Microsoft has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court to block media access to four depositions that have already been taken in its antitrust case
The reason is that one of these depositions consists of nothing except Steve Ballmer wearing a big foam hand and chanting "We're number 1! We're number 1! Microsoft! Microsoft!" in sync with 2,000 MS employees. For seven hours.
The thing is Alien is a remake of the classic "Dark Star" by John Carpentar, If you were to watch that movie and then Alien you would realise how much has been lifted from the earlier movie
"Remake" is way too strong. The plots are almost completely different and the stylistic similarities you mention can be explained by the fact that Dan O'Bannon wrote them both.
Scientific American is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
I never said it was a journal. Its a publication, and a peer reviewed one as well, and it is highly reputable (look at its editorial board). Your characterisation of it is quite wrong.
Actually, most scientists... would agree with Lomborg.Name three scientists. And you'll need to provide data to suggest your other contention (about most people), isn't just an vapid assertion.
The majority of scientists do not agree with Greenpeace.
But that doesn't explain the sheer viciousness of the attacks from the green scientists and other environmentalists.
No, it doesn't. His arguments should be appraised on their merits. I've posted many times to this thread, and the worst I've called Lomborg is a self-publicist.
The viciousness can be understood (a little) because Lomborg has attributed far less noble motivations to his enemies (deliberately misleading the people to maintain their revenue streams is a very serious, and largely unsupportable, allegation)
Over the years the following has been the consensus of the scientific community at one time.
1. We are on the verge of a man made ice age because of the amount of pollutants we are putting into the air (circa 1970)
It is absolutely untrue to suggest this was the consensus of the scientific community.
2. The earth is flat 3. The earth is the center of the Universe
At such a time that these were widely held, there were no such concepts of a scientific community (or the scientific method) as we understand them, merely the assertions of various religious groups. Besides, 2000 years earlier a genuine empirical scientist (Eratosthenes) had not only known that the earth was round, but roughly how round.
4. People with mental handicaps should be sterilized to prevent more mentally retarded children from being born
I don't even know where you're coming from with this. Excluding Nazi Germany, when was any scientific consensus pro-eugenics?
5. The age of the earth is (insert favorite number here)
True. There have been some very bad guesses accepted about this. Notice, however, how the scientific community has accepted counter-evidence and revised their opinion. Exactly the behavious that Lomborg's supporters say never happens (vested interests, and all that crap).
Lomborg is wrong AND alarms about global pollution are overstated
They're certainly overstated by some (notably environmental pressure groups and the mass media), but if you attend environmental science conferences what you'll hear is concern. Very few of the experts will claim they know with any certainty about what will happen merely what might happen.
Your average environmentalist assumes a priori that the environment is deteriorating.
Environmentalist (i.e. tree hugging hippy waster) maybe. For environmental scientists this is absolutely not the case. If anyone has allowed his preconceptions to colour his work, its Lomborg. (Funny, isn't it that Lomborg always "erred" in such a way such that his "facts" supported his thesis. Thats backwards science.)
Slashdot Mirror
a) want to be an anonymous coward,
b) use the patched version that groks cookies...
This kind of thing? (PDF file) (The original webpages linked to by the reg have gone. Here is an ugly mirror
Err. Yes.
In a very real sense, that was the point (note to self: use smileys in future for dealing with the seriously humour impaired)
... because his VA Linux stock has made him fabulously wealthy. Do we need anymore reasons why we shouldn't take the latest ramblings of this pillock seriously?
They're afraid people might take the piss.
Idiot moderators.
Correct, it was invented in 1973 by Ellis, Cocks and Williamson at GCHQ.
Oh dearie. You've been caught in a lie. Must be time for the ad hominem "Troll" defence...
The SA rebuttals weren't good. The Grist Magazineones are much more substantial, dealing essentially with the scientific merits of his work.
The viciousness can be understood (a little) because Lomborg has attributed far less noble motivations to his enemies (deliberately misleading the people to maintain their revenue streams is a very serious, and largely unsupportable, allegation)
I don't even know where you're coming from with this. Excluding Nazi Germany, when was any scientific consensus pro-eugenics?
True. There have been some very bad guesses accepted about this. Notice, however, how the scientific community has accepted counter-evidence and revised their opinion. Exactly the behavious that Lomborg's supporters say never happens (vested interests, and all that crap).
That falls under choice 1 (and would seem to an excellent motive for Lomborg and CUP's publication of this book.)