He said that people at Microsoft, most likely refering to those who set policy and claim they are going to "Fucking kill" something were sociopathic, not you.
Sociopaths aren't necessarily people without morals or ethics. They aren't necessarily socially inept. They have no conscience and no empathy.
Being a lazy pacifist is by no means the social norm. I understand the need to feel that one is an underdog, but please, have some perspective. Most people are not pacifists, and most people are only lazy when they are doing thigns they don't actually want to be doing.
The war/fighting mentality that is so common in the business world is wrongheaded and inefficient. Cooperation is the most efficient strategy, not competition. If competition were really more efficient, you would see corporations structured internally with multiple competing business units. You do not. Instead, you see as much cooperation as the corporation can muster. The competition/fighting/war mentality is counterproductive and should be called out when encountered.
Your argument is guilty of the reductio-ad-absurdum and strawman logical fallacies.
It's not completely monolithic by any means, but the Ecumenical Councils define what the christian party line is. You can argue semantics all you want, and claim that Christ defined christianity, but as the Councils defined what Christ is, most people would point to them and say, "Yup, that's the party line."
Do you accept that Christ is divine and human at once, that he died for your sins and was reborn? Than you are following the christian party line. You can jump through whatever linguistic hoops you like, redefine what "is" is, and claim there is no party line, but I just call that ignorance.
You do not know or understand the history of Christianity. There were a series of meetings, known as the Ecumenical Councils, that defined what Christianity is, what it believs and professes, and what it considers heretical. The important ones occuring between 325AD and 1123AD and resolved such questions as whether Jesus was entirely Divine, entirely human, human and divine parts seperated, or human and divine parts united.
Allmost all Western Christian denominations, as well as Eastern Orthodox accept the decisions of councils 1-7. Catholics, protestants, all of them. That is the Christian party line. Oriental Orthodox churches only accept 1-3; Assyrian Christianity accepts 1-2; Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and a few other fringe groups don't accept any of the council's decisions.
Capitalism is two wolves haggling over how much a lamb costs.
Democracy is three lambs voting to make eating lamb illegal.
Historically, that's a little closer to the truth. People who hate democracy and want to replace it with "market based solutions" scare the crap out of me. I'll be damned if I'm going to let the people with the most money make all the rules.
Watch out for those illicit home videos that incidentally caputured the music.
My God, man! You're right. This is a threat to our very way of life. We need to enact a law requiring each and every home recording to be registered with the MAFIAA so that they can check them for copyright violation. It's the only way to be sure.
Anyone care to speculate what the odds of that happening might be? I'm guessing it'd be hard to slip that past the supreme court, so I'll say 20% by 2015 that we have laws requiring all content be registered.
Mass. Sorry, I meant "masses," not "weighs." Mass effects gravity, gravity effects orbits and such, we can tell from that. Don't ask me how, IANAAstrophysicist, but I do trust them to calculate this stuff correctly.
Apology accepted. Sorry I kinda flew off the handle. I'm now in a much better mood than when I posted the original, as I have finally managed to upgrade my organization's copy of Actuate Reports. It has been driving me CRAZY, as we had hired someone to write an external security module for it and I couldn't get that working with the new version, even after three hour-long consultations/webex with their tech support. And of course, the guy who wrote the module is no where to be found.
Anyways, back on topic, I'd always heard that UV was linked to skin cancer so when I read that you couldn't find a link, I did a little research, and guess what? You appear to be right. Try googling "skin cancer ozone depletion correlation." Kinda the inverse of global warming, a few scientists think there's a link, but the consensus is, no, there's not. Here's why:
Subject: 5.) Is ozone loss to blame for the melanoma upsurge?
A few physicians have said so, but most others think not. [Skolnick] [van der Leun and de Gruijl]
First of all, UV-B has not, so far, increased very much, at least in the US and Europe.
Second, melanoma takes 10-20 years to develop. There hasn't been enough time for ozone depletion to play a significant role.
Third, the melanoma epidemic has been going on since the 1940's. Recent increases in rates may just reflect better reporting, or the popularity of suntans in the '60's and '70's. (This becomes more likely if UV-A is in fact involved.)
I guess I'm gonna have to stop spreading that disinformation. I read several reports, and the consensus is pretty clear.
These things have to weigh less than 10 times what the Earth weighs, or they will become gas giants. Our sun weighs 332,946 times as much as the Earth. Only objects weighing at least three times as much as our Sun can turn into black holes. Only a black hole can suck as hard as Water World. Therefore, these water planets are nothing like Water World.
I disagree with your basic premise. I could as easily say that flat-earth or geocentrism are not getting a fair shake. You are listening to propaganda from the companies that will be financially impacted by policies to alleviate global warming. Given the current state of affairs, a scientist could have a very lucrative career working for any of the numerous and well funded think tanks run by energy companies. The fact that most choose to stick to real science in spite of the financial temptation to sell out speaks volumes for their character. Any scientist that could disprove global warming would be rich, famous, and (eventually) respected by his peers. It is every scientists dream to make a name for himself by overturning conventional thinking. In my opinion, the situation is almost the exact opposite of what you claim, and this story is yet more evidence that I am right.
Except, if this were Faux News, the question would be "America's Executives: Divine, or just Divinely inspired?" Remember, kids, wealthiness is next to Godliness.
Do you even know what the ozone hole is, and where it is located? Here's a clue: it ain't over Texas. Hot and sunny has nothing to do with it. By the by, although Texas is nowhere near the hole, it has still seen a huge jump in the number of cases of skin cancer due to the general level of ozone depletion. Your callous, arrogant, know it all attitude may irk me, but I still hope no one you know and love gets skin cancer. It's a horrible disease, and one of the more lethal forms of cancer.
The numbers show that ozone depletion has slowed and the hole is now relatively stable. This coincides with the banning of CFCs. That does not prove causation, of course, but it's a good clue.
It's good to hear both sides of a story. But the fact is, there is only one objective reality, one objective truth. Science deals with this truth. What Exxon is doing is not science, it has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with perception. Exxon is doing the opposite of letting science do its job.
Is there any evidence that a scientist has changed their opinion based on the money received for Exxon/Mobil?
The article is VERY clear. You must not have read it. They are asking for people to write papers that come to a specific conclusion. They are NOT finding scientists who agree with them and funding them. Please RTFA before asking questions that can very easily be answered by doing so.
I seem to recall scientists sounding the alarm over Ozone depletion winning the Nobel Prize. Yet, I don't have skin cancer.
Lucky you. The ozone hole is still a huge problem. Skin cancer rates are skyrocketing. In southern hemisphere countries it's even worse. I hope no one who has had to suffer through this horrible type of cancer has to read your drivel. "OOh, I don't have it, therefore it must not exist!" What ego-centric, solipsistic nonsense.
Well, God, obviously. He told me that he sent those ducks just to fuck with Micheal Savage. We had a good laugh. Then God asked if I wanted to strip down to our underwear and, you know, wrestle a bit so I told him I had to leave 'cause I had work in the morning. He always gets like that when he drinks.
No, there is no equivalance at all. One side is paying for lies, the other side is paying for science. One side only pays if the conclusions are what they want, the other side pays no matter what the conclusions. There is a HUGE difference.
Exxon doesn't give a rats ass about the science. They care about policy. Policy is driven by public perception, and public perception can be swayed by well-publicized but faulty science. They don't care if the scientists they've bribed make conclusions that can stand up to peer review. They just want a published report with some good talking points.
Regarding your sig: Capitalism is a wolf buying two sheep for dinner. Democracy is two sheep voting to make eating sheep illegal.
This isn't about the science, this is about the public's perception of the science and the policy changes driven by that perception. What ExxonMobile is doing is despicable and in no way related to real scientific discovery. It's a publicity move to cover their ass and protect their profits, and the fact that people are defending them disgusts me.
This is just propaganda from the liberal controlled greeny environmental industry, making shit up to slander the good name of an honest, productive and responsible corporation. Everyone knows global warming scientists are rich as Midas from all the money funneled to them by their commie-pinko-socialist masters, of course they don't need to take money from an honest corporation! Just think, this poor industry, barely making ends meet, scrapes up a little money to try to help fund some REAL SCIENCE, and these vicious intelelctuals turn on them like a pack of wild dogs./right-wing-parody
Anyone want to place a bet on how many of these 'ideas' are going to become official talking points on Faux News?
I would say that anything where technology is used as a drop-in replacement for magic is fantasy. Science-fantasy, maybe. For instance, if people use blasters instead of wands of fireball, what's really the difference? Spaceships are just metal dragons. The force is just magic.
The effect of technology on humanity (or some human-like entity) is a major theme in real science-fiction. The science and technology don't even have to relate to our universe, but they do have to be internally consistent. Science isn't just thrown in as a special effect, it and it's impact on the characters and society must make sense. This is what makes science-fiction great, it helps us imagine the consequences of scientific development ahead of time.
Slashdot Mirror
A little. But anyone who claims there is no Christian party line is either sadly uneducated or being disengenuous. Do you disagree?
He said that people at Microsoft, most likely refering to those who set policy and claim they are going to "Fucking kill" something were sociopathic, not you.
Sociopaths aren't necessarily people without morals or ethics. They aren't necessarily socially inept. They have no conscience and no empathy.
Being a lazy pacifist is by no means the social norm. I understand the need to feel that one is an underdog, but please, have some perspective. Most people are not pacifists, and most people are only lazy when they are doing thigns they don't actually want to be doing.
The war/fighting mentality that is so common in the business world is wrongheaded and inefficient. Cooperation is the most efficient strategy, not competition. If competition were really more efficient, you would see corporations structured internally with multiple competing business units. You do not. Instead, you see as much cooperation as the corporation can muster. The competition/fighting/war mentality is counterproductive and should be called out when encountered.
Your argument is guilty of the reductio-ad-absurdum and strawman logical fallacies.
It's actually "claim" as in "Fire claims 12 victims." They are saying that Canadians mostly pirate fiction, as opposed to documentaries.
It's not completely monolithic by any means, but the Ecumenical Councils define what the christian party line is. You can argue semantics all you want, and claim that Christ defined christianity, but as the Councils defined what Christ is, most people would point to them and say, "Yup, that's the party line."
Do you accept that Christ is divine and human at once, that he died for your sins and was reborn? Than you are following the christian party line. You can jump through whatever linguistic hoops you like, redefine what "is" is, and claim there is no party line, but I just call that ignorance.
You do not know or understand the history of Christianity. There were a series of meetings, known as the Ecumenical Councils, that defined what Christianity is, what it believs and professes, and what it considers heretical. The important ones occuring between 325AD and 1123AD and resolved such questions as whether Jesus was entirely Divine, entirely human, human and divine parts seperated, or human and divine parts united.
Allmost all Western Christian denominations, as well as Eastern Orthodox accept the decisions of councils 1-7. Catholics, protestants, all of them. That is the Christian party line. Oriental Orthodox churches only accept 1-3; Assyrian Christianity accepts 1-2; Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and a few other fringe groups don't accept any of the council's decisions.
I've got a better one:
Capitalism is two wolves haggling over how much a lamb costs.
Democracy is three lambs voting to make eating lamb illegal.
Historically, that's a little closer to the truth. People who hate democracy and want to replace it with "market based solutions" scare the crap out of me. I'll be damned if I'm going to let the people with the most money make all the rules.
Watch out for those illicit home videos that incidentally caputured the music.
My God, man! You're right. This is a threat to our very way of life. We need to enact a law requiring each and every home recording to be registered with the MAFIAA so that they can check them for copyright violation. It's the only way to be sure.
Anyone care to speculate what the odds of that happening might be? I'm guessing it'd be hard to slip that past the supreme court, so I'll say 20% by 2015 that we have laws requiring all content be registered.
Mass. Sorry, I meant "masses," not "weighs." Mass effects gravity, gravity effects orbits and such, we can tell from that. Don't ask me how, IANAAstrophysicist, but I do trust them to calculate this stuff correctly.
Anyways, back on topic, I'd always heard that UV was linked to skin cancer so when I read that you couldn't find a link, I did a little research, and guess what? You appear to be right. Try googling "skin cancer ozone depletion correlation." Kinda the inverse of global warming, a few scientists think there's a link, but the consensus is, no, there's not. Here's why: I guess I'm gonna have to stop spreading that disinformation. I read several reports, and the consensus is pretty clear.
It's like water world. Only IRL.
No, allow me to explain:
These things have to weigh less than 10 times what the Earth weighs, or they will become gas giants. Our sun weighs 332,946 times as much as the Earth. Only objects weighing at least three times as much as our Sun can turn into black holes. Only a black hole can suck as hard as Water World. Therefore, these water planets are nothing like Water World.
Absolutely. The best exercise in the world is the exercise that you actually do.
;)
Personally, I'm waiting for cyber-jacks so I can jack in and let some AI exercise my body for me while I play video games.
I disagree with your basic premise. I could as easily say that flat-earth or geocentrism are not getting a fair shake. You are listening to propaganda from the companies that will be financially impacted by policies to alleviate global warming. Given the current state of affairs, a scientist could have a very lucrative career working for any of the numerous and well funded think tanks run by energy companies. The fact that most choose to stick to real science in spite of the financial temptation to sell out speaks volumes for their character. Any scientist that could disprove global warming would be rich, famous, and (eventually) respected by his peers. It is every scientists dream to make a name for himself by overturning conventional thinking. In my opinion, the situation is almost the exact opposite of what you claim, and this story is yet more evidence that I am right.
Except, if this were Faux News, the question would be "America's Executives: Divine, or just Divinely inspired?" Remember, kids, wealthiness is next to Godliness.
Do you even know what the ozone hole is, and where it is located? Here's a clue: it ain't over Texas. Hot and sunny has nothing to do with it. By the by, although Texas is nowhere near the hole, it has still seen a huge jump in the number of cases of skin cancer due to the general level of ozone depletion. Your callous, arrogant, know it all attitude may irk me, but I still hope no one you know and love gets skin cancer. It's a horrible disease, and one of the more lethal forms of cancer.
The numbers show that ozone depletion has slowed and the hole is now relatively stable. This coincides with the banning of CFCs. That does not prove causation, of course, but it's a good clue.
It's good to hear both sides of a story. But the fact is, there is only one objective reality, one objective truth. Science deals with this truth. What Exxon is doing is not science, it has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with perception. Exxon is doing the opposite of letting science do its job.
Is there any evidence that a scientist has changed their opinion based on the money received for Exxon/Mobil?
The article is VERY clear. You must not have read it. They are asking for people to write papers that come to a specific conclusion. They are NOT finding scientists who agree with them and funding them. Please RTFA before asking questions that can very easily be answered by doing so.
I seem to recall scientists sounding the alarm over Ozone depletion winning the Nobel Prize. Yet, I don't have skin cancer.
Lucky you. The ozone hole is still a huge problem. Skin cancer rates are skyrocketing. In southern hemisphere countries it's even worse. I hope no one who has had to suffer through this horrible type of cancer has to read your drivel. "OOh, I don't have it, therefore it must not exist!" What ego-centric, solipsistic nonsense.
Well, God, obviously. He told me that he sent those ducks just to fuck with Micheal Savage. We had a good laugh. Then God asked if I wanted to strip down to our underwear and, you know, wrestle a bit so I told him I had to leave 'cause I had work in the morning. He always gets like that when he drinks.
No, there is no equivalance at all. One side is paying for lies, the other side is paying for science. One side only pays if the conclusions are what they want, the other side pays no matter what the conclusions. There is a HUGE difference.
News at 11.
Exxon doesn't give a rats ass about the science. They care about policy. Policy is driven by public perception, and public perception can be swayed by well-publicized but faulty science. They don't care if the scientists they've bribed make conclusions that can stand up to peer review. They just want a published report with some good talking points.
Regarding your sig: Capitalism is a wolf buying two sheep for dinner. Democracy is two sheep voting to make eating sheep illegal.
This isn't about the science, this is about the public's perception of the science and the policy changes driven by that perception. What ExxonMobile is doing is despicable and in no way related to real scientific discovery. It's a publicity move to cover their ass and protect their profits, and the fact that people are defending them disgusts me.
You're a heck of a color, Brownie!
This is just propaganda from the liberal controlled greeny environmental industry, making shit up to slander the good name of an honest, productive and responsible corporation. Everyone knows global warming scientists are rich as Midas from all the money funneled to them by their commie-pinko-socialist masters, of course they don't need to take money from an honest corporation! Just think, this poor industry, barely making ends meet, scrapes up a little money to try to help fund some REAL SCIENCE, and these vicious intelelctuals turn on them like a pack of wild dogs. /right-wing-parody
Anyone want to place a bet on how many of these 'ideas' are going to become official talking points on Faux News?
I would say that anything where technology is used as a drop-in replacement for magic is fantasy. Science-fantasy, maybe. For instance, if people use blasters instead of wands of fireball, what's really the difference? Spaceships are just metal dragons. The force is just magic.
The effect of technology on humanity (or some human-like entity) is a major theme in real science-fiction. The science and technology don't even have to relate to our universe, but they do have to be internally consistent. Science isn't just thrown in as a special effect, it and it's impact on the characters and society must make sense. This is what makes science-fiction great, it helps us imagine the consequences of scientific development ahead of time.
Strippers and kegs are for pussies. We demand hookers and blow!