Are you telling me the ice age scare was a media phenomenon? But of course global warming (not relabled climate change because the initial label was no longer accurate) could NOT be the same media phenomenon? Looks like you're choosing to only accept the evidence that support the argument you want to believe, doesn't it?
If you have any scientific basis for the ice age scare, feel free to prove the author of the website I linked to wrong. So far I've seen nothing, which makes it a media phenomenon.
AGW, on the other hand, has an enormous amount of scientific material published. This is a simple fact, regardless of whether you think the material is ocrrect or not. While AGW is also a media phenomenon to some extent, it's not primarily one. It's based on science, first and foremost.
I for one think this is all another media induced snowball supported by FLIMSY and narrowly viewed evidence. The pro-AGW theory has spawned cult-like behavior that allows no dissent, and to me that usually means that there's something wrong with the theory.
I agree that some AGW proponents can be overly zealous. So can AGW sceptics, who then become AGW deniers. I'm not really interested in ignorant lip-flappers from either side, only the science and the politics that is firmly based on science.
If previous effects under similar or worse conditions were not harmful, then whether or not the current trend is anthropogenic is immaterial.
True, if they're not harmful. But also if the warming progresses in the same way. Pretty big ifs, or maybe not. We know a lot about the dangers of increased global temperatures. I find it ironic that the dangers of decreasing temperatures (the ice age you write about) are so obvious, but not increasing temperatures.
They must have existed, they must have written things, but it seems they've been swept under the rug.
A claim that they "must have" existed but have been "swept under the rug" is a conspiration theory and means nothing. You have nothing solid to refute that the ice age scare of the 70s was a media phenomenon, not a serious scientific concern.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a very controversial documentary and has been heavily criticized by climate scientists, among many others. I won't wave An Inconvenient Truth in your face, so please don't wave your crap in mine.
You misunderstand the NOAA quote. They don't claim that the warming 6000 years ago is responsible for today's warming. What the are claiming is that we know the cause of the warming 6000 years ago, and it's not the same as today's warming.
You also missed the point of the page about the 70s ice age. It clearly states that it's about scientific studies, not media and tv programs.
If you actually mean "discredited" and not "refuted", I think that you're the one guilty of politisizing this issue.
I find it completely outrageous that one side's profits are so suspicious, but the other side's (the oil industry's) is beyond doubt, even though they realistically must have much more money riding on the outcome of the AGW debate.
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
While there are indeed many who look to governments for solutions on climate change, claiming they are somehow the only option is obviously false. Lots of people look to private interests for solutions, and they have them in droves.
I could be wrong, but I think government regulation has helped us before. By banning CFCs governments helped save us from the ozone hole. But it was scientists and manufacturers who gave us the alternative solutions. Who misses his freedom to own a fridge packed with CFCs today?
Some people put too much trust in the capabilities of the government, but who else is going to regulate dangerous substances and pollution? We simply have to be as watchful with the government as we are with corporations, but while we acknowledge hat they both have roles to play.
To be fair, not a lot of program use is very productive. How productive is iTunes, for example? Also, all those songs cost you money, for no good return, and they take many hours to listen to.
You should be able to play offline quite easily, although there are a few steps to take to ensure that you can.
Personally, I think Steam's DRM is unobtrusive enough and it doesn't bog down my system. But more importantly, Steam is where PC gaming growth is happening, along with quite a lot of innovation. DRM is a fly in the otherwise rich gaming soup that is Steam, but I can live with it. Valve seem to have a much better view of DRM than most other gaming companies. I'd rather support them than some big gaming store chain.
I would prefer games to come without DRM and gamers to pay for their games, but until that happens, Steam is the best there is.
Conversations? Bah, back in my day, we used to grunt and throw rocks at each other to communicate. Then som smart whipper-snapper like you came along with his fancy language, destroying our fine old traditions.
But how to progress from there? It seems it would only be possible with cursing. Combine this with a generation of scientists who are gamers and the name of the ultimate telescope is already given.
We used to DREAM of having three letters. When I went to school, we only had one letter, and we only used that on exam days. Every other day, we drew pictures on the ceiling with our bloody toes, which we had to gnaw off ourselves.
You try and tell young people of today that, and they won't believe you.
Back in my day, we wrote on each other's naked backs with our bloody-stumped fingers. And we didn't have all your fancy letters either — we had to get by with three.
Sounds good if you can do it, but the clients I work with would probably protest if I charge hundreds of euros to what they see as putting a PayPal link on their site.
I agree, billing hourly is bad, at least to begin with. I never do a web project by the hour, even if it's very hard to come up with a fair estimate of the work needed.
I do however bill hourly for follow-up work after the contract is finished. Additions and corrections that can be done in a day's time or so go by the hour because setting up a whole new agreement for small projects is too unwieldly. My clients are usually fine with that, because they value the flexibility. Also, it keeps them in check somewhat, so they don't have someone call me for every little misspelled word they find.
When agreeing on the contract, make sure your client knows exactly what's expected of them too. I used to be very clear about my part, but less clear of what I required to fulfill it, like content, design and marketing decisions, etc. Now I always make it very clear that I will do the job in a timely manner only if the client meets his side of the agreement. Otherwise you always risk taking a lot of undeserved shit and have other people's deadlines forced on you. If you don't have what you need and can't do your job, you can always point to the initial agreement and take some heat off yourself. Then you have the option of offering to be nice and put in some extra hours or some such, potentially benefitting from other people's problems rather than suffering for them.
Perhaps this is obvious, but I was thrown into freelancing and was a bit naive about how my clients understand the web and their own capacity. They don't understand the web at all, it turns out, and their own capacity is usually only slightly better understood.
...taking advice
from a woman on what she wants in someone to actually have sex with is like asking the Devil for advice on avoiding sin - it will always lead you wrong.
And what will taking advice on girls and sex from a Slashdotter do for you?
Not the nerdy girls I've known. I guess I see things differently without such strict views of the sexes.
With nerd culture going mainstream, the fat, ugly male nerd is more and more a stereotype. I see all kinds of kids playing games nowadays. Studies have shown that gamers do more sports on average than people in general.
As for the girls, there's no shortage of fascination with nerd girls among boys, so even if you're strictly biologist as you are, it shouldn't be too hard to meet such critera in a growing, diversifying nerd culture. If you account for less simplistic factors for picking partners, such as social and intellectual compatibility, there's no reason at all to have your dim view of things.
Unless of course it's an american thing. It seems your jock culture is pretty unique. It's not nearly as strong here.
As young women become more independent and less restrained by traditional gender roles, this will change. In fact, it's already changing. When I went to school, there hardly any female nerds at all, and I had very litle in common with most girls. Now they seem to be everywhere and growing in numbers. While nerds always will be nerds, what was once nerdy has become mainstream and thus more accepted and understood.
So while I don't doubt certain people work just like you say, I think far from all do. With less strict gender roles it would be even better.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you telling me the ice age scare was a media phenomenon? But of course global warming (not relabled climate change because the initial label was no longer accurate) could NOT be the same media phenomenon? Looks like you're choosing to only accept the evidence that support the argument you want to believe, doesn't it?
If you have any scientific basis for the ice age scare, feel free to prove the author of the website I linked to wrong. So far I've seen nothing, which makes it a media phenomenon.
AGW, on the other hand, has an enormous amount of scientific material published. This is a simple fact, regardless of whether you think the material is ocrrect or not. While AGW is also a media phenomenon to some extent, it's not primarily one. It's based on science, first and foremost.
I for one think this is all another media induced snowball supported by FLIMSY and narrowly viewed evidence. The pro-AGW theory has spawned cult-like behavior that allows no dissent, and to me that usually means that there's something wrong with the theory.
I agree that some AGW proponents can be overly zealous. So can AGW sceptics, who then become AGW deniers. I'm not really interested in ignorant lip-flappers from either side, only the science and the politics that is firmly based on science.
If previous effects under similar or worse conditions were not harmful, then whether or not the current trend is anthropogenic is immaterial.
True, if they're not harmful. But also if the warming progresses in the same way. Pretty big ifs, or maybe not. We know a lot about the dangers of increased global temperatures. I find it ironic that the dangers of decreasing temperatures (the ice age you write about) are so obvious, but not increasing temperatures.
They must have existed, they must have written things, but it seems they've been swept under the rug.
A claim that they "must have" existed but have been "swept under the rug" is a conspiration theory and means nothing. You have nothing solid to refute that the ice age scare of the 70s was a media phenomenon, not a serious scientific concern.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a very controversial documentary and has been heavily criticized by climate scientists, among many others. I won't wave An Inconvenient Truth in your face, so please don't wave your crap in mine.
You misunderstand the NOAA quote. They don't claim that the warming 6000 years ago is responsible for today's warming. What the are claiming is that we know the cause of the warming 6000 years ago, and it's not the same as today's warming.
You also missed the point of the page about the 70s ice age. It clearly states that it's about scientific studies, not media and tv programs.
Link?
If you actually mean "discredited" and not "refuted", I think that you're the one guilty of politisizing this issue.
I find it completely outrageous that one side's profits are so suspicious, but the other side's (the oil industry's) is beyond doubt, even though they realistically must have much more money riding on the outcome of the AGW debate.
The hockey stick has been updated with better data, finding that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years.
Here's what NOAA has to say about the holocene maximum:
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
Climatologists did not worry about an imminent ice age in the 70s. It's a myth.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The leaders and councils are obviously fools, but there are many things the UN actually does well.
Weather != Climate
While there are indeed many who look to governments for solutions on climate change, claiming they are somehow the only option is obviously false. Lots of people look to private interests for solutions, and they have them in droves.
I could be wrong, but I think government regulation has helped us before. By banning CFCs governments helped save us from the ozone hole. But it was scientists and manufacturers who gave us the alternative solutions. Who misses his freedom to own a fridge packed with CFCs today?
Some people put too much trust in the capabilities of the government, but who else is going to regulate dangerous substances and pollution? We simply have to be as watchful with the government as we are with corporations, but while we acknowledge hat they both have roles to play.
Some call it "global wierding" instead, which seems more fitting.
Smog, the ozone layer and acid rain are not alarming problems anymore because we actually did something about them.
They were all fought with emission standards and regulations that forced the industry to adapt.
Besides the obvious environmental benefits, you get stuff like fridges that not only are ozone-friendly, but are much more efficient than before.
Global warming can be dealt with and will likewise bring us benefits. But we have to do something about it.
To be fair, not a lot of program use is very productive. How productive is iTunes, for example? Also, all those songs cost you money, for no good return, and they take many hours to listen to.
You should be able to play offline quite easily, although there are a few steps to take to ensure that you can. Personally, I think Steam's DRM is unobtrusive enough and it doesn't bog down my system. But more importantly, Steam is where PC gaming growth is happening, along with quite a lot of innovation. DRM is a fly in the otherwise rich gaming soup that is Steam, but I can live with it. Valve seem to have a much better view of DRM than most other gaming companies. I'd rather support them than some big gaming store chain. I would prefer games to come without DRM and gamers to pay for their games, but until that happens, Steam is the best there is.
Conversations? Bah, back in my day, we used to grunt and throw rocks at each other to communicate. Then som smart whipper-snapper like you came along with his fancy language, destroying our fine old traditions.
Am I the only one to notice the irony of having a guy named Agent Lawless at the Justice Department?
Nominative determinism strikes again!
But how to progress from there? It seems it would only be possible with cursing. Combine this with a generation of scientists who are gamers and the name of the ultimate telescope is already given.
The BFT.
We used to DREAM of having three letters. When I went to school, we only had one letter, and we only used that on exam days. Every other day, we drew pictures on the ceiling with our bloody toes, which we had to gnaw off ourselves.
You try and tell young people of today that, and they won't believe you.
Back in my day, we wrote on each other's naked backs with our bloody-stumped fingers. And we didn't have all your fancy letters either — we had to get by with three.
Sounds good if you can do it, but the clients I work with would probably protest if I charge hundreds of euros to what they see as putting a PayPal link on their site.
I agree, billing hourly is bad, at least to begin with. I never do a web project by the hour, even if it's very hard to come up with a fair estimate of the work needed.
I do however bill hourly for follow-up work after the contract is finished. Additions and corrections that can be done in a day's time or so go by the hour because setting up a whole new agreement for small projects is too unwieldly. My clients are usually fine with that, because they value the flexibility. Also, it keeps them in check somewhat, so they don't have someone call me for every little misspelled word they find.
When agreeing on the contract, make sure your client knows exactly what's expected of them too. I used to be very clear about my part, but less clear of what I required to fulfill it, like content, design and marketing decisions, etc. Now I always make it very clear that I will do the job in a timely manner only if the client meets his side of the agreement. Otherwise you always risk taking a lot of undeserved shit and have other people's deadlines forced on you. If you don't have what you need and can't do your job, you can always point to the initial agreement and take some heat off yourself. Then you have the option of offering to be nice and put in some extra hours or some such, potentially benefitting from other people's problems rather than suffering for them.
Perhaps this is obvious, but I was thrown into freelancing and was a bit naive about how my clients understand the web and their own capacity. They don't understand the web at all, it turns out, and their own capacity is usually only slightly better understood.
No, there are many things the UN does well. Also, the Oil For Food Program did accomplish its humanitarian goal, despite the corruption. The UN had no authority or the resources to stop smuggling, although it did warn about it. The nations responsible for it, among them the US and UK, didn't do much about it at the time, however.
I'm not sure that I'd like men in blue helmets watching the skies, but their incompetence and corrupion is exaggerated.
...taking advice from a woman on what she wants in someone to actually have sex with is like asking the Devil for advice on avoiding sin - it will always lead you wrong.
And what will taking advice on girls and sex from a Slashdotter do for you?
Not the nerdy girls I've known. I guess I see things differently without such strict views of the sexes.
With nerd culture going mainstream, the fat, ugly male nerd is more and more a stereotype. I see all kinds of kids playing games nowadays. Studies have shown that gamers do more sports on average than people in general.
As for the girls, there's no shortage of fascination with nerd girls among boys, so even if you're strictly biologist as you are, it shouldn't be too hard to meet such critera in a growing, diversifying nerd culture. If you account for less simplistic factors for picking partners, such as social and intellectual compatibility, there's no reason at all to have your dim view of things.
Unless of course it's an american thing. It seems your jock culture is pretty unique. It's not nearly as strong here.
As young women become more independent and less restrained by traditional gender roles, this will change. In fact, it's already changing. When I went to school, there hardly any female nerds at all, and I had very litle in common with most girls. Now they seem to be everywhere and growing in numbers. While nerds always will be nerds, what was once nerdy has become mainstream and thus more accepted and understood.
So while I don't doubt certain people work just like you say, I think far from all do. With less strict gender roles it would be even better.