent to act now rather than gather info for a more sophisticated response down the road."Right, "sufficiently urgent", are you a politician? 95 out of 100 cliamte change researchers agree that global warming is a) real, b) happening now c) requires action. James Hansen is the worlds leading researcher on global warming, has been researching for over 30 years, oh yeah and by the way he is head of NASA institute that studies climate change. Hansen has theory that we have 10 years to change what we are doing until it becomes unstoppable. Now if the worlds leading researcher of global warming, is saying its "sufficiently urgent" to start acting now, what further info are you waiting for? You wanna wait till it cant be stopped? Explain to be what the benefit is of waiting for a more sophisticated response, when right now we know what can be done to halt the process? Please tell me what a more sophisticated response will do for us? And you cant say a) save money, or b ) not impact my lifestyle - because unfortunately, those things shouldnt be more important to you than stopping something that has the potential to destroy the current environment you live in.
Finally, I am not attacking a "belief system" - denying that global warming is real or a threat is not a "belief system", its a belief, and I am interested in discussing what would lead people who are not educated in the area of global warming (yeah that means you) to disregard what the world leading researchers in the field of global warming are recommending.
Maybe the use of analogy will reiterate the stupidity of the "lets wait and see" approach.. How about if you had cancer, the Doctors tell you that its a tumor in your brain, they know its bad, but they cant predict how quickly it will progress or what effects it will have on your ability to live. They tell you that without treatment, you may live 2 - 5 years, or maybe 10, who knows? Or they can treat you with radiation, its not pleasant, and its costly but they are confident having the treatment is the best option in prolonging the length and quality of your life. Your third option, is to wait 2 years because there may be a new treatment thats created which is less of a pain than the radiation treatment. You'll run the risk of the cancer spreading and you dieing, and also the likelihood of losing quality of life due to your brain being attacked - but on the plus, you'll save money, and you wont have the unpleasant treatment - but then, you may die waiting for the new easy option treatment to be created.
Honestly, try and tell me you would sit and wait for a magical new treatment, and risk your life, and your quality of life - when there is already a solution available. You cant. No one would. You'd be lying. But thats what your arguing to do with cliamte change, just wing it, ignore the experts, because it costs too much, you like your SUV, maybe someone will invent some new clean energy source in the next 20 years.... Its stupid. You wouldnt risk it with your own life, so why the hell are you happy to risk it with something that doesnt effect just you, but EVERYONE? Because you dont want to make the personal sacrifice - and thats lame!Why debate? .. Is a good question. The evidence supporting climate change seems overwhelming and in cases such as this - alarming. Yet even on /., a site which is, in its simplest form, a community of people with more scientific and technical knowledge/interests than your average Joe.. there are those who still try and argue that nothing should be done, or its got nothing to do with human activity, or Al gore is teh suck so therefore global warming is BS.
I think its a psychological issue. Why in the face of overwhelming evidence do people try and deny what is occurring and, more importantly, argue against taking action "till we know for sure".
Well I think there are two types of people who argue against global warming:
1) Those that stand to lose financially if the global attitude and approach to the environment changed
2) And secondly, those that enjoy their current way of life, eg. their SUV for the baby seat. These people may be well educated, they may even post on /. They are capable of having some understanding of the science behind the evidence and the warnings - yet in spite of this they try and deny the evidence and ignore the warnings. I believe perhaps their sub-conscious suppresses the fact that really they agree with the evidence, and the warnings - but if the conscious were to accept that, it would create a massive internal conflict: Because people will always try and avoid the feeling of guilt, they don't like feeling they have contributed to this major problem - and they don't want to give up their comfortable life of the SUV and air conditioner to change it. So they suppress their understanding, and deny the evidence, to avoid the guilt, to avoid the feeling of doom, to avoid feeling obligated to sacrifice the lifestyle - and instead they become the people with those hollow arguments: "the models aren't perfect so we cant know for sure"," its all cyclical..really", "ïts too late to do anything anyway", "its just political nonsense" .. etc.. etc.. etc.
The issue is, this is not a conscious process, so just telling the people who fall in category 2 that they are only arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence because their subconscious is trying to help them avoid a massive internal conflict, wont solve the problem.
Interestingly, this article http://www.theage.com.au/news/home-theatre/highdef -porn-has-stars-spooked/2007/01/15/1168709667041.h tml/
suggests that although the porn producers/directors may be happy about HD, a few of the stars aren't that sure about it all..
Also, you know if Apple are sending their Rep's to the porno convention, we should be watching this space... perhaps more so than we do now.. ; P
"* One of the founders of Greenpeace supports nuclear power"
This isn't an amazing revelation. Nuclear power isn't the risky business it is portrayed to be when managed correctly. Nuclear power is a cleaner energy source than having several coal plants. So if your option is having one nuclear plant supplying several cities, or several coal fuled power plants which pump out massive amounts of carbon dioxide for those same cities - it would seem that supporting nuclear power is not ridiclous for someone who is pro-environment.
It is this realistic approach which is needed, we can just magically conjure up enough wind farms to support all our power required, but we can use nuclear power which is cleaner than coal until power sources such as wind and solar become more efficient.
To suggest the messenger is not important is naive, but its is more naive to believe the ramblings of an oil company funded study that comes from a guy who only has a degree in government policy (not science!) and works for for a pro-business anti-legistlation group.
- Ok, but, you do realise that the Competitve Enterprise Institute is a group, they call themselves a "think tank" that champions the cause of big business and desires open markets, right? They are exactly the ones that stand to lose from accepting global warming as a real threat - or rather, if we start doing something about it. If you cared to check the history of the organization, you will see that their triumphs all involve sueing to remove, or sueing to stop the introduction of regulations which harm the bottom line of big businesses: including.. tobacco, alcohol, motor companies,GM food companies, and what do you know... the oil/gas companies. What would you expect from a "group" that in their history state: "In March 2001, CEI helps convince the Bush Administration not to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant." - Yeah, no bias what so ever.
Furthermore, they also have a long standing beef with Al Gore... from 1992... In CEI's "Competitive Enterprise Index," an annual ranking of congressional votes on economic issues, Al Gore ranks lowest in the Senate for the second time in three years. CEI zings Gore for "increased spending, higher taxes, greater regulation, and more political interference in the marketplace." His score of seven points out of 100 puts him dangerously close to the "0-zone." That quote is from 1992 of their history, found here: http://www.cei.org/pages/history.cfm/
Examples of their quests to stop regualtion of businessa re numerous, are few as follows: From 1992, stopping regulation of car size which was attempting to reduce fuel consumption, by arguing smaller cars lead to more road deaths: "independent researchers found that CAFE, by forcing car manufacturers to make vehicles smaller and lighter to comply with higher fuel economy standards, led to an increase in the number of highway deaths per year."p/>
Another, 1996, for alcohol companies: "CEI enters the alcohol beverage business with Vino Veritas Freedom of Speech Wine, Stout Heart Beer, and Be an Old Grand-Dad Whiskey, setting the stage for its First Amendment suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms over telling the truth about moderate alcohol consumption--namely, that it can be good for you." Yes, emphasis on CAN, one glass of red wine can be good for you, bottles of whiskey and kegs of beer - not so.
Again, from 2001, "CEI's Ben Lieberman testifies before Congress on the increase in gasoline prices. He points out that the Clean Air Act's 1990 amendments' gasoline composition mandates--which vary throughout the country--and the Act's New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards programs--which impose stringent requirements on the building of new refineries and the expansion of older facilities--bear much of responsibility for the spike at the pumps." Arguing that clean air policies increases petrol prices so as to promote anti clean air policy among voters and politicians... pretty obvious what stance this group will have on global warming given that what some of the solutions are.
From 2003, "Also in September, CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. and CEI Senior Fellow Iain Murray brief Andrei Illarionov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's top economic adviser, shortly before the United Nations World Climate Change Conference in Moscow. At the conference, Putin declines to set a date by which Russia would ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Then in December, Illarionov announced that Russia would not ratify Kyoto "in its present form." Congratulations, this group convinced a nation NOT to sign Kyoto, again pretty clear what their agenda is.
Im pretty sure i dont need to go on.... their agenda is clear.
Guzz.