I'm sure there could be ways of making drugs with fewer negative health impacts. Your point about people doing stupid things when on drugs is taken though.
know it's popular amongst some to suggest that because the war on drugs hasn't worked, the answer is the absolute opposite i.e. that legalisation of drugs would solve the problem
I prefer to think that instead of just burying our heads in the sand and outlawing everything, we should instead encourage research into safer drugs. People will never stop using drugs.
The guy, from what I have read, is not the most pleasant person in the world. However, again from what I have read, he was doing his job (even after being fired), and is being convicted of a crime for doing so (in a scenario where he was liable to prosecution for acting otherwise). What are the IT grunts in America going to do about this?
That was different. The changes seen after September 2001 were to do with fewer clouds being seeded by jet exhaust contrails. Taken in isolation that could have been seen as evidence that jets cool the planet by increasing cloud cover; we know that the greenhouse effects of the exhaust outweigh such cooling.
Back on topic, I'm sure this will be seized upon by some as evidence that climate scientists haven't a clue what they're talking about, when in fact it is something that has been known and understood for quite a long time, in effect if not in exact magnitude, and factored into climate models.
It depends on the circumstances. I'm not a fan of blind nationalism from the citizens of any country, but getting modifications to software made by local developers makes perfect sense. The software will have to be localised, so you don't want any stupid mistranslations by some Indian or Chinese worker converting from English to German, English to Spanish, American to English, etc., and developers will have a better chance of providing what is needed if they are actually able to be in the same room as their customers and be shown what they want, rather than trying to talk about it on the phone.
Seriously. What I'm inferring from the article is that you can see the difference in the cells, e.g. male vs. female....
So how the hell have they never noticed that female and male birds have these slightly different cells before, and reached the non-hormone driven conclusion before this?
What they're saying is that the development of cells seems to be independent of the hormones that are present in the bloodstream. In mammals of mixed sex, the development of the entire body depends on the mix of hormones, you do not see distinct male and female parts of the body, even if the cells in those body parts are predominantly genetically of one sex. With these chickens the opposite is the case, and you could not infer that from studying a normal single sex bird.
mans effect on the climate is negligable compared to the amount of methane put into the atmosphere by cows belching
Your argument just imploded there. Cattle's effect on climate is directly attributable to humanity, as there would be far fewer of them around if we didn't find them so tasty.
What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted?
Apparently that would not be enough. "Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online." So, Someone at Google has to watch every video, personally identify every person involved in the video, and get their consent, and then approve it.
And where, pray tell, did all that carbon come from in the first place? The atmosphere. Carbon levels in the past were way higher than they are today, and the planet survived just fine.
I don't really give a shit about the planet surviving if humans don't. Or if we do but have to revert to a pre-technological society. This whole natural cycle bullshit completely misses the point that nature isn't some benign force that looks out for us out of the goodness of its heart; it is something that is just there. Humans should steward the planet in such away that makes it best for us. If the place is getting too hot, we need to combat that, be it through cutting co2 emmisions, developing more efficient carbon sinks, or just launching a dirty big sunshade into an earth-sun lagrange point.
No its not. Its actually one of the warmest. Local weather patterns and global climate can not be equated. Eastern america and north west europe had a short cold snap; that is a fairly small percentage of the world surface. if you look at this article on wikipedia, it suggests that El Nino is to blame:
"Metereologists suggest that the event was caused by the El Nino phenomena, which reverses south Pacific air and ocean currents. This had global knock-on effects causing a disruption in the normal path of the jet stream across the North Atlantic oscillation, reducing warm air flow into Europe."
Because Americans (US citizens) seem to be the ones paying most of the costs, and doing most of the work, for everything from wars (WW2, Korea, 'Nam, PG, etc.) peacekeeping, the IMF.
You are incredibly naive if you think that america pays for its wars. American politicians have historically been quite forthright about their reasons for going to war: It was in the national interest. Granted it is usually couched in rhetoric about evil dictators and such, but most of the time the financial benefits far outweigh the costs.
And the UN. In our country, and we pay for it.
You are aware that the US has for many years been consistently in arrears in payment of its dues to the UN? And that much of the US contribution to the UN is either military, in effect using its UN obligations to bolster its own military might, or food, rotating out old subsidized US national food reserves and dumping them in countries with very little economic activity except agriculture, further weakening any chance they have of development?
I don't imagine it would be a problem. Humans use a very small portion of the energy that we get from the sun, thus even replacing all current power requirements with a scheme like this is only slightly increasing the earths total energy input. And, the more energy there is sloshing around, the more the earth radiates back into space. The problem with greenhouse gasses, as you said, is that they trap radiation, and they are merely a byproduct of fossil fuel consumption. We will have the same amount of energy entering the atmosphere either way, as the energy stored chemically in fossil fuels doesn't affect climate in any way when it's buried underground.
I wonder how much of this really has to do with security, versus the corporate and technological schism that is quickly developing between the EU and the USA.
I think that's a bit unfair on two counts. Firstly, there is no major corporate or technological schism between America and Europe. The big european and american multinationals all do R&D, manufacturing, sales and have investors in both continents. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that governments are advising people to avoid a FREE product, which is partly responsible for intrusions into what should be some of the most secure computer networks in the world, as a means to disadvantage a foreign corporation.
Slashdot Mirror
Resisting assault and resisting arrest are different things.
There's a slight difference in magnitude of engineering challenge there. The Strait of Gibralter is 900m deep in places.
I'm sure there could be ways of making drugs with fewer negative health impacts. Your point about people doing stupid things when on drugs is taken though.
know it's popular amongst some to suggest that because the war on drugs hasn't worked, the answer is the absolute opposite i.e. that legalisation of drugs would solve the problem
I prefer to think that instead of just burying our heads in the sand and outlawing everything, we should instead encourage research into safer drugs. People will never stop using drugs.
If anything, the authors would be in violation of the DMCA and not copyright, right?
Right, because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is not about copyright.
Most of the money goes on wages. Where are the workers?
Re-read your own link. "50 years after release or if not released 50 years after making (sound recordings) "
If its out someplace that took 33 years to get to, I'm sure they want to get every single second's worth of data before it fails.
The guy, from what I have read, is not the most pleasant person in the world. However, again from what I have read, he was doing his job (even after being fired), and is being convicted of a crime for doing so (in a scenario where he was liable to prosecution for acting otherwise). What are the IT grunts in America going to do about this?
That was different. The changes seen after September 2001 were to do with fewer clouds being seeded by jet exhaust contrails. Taken in isolation that could have been seen as evidence that jets cool the planet by increasing cloud cover; we know that the greenhouse effects of the exhaust outweigh such cooling. Back on topic, I'm sure this will be seized upon by some as evidence that climate scientists haven't a clue what they're talking about, when in fact it is something that has been known and understood for quite a long time, in effect if not in exact magnitude, and factored into climate models.
Perhaps a premier post pertaining predominantly to the Pirate Party's proceedings would be proper?
I've changed the name & icon for Firefox to Internet Explorer on the PCs of customers who kept breaking IE. They've never noticed the difference.
It depends on the circumstances. I'm not a fan of blind nationalism from the citizens of any country, but getting modifications to software made by local developers makes perfect sense. The software will have to be localised, so you don't want any stupid mistranslations by some Indian or Chinese worker converting from English to German, English to Spanish, American to English, etc., and developers will have a better chance of providing what is needed if they are actually able to be in the same room as their customers and be shown what they want, rather than trying to talk about it on the phone.
It was done to save american soldiers lives. I assume from your stance you are a Bill Hick's fan? (For the war, but against the troops)
Seriously. What I'm inferring from the article is that you can see the difference in the cells, e.g. male vs. female....
So how the hell have they never noticed that female and male birds have these slightly different cells before, and reached the non-hormone driven conclusion before this?
What they're saying is that the development of cells seems to be independent of the hormones that are present in the bloodstream. In mammals of mixed sex, the development of the entire body depends on the mix of hormones, you do not see distinct male and female parts of the body, even if the cells in those body parts are predominantly genetically of one sex. With these chickens the opposite is the case, and you could not infer that from studying a normal single sex bird.
mans effect on the climate is negligable compared to the amount of methane put into the atmosphere by cows belching
Your argument just imploded there. Cattle's effect on climate is directly attributable to humanity, as there would be far fewer of them around if we didn't find them so tasty.
What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted?
Apparently that would not be enough. "Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online." So, Someone at Google has to watch every video, personally identify every person involved in the video, and get their consent, and then approve it.
He simply wasn't paying attention when Kowalski explained it to Toad. It's THREE magic tools -- duct tape, WD-40, and a pair of vicegrips.
Clint Eastwood missed the most important one in that movie. When all else fails, a sledgehammer will make a problem go away one way or another.
I know at least 3 creationists who are a lot smarter than I am
Having completely read your masterpiece of logical analysis of, uh, something, I can honestly say that I absolutely believe that.
If you sample a female actress
There's something about that idea that I just find really appealing.
And where, pray tell, did all that carbon come from in the first place? The atmosphere. Carbon levels in the past were way higher than they are today, and the planet survived just fine.
I don't really give a shit about the planet surviving if humans don't. Or if we do but have to revert to a pre-technological society. This whole natural cycle bullshit completely misses the point that nature isn't some benign force that looks out for us out of the goodness of its heart; it is something that is just there. Humans should steward the planet in such away that makes it best for us. If the place is getting too hot, we need to combat that, be it through cutting co2 emmisions, developing more efficient carbon sinks, or just launching a dirty big sunshade into an earth-sun lagrange point.
And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
No its not. Its actually one of the warmest. Local weather patterns and global climate can not be equated. Eastern america and north west europe had a short cold snap; that is a fairly small percentage of the world surface. if you look at this article on wikipedia, it suggests that El Nino is to blame: "Metereologists suggest that the event was caused by the El Nino phenomena, which reverses south Pacific air and ocean currents. This had global knock-on effects causing a disruption in the normal path of the jet stream across the North Atlantic oscillation, reducing warm air flow into Europe."
Because Americans (US citizens) seem to be the ones paying most of the costs, and doing most of the work, for everything from wars (WW2, Korea, 'Nam, PG, etc.) peacekeeping, the IMF.
You are incredibly naive if you think that america pays for its wars. American politicians have historically been quite forthright about their reasons for going to war: It was in the national interest. Granted it is usually couched in rhetoric about evil dictators and such, but most of the time the financial benefits far outweigh the costs.
And the UN. In our country, and we pay for it.
You are aware that the US has for many years been consistently in arrears in payment of its dues to the UN? And that much of the US contribution to the UN is either military, in effect using its UN obligations to bolster its own military might, or food, rotating out old subsidized US national food reserves and dumping them in countries with very little economic activity except agriculture, further weakening any chance they have of development?
Also, CO2 is a plant food.
So is shit.
I don't imagine it would be a problem. Humans use a very small portion of the energy that we get from the sun, thus even replacing all current power requirements with a scheme like this is only slightly increasing the earths total energy input. And, the more energy there is sloshing around, the more the earth radiates back into space. The problem with greenhouse gasses, as you said, is that they trap radiation, and they are merely a byproduct of fossil fuel consumption. We will have the same amount of energy entering the atmosphere either way, as the energy stored chemically in fossil fuels doesn't affect climate in any way when it's buried underground.
I wonder how much of this really has to do with security, versus the corporate and technological schism that is quickly developing between the EU and the USA.
I think that's a bit unfair on two counts. Firstly, there is no major corporate or technological schism between America and Europe. The big european and american multinationals all do R&D, manufacturing, sales and have investors in both continents. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that governments are advising people to avoid a FREE product, which is partly responsible for intrusions into what should be some of the most secure computer networks in the world, as a means to disadvantage a foreign corporation.