Ignore CO2 for a moment...are you honestly trying to convince me that we AREN'T doing at least SOMETHING to the planet, insofar as pollution in general is concerned? Because if you are, that's just as ignorant as claiming that we are completely destroying the planet.
Again, why can't people accept this? Why is it so hard to accept that negatively affecting the planet doesn't necessarily equal global warming?
and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere
Oh, you mean that age where giant reptiles ruled the planet and humans were nowhere to be found? Use some common sense, you git. By your logic, an ice age wouldn't matter because hey! it's happend in the past.
That being said, I agree CO2 shouldn't necessarily top the list, but it still needs attention. We are at a point where (in my opinion) global warming isn't man-made, but it will eventually become man-accelerated...which is something we can easily prevent, at least at this point.
They say alot of things. What they say and what they do, however, are often two very different things.
Just like conservatives. "We want the government out of our personal life! Unless it's abortion, marijuana, gay marriage..."
Both sides are equally corrupt...the only difference is who benefits from it. To try and claim a high ground on one side while pointing fingers at the other is the epitome of hypocrisy, ESPECIALLY in 2010.
In such a world, if China does not follow other countries into a low-carbon economy, they will be the sending trillions to those countries and paying for wars in faraway places...
...which kinda wouldn't matter. Let's step back and really look at that scenario.
OK, so say China starts paying trillions to those middle-eastern nations. What are those middle eastern nations going to do to us? Even with the proper money, they don't have the natural resources to run their own war factories, and would instead rely heavily on buying or trading large amounts of hardware from other countries.
Considering their own countries are not much more than huge deserts with a few cities here and there, it would be nigh impossible to hide that much weaponry.
They could sneak people in and set off nukes on our soil, but how many attacks like that do you think they could successfully carry out before we completely lock our country down and carpet bomb the entire middle east? It would take the full attention of their governments to accomplish setting off a nuke over here, while we could wipe the entire middle east out by punching in a few authorization codes.
If China wants a war with us, they will do it themselves...they are in a better position geographically and economically. I doub tthey would fund someone else to fight the battle in their stead.
That I 100% agree with. The true purpose of a union makes complete sense...but, like communism, an idea on paper becomes very different once you mix in realistic (and basic) human nature.
So your proposition in a reduction of CO2 is irrelevant because they find that CFCs are sole contributing factor (seemingly ignoring 'green house gas' family of pollutants).
They didn't claim CO2 is a "GOOD thing" as you put it but they say it's nothing to scale back our economy for. To reiterate, I don't agree with this, I'm just telling you of one of the routes they came to the conclusion that CO2 reduction programs should be abolished.
Sorry, I should have been less specific...I just meant why give up on scaling back our pollution in general. Thanks for the clarification though!
Exactly. I am of the opinion that while we aren't dooming ourselves, we are still causing harm based on the amount of pollution we create. We aren't going to cause a catastrophic failure of the planet, but we certainly aren't making it a healthy place to live.
Now that you are done being a smartass, would you care to respond to my main point?
People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")
See, that's the part that confuses me...sure, there are a ton of coal miners and whatnot that rely on those places being up and running...but if that power plant gets shut down and disassembled and/or if a new power plant gets built that utilizes a different type of energy, workers will be needed to do both of those jobs.
Who better than the coal miners? They already work in an extremely hazerdous environment, switching them from miners to construction workers is just a few weeks worth of training away.
urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs
Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...
People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")
Note: This is only my opinion. I have no evidence to back this up.
For the same reason why every channel on TV isn't in HD yet...developers are waiting for the public to catch up with the industry. While most PC games still aren't built from the ground up for multiple cores, they are taking increasing advantage of them. As single core CPUs are phased out (which, except for mobile and extremely-low-budget set ups, they have been), newer games are more and more optimized for it. It's only a matter of time before they are built with multi-core systems in mind. I think 2010 is going to be a big year for improvement in this area, but we won't really see ground-up multi-core designed PC games throughout the industry until 2011.
It makes perfect sense. If you have an Xbox Live Silver account, you can still buy XBLA games, TV shows, movies, or DLC...i.e. give Microsoft money. I can understand them banning hacked consoles from playing multiplayer games, but why ban them from being able to buy XBLA games, shows, etc? Microsoft already loses money from people hacking their consoles...why lose even more by not allowing those people to buy download-only content?
Microsoft loses money on the hardware sales. If you're hacking your XBox and pirating games (last time I checked their wasn't a homebrew scene for the 360, and the only reason to hack is to pirate games), then Microsoft lost money on the hardware, and can't make it up with game sales.
But they CAN make it up with online sales of XBLA and DLC purchases....sales made impossible by completely banning hacked consoles instead of just banning them from Live Gold. So the question still stands...what does Microsoft have to gain by preventing hacked consoles from paying for XBLA and DLC?
how is this different than MS banning hacked consoles from XBL
See, that whole thing really pissed me off. Instead of banning hacked consoles from Live entirely, why not just ban them from having a Gold account and allow them to keep a silver account? That way, people with hacked consoles can still pay Microsoft for downloadable games and DLC, yet can't "cheat" during multiplayer.
To what purpose does it serve to ban people from Live ENTIRELY instead of putting them on permanent silver account status? I can completely understand banning hacked consoles from multiplayer, but why ban them from the store as well?
And that, good folks, is the saddest part of technology. OP was (correctly) talking about how woefully underpowered an ATI 9800 or FX5900 are...yet at the time when they were released, they were considered the best value for the money, able to run just about any game on the market, and run it smoothly...kinda like the 8800GTs.::sigh:: oh technology of years gone by...how we lament your passing. I suspect I will feel the same way when my 4850 gets replaced, considering its value when it was new.
Our Internet service is ok, but our TV service is screwed. Frankly, my lady and I would be just fine without TV, but our room mate would not. Because we don't want to create a "you aren't paying for it so why are you watching it" kind of situation, we just agreed to pay our half. Our roomie never brought it up, and he likely wouldn't have cared if we pay for it, but meh. If it's already going to be there...
SatTV isn't an option either, as we are surrounded by trees.
I keep hearing about how unstable WinMo is...yet my HTC Ozone has never crashed or locked up on. Is it because it uses a non-skinned version of WinMo, because of superior hardware, or because people are universally silly with how they treat their gadgets, or...?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised I'm still even allowed to post, after a logical non-knee-jerk argument like my OP :-)
Ignore CO2 for a moment...are you honestly trying to convince me that we AREN'T doing at least SOMETHING to the planet, insofar as pollution in general is concerned? Because if you are, that's just as ignorant as claiming that we are completely destroying the planet.
Again, why can't people accept this? Why is it so hard to accept that negatively affecting the planet doesn't necessarily equal global warming?
and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere
Oh, you mean that age where giant reptiles ruled the planet and humans were nowhere to be found? Use some common sense, you git. By your logic, an ice age wouldn't matter because hey! it's happend in the past.
That being said, I agree CO2 shouldn't necessarily top the list, but it still needs attention. We are at a point where (in my opinion) global warming isn't man-made, but it will eventually become man-accelerated...which is something we can easily prevent, at least at this point.
They say alot of things. What they say and what they do, however, are often two very different things.
Just like conservatives. "We want the government out of our personal life! Unless it's abortion, marijuana, gay marriage..."
Both sides are equally corrupt...the only difference is who benefits from it. To try and claim a high ground on one side while pointing fingers at the other is the epitome of hypocrisy, ESPECIALLY in 2010.
In such a world, if China does not follow other countries into a low-carbon economy, they will be the sending trillions to those countries and paying for wars in faraway places ...
...which kinda wouldn't matter. Let's step back and really look at that scenario.
OK, so say China starts paying trillions to those middle-eastern nations. What are those middle eastern nations going to do to us? Even with the proper money, they don't have the natural resources to run their own war factories, and would instead rely heavily on buying or trading large amounts of hardware from other countries.
Considering their own countries are not much more than huge deserts with a few cities here and there, it would be nigh impossible to hide that much weaponry.
They could sneak people in and set off nukes on our soil, but how many attacks like that do you think they could successfully carry out before we completely lock our country down and carpet bomb the entire middle east? It would take the full attention of their governments to accomplish setting off a nuke over here, while we could wipe the entire middle east out by punching in a few authorization codes.
If China wants a war with us, they will do it themselves...they are in a better position geographically and economically. I doub tthey would fund someone else to fight the battle in their stead.
That I 100% agree with. The true purpose of a union makes complete sense...but, like communism, an idea on paper becomes very different once you mix in realistic (and basic) human nature.
So your proposition in a reduction of CO2 is irrelevant because they find that CFCs are sole contributing factor (seemingly ignoring 'green house gas' family of pollutants).
They didn't claim CO2 is a "GOOD thing" as you put it but they say it's nothing to scale back our economy for. To reiterate, I don't agree with this, I'm just telling you of one of the routes they came to the conclusion that CO2 reduction programs should be abolished.
Sorry, I should have been less specific...I just meant why give up on scaling back our pollution in general. Thanks for the clarification though!
Exactly. I am of the opinion that while we aren't dooming ourselves, we are still causing harm based on the amount of pollution we create. We aren't going to cause a catastrophic failure of the planet, but we certainly aren't making it a healthy place to live.
Now that you are done being a smartass, would you care to respond to my main point?
People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")
See, that's the part that confuses me...sure, there are a ton of coal miners and whatnot that rely on those places being up and running...but if that power plant gets shut down and disassembled and/or if a new power plant gets built that utilizes a different type of energy, workers will be needed to do both of those jobs.
Who better than the coal miners? They already work in an extremely hazerdous environment, switching them from miners to construction workers is just a few weeks worth of training away.
urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs
Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...
People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")
All these multicores barely give any real advantage to a regular gamer/desktop user at the moment.
One very significant advantage they provide to people like me is driving a game on my main display while playing back a video on my secondary monitor.
Dragon Age + Aqua Teen Hunger Force = Made of win
Note: This is only my opinion. I have no evidence to back this up.
For the same reason why every channel on TV isn't in HD yet...developers are waiting for the public to catch up with the industry. While most PC games still aren't built from the ground up for multiple cores, they are taking increasing advantage of them. As single core CPUs are phased out (which, except for mobile and extremely-low-budget set ups, they have been), newer games are more and more optimized for it. It's only a matter of time before they are built with multi-core systems in mind. I think 2010 is going to be a big year for improvement in this area, but we won't really see ground-up multi-core designed PC games throughout the industry until 2011.
My thoughts on violence in videogames
It makes perfect sense. If you have an Xbox Live Silver account, you can still buy XBLA games, TV shows, movies, or DLC...i.e. give Microsoft money. I can understand them banning hacked consoles from playing multiplayer games, but why ban them from being able to buy XBLA games, shows, etc? Microsoft already loses money from people hacking their consoles...why lose even more by not allowing those people to buy download-only content?
Microsoft loses money on the hardware sales. If you're hacking your XBox and pirating games (last time I checked their wasn't a homebrew scene for the 360, and the only reason to hack is to pirate games), then Microsoft lost money on the hardware, and can't make it up with game sales.
But they CAN make it up with online sales of XBLA and DLC purchases....sales made impossible by completely banning hacked consoles instead of just banning them from Live Gold. So the question still stands...what does Microsoft have to gain by preventing hacked consoles from paying for XBLA and DLC?
how is this different than MS banning hacked consoles from XBL
See, that whole thing really pissed me off. Instead of banning hacked consoles from Live entirely, why not just ban them from having a Gold account and allow them to keep a silver account? That way, people with hacked consoles can still pay Microsoft for downloadable games and DLC, yet can't "cheat" during multiplayer.
To what purpose does it serve to ban people from Live ENTIRELY instead of putting them on permanent silver account status? I can completely understand banning hacked consoles from multiplayer, but why ban them from the store as well?
And that, good folks, is the saddest part of technology. OP was (correctly) talking about how woefully underpowered an ATI 9800 or FX5900 are...yet at the time when they were released, they were considered the best value for the money, able to run just about any game on the market, and run it smoothly...kinda like the 8800GTs. ::sigh:: oh technology of years gone by...how we lament your passing. I suspect I will feel the same way when my 4850 gets replaced, considering its value when it was new.
Why am I not surprised it was you who posted this, BadAnalogyGuy? Your name defies your abilities, good sir.
I see we're still dressing in the dark, Eugene.
Our Internet service is ok, but our TV service is screwed. Frankly, my lady and I would be just fine without TV, but our room mate would not. Because we don't want to create a "you aren't paying for it so why are you watching it" kind of situation, we just agreed to pay our half. Our roomie never brought it up, and he likely wouldn't have cared if we pay for it, but meh. If it's already going to be there...
SatTV isn't an option either, as we are surrounded by trees.
2007 called. They want their April Fool's joke back.
Because of people like me who live in an area where my choices are Comcast or Dial-up.
How about Conglom-O?
I keep hearing about how unstable WinMo is...yet my HTC Ozone has never crashed or locked up on. Is it because it uses a non-skinned version of WinMo, because of superior hardware, or because people are universally silly with how they treat their gadgets, or...?